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:
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.
 
Modern science: kids can't consent to just about everything. Their brains aren't developed enough to comprehend the long-term impact of their decisions.

Modern """science""": kids can consent to mutilating their own bodies and dying though

I understand it's important to give a patient autonomy in their decisions regarding their own treatment, but if we don't grant children autonomy over the rest of their life the parent should be involved especially if there are other avneues for treatment. It doesn't sound right when we can't trust kids to make important decisions about pretty much anything else, but we only listen to them on the most irreversible choices.
 
Wow Canada! This is a whole new level of authoritarianism. If the government is in charge of your children's life (and even actual life), then consider a civil war. This is why Ontario had enough!
 
Tbh the decision of whether or not to kill a patient should always be left with the doctor. He’s the one who went to school for it, after all. The fact that a dumbass parent or snot-nosed little brat has the same input over treatment options as the doctor is insulting and really makes no logical sense.
 
Canada has a national healthcare system. These irresponsible assholes having sick kids all over the place might not like it, but would you really want your own tax dollars being wasted away on some cancer kid who's just going to die in two years anyway?
 
Welcome to the Post-Nationalist country of Canada. So progressive, we'll kill your kids! And never forget - We're not America. Or American. Or anything related to that icky place. We're enlightened.
 
Canada has a national healthcare system. These irresponsible assholes having sick kids all over the place might not like it, but would you really want your own tax dollars being wasted away on some cancer kid who's just going to die in two years anyway?
the state still shouldn't unilateral decision-making power on this issue. i agree that the public money shouldn't be spent, people should be given the option to pay their own way if they want to squeeze life out of a terminal patient.
 
Wow, sounds like a private healthcare system ain’t that bad. If I got the money, you got the time.
 
the state still shouldn't unilateral decision-making power on this issue.

The basic premise of a powerful government is that you don't know what's good for you; the elites know, even without seeing you, what you need. And if they decide you'd be better off dead, your only option is to get your affairs in order.

i agree that the public money shouldn't be spent, people should be given the option to pay their own way if they want to squeeze life out of a terminal patient.

So it's not really "universal health care for you", it's only "payments for health care that benefits the rest of us." It's interesting to me that these things are always pitched as "charity" and "civic duty to fellow humans", and anyone bringing up the massive costs is a cruel hater of the poor and disabled--but right after they're implemented, suddenly the measure isn't human life but some cost-benefit analysis that treats people like economic units, to be divested if their cost too far exceeds their profitability.


On the general topic: I'm just gonna say that if this isn't true, you should be worried that things have come to where it was even momentarily believable.
 
Sweet zombie Jesus, I want to be wrong about this. This is all kinds of fucked up and bizarre. This also strikes me as a great way to end up with dead doctors at the hands of grief-maddened parents.
I wish they'd try that in Florida.

As much as we like to shit on that state, parents probably would charge into those hospitals with guns if doctors ever tried pulling that shit.
 
the state still shouldn't unilateral decision-making power on this issue. i agree that the public money shouldn't be spent, people should be given the option to pay their own way if they want to squeeze life out of a terminal patient.

Private healthcare should be abolished. There's no upside in keeping terminal drains alive, no matter how wealthy their parents are.
 
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.
 
There's no upside in keeping terminal drains alive, no matter how wealthy their parents are.
that sounds really nice until you realize that the truth value of this statement depends on how 'terminal drain' is being defined. only a medical doctor should be anywhere near the definition of what is an unrecoverable condition or not.
 
Private healthcare should be abolished. There's no upside in keeping terminal drains alive, no matter how wealthy their parents are.
Not to mention the benefits worldwide implementation of this kind of policy would have for our overpopulation problem.
 
I wish they'd try that in Florida.

As much as we like to shit on that state, parents probably would charge into those hospitals with guns if doctors ever tried pulling that shit.
It's like that stupid film 'John Q', except they didn't realize you're more likely to get that result with socialized healthcare rather than private.

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.
Who decides, though? That's the question that keeps getting asked. And the concern is that it won't be the doctor, but some bureaucrat trying to balance the books -- regardless of a kid's survival chances.

Because people are paranoid you'll get shit like this.
 
Back
Top Bottom