Science Canada explores euthanizing children without parental consent - Because those kids won't off themselves!

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/health/2018/10/12/1_4132078.amp.html
Canada’s largest pediatric hospital is grappling with how to approach assisted dying in a new paper that has received criticism from some international groups that oppose euthanasia.

Published online in a Sept. 21 paper in the BMJ's Journal of Medical Ethics, a team at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children outlined a draft policy for responding to a request for medical assistance in dying (MAID) from an adult patient. The policy assessed their eligibility, looked at reflection period with the patient and family, and ultimately administering the procedure. The policy does not address children.

The new paper comes a few months ahead of an expected report by the Canadian Council of Academies, which was tasked by the federal government to produce a two-year research paper about circumstances prohibited by MAID law, including assisted dying for minors. Bill C-14 was passed in Jun 2016 and legalized medically assisted dying in Canada.

The Sickkids report has stirred some international attention from conservative publications like the National Review, which published a story earlier this month with the headline “Child Euthanasia without Parent Approval Pushed for (in) Canada.” Others have concluded that the new policy suggests parents might not be informed until after the child dies in some scenarios.

Co-author Adam Rapoport said that is simply not true.

“Those articles that have made it sound like we would do this without parental knowledge -- that’s just not how we operate as an organization,” he said in a phone interview with CTVNews.ca. “To think that we would ever do that -- I couldn’t even imagine the circumstance.”

Rapoport, the medical director of the Paediatric Advanced Care Team, stressed that the policy is not for minors. MAID is currently only legal for adults. The policy is in draft form and has not been approved by the hospital.

But the statement that the policy was developed “with an eye to a future when MAID may well become accessible to capable minors” has been the primary focus for some readers. In Ontario, “capable young people can and do make the decision to refuse or discontinue life-sustaining treatment,” the Sickkids paper states. If medically assisted death is legalized for patients under 18, the hospital would face increased ethical dilemmas.

Tom Koch, a consultant in chronic and palliative care in Toronto, told CTVNews.ca that the paper is a “good faith effort by the hospital to find a way through the ethical, legal, and moral tangle that is facing hospitals, hospices, and other facilities.”

“There is pressure for the expansion of medical termination (MAID) into more and more situations where physicians are understandably cautious about it as the only or best alternative,” he said. But Koch has “severe reservations” about children’s hospitals administering MAID, which he believes should be more bluntly called “medical termination.” He is skeptical whether a “capacitated” minor can make a truly informed decision, referencing incidents where children have made medical calls that clearly reflect their parents’ point of view.

“I think that while legally competent, many adolescents, and especially pre-teens, can not legitimately make a call for their own termination,” he said in an email sent to CTVNews.ca.

Rapoport thinks the skepticism is reasonable, but notes the hospital will “err on the side of caution” when a child’s capabilities are uncertain.

“These are things we engage in not infrequently. We’re regularly assessing the capability and capacity of young people to make serious medical decisions sometimes which involve end of life issues,” he said. “It is something that we think we do well.”
Scientific paper found here.
References to the Council of Canadian Academics regarding euthanasia, here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The key words are "capable minor". That usually means a kid at least 14 without mental impairment that would impede consent. Your average ventilated potato wouldn't qualify and a depressed anorexic wouldn't qualify.

I honestly doubt this would get applied much if at all. Being accused of murdering a child/litigated by angry parents would be a huge waste of taxpayer dollars no hospital will risk. Kevorkian wouldn't jump to do it.
 
Their ethnocentricity, hereditary deviancy and undisguised contempt for the people, traditions and values of their host nations should disqualify them.
I’m not sure I understand. Could you go into more detail please?
 
Do you have sources for this? Not that I disagree but that sounds like an interesting topic.

Just look up any sort of medical research on terminal illnesses, you’ll see human experimentation. They don’t call it that, they use euphemisms. But it’s human experimentation.

I had a relative with Lou gehrig’s Disease and she lasted a long time. Was pretty much a guinea pig for any new medication that came down the pipe. Why do you think people can live with AIDS these days? They were shooting up AIDS patients with all sorts of shit.
 
if someone's quality and quantity of life is so bad that they're barely being kept alive, then i don't see the problem with pulling the plug when parents are so irresponsible they will allow their child to suffer. I mean even in the quoted portion, its discussing the child's right to be euthanized without parental consent. If a kid's in that position, where they are in such grueling agony but have a hysterical soccermom clinging to the bedside, let the kid escape.
This is the only situation where it's acceptable, but it sounded like it was just "LISTEN AND BELIEVE" the kid when they say they want to end it even if other options are open. It is understandable, though, when you remember that woman and her legally braindead corpse puppet daughter.
 
Well no system is perfect, but the majority will do the job correctly. Collateral damage would more than likely be minimal.
Talking about collateral damage with human lives tends to be how atrocities begin. Never mind using that arguement on the most vulnerable of us. Never kind the inevitable point where making that decision shifts from someone with the training and presence of mind to make that call to a myopic bureaucrat.
 
I’m not sure I understand. Could you go into more detail please?
Do you think it is simple coincidence that the people who invented Communism, Cultural Marxism, Hate Speech laws and Transexualism, and who are currently funding and promoting industrial scale immigration into Europe were and are all Ashkenazi Jews?
 
were and are all Ashkenazi Jews?
To be honest I didn’t know that they were.
Never kind the inevitable point where making that decision shifts from someone with the training and presence of mind to make that call to a myopic bureaucrat.
Obviously if the job became demanding to the point that additional help was required, they would be properly educated and trained to correctly make the decisions.
 
Do you think it is simple coincidence that the people who invented Communism, Cultural Marxism, Hate Speech laws and Transexualism, and who are currently funding and promoting industrial scale immigration into Europe were and are all Ashkenazi Jews?
Sourcing was also invented by the Ashkenazi, which is probably why you didn't source any of this.
 
You could save 100 innocent lives threatened by easily preventable causes for less than the cost it takes to keep one rich asshole's dying kid alive for another month. Get your priorities right.
I know I shouldn’t do this, but cancer is the world’s second-greatest killer after ischemic heart disease. Great planning for the future, then, encouraging us to sacrifice your hairy abbo ass as soon as your gas-guzzling habit catches up with you.
 
Tinfoil hat time: They're trying to use stuff like this and the HRT thing to open the door to normalizing pedophilia, because if a kid can make informed consent about medical decisions then surely he can consent to sex.
 
Talking about collateral damage with human lives tends to be how atrocities begin. Never mind using that arguement on the most vulnerable of us. Never kind the inevitable point where making that decision shifts from someone with the training and presence of mind to make that call to a myopic bureaucrat.
"One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic." --Josef Stalin
 
So... if a 14 year old can legally consent to BEING MURDERED, why can a 17 year old not consent to sex?

Now I am of the opinion that while having sex is a serious decision, allowing oneself to be killed is more serious. Being murdered has been shown statistically to lower one's chances of leading a happy healthy life.

And yeah, it's a little hard sometimes not to wonder if "Kids can consent to having their dicks chopped off" is meant to extend to "Kids can consent to me dicking them!".

Stop proving the slippery slope argument to be logically sound! Do you really want to prove the religious right from the 80s right?
 
So... if a 14 year old can legally consent to BEING MURDERED, why can a 17 year old not consent to sex?

Now I am of the opinion that while having sex is a serious decision, allowing oneself to be killed is more serious. Being murdered has been shown statistically to lower one's chances of leading a happy healthy life.

And yeah, it's a little hard sometimes not to wonder if "Kids can consent to having their dicks chopped off" is meant to extend to "Kids can consent to me dicking them!".

Stop proving the slippery slope argument to be logically sound! Do you really want to prove the religious right from the 80s right?
Strictly speaking, the slippery slope is not a fallacy if you can show evidence A leads to B leads to C. Of course, that can be tedious and let's be honest, all sorts of people (left and right) usually get it wrong.

I think the best example is how gun rights/Second Amendment advocates point to England as the example of a slippery slope -- and to be honest, England really did go down the slide, going from banning full auto weapons to now demanding people turn in multitools and pocket knives.
 
It should only be up to trained medical professionals and those in charge of keeping track of finances. Those are the only two groups with the knowlege and objectivity to make those sorts of calls.

Doctors I can agree with the logic, but I would say outside of a vegetative state (and absent of locked in syndrome), the final say should be with the patient if they live out the time they have left (even if in pain, and being informed of such) or if they are euthanized. If we leave it up to the State/doctors we are treading shaking ethical bounds and this is how some of the Nazi's death programs started (with the mentally/physically disabled and they advertised it as a "way to save money").

I disagree with allow bean counters to be part of the choice. They often cause more issues then not it seems. Like "lets make the product shitter to save a few pennies but keep it at the same price." or "Lets stop paying for this medicine this person has had since childhood to help them function successfully now that they are part of the workforce even thought it will put them at a disadvantage."

But to quote you "Thoughts and prayers with the victims and their families".
 
the final say should be with the patient if they live out the time they have left
I agree to a point. If the patient went to medical school, or through some other means obtained sufficient knowledge to make a convincing case as to why their continued care is financially viable (overseen by a board who will debate them on it, of course), then yes, the decision should be deferred to said patient so long as there’s a surplus in the budget at the time and the hospital is overstaffed.
 
This is just a continuation of the trend of the current Canadian administrations idea that parents should not have control over their children.

IMO whats more fucked up is they want to separate parents from their children if the parent refuses to put the child on HRT.
If kids want (or someone wants for them) that level of autonomy, they should get emancipated first.
Private healthcare should be abolished. There's no upside in keeping terminal drains alive, no matter how wealthy their parents are.
Personal choice is intrinsically good.
So... if a 14 year old can legally consent to BEING MURDERED, why can a 17 year old not consent to sex?
Seventeen year olds can consent to sex in most places in the US.
 
Back
Top Bottom