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:
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.
Well no system is perfect, but the majority will do the job correctly. Collateral damage would more than likely be minimal.
 
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.
Not to sound like a dick, but did you read the part of the story you quoted in your OP? It explicitly states that it deals with kids under 18 stipulating that they wanna end their lives.

The slippery slope youre worried about is on an entirely different mountain. There are real problems out there, manufacturing others and giving yourself anxiety over them isn't healthy.

In other words, calm down.
 
Well no system is perfect, but the majority will do the job correctly. Collateral damage would more than likely be minimal.
Collateral damage is always minimal, until you're the one getting the bullet because you're over 40 and broke your hip.

Conversely, why not get rid of all preemie ICUs? After all that's money being wasted, even if they survive they still frequently end up having health problems through life. Better to just snap the necks of any premature born child, it's far more cost effective.
 
Conversely, why not get rid of all preemie ICUs? After all that's money being wasted, even if they survive they still frequently end up having health problems through life. Better to just snap the necks of any premature born child, it's far more cost effective.
That’s certainly ideal, but it will likely be a few more decades before society is enlightened enough to adopt such a practice.
 
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?
Yes, especially since Canada is busy enough spending their citizen's tax dollars on refugees.
 
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.
Just leave the fate of your child in the professional hands of Randi "respectful of diversity, and enriched by it" Zlotnik Shaul and (((Adam Rapoport))), goy.

This is why you don't let these rats shape public policy.
 
I don’t know, this kind of sounds like it’s trying to prevent another Mama Nails situation. There’s been a recent rise in distrust of the concept of ‘brain death’ especially within minority communities. I’d be fine with it if that were the case.
 
Yes, especially since Canada is busy enough spending their citizen's tax dollars on refugees.

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.
 
Private healthcare should be abolished. There's no upside in keeping terminal drains alive, no matter how wealthy their parents are.

Patently false. Many terminal cases are prime sources of new medical knowledge. Many people with terminal illnesses, ranging from cancer to muscular dystrophy, produce groundbreaking new treatments that help those who come after them.

You start just euthanizing them, you’re robbing medicine of research avenues. That’s why the US has the best medical care in the world, there’s money to try new methods and technology.
 
Just leave the fate of your child in the professional hands of Randi "respectful of diversity, and enriched by it" Zlotnik Shaul and (((Adam Rapoport))), goy.

This is why you don't let these rats shape public policy.
I’m not sure who those people are but obviously everyone’s credentials should be vetted before appointing them to positions governing life and death.
 
Not to mention the benefits worldwide implementation of this kind of policy would have for our overpopulation problem.

This meme needs to die. We are not overpopulated in the slightest. Less than 10% of the earth's surface land area is involved in human habitation and 99.4% of the earth's surface land area is free of artificial covering (asphalt, concrete, roofs etc). The upper limit of population earth can sustain is abstract and based upon a variety of factors but most estimates range from 25 billion to 100 billion. More importantly if surface land comes at a premium economic pressure would lead to ocean colonization which would free up so much space the upper limit would be in the hundreds of billions if we got the tech down.
 
Well really come on parents should be the last one to decide what's good for their kids. Parents are just some random assholes, they could even be conservatives!

Obviously young children should be the ones to decide that stuff. After all, the government knows for sure they have been properly educated on their civic duty to off themselves when the cost of keeping them alive is too high, unless they want to chop their dick off or something, in which case no cost is too high.
 
They're the Jews proposing this policy.

And vetted by whom? A panel of "medical ethicists" with a list of names that wouldn't be out of place at a Bar Mitzvah?
Sure, if they’re qualified for the job.
 
Patently false. Many terminal cases are prime sources of new medical knowledge. Many people with terminal illnesses, ranging from cancer to muscular dystrophy, produce groundbreaking new treatments that help those who come after them.

You start just euthanizing them, you’re robbing medicine of research avenues. That’s why the US has the best medical care in the world, there’s money to try new methods and technology.

Do you have sources for this? Not that I disagree but that sounds like an interesting topic.
 
I know I've said this before in other threads, but it's worth repeating here: is there any right-wing slippery slope argument in the last thirty years that hasn't panned out?
 
Back
Top Bottom