suffering to benefit from dignified death through the world but this is why we started this discussion in the built in parliament of what that means to you and you what your problem obeys but i'm just wondering if you had any personal experience yourself how many cases have you personally come across where children have asked doctors to help them die and how many parents have agreed to that or somebody said. you know it's always difficult to be able to evaluate the number of cases. i'll tell you something quite specific though good for belief in your life visit mit's especially if you're a physician it's what you own you're called to take care even of one of these cases only one of these people whether an adult or a minor he was that you were confronted with this situation and you quickly realize the need to find solutions and solve this issue unbearable pain. incurable

diseases don't so the number is not the most important element here but the more what matters is that there are children sixteen eaters who suffer from incurable diseases and for whom it is necessary to find a humane solution and sort of. human you know it's a pure coincidence but i'm a journalist i'm thirty five but i also happen to be a board member of a moscow hospice so people that i work with very tightly they are actually confronted with lethally ill kids every day kids who die every day and when i talk to them about euthanasia they tell me that they yet have to come across at child who wishes to die because that hasn't happened yet in our case. could hunt small. quite frankly it was more there are such cases because some kid

can fall to very fortunately for that was me it's not the same person who is facing this type of situation every time fifty of the very fortunately it is not the same families. i don't but i can tell you that it tell us that this type of situation exists. and that unbearable suffering that exists made exist of the nine is the number of cases that arise in the an extremely important number. the answer is no you know what you very fortunately the answer is no one knows but there are cases and it is necessary to respond to them now this is the reality city disorder huell. and you know in two thousand and two when the law for meeting ethan a show for adults was passed we have heard arguments saying that we did not care

enough about the patients keep saying that's the reason we propose this type of solution but yet if they want to pick a metaphor what is that it really is for me i can say that we do this because we truly care it's what you are putting this amendment through parliament to allow a solution which is both euthanasia and tell it you care and they will feel both adults and children really care givers and doctors who continue to tell us that this choice is needed they want to support people at the end make sure peonies mean yes and really call navy said a circus or. have you had a situation where parents ask for their children to be killed three thing asia. not of with parents not with my immediate circle but i want to remind you again that i am a doctor and as doctors we can be confronted with the situations that are highly different the situation with the citizen because we find ourselves in

a situation similar to the experience of someone emotionally close to us. it's not because we find ourselves in this kind of situation that we take initiative but we take this initiative because we want to fix the overall situation exists to all of them that's what is most important but why and why and sist to find out your personal opinion on experiences because this is a very personal law and it's a very emotional law it's a law that for many crosses ethics or morals so i don't know if you have any children but if you had any children i mean would you allow them to decide on matters of life or death i can answer your in any case see that if god forbid i had a child it would end up in this type of situation and i want to point out that by this type of situation i mean a child

a teeny film who's suffering is related to an incurable disease who will die in the near future if such a trial if you can ask me see it and then he's or her suffering. i would respond positively. and i believe that's it's the entire population in belgium when asked to answer a survey posing the same question also replied in then overwhelmingly positive manner. i want to repeat that it isn't the fact that we want to end the suffering of a child. which is outrageous. suffering itself that is outrageous what is outrageous is that all children are suffering because children are dying. what these are true is that there are children who are suffering from cancer what we are doing is precisely preventing this scandal and thus preventing the suffering

of these children and teenagers but we're still talking in general terms take us through an average case which ends in someone being here tonight what are they suffering from how long does the decision take. driven to exult grew. not fall i will give you an example at the local fete a child is suffering from a cancer which he did but equally affects children i don't want to give any exact narcisse but we know about these cancers affecting children leukemia or cancers for example. nothing do with him should we provide them with a chemical therapy to help them we provide them the second kemah ferric the third one by the day there comes a time for such patients if you both say but including for example the seeking young people with brain tumors there comes a time where we can no longer ease the suffering and there is no hope for

a. number of us who've need nischelle we know that death will occur and it's coming soon. exists a number of such cases exist human law will fulfil where under these conditions these children cubit to turn out to be more mature than many dolts could see them all but for some sleep because they're facing disease precisely because these children are about to die if he does he even has his own full. if you would say it's good legal since you're saying that there aren't so many cases then why bother with the law why not just go case by case basis because the minute this becomes a law if you know that there will be plenty of room for error for abuse because not all doctors are completely honest not all of them are totally professional or dedicated to their profession if and i'm sure that it could force well. listen

quite frankly frankly i don't know who you are talking about on that katie nor a key there is a law in belgium that has existed for ten years we made a law that makes it possible for a doctor to make the last humane gesture for a patient who is suffering this is at the same time we stablished an evaluation commission to which all the phoenicia cases should be reported for ten years but there has been a regular report made by this commission that never has this commission found abuse that is an important element and then you know those who talk about abuse i think that they have rarely faced this situation themselves. we know what it is like for a doctor or for a caregiver or for the family is the point to take into account the requests there are being made by patients and relatives in case of an incurable disease he's going

to be able to hear them out. to respond to them positively and he will go full c s when we know what it means in terms of patient support as a gesture it is the gesture of euthanasia. i think that we finally realize that abuse cannot exist the bus because the burden of it is i would say the emotional empathetic burden thrilling to this gesture put them in six trimly important to keep and i believe that those who. actually there are those who for their reasons are obviously opposed to euthanasia. i want to recall that the laws in belgium and holland in luxembourg these laws. aereo freedom put in place guarantees to prevent abuse but do not force anyone to make the gesture if they don't want to. still believe that when we talk about the specious that the

adults or children or teenagers give these patients or request ethan e. sure it is a very humane gesture to carry out their request. to take hold. it's about how we're going to take a short break now i will be back with philip now a belgian senator and a proponent of the euthanasia for minors law to discuss turning to to assisted suicide stay with us.

trends arrow to vnukovo report your best way to the heart of moscow. the wimpy games is very name means athletic excellence in extravagant showmanship this has been traditionally the case when we were at the games in sochi have been treated differently western media has attempted to politicize the games at the expense of sports and the host country on this edition of costello we explore the true spirit of sochi.

is obviously more for the ladies because it's pink. when they wanted to avoid rape they really needed to buy guns in america how to use them. this is the one that i want to go with them once again it's the field for women definitely a target of the gun lobby one you don't kill them when you're killing money but if somebody would you would piss with her. i've noticed that more and more is this really scary marketing tactics which implies that women have some sort of moral obligation to guns to protect their family and young girls shoot out here too so we do have a pink or. more kids young kids choke on food than are killed by firearms if being armed made us safer in america we should be the safest nation on

earth we're clearly not the safest. there are so you know when you're in the arctic you have a feeling toward a world at your feet. she looks like a fairly simple shit but really she's no symbol little. and full of people able to have access to the nuclear icebreakers the real king is here is that the pull. and i come second. operation.

and we're back with cynic model belgian sen support for lower lounge euthanasia for minors a good to have you back on the stand now so just to precise there won't be any age restrictions in this law. because there are restrictions that are not connected to

age tied to the understanding that the child or the teenager may have the situation that's why we kept as a criterion the capacity for the sermon now the words we have to ask a psychologist psychiatry it was not connected to the situation to assess the but if there was a quest that is made by this minor that he saw that repeatedly suffering from an incurable disease after treatments that have become unnecessary if that request of it was made with full understanding full that is there were i repeat that we found that the maturity of the children who are suffering the maturity of children facing disease facing death all through greater than that of many adults so it's really the psychologists who decides on whether a child is in their. condition to decide on their own life right. exact that will do exactly that's how it is written in the law. that's

a person from the outside dog sitting in a psychologist is psychiatry's determine see if the minor has an understanding of the situation that if the model is making a request which he or she is fully aware of the get in but. look at this and this minor can be four or sixteen right but. it's hard obviously if you understand that a minor who is four years old is a bill to make a request of this nature being perfectly aware of what he's asking for that the set of all it's not the role of the legislator in any case to determine how these things could be evaluated by specialists when we have a fact to be assurance that these specialists are able to determine if the child has this passage before understanding it will come at the end you as a doctor what do you think at what age does a child become able to take such

a serious decision. because he is that the you do understand that as a legislator i have proposed that there be year report on the state of awareness of a child because each case is unique. so. that there is a right each for this you know i would have suggested that we set it no big so you know we consulted with a bunch of specialists many of whom are both doctors and psychologists that he could and we have consulted lawyers and the old told us that we should not introduce an age provision but instead he said what in this criterion of awareness is so they suggested this because they consider that each case is individual so it is impossible to determine an age limit they don't. so i can answer your question that so are kept the condition of awareness the ability of discernment who needed

it that the seven want a cup of tea did you tell them separately oh you know a lot of people who are opposed to low will tell you that minors don't have the right to drink or vote or get married but if they have an incurable disease does this really give them the confidence to make such an adult's decision. but that man you're asking me if i know if a child is aware and capable of understanding he's a reverse situation put it could and i would like to remind you we are not in the child's shoes we are not suffering from an incurable disease which causes pain yeah for which multiple treatments were given that have led to nothing people wanted we have to remember this. so you know it's easy to have a definite answer to make a decision like that in the place of someone else could go and we are not in the same situation. we don't make decisions for those for whom we care for those who

are working closely with patients all those who know part of they can actually according to the law decide in their heart and conscience to respond to a formal request positively i think that's the right way to do it st that means not the legislator who will more milly be at the bedside of children or adults who are suffering it is the medical personnel it will have to solve the problem but at least the law allows them to respond he mainly to those requests falls this is about the possibility for everyone to choose at some point not to accept this suffering and to say it is certain point. is enough. he says he found consider that one can finally asked to die with what the so that the suffering stops or nothing gets in the end if freedom is that it will be a freedom that is related to human rights humans in general. for

centuries we had a valued team or people who are condemned to death of the never before they'd be full of the executed for let's say offensive opinions the weren't just executed but don't be put to death with pain and only horrible suffering that if you fall that it did and well we follow a process that is exactly the opposite approach but you don't have a strong supporter of the abolition of the death penalty in all the countries of the world i'm opposed everywhere dr in all ways to all forms of torture i'm opposed to the value of thirteen i think that pain is pointless except when it is a no. signal a signal of diagnosis. for the rest of the approach fits into the battle of going into a vigil versus. a discussion of humanity against the precise live

this vision of society a society that would condemn to death which would execute our. pain our proved she's the next stage when we see that one can avoid the inevitability of this pain . when it is unbearable well it is the duty of humanity to do so and to allow one to do so all of us it discomfits of acute looks what are you going to do with a palliative care like gone everyone who works in the failed will tell you that if there is a request for euthanasia and palliative care is available if you would no one ever choose is use an asia yeah on it but if the national debunkers are made to cure it . well i will tell you this in two thousand and two when there was a vote on the law for the dolts i tabled legislation two pieces of legislation well this one of which involved the implementation of palliative care and the other

concerning the possibility of patients benefiting from euthanasia and so my belief shared by the majority of the population in the majority of the caregivers. in our country origin is to consider the implementation of pallets of care but it's one but that's not because we have implemented pelleted care that automatically first this palette of cure eliminates any request for euthanasia so one does not exclude the other and then there is the freedom everyone to consider that at a certain point pelleted carry isn't enough not really want to clarify that if we you know as a doctor and caregiver firstly that we're all patients who come to consult what is the primary approach the pro-choice to treat them will be and to try to heal them that's the primary approach it will be second approach if that's not possible he still recognized at some point that the source is not possible and that the disease

is too strong and if we can't treat the disease patient must die we must enable them to die in the most dignified way possible but in the end to die in the most dignified way possible can be done either through palettes of care or through a request for euthanasia even the best belet of cure doesn't eliminate the requests for euthanasia in any case it's their responsibility a choice which is left with each patient that's what's important to the freedom of ethical laws allow in our society that positive response based on individual choices he's speaking about ethics have you witnessed any cases where a doctor refused to use it in asia on a client of he'll. maybe you know so of course you know there is no element of. the laws we are voting on keeping we open a space of freedom that makes it possible to give

a positive response to request form of euthanasia it will key to prove when we speak of freedom we also speak of freedom of conscience for everyone feels kids and so it's provided for in the law that if a doctor refuses. to sleep has the right to do so. it is the conscience which dictates if he will accept it or not he's or he's he's conscience that will tell him that he agrees to support it patient to the end or that he's unable to do it because of a philosophical or religious imperatives of course there are refusals he said that in these cases when a patient makes a request and the doctor refuses in full right and some do to keep up well i did some horton to continue to care about that means that when confronted with a patient's request if a doctor refuses the calls i think he has the obligation to actually on their

request to someone else because at some point he ultimately refuses to support his patient yes you will it's a rule that applies not only here you know in that assent when we take on a patient but we have an obligation of responsibility focus at penn when we can no longer provide this support and we also have the obligation to see that this responsibility is covered by someone else through the bucket go into it one way because you don't see an ethical issue for example paying a doctor to and someone's life there is no i think a problem there. well listen we don't pay someone to end the life of someone else as if it was isolated it's never isolated and in fact if you talk of doctors are paid for giving cared about supporting people and if you mean man or a doctor or health care team is responsible for a patient on each time

a different individual then individual who is suffering and there at the end of the road when there is no way that support will use the essence self assuming responsibility speech and get up so what are you saying about payment that course i think that anything done professionally deserves compensation could thing otherwise about your doctors receive payment for taking responsibility for their patients. and they understand what that responsibility entails. mr miles thank you very much for this interesting interview we're talking to felipe our belgian senator who is actually a proponent of the euthanasia law for minors and it's been great talking to you and we'll speak to you in the next edition of.

fly a transit route to vnukovo report you'll best way to the heart of mosco. surveyor

dillard's the location of a boy still remember. how to do it well there's of the low height ted said you would stop this storm we might be more my people will die. is obviously more for the latest because it's pink. women wanted to avoid rape they really needed to buy gas environ how to use them. this is the one that i want to go away from once again it's the fear factor women are definitely the target of the gun lobby and you don't kill them when you're killing money but if somebody would he would just prefer. i know to say more and more if that's really scary

marketing tactics which implies that women have some sort of moral obligation to protect their family and young girls shoot out here too so we do have a pink wife. or kids young kids choke on food than are killed by firearms if being armed made us safer in america we should be the safest nation on earth were clearly not the safest. wealthy british style. sometimes. i know what's really happening to the global economy with much stronger no holds

barred look at the global financial headlines to conjure reports. from x. to see to bitter disappointment it's a roller coaster of emotions and olympics all she has victory in the russian man's hockey is followed by the surprise withdrawal of legendary figure skater. your gas and brutal clashes marked the anniversary of the bahraini uprising that we reported on a rebellion that refuses to die down despite a three year crackdown and thousands of arrests. and soon in denmark draw condemnation from animal rights groups as another healthy giraffe is due to be put down to comply with european breeding laws just days after the first animal was killed and skinned.