Summaries – kidhanekomacomp2

Belgian Senate has passed a bill extending euthanasia of young children with disabilities. A shocking turn of events to advocates of pro-life worldwide. The vote ended in a landslide of 50 members voting for it to 17 against it. The majority of those against the bill were apart Christian Democrats party, a widely known Catholic party.

This is not the first time Belgium has voted toward euthanasia of young people; in another landslide vote, 13 voted to allow minors to receive euthanasia under special conditions as well as allowing euthanasia to adults suffering from the mental illness dementia. Only 4 committee members voted against the bill as it was viewed as inhumane.

Euthanasia has been allowed in Belgium for 13 years, however it was only limited to 18 year olds. Belgium is not the first European country to allow euthanasia, however it was the first country to lift the age restrictions on the procedure. It has been open to minors so long as they have a guardians consent.

The topic of euthanasia for children with disabilities has always been viewed as an ethical problem, often argued as lack of morals among the committee members that vote toward passing such bills. The usual standpoint as all lives, regardless of disabilities, should be valued. However, this is countered by Belgian Senate members as mercy killing. Why have children with disabilities continue to suffer?

What started as a “mercy killing” procedure, euthanasia has become a new method for severely depressed young adults to commit suicide legally. It has been a gray area as to what kind of symptoms or illness allows them to seek euthanasia. As in what kind of suffering is allowed: Physical or psychological.

This entry was posted in X Archive. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Summaries – kidhanekomacomp2

  1. kidhanekomacomp2's avatar kidhanekomacomp2 says:

    Feedback was requested.
    Feedback provided. —DSH

    Like

  2. davidbdale's avatar davidbdale says:

    Your post does not start with the required statement, “It seems counterintuitive that . . . ” and therefore does not begin with a clear indication of what you find counterintuitive. We seek in vain for clarification on that point from that point on.

    Your job is not merely to relate what was said in the article, but to make use of the material to advance a point of your own (or at the very least to craft a thorough summary so that it makes clear what argument the original material was making). What argument would you say is presented here?

    All of this, I think, is spelled out in the assignment, and the models I provided are careful to follow the required format.

    You’ve certainly provided a wealth of material here. It might pass the “summary” test, but so far it’s weak on “purpose.”

    Like

Leave a comment