Bovens Luc
J Med Ethics. 2015 Aug;41(8):630-4. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2014-102329. Epub 2015 Mar 10.
Belgium has recently extended its euthanasia legislation to minors, making it the first legislation in the world that does not specify any age limit. I consider two strands in the opposition to this legislation. First, I identify five arguments in the public debate to the effect that euthanasia for minors is somehow worse than euthanasia for adults--viz, arguments from weightiness, capability of discernment, pressure, sensitivity and sufficient palliative care--and show that these arguments are wanting. Second, there is another position in the public debate that wishes to keep the current age restriction on the books and have ethics boards exercise discretion in euthanasia decisions for minors. I interpret this position on the background of Velleman's 'Against the Right to Die' and show that, although costs remain substantial, it actually can provide some qualified support against extending euthanasia legislation to minors.
比利时最近将其安乐死立法扩展至未成年人,使其成为世界上第一部未明确规定任何年龄限制的立法。我思考了反对这项立法的两个观点。首先,我在公开辩论中确定了五个论点,大意是未成年人安乐死在某种程度上比成年人安乐死更糟糕——即来自严重性、辨别能力、压力、敏感性和充分姑息治疗的论点——并表明这些论点存在缺陷。其次,公开辩论中的另一种立场希望保留现行的年龄限制,并让伦理委员会在未成年人安乐死决策中行使自由裁量权。我在韦勒曼的《反对死亡权》的背景下解读这一立场,并表明,尽管成本仍然很高,但它实际上可以为反对将安乐死立法扩展至未成年人提供一些有条件的支持。