Yes, this sounds sensible, doesn’t it?

Doctors in the Netherlands have called for terminally ill young children to be given the right to die.
The Netherlands is one of few countries in the world where euthanasia is permitted for terminally ill patients.
But the Dutch Paediatric Association said that existing laws do not go far enough and called for an age limit to be scrapped.
Under current laws, only those aged 12 and over can ask to die. “We feel that an arbitrary age limit such as 12 should be changed,” said Eduard Verhagen, professor of paediatrics at Groningen University, and a member of the association’s ethics committee.
“Each child’s ability to ask to die should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.”

Not only is this a good idea I think we should extend it. Make it a European programme. Why save the good things only for the Dutch children? I’d suggest that we base the whole thing at Hadamar. And we’ll call it the “Gerhard Kretschmar Programme For The Eradication Of Suffering.”

12 thoughts on “Yes, this sounds sensible, doesn’t it?”

  1. So Much for Subtlety

    Well 12 is a fairly arbitrary limit. It doesn’t make sense to happily kill depressed 13 year olds and not 12 year olds.

    But it is just the same thing that happened with abortion and divorce and gambling. Once you remove the blanket ban, the values of society changes and what was unthinkable becomes inevitable. If the Dutch are happy to kill children, if we all start to think of that as normal, well, why the hell not?

    The irony is that the Dutch would be thrown out of the EU if they did this to a convicted mass murderer.

  2. I can only assume that the Dutch medics are jealous of the success of their rivals in Belgium.

  3. So Much for Subtlety

    dearieme – “I can only assume that the Dutch medics are jealous of the success of their rivals in Belgium.”

    Perhaps of their German counterparts too.

    What is odd is that Nazism has triumphed in so many ways, but precisely among the people who deny it. Alan Bloom pointed out that most Western Marxists had no interest in Marx but were parroting various Nazis so it is not a new phenomenon.

    I await the Guardian endorsing Carl Schmitt’s political theory.

  4. SMFS,

    You jest by Schmitt is a very popular theorist for the intellectual left.

    Firstly he is rather interesting and a worthwhile political theorist to read, so on a merit level he does make it onto people’s book shelves from merit, mine included.

    However, I know a number of the far left rising ‘intelligentsia’ personally and Schmitt and his ideas are spoken of with warmth and support. Particularly the brutal friend/foe distinction and that politics is the meeting and destruction of one of two opposing forces. It’s not entirely without truth but many of them think the only reason we have a capitalist framework to live in is because the ruling class has guns, took over the state/developed it and has the violent power to maintain it.

    It’s quite a brutal conception and more and more I see his ideas inform the way they describe and analyse history, which is worrying as its too simple and too confrontational.

    And the SJWs actually practice his politics, you are a friend or enemy and you will be destroyed. At the battle of ideas 2014 festival there was a debate about students and such, two of the panelists were from an SU and the NUS. When asked about diversity of political views and hint riverside opinions they literally said words to the effect ‘we will not tolerate intolerance, we want to destroy them’. Proper rhetoric that portrays the world as if they are living through the Spanish civil war.

    But yes, Schmitt is popular on the left already.

    I have an essay planned but lazily not written to describe this movement, in a nod to bloom ‘the schmittisation of the left’.

  5. The moment you declare something as Progressive, and wrap it in the language of ‘caring’ and ‘equality’, literally anything becomes possible.

  6. Rob is correct.

    But the Dutch Paediatric Association said that existing laws do not go far enough and called for an age limit to be scrapped.

    Funny how we’re always told that “slippery slope” arguments against the proggy agenda are paranoid rightwing bollocks.

    Proggies are like a deceitful man who really, really wants you to give him a blowjob.

    Phase 1 – No, of course I’m not going to put my cock in your mouth! It’s just outrageous that we have laws *against* me putting my penis there. This sort of bigoted discrimination must end. I have human rights, you know.

    Phase 2 – No, don’t be silly. I’m not going to put my penis in your mouth. I’m just going to put my penis *near* your mouth. What? How could that possibly lead to you sucking me off? Don’t be such an XYZophobe. Anyway, it’s not illegal anymore, so here’s my willy.

    Phase 3 – Look, we both knew the time would come when my penis would need to be inside your mouth. Stop living in the past! Anyway, this doesn’t mean you have to give me a blowjob or anything.

    Phase 4 – I’m glad we, as a caring society, could agree that my tadger being in your gob needed to happen. And the law’s just been changed to make blowjobs compulsory. Why? Because it will lead to fairness, that’s why! You may begin fellatio. Or do I have to phone the police?

  7. It always starts off the same way. “Of course I believe in liberty, but that surely wasn’t intended to mean…”

    The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

    I’m never quite sure if it’s because people have never read it, or because they don’t understand what it means…

  8. Bloke in Costa Rica

    The bansturbators, SJWs and neo-Puritans finagle compulsion in by the back door by saying that X must be banned because it does harm to ‘society’, whatever the fuck that means.

  9. If they work back far enough, they’ll be able to abrogate the anti-abortion laws because they’ll be covered by the right-to-die laws: “Well, yes, technically they couldn’t actually communicate their desire to die, but we can be confident that they certainly would have.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *