Over the past few weeks, some organizations and newspapers have been giving their opinion over three recent euthanasia cases in Belgium.
In recent weeks, a number of foreign (mainly US based) organizations and newspapers have been slamming Belgium for allowing euthanasia, and, more specifically, for allowing three children in critical health situations to pick the euthanasia route.
These organizations and people should not only focus on the issues of their country (and even continent) but should also mind their own lives.
Let’s start by the cases: between 2016 and 2017, three children were euthanised in Belgium, all three being under 18. The first one was 9 and suffered from a brain tumour, the second was 11 and suffered from cystic fibrosis, and the third one was 17, suffering from muscular dystrophy (Duchenne, according to some sources).
All three children were facing a situation were suffering, pain and an early death would be at the end. Instead, they chose to end their lives and avoid facing this future.
This is similar to how the abortion debate goes. Specific people do not want others to abort, and therefore try to take away that right from everybody. But at the same time, these people are opposed to:
- Sex education at school
- Easy access via organizations to information and contraceptive methods
- Abortion if needed (such as danger for the mother, rape, etc)
- Parental plans/childcare if no abortion
In short, these people want one option taken away, but not put the basic measures needed to reduce the need for abortions. It is true abortions should remain something rare, a last option recourse, and not a way of getting rid of the results of a one night-stand or a broken condom, although, according to statistics from Spain, most women only abort once.
Now, the exact same issue appears here for euthanasia. Euthanasia should be a last recourse option, only given to those who will not be able to lead a normal life, or who are close to dying and want to reduce their suffering while ending their lives with dignity. What these stupid campaigners do not seem to realize, by using words such as “killing children”, is that these “children” had to:
- Be in a critical health situation to request euthanasia
- Go through psychological tests to make sure they were mentally fit for the decision, and have it approved by a board of doctors
- Part from this world, leaving behind their parents who probably loved them, and will now have to go on without their children
Not only that, but these campaigners would probably not:
- Bother about them until they had died, euthanised
- Would not have come to be with them, to try and ease their pain
- Would not have gone through the difficult decision
- Would not have taken care and supported financially the children’s medical treatment, until the end of the children’s lives
Sure, one of them could have lived until 30-40 with his illness and appropriate treatment, but at what cost, and with how much suffering? If they chose to leave, we should respect that decision and leave them be, not use their names to serve our own little interests.
And finally, as mentioned already, we should respect their choice. Leaving this world, especially at such a young age and with parents left behind, is not an easy choice. They probably suffered the most, both from their illness, but also from having to leave all behind without having the chance to experience the good and the bad of life.
So, anti-euthanasia campaigners, go take your campaign somewhere else, stop using dead people for your goals and stop trying to control how other people want to end their lives. This doesn’t concern YOU directly, and, if one day you are in a similar situation, you may actually wish for this option to exist.
We, as humans, should have the right to leave this world with dignity, and not keep living in pain because two religious people and some other idiot believe something different than we do.