Hey guys, I skimmed through this thread, and I thought I'd mention two things. First, Draugnar, it's "Officer Krupke", not "Officer Krumpky". From West Side Story. Second, here's a link that I found to be particularly interesting.

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

You don't even know me. Why be a dick?

Thanks, pangloss. I didn't have it loaded up in Xbox Music (listening to Holiday stuff) to check the spelling. WSS is my favorite musical of all time.

Don't change the subject, krellin. We're not talking about being able to make a decision today and die tomorrow.

Who are you talking to Numbat?

You, Draug. Your writing tone comes across quite dickish with sign-off lines like: "Probably not, but then I wouldn't expect you to." Up until then it seemed like a reasonable discussion.

Well, then I apologize. That did come off dickish. I'm sorry.

As far as my "flipflopping", there was nothing of the sort going on. A baby talking in the womb is a fantasy scenario. Not gonna happen. So to take an absolute stance is easy. The practical reality of it is that children are hormonally imbalanced until their hormones level out. As such, they can be expected to know right from wrong (i.e. murder) at a certain point but still not be 100% free to be self determining. In 5th grade I knew right from wrong and would never have dreamed of killing someone, but seriously considered suicide because of the teasing I got. That would have been a tragedy.

numbat - quit being such a dick or YJ is going to decide you are silently screaming to be euthanized....or maybe I will.

The "trying kids as adults" statement was only intended to point out the hypocrisy of some readers here who I'm sure have no problem with that concept (I do have a problem with it) while making blanket statements about disallowing children to make up their own minds about suicide -- with parental and doctor consent. There does seem to be some level of hypocrisy there. The death penalty for kids who murder should never be an option I'm quite sure many here who say suicide should not be an option for kids would say that the death penalty should. Neither kid is in their right mind precisely *because* they are kids. BTW: I've never heard of a drunk driver getting charged with a crime that can include the death penalty. Kids do.

Back to kids determining their own suicide. The law we're discussing doesn't allow kids to just make that decision on their own. I'm glad you survived your suicidal considerations. I'm quite sure your parents would never have supported your decision to consider suicide and doctors would have suggested other courses of action before agreeing to euthanasia for you as a path to end your suffering. The handful of kids we're talking about are surely much more depressed and/or disabled than you (probably) and they have surely been prescribed various treatments for quite some time yet they still feel this strongly about it, their parents agree, and doctors agree. That's a long way from a kid making a rash "teen hormonal" decision.

So at what point do wise pretty people say: "Hmmm...too deviant from the normal human body...must allow them to be euthanized" versus "Hmmm...Ugly but onyl mentally challenged, ban't allow it, we'll put them in counseling and give them anti-depressants against their will".

Generally speaking, of course, the decision is, "Oh, we are not pleased with the way your body formed...it's unpleasant, and we can't imagine living like you do...so we grant that your mental depression is permanent and unrepairable because, well, we wouldn't want to be like you...so please die now"

what about a kid that is not technically deformed, but is just really, really ugly, who is not very intelligent, etc....do they get to kill themselves?

and then what about the really pretty girl who just sees no point in life...pretty blonde, doesn't want to live life as an object, sees humanity as a burden to the planet and doesn't wish to be a parasite on the planet, is truly unhappy with her life, etc....does she get to kill herself? Because, you know...she's so pretty...we shouldn't let that happen...

"The handful of kids we're talking about are surely much more depressed and/or disabled than you (probably)"

OR...Draug just had parents that wouldn't let him harbor such feelings and encouraged him otherwise, either directly or just through an upbringing that didn't allow failure, or whatever.

"pretty blonde, doesn't want to live life as an object, sees humanity as a burden to the planet and doesn't wish to be a parasite on the planet,"

Yeah, i mean if the other option is to make suicide illegal, and then fail to stop them from finding a way... the right to pursue happiness doesn't mean you should force it down anyone's throat if they don't want it!

In other words, how many kids that just can't make it...just don't want to live, blah blah ....have those feelings becuase of a lousy environment, and not because of any true, eternal need to die?

Orath – what I was really hoping for was some self-examination – Most of you probably see various scenarios (Deformed kid…of course he wants to die, here’s the needle. Ugly/Dumb kid…of course he wants to die, let it happen, here’s the rope. Pretty girl…of cu…what?!?! No…she can’t possibly be as depressed as THOSE kids…no….no…we’ll force you in to counseling until you are better, and then give you pharmaceutical cures….) and have inconsistent reactions to those scenarios, even though to the depressed kid that wants to die the want is equal.

Where is my old pal YJ? Kill the deformed one and the ugly one, but the Pretty Blonde should be lobotomized and kept as a sex slave, right? Who's with me...might as well get some value out of this...then we'll harvest organs when we are done with her.

@numbat - I agree children should never be eligible for the death penalty, but what is the difference between someone 17 years 364 days old and someone 18 years and 1 day old besides 2 days? But then, I've never heard of a juvenile getting a death sentence and I believe most states don't allow that as an option even if a juvenile is found guilty of a capital.crime.

@Krelly, what makes you think i haven't already done the self-examination.

I'm well aware that depression can hit pretty girls just as much as it can hit the disabled.

I wasn't talking about those who are not mentally competent - i suspect this legislation is aimed at people who has a degenerative illness, who determine that their quality of life is not worth continuing. Some level of suffering which they choose is not worth putting themselves through.

There are lots of degenerative illnesses which you might decide that after some point it just wasn't worth suffering for several months more.

@Draug. Actually, you're right, it appears that the Supreme Court shot down the death penalty for juveniles but charging them as adults handing out life sentences isn't exactly a whole lot better (you know, teen hormones, etc.). Anyway, that *is* a topic for another thread I suppose. However, the "18 years minus 1 day" argument supports my original point that a rigid 'adults-only' policy towards euthanasia is unnecessary 'feature' of such a law.

There are huge problems with teens and responcibilit - the frontal cortex doesn't finish developing until about 25, and is responcible for self-control and executive decision making - even without refering to surging hormones, teenagers are physically less capable of making decisions or regulating their emotions; there may even be evolutionary reasons for the risk-taking that some teens engage in - that it helps them learn how to be an adult which kinda goes in favour of punishment for crimes... But it is hardly educational if you give a teen a life sentence... If the punishment is educational, perhaps a house arrest with community service (as opposed to confining a youth with hardened criminals...), then it could help this 'how to be an adult' thing...

Also impairment of the frontal cortex has been used to get adults found innocent in numerous murder trials. As in - brain fucked, this person is not responcible because they were not able to stop themselves...

This is, i think, a very interesting area of law/neuro-biology and social policy.

So, finally got around to reading up on the belguim law: 'Under the current rules, an adult can qualify only if a doctor attests both that their illness is incurable and their suffering unbearable.' - where is the problem with this exactly??

Where is Krellin getting his ideas about pretty girls and other NOT terminally ill examples? This is an example of compassion for secular liberals.

"...the Pretty Blonde should be lobotomized and kept as a sex slave, right?"

That is an astoundingly good idea. Just run a few amps through her so she twitches at the right times, and you've got all a boy could ever ask for.

Will also need to perform occasional maintenance with properly-stored and officially-sanctioned industrial lubricants for maximum results

On the subject of euthanasia being voluntary for minors, how do we square that circle that if a child voluntary engages in sex the other person is a rapist but if a doctor kills a child who volunteered they are not a murderer?

Age of consent should be the same for both, surely?

Why should the age of consent be the same?

Because it's ludicrous to say that someone is deemed sufficiently mature and mentally developed to be able to consent to suicide, but not to sex?

Unless you're saying the age of consent for this should be higher than the age of consent for sex, in which case that's probably reasonable (haven't thought about it but I can't see why it wouldn't be).

This is where the belguim law is unclear to me... The child must be terminally ill and suffering unbearably, the parents must consent, and the child must understand the consequences? I didn't see much about the child agreeing.

Can anyone else clarify?

I don't understand the problem. Age of consent varies all over the world by location and the thing being consented to. Most of it is pretty damn arbitrary. At what age is a child able to say, "I'm in too much pain to live," and be taken seriously? My guess is that those who are firmly against the euthanasia laws don't think ANY age is appropriate, so again it's just conflating two issues, when only one is really relevant.