Skip to main content

A question on Belgium's new euthanasia policy

I received this question in my inbox:

If children are terminal ill and are suffering every single day, then why would we have the right to let them suffer until they die a painful death? When in fact, we can give them a peaceful and painless death so the child and the parents don't have to suffer no longer. Belgium is a very rational country with mostly atheists, you are American so I get why you have problems with it.
But this goes to the overall question of assisted suicide in general.. not only for children, but for adults. 
Medicine seems to have two functions right now. On one hand it’s trying to help relieve pain and help people survive (which is why opposition to medicinal pot is inane) and on the other hand it is trying to enforce a culture in which we need to decide when people die. When their time is up.. when no more miracles can happen.
I don’t know what to say about children in immense pain and suffering, nor about adults. It is a sad fact that happens every day—and yes, many of them want to die and I don’t doubt that many of them purposely die at their own hands. As I understand it, we would have people able to assist them in killing themselves.
I don’t know, also, what safeguards would put in effect that we don’t start killing off those who are, perhaps, societal rejects. Not that we ever did that before, humans have always been extremely kind to each other without violence or eugenics. Sarcasm bolded..
This is a tough subject for me, to be honest.. It’s a deep and difficult question: When should a suffering person be permitted, legally, to have help in ending their lives? When should their terminal illnesses be over.
And really, it goes far beyond medical and religious.. it delves into the spiritual. I read an interesting article by someone who said that suffering in the here and now is just a part of the never-ending reincarnated spirit that needs endure physical and emotional pain. I don’t know if I agree with that statement, but it shows that there are more than enough different opinions which can be expressed in this issue.
I also wonder this: What if a medical advancement occurs but since it’s cheaper to allow a child to die, we opt for the death over the procedure? I know, I know, a little less likely but .. a question I ponder.
Foes of the law in the House said the proposal was full of holes.
"Can you tell me what a ‘state of discernment’ means?" asked Becq.
Does near death mean “three days, three weeks, six months?” asked Steven Vanackere, another Christian Democrat.
I am undecided over the morality .. I am also unprepared as a human to see human suffering at such unfair levels—especially when suffering children bring so much doubt that a God even exists.. 
But I say this: Is it a medical advancement to find cures and new treatment for disease to relieve suffering, or is it in fact advancing society to just ‘end it’ and give up? That’s a big, big question. And when you boil it down to an individual suffering, it may not matter a hill of beans. For the long term, though, it’s a truly moral issue that society will be grappling with.
Feel free to keep the conversation on this issue going.. Email me if you want too at
Thanks for the comment and sincere question. It caused me to think..



Show more