THE HAGUE, Netherlands — A judge in the Netherlands has ruled that a 12-year-old boy does not have to undergo chemotherapy if he does not want it.

The ruling Friday came after the boy’s father asked a judge to order the treatment. The mother of the boy supported her son in his opposition to the chemotherapy.

The court in Alkmaar said in a statement that the chemotherapy was part of treatment for the boy, identified only as David, following the successful surgical removal last year of a brain tumour.

After consulting a psychiatric report into David’s ability to make the decision, a judge at the court said that David “is capable of a reasonable evaluation of his interests and realizes the consequences — including the negative ones — of his decision.” </s> A 12-year-old boy from North Holland with cancer has the right to refuse chemotherapy, a Dutch court ruled on Friday.

David, who was operated on for a brain tumour last year, does not have to undergo further follow-up chemotherapy, according to a legal judgement.

His tumour was successfully removed last November and he had radiation treatment, then asked for alternative therapies instead of chemotherapy due to its side effects.

The boy – who has not been identified – has divorced parents, and while his mother reportedly supports alternative therapies, his father went to court to try to ensure David had further medical care against his will.

David had been living with his mother on the island of Texel, according to reports, but was taken into the care of social services last December, when the mother refused to cooperate with the first round of radiation treatment.

But a judge in Alkmaar ruled on Friday that David has the right to decide on further medical care, even if this reduces his chances of survival.

"He is especially concerned about the side effects of chemotherapy and the deterioration in his quality of life," said the judgement.

"He is not depressed, has a strong will to live but can also think about death. David is 100 per cent [mentally] competent.”

It adds that a child of 12 years old can weigh his own interests in this situation: “Major medical procedures require his consent, taking into his right to self-determination…David has made his decision in terms of his quality of life now.” </s> Hawaii just made the mistake of becoming the eighth jurisdiction in the United States to allow assisted suicide.

We can learn a lot about the folly of this path if we look to other places here and abroad where assisted suicide already is legal. A quick survey turns up countless instances of the failures of these laws to safeguard the most vulnerable.

From Europe, there seems to be a constant stream of documented cases related to the practice of assisted suicide and euthanasia, which would give anyone pause.

In the Netherlands, the number of people with experience of mental illness being euthanized is rising by the day. There are known cases of such people being abused or coerced into death by people they should be able to trust. A whistle-blowing doctor in Belgium went to the Associated Press with the details of a dementia patient’s death by euthanasia – the patient had never formally asked to die.

A column in the Washington Post recounts another sad story of one case gone very wrong. In 2016, an otherwise healthy elderly woman with dementia, having made an ambiguous advanced directive to end her life “when the time was right,” was euthanized against her will at the request of her husband by a nursing home doctor whose assessment was that the patient’s suffering was “unbearable and incurable.” She prepared the lethal injection. The physician tried silencing the patient’s protests by slipping a sedative into her coffee. When the sedative failed, this doctor had the family of the patient restrain her so that she could administer the lethal injection.

The columnist rightly asks, “How many botched cases would it take to end euthanasia of the vulnerable?”

In January, a physically healthy 29-year-old suffering from depression was euthanized. The Daily Mail reported that in Holland in 2013, “a total of 42 people with ‘severe psychiatric problems’ were killed by lethal injection compared to 14 in 2012 and 13 in 2011.”

Are these abuses confined to Europe or are they the inevitable fruits of what is everywhere bad public policy? There is evidence for the latter.

In Oregon, Michael Freeland, who had a 40-year history of acute depression and suicidal ideation, not only received the lethal prescription but also was allowed to keep the drugs even when all other means of his taking his own life had been removed from his home.

Another Oregonian, Kate Cheney, who had been diagnosed with dementia, was first referred for the non-required psychiatric evaluation and denied the lethal dose. Her family shopped for a doctor until they found one who would sign off; the doctor’s report stated that her “choices may be influenced by her family’s wishes and her daughter, Erika, may be somewhat coercive.”

In fact, just this legislative session, there was a bill before the Delaware General Assembly that would sanction the assisted suicides of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. This flies in the face of the central concerns of the disability rights community: Nothing in the proposed Delaware bill ensures that people actually have access to the pain relief, palliative care and home-based and community-based personal care services they need.

Moreover, just like all of the proposed bills and assisted suicide laws, the Delaware bill utterly fails to prevent coercion. Coercion to request lethal drugs, like any form of abuse, occurs behind closed doors.

Let’s all note how legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia has led to the tragic death of vulnerable people. Whether in Europe, Canada, or even here in the U.S., this public policy push is unsuccessful at instituting any structures that would protect those who are most vulnerable from abuse and coercion.

We can avoid making the same mistake here by rejecting such laws and proposals altogether.

Matt Valliere is executive director of Patients Rights Action Fund, a national organization that opposes assisted suicide. </s> LONDON (AP) - The parents of a critically ill infant are returning to court for the latest stage in their effort to seek permission to take the child to the United States for medical treatment.

Britain's High Court is considering new evidence in the case of Charlie Gard. The 11-month-old has a rare genetic condition, and his parents want to take him to America to receive an experimental treatment.

Doctors say that the treatment won't help and could cause the child pain.

Charlie Gard's parents Connie Yates and Chris Gard arrive at the Royal Courts of Justice in London where the hearing will resume into the case of their terminally-ill baby, Friday July 21, 2017. A British court is giving the parents of 11-month-old Charlie Gard a chance to present fresh evidence that their terminally ill son should receive experimental treatment. (Lauren Hurley/PA via AP)

The judge has scheduled a two-day hearing to consider fresh evidence, after the doctor who was to conduct the treatment came to London to evaluate the child.

Last week Great Ormond Street Hospital told the parents that a report on the latest scan of Charlie's brain made for "sad reading." </s> It is the only country that allows children of any age to undergo euthanasia, as long as they are able to make rational decisions and are in the last stages of an incurable disease

A terminally ill child has become the first minor to be euthanised in Belgium since age restrictions on such mercy killings in the country were lifted in 2014, a newspaper reported on Saturday.

The head of the federal euthanasia commission gave no details of the minor beyond saying it was an exceptional case of a child with a terminal illness, the Het Nieuwsblad reported.

“Fortunately there are very few children who are considered [for euthanasia] but that does not mean we should refuse them the right to a dignified death,” Wim Distelmans told the newspaper.

Since its euthanasia legislation was amended in 2014, Belgium has been the only country in the world that allows children of any age, as long as they are able to make rational decisions and are in the last stages of an incurable disease, to choose to end their suffering.

The Netherlands also allows mercy killings for children, but only for those aged over 12.

The Belgian amendment, which was passed after heated debate — notably over the meaning of a required “capacity of discernment” — offers the possibility of euthanasia to children “in a hopeless medical situation of constant and unbearable suffering that cannot be eased and which will cause death in the short term“.

Any request for euthanasia must be made by the minor, be studied by a team of doctors and an independent psychiatrist or psychologist and have parental consent. </s> A terminally ill minor has become the first minor to be euthanised in Belgium since age restrictions on such mercy killings in the country were lifted in 2014, a newspaper reported Saturday.

The head of the federal euthanasia commission gave no details of the minor beyond saying it was an exceptional case of a child with a terminal illness, the Het Nieuwsblad reported.

VRT public television said the incident involved an adolescent who was about to turn 18.

“Fortunately, there are very few children who are considered (for euthanasia) but that does not mean we should refuse them the right to a dignified death,” Wim Distelmans told the newspaper.

Since 2014, when its euthanasia legislation was amended, Belgium has been the only country in the world that allows terminally-ill children of any age to choose to end their suffering — as long as they are conscious and capable of making rational decisions.

The Netherlands also allows mercy killings for children, but only for those aged over 12.

The Belgian amendment, which was passed after heated debate -notably over the meaning of a “capacity of discernment” -offers the possibility of euthanasia to children “in a hopeless medical situation of constant and unbearable suffering that cannot be eased and which will cause death in the short term”.

Any request for euthanasia must be made by the minor, be studied by a team of doctors and an independent psychiatrist or psychologist, and have parental consent.

Jacqueline Herremans, head of the Belgian Association for the Right to Die with Dignity and a member of Belgium’s federal euthanasia commission, confirmed to RTBF television that such a statement had been made.

“It was a declaration and not a request, and the intervention was carried out,” she told the Belgian press. </s> 17-year-old is first minor to be granted euthanasia in Belgium

BRUSSELS, Sept 17 (Reuters) - A 17-year-old has committed doctor-assisted suicide in Belgium, the first minor to do so under rules adopted in 2014 allowing euthanasia for people of all ages, the head of the national committee for euthanasia said on Saturday.

Wim Distelmans, who chairs Belgium's Federal Control and Evaluation Committee on Euthanasia, told Reuters that the minor was 17 and that a local doctor had reported the case to his committee last week, but he gave no other details.

Belgium legalised euthanasia in 2002, and two years ago amended the rules to permit doctor-assisted death for minors in a hopeless medical situation and with their explicit consent.

It is the only country in the world that allows euthanasia for minors of all ages. In the neighbouring Netherlands the practice is legal for children aged 12 or over.

Distelmans said in an emailed statement that the Belgian law defines euthanasia very strictly. Minors must be conscious and able to make rational decisions when they request assisted death. Psychologists or psychiatrists must be consulted and the parents must give their permission.

To undergo euthanasia, the minor must also be in a "terminal medical situation with constant and unbearable physical pain which cannot be assuaged and that will cause death in the short term", the law says.

In the ten years to 2013, the number of euthanasia cases in Belgium rose from about 1,000 to 8,752, according to official records.

Euthanasia laws vary by country. Laws in Belgium, the Netherlands, Colombia and Luxemburg allow mercy deaths for adults, which usually means a doctor administering lethal doses of barbiturates.

In Switzerland, Germany, Japan and Canada, doctor-assisted suicide, where people take the final action themselves, is legal. (Editing by Louise Ireland) </s> A terminally ill child has become the first minor to be helped to die since Belgium became the first country to allow voluntary euthanasia for children in 2014.

No details were given by the head of Belgium’s federal euthanasia commission other than it was an exceptional case of a child with a terminal illness.

Wim Distelmans, who chairs Belgium’s federal control and evaluation committee on euthanasia, said that the case was reported by a local doctor last week. 



“Fortunately there are very few children who are considered [for euthanasia], but that does not mean we should refuse them the right to a dignified death,” Distelmans told a Belgium newspaper.

Belgium legalised euthanasia in 2002 and two years ago amended the rules to permit doctor-assisted death for terminally ill minors. Since that change, Belgium has been the only country in the world that allows children of any age to choose to end their suffering, as long as they are able to make rational decisions and are in the final stages of an incurable disease.

The Belgian amendment, which was passed after much debate – notably over the meaning of a required “capacity of discernment” – offers the possibility of euthanasia to children “in a hopeless medical situation of constant and unbearable suffering that cannot be eased and which will cause death in the short term”.

Any request for euthanasia must be made by the minor, be studied by a team of doctors and an independent psychiatrist or psychologist, and have parental consent.

In the neighbouring Netherlands the practice is possible for children aged at least 12.

Between 2003 and 2013, the number of patients being euthanised in Belgium rose nearly eight-fold to 8,752 cases, according to records of the national euthanasia control committee. </s> A British superhacker should be extradited to the United States to face trial where he could be jailed for 99 years, a judge ruled today.

Asperger's sufferer Lauri Love, 31, allegedly to have stolen huge amounts of data from US agencies including the Federal Reserve, the Department of Defence, Nasa and the FBI in a spate of online attacks in 2012 and 2013.

American authorities have been fighting for the 31-year-old, who lives with his parents near Newmarket in Suffolk, to face trial over charges of cyber-hacking.

His case is 'almost identical' to that of fellow hacker Gary McKinnon, whose extradition was blocked by then Home Secretary Theresa May following a Mail campaign.

Mr Love, who plans to appeal to the High Court, stood in the dock, wearing a purple sash as a belt, as district judge Nina Tempia ruled he can be extradited to the US, where he could face the possibility of three separate trials in different jurisdictions.

'I'm going to extradite Mr Love but what I mean by that is I'm going to send his case to the Secretary of State,' Judge Tempia told the hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court, London.

He faces a possible 99-year prison sentence if convicted in America - but has the right to appeal against his extradition.

There were gasps in the court room as Mr Love was read the ruling, which followed a case hearing in June at Westminster Magistrates' Court.

He was told he had 14 days to appeal the decision.

The 31-year-old embraced friends and family, who appeared shocked and angry by the decision.

'If you have come for justice then you have missed it,' Mr Love told a crowd of press in the courtroom afterwards.

His father damned the laws that could see his son sent to America.

Reverend Alexander Love, a prison chaplain, said he often feared he would find his son, who has been deemed a high suicide risk by medical experts, dead when he returned home.

He said: 'I am obviously very upset. I always believed that to be here [in the UK] was to have won the lottery and I thought our laws were just.

'The judge has made a judgement on a law that is flawed. It is not right that my son has been taken away. It is not fair or just that a boy with mental health issues is taken away from his family and support network to the US.

'It is wrong and I hope the high court will be able to make that case. Our confidence is not in the legal system but in God.

'We have had a big discussion about who should be let into this country, but we need to have one about who should be taken out'.

Judge Tempia said Mr Love's rights under article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights - the right to a private and family life - were 'clearly engaged'.

But she added: 'In balancing the factors for and against extradition I am satisfied that the very strong counter-balancing factors required to find extradition would be disproportionate are not found in this case.'

She said Mr Love faces 'extremely serious charges for offences of computer hacking' and while she acknowledged his physical and mental health issues, she was 'satisfied' his needs would met by US authorities.

She added: 'I am satisfied Mr Love's extradition would be compatible with his convention rights and I send this case to the Secretary of State for her decision as to whether or not Mr Love should be extradited.'

Outside court Mr Love's solicitor Karen Todner said they were 'extremely disappointed' with the decision.

'Most of this judgment is about the defence case, the prosecution didn't actually call any evidence,' she told a huge pack of reporters.

'This is not the end of the road, we are going to lodge an appeal, we are still hopeful the appeal will be successful in the High Court.'

Ahead of Friday's hearing, Mr Love said he held little hope of justice if he was extradited, and suggested a jail term in the US could cause his health to deteriorate and would lead to a mental breakdown or suicide.

He and his family want him to face justice in the UK rather than the US, which he said 'coerces' people into pleading guilty to get reduced sentences.

Gary McKinnon's mother Janis Sharp warned yesterday that the hacker would not survive life in the US justice system.

'He has Asperger's, is nervous, scared and suicidal and is in a really bad way,' she said.

'I am worried he will be extradited and end up in an American prison, which doesn't have the same standards as jails in Britain.

'If this happens, I worry that he won't survive as American jails are terrible places. I just hope that Gary didn't go through all of this for nothing.'

Speaking about Mr Love, who has Finnish and British dual nationality, she said: 'He's very intelligent but he is also naïve, innocent and vulnerable.

'He is terrified at the prospect of going to America, but he's also hopeful that the courts will do the right thing. It is ridiculous to extradite him with no evidence.'

Mr Love, who is studying electrical engineering at Suffolk university, has spent the past three years in legal limbo, waiting to learn his fate.

Speaking to the Mail, the vicar's son, from Newmarket, Suffolk, said he was 'apprehensive but optimistic' about today's judgment.

'I've been having weird dreams and trouble getting to sleep,' he said. 'I've not been getting openly stressed, but it comes out in my eczema.

'I feel more for my parents. They're at an age when they should have a quieter life but I'm hoping that after the judgment things will be easier for them.

'U.S. prisons are not good for people with mental health problems. If I am sent to an American jail, I don't see anything positive happening after that.

'It'll be reasserting British sovereignty if I am not extradited and it's important that our courts are sovereign.'

Mr Love faces 12 counts of hacking between October 2012 and October 2013 across the states of New York, New Jersey and Virginia, and could face trials in three separate states in the U.S.
A judge in Alkmaar, the Netherlands, grants a 12-year-old boy the right to decide for himself on whether or not to continue chemotherapy. The ruling was based on a psychiatric evaluation of the patient as being "capable of a reasonable evaluation of his interests and realizes the consequences — including the negative ones — of his decision."