New waves of Eugenics in the Netherlands

Post Reply New Topic

While there were a number of news stories about this two years ago (see: here, here, and here), there is renewed attention being drawn to the use of euthanasia in cases of those with disabilities, explicitly including ASD.

From a study published March 5:

Why are they doing that?

Allowing people who want to die to do so peacefully and in a way that isn't going to leave them messed up is not eugenics.

I heard in Belgium people with Autism have a choice to be euthanized. That should not be allowed in my opinion. Western Europe isn't the best place for Autistics.

But they didn't ask to be born. Forcing people to live against their will is cruel, forcing them to attempt suicide in a way that could be painful or leave them a vegetable is also cruel.

I can agree with that.

Eugenics is no more or less than a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a human population. That's not a bad thing per se.

However, including Autistic traits among the list of undesirable traits sure is questionable to say the least, when you consider how many great minds had strong Autistic traits.

I'd say the biggest factors of whether high functioning autism is a positive or negative are your social class, your quality of education and quality of parents.

I had incompetent parents and come from a blue collar background. And I only have a Bachelor's degree. Still, I see my Autism as mostly positive.

Yeah but I would say it was a general principle rather than an absolute rule.

No, it's not. It should be allowed for anyone who wants it, IMO.

Me too and I would even include children in that.

Many of us are perfectly happy today but wouldn't be alive if we had a convenient, painless way to end our lives when we were teenagers.

So I'm not convinced that letting depressed teenagers and children end their lives is the way to go.

Greetings Autistics,

First,

I want to get one thing VERY straight. "eugenics" and "euthanasia" are not remotely the same thing.
Eugenics is taking away a person's right to reproduce...somehow (so you can make the genetic pool better....and depending on who is doing it the definition of 'Better' varies) and there are a lot of other ways it plays out, none of em are really good. There is no real difference between human genetic engineering and Eugenics in respect to intent..the goal is the same, although eugenics tends to carry a darker social and societal agenda with it.

Euthanasia if it is consensual euthanasia, is merciful. If it is NOT consensual Euthanasia...then it isn't euthanasia at all it's just murder.
Euthanasia is nothing but mercy. Nobody would ever suggest euthanasia to anyone else...that's horrible and not what it is.


Second,

I live in the Netherlands in case you are curious about what it is like to live here. I have received nothing but empathy from the social system in respect to My autism (which was late diagnosed). Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands but of course not without consent....that would be what we call murder. lotsa of things are legal here...I wish it was many many more. Some Psychedelics and Marijuana (long before it was legal anyplace else) for example. It's a very libertarian culture still thankfully. I would never have received the help I have, had it not been. Because of the way that the Dutch handle things socially I am for the first time in my life on a path to really having my life in balance and there is no way I can ever repay them completely.

Euthanasia has long been a source of debate but should it be? We're not running out of people on earth, the rest of the time we argue about division of wealth and resources, carbon footprint per person , available housing , crowded public spaces and so on but when somebody who is miserable and probably will not get better wants to just stop suffering it is immoral to let them? That question is my contribution to this topic. I will not singlehandedly bring the longstanding debate about Euthanasia to a mutually respectful close. I know this.

I do urge you to examine the core precept which isn't...interestingly enough, euthanasia at all...but instead the idea that the world is made better somehow by interfering with the choices of others. THAT I reject. I'll always reject it. It's wrong to take another person's choices for themselves away because you're not them and you don't know what being them is like. It's a long list of historical horrors that sailed under a flag of making the world better for everyone by robbing a few of their choices.


In summary,
1. Eugenics and euthanasia are in no way related.
2. Europe is not a bad place for Autistics. It's rather kind.
3. People have been being born living and dying for a very long time and unless you can make us all immortal tomorrow the quality of life is not measured in life or death but in peace and suffering.
4. I urge you to think at length about whether or not making decisions for others who would prefer you didn't can ever make the world a better place. Nietzsche had a word of warning about those who fight demons, it's not to be taken lightly.
5. this summary. HA!

I don't really agree with the idea of blanket, broad and unregulated much of anything working out real well unless it is a truly foundational value that everyone shares...then it maps just fine. I don't know how Euthanasia works elsewhere but in the Netherlands one has to meet some requirements and one of those is I believe that they have to be able to demonstrate that they psychologically capable of comprehending the full consequences of such a choice.

Full on Suicide? is ALSO not euthanasia and that happens all over the place. there's no way to morally condone suicide but at the same time though it is unpopular to say it there are conditions under which it is logical. MIT gave a lecture on it actually but I cannot seem to find it. it could be posted here. the lecturer did a much better job of explaining it than I would.

if somebody else finds it please post the link. it was fascinating.I have tremendous respect for anyone who is able to calmly and intelligently address challenging and socially sensitive subjects. Because ya know...they DO need to be addressed, and they don;t go away and the more we are all able to work through them together the less somebody else will have to do that for us...in some way that might not be how we'd like it to be.

Eugenics is merely the attempt to undo the dysgenic effect of our elimination of natural selection as a result of advanced medicine. And it can involve any number of measures intended to keep the overall genetic quality of a population stable and/or improve it. It may include restricting the rights of certain people to reproduce & it may include euthanasia of certain groups of people, but it may also include eg. the encouragement of certain groups of people to reproduce.

Eugenicists typically differentiate between two types of "eugenics" :

* "negative eugenics" : restrictions to prevent "bad" genes from spreading
* "positive eugenics" : measures that encourage "good" genes to spread

I believe at least "positive eugenics" is not just acceptable but even necessary if we want to save Western civilization and stop the current acceleration towards idiocracy!



When people are eg. brain dead, it is also considered euthanasia to end their lives, even though they aren't able to offer content.



Euthanasia always applies only to people who are considered to suffer significantly or have a life considered unworthy. What it means to "suffer significantly" or have a "worthy" life, however, is very much open to interpretation, and there's a lot of disagreement about that.



Yes they are.



Not so sure about that. There seems to be a lot more prejudice against people with Autism today than there used to be in the past.



Many people don't know what's best for them. Sometimes, they need other people to decide in their stead.



So euthanasia does not apply to braindead people in Holland?



The difference between both is purely arbitrary IMO.