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:
If kids want (or someone wants for them) that level of autonomy, they should get emancipated first.

Personal choice is intrinsically good.

Seventeen year olds can consent to sex in most places in the US.

Fine, fine, 15 then. Whatever, I think you understood my point. Similar to the old vietnam era "If I'm old enough to go get killed in a war I'm old enough to drink", "If you're old enough to decide to be dead forever, you're old enough to decide to have sex"
 
Fine, fine, 15 then. Whatever, I think you understood my point. Similar to the old vietnam era "If I'm old enough to go get killed in a war I'm old enough to drink", "If you're old enough to decide to be dead forever, you're old enough to decide to have sex"
Not all rights we accord to people kick in at a uniform age. Think about working a job for the first time. Now obviously deciding to die is more serious than most. I'm not denying that.

However this is an extension of existing rights to decide between a patient and their doctor how they want their medical treatment to go. Minors deserve (at some point) some level of doctor-patient confidentiality.

I think the example of some shithead parent overriding their child's decision to die and stretching out their suffering for another two years because of sentimentality (and not their best interests or their quality of life), is worth at least considering.
 
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.


Ethically speaking, how is not providing heroic measures and/or futile care any different than private insurers in the US refusing to cover potentially lifesaving cancer treatments?

We've had court cases here at both ends of the spectrum. We've had hospitals go to court for permission to take kids of life support and we've also had hospitals go to court for permission to treat kids (the particular case which stands out in my mind is a 6 year old with leukemia whose parents refused treatment because they didn't want their kid to go through the trauma of chemotherapy).
 
striking down the law against suicide was a mistake. (I'm looking at YOU, Supreme Court of Canada in the 1990s)

No, seriously. This slippery slope ain't a fallacy in this instance.
 
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.

That's not even a tiny bit true. They take knives from scrotes on the street because there are a lot of stabbings and no little street scrote needs a knife. The police aren't pulling over carpet fitters and confiscating their Stanley blades.
 
striking down the law against suicide was a mistake. (I'm looking at YOU, Supreme Court of Canada in the 1990s)

No, seriously. This slippery slope ain't a fallacy in this instance.

Slippery slope was never a fallacy, it was invented by a butthurt philosopher who didn't understand the concept of precedents
 
That's not even a tiny bit true. They take knives from scrotes on the street because there are a lot of stabbings and no little street scrote needs a knife. The police aren't pulling over carpet fitters and confiscating their Stanley blades.

Except they actually are lmao

wjlqoh6f6pr11.jpg
 
That's not even a tiny bit true. They take knives from scrotes on the street because there are a lot of stabbings and no little street scrote needs a knife. The police aren't pulling over carpet fitters and confiscating their Stanley blades.
Did you miss how Metro PD was, for a while, proudly posting images of 'weapon collections' that included things like files, lineman side-cutters, and gardening trowels?
 
Hah, that reminds me of how I'd always hear about how cops never actually arrest anyone for marijuana. Yet somehow there are (or were, at least) tons of people in jail for marijuana. Yet the line still just got repeated anyway.

Same thing with this.
That's not even a tiny bit true. They take knives from scrotes on the street because there are a lot of stabbings and no little street scrote needs a knife. The police aren't pulling over carpet fitters and confiscating their Stanley blades.

"Yeah, yeah, the law says they CAN do it, but of course they only do it to the bad people. They're not coming for your pocket knife." "Oh, they did take your pocket knife? Well why did you need that anyway?"

If police can do something, they fucking will, when they feel like it. They're not just going to enforce the law on the "bad guys".
 
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.

^This here.

It is almost certainly a correct statement of the law in England and Wales that a competent and capable child under 16 can consent (rendering their parents’ views irrelevant) to the withdrawal of medical treatment, even when the inescapable consequence of stopping that treatment will be their death.

It still doesn’t happen, because hospitals will in practice make no decision about withdrawal of treatment for a child, even with the child’s putative consent, where the parents are opposed to a withdrawal without a court order permitting it to be done. You simply cannot as an NHS trust expose yourself to that sort of risk. The court is vanishingly unlikely to decide that such a child grasps the concept of death fully and maturely enough to declare them competent and capable to make the decision, so the court order will not be forthcoming.

It is possible, once in a generation, that a case will be found that is tragic enough on its own facts that both a hospital and a court are persuaded to let the child choose to die.

It’s possible. But you will be waiting a long, long fucking time to see one. I have been waiting academically two decades for a definitive statement of English law to this effect, and I don’t expect to be rewriting any of my old articles any time soon.
 
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.

It's a hard choice. What if the parent wants to force a kid onto HRT? What if the parent wants to prolong child suffering because they're retarded? What about circumcision or child employment?

We really do need to reconsider the rights of children overall.

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.

Ideally the person themself should be free to make the call.

Also, its hardly a matter of professionalism, its a matter of balancing suffering with personal preferences.

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.

It should be the persons call. Plenty of people will willingly ride it out till the bitter end.

Fine, fine, 15 then. Whatever, I think you understood my point. Similar to the old vietnam era "If I'm old enough to go get killed in a war I'm old enough to drink", "If you're old enough to decide to be dead forever, you're old enough to decide to have sex"

18 and 21 are extremely arbitrary ages. Its odd how we have an all or nothing system instead of perhaps a tiered system in regards to personal autonomy.

Kids should have more rights and should not be forced to stick with parents that are horrible but not necessarily abusive if they are fully capable of going out on their own.
 
Ideally the person themself should be free to make the call.
The person in question is the least able to look at the situation objectively, being far more likely to prioritize their own desires over the greater good and practicality.
 
It's a hard choice. What if the parent wants to force a kid onto HRT? What if the parent wants to prolong child suffering because they're exceptional? What about circumcision or child employment?

We really do need to reconsider the rights of children overall.
Well im of the position that children should be barred from life changing procedures such as HRT until they reach age of majority and can make their own bad decisions.
 
18 and 21 are extremely arbitrary ages. Its odd how we have an all or nothing system instead of perhaps a tiered system in regards to personal autonomy.

Kids should have more rights and should not be forced to stick with parents that are horrible but not necessarily abusive if they are fully capable of going out on their own.
We don't have an all or nothing system, at least in the United States. Everything is tiered.

You can start working when you're under 18. You can learn to drive when you're under 18 (and there's a "student driver" phase). The age of consent is under 18 in most states, and there's also close-in-age exemptions.

The age of majority, 18, is the last step when we really cut the cord.

The main (valid) justification for 21 to drink is that the brain is still forming. It's a medical justification.
 
I'm torn about this subject.

On the one hand, I'm against allowing children to make adult decisions because children are stupid.

On the other hand, I'm totally for killing off any and all Canadians.

Tough call.
 
Back
Top Bottom