I mentioned this situation in Belgium once before but am highlighting it again. Wesley J. Smith is often pointing out that surprisingly enough the Belgians are turning out to be the leaders in going completely off the cliff in the areas of suicide and euthanasia. The latest: Child euthanasia. The new proposal would also include euthanasia of people with Alzheimer's.
So much for choice. Belgium got tired of all that choice stuff, which requires that the person be of mature years and compos mentis. So the heck with it. And besides, we're told, doctors were already bumping off children without guidelines, and we can't have that. We have to put some "guidelines" in place. (As Smith says, in that case let's legalize bank robbery so that we can have "guidelines" for it. It's happening anyway.) Bioethicist Erik Parens should take notes. Remember him? He was the guy who says we "need to try" to justify euthanizing people with Alzheimer's. Well, heck, just do it! Don't bother with all this ethical finicking. And include children while you're at it.
Let's make no mistake about a couple of things: When people say, "X is going to happen anyway" as an argument for making X legal, they don't really think X is all that bad. Rape happens. Torture happens. Slavery happens. Heck, for that matter, workplace discrimination against mascot groups happens! Yet you'll never hear a liberal saying we should give up on those things. Nor should we, at least not for the first three. So when your liberal interlocutor says, "Abortion is going to happen anyway" or, now in Belgium, "Euthanizing children is going to happen anyway," what he really means is, "That doesn't bother me too much. I think there's a place for it. That's why I advise you to give up on trying to stop it altogether."
Second, choice always devours itself. Euthanasia was supposed to be a choice that people needed to have available. That's because it was seen as a benefit. But if it's beneficial, why restrict that benefit only to those who can choose it? It should be "available" even to those who can't choose it, because they are too young or mentally incompetent. And for that matter, if they are misguided enough not to choose it (dammit!) they should still be given the benefit. Those who were supposed to be the beneficiaries of this choice eventually become its forced recipients.