Deaf twins going blind euthanized by request in Belgium

[Cosmic Average]

If it's suicide then WHY is every goddamned media report calling it "euthanasia"? There is a difference, the main one being that in suicide the person kills him or herself and in euthanasia someone else kills them. I find one tolerable under limited circumstances. I find the other to be cold blooded murder.

This is a mindless distinction, but here is a video of the procedure for euthanasia being performed on a man.

[SomeDude]

Really? I thought section 14 was pretty explicit that he must refer the case to a physician designated by the patient, at the patient's request.

Hmm. I can see the problem here though - if the patient doesn't know any other physician willing to do it, the doctor can just go "tough luck, then, can't help you any more".

EDIT: And of course I am going by a translation which does not need to be necessarily accurate

I haven't read the law itself, but I'm going off of the comments of the doctor who executed the procedure. Apparently the first doctor the brothers contacted refused them, and he didn't refer them to anyone else - which is apparently legally permitted. I think the law only obliges the doctor to pass along the brothers' file to another doctor once they've found one (in other words, according to your interpretation).

Regardless, there are always qualms. One of the forefighters of the legalization of euthanasia in Belgium, Hugo Vanden Ende, always carried on his person a paper detailing the conditions in which he wanted to be euthanized. He got into an accident which left him in exactly such a condition. It took an entire team of university professors a month before they managed to get him out of the Catholic hospital to which he was brought after the hospital - because the hospital adamantly refused to either execute the procedure or let him transfer to another hospital.

[Crown]

There are times on this board where I am stunned that an argument has actually gained traction over a news item.

[Havok]

If they couldn't stand the thought of never seeing each other again and that was the real issue, this discussion is a moral one and therefor under the purview of the twins morals. I don't condone suicide in most cases but I am assuming (I always assume that other countries are more informed and intelligent than ours for some reason) that they weighed the possibilities of aides, cures, treatments and that they were satisfied there wasn't much hope in the 40 or so years they had left.

I would have told them not to do it, but I wouldn't have stopped them either.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Is there any information on what was causing them to go blind? Given it affected both of them, it would suggest some kind of genetic condition.

[Terralthra]

I believe one article referenced glaucoma.

[Knife]

Just because they are a professional in health care doesn't mean all the hang ups and issues with killing human being disappear. If it was that easy to do the patient would do it themselves.

How is this a valid argument? A lot of medical procedures (like setting up a lethal injection!) are obviously too difficult to *do properly* by yourself and thus require a professional to intervene to smooth the process. I mean, I probably could jab myself with a giant needle to take a blood sample too, it doesn't mean I wouldn't rather a nurse do it. And as for hang ups and issues, where are we going to draw the line now? Doctors and I presume the other personel involved aren't being forced to do this if they don't want to.

It is not an argument of 'why they shouldn't' it was a statement of support for Broomy's position. It's kind of hard sometimes, in writing, to pick out and separate some stuff, but it does read like a lot of people are fairly glib with the 'let the doctors kill em' in this thread. It's hard on the health care folk to do shit like that. Tis my only position.

[Vendetta]

It is not an argument of 'why they shouldn't' it was a statement of support for Broomy's position. It's kind of hard sometimes, in writing, to pick out and separate some stuff, but it does read like a lot of people are fairly glib with the 'let the doctors kill em' in this thread. It's hard on the health care folk to do shit like that. Tis my only position.

Broomstick appears to be arguing the position that it should be legally prohibited.

Except she has not yet produced any coherent argument as to why, only personal emotive arguments why she personally doesn't like it.

You don't like it either, that's fine, but that doesn't make a case for legal prohibition.

[LaCroix]

It's hard on the health care folk to do shit like that.

Nobody doubts that. Still, I don't see why it should be asolutely prohibited for a doctor (who went on record that death is the best option for this patient), to administer the drugs, instead of doing every little bit except for the last push of a button. If the doctor consents to the procedure, he should also be allowed to do it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Alright. Fuck it. I am jumping in.

Why do able-bodied people wishing to die require other people to administer their deaths? That what euthanasia is - sanctioned killing of one human being by another. What prevents these men from suicide?. Sure, IF you're going to go that route doctors and pharmacists calculating a lethal dose makes sense, but the person wanting to die can do the deed then why is someone else required?

Because it is clean. In more ways than one. My mother found her fiance when I was 13. He had performed fellatio on a shotgun. She was not OK until I was in university. The process of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide is much cleaner, not only physically but psychologically. The relatives get pre-death counseling, they can know that all other alternatives were considered. They can say goodbye. The whole process is a ritual that makes it much easier for the family to bear. That is why there is a definite distinction to make. That is why someone needs someone to facilitate their deaths via a sanctioned legal and medical process. That is why people dont just commit suicide.

Euthanasia in Belgium requires that the patients have a long-term history with the doctor approving the initial request, then the request has to be approved by another physician etc. Your argument that they could have adapted falls flat, because the process took a year and a half. They would have received counseling, alternatives would have been presented. They would have been started on various sorts of therapy (like learning braille). But at 45? The article from the Daily Fail you posted Broomstick makes note that they could not communicate with the outside world. However it is the daily fail. I would not trust them on that. I have little doubt that they had their own language. Identical twins often do. I can imagine that were they deaf, it would be a sign language and the most efficient means of communication with eachother and family. However, both were employed as cobblers (which is so very very quaint.) and had to be trained. It stands to reason that they could communicate through some other means. Writing, ASL, something. But at 45, the capacity to learn a new language (and signing for the blind is a new language) is much reduced. Some people can manage it, but most importantly some people cant.

Unethical. Doctors shouldn't be involved in killing people. If someone wants to die they can damn well do it themself.

Why? Because your definition of harm in the Hippocratic oath is very very narrow? Harm can also be permitting pain and suffering to continue.

Not deliberately so, no. If the patient wants to die the patient should do the killing and not ask someone else to do it. Yes, this may require an elaborate adaptive aid for the most severely disabled but I don't see some inconvenience as an intolerable price to pay for ethical conduct.

This is a position you have not (as of my posting this quotation) actually justified. The idea that someone will change their minds at the last second after two years of going through the process of sanctioned euthanasia is ridiculous. The unsupported claim that doctors should not be in the business of ending someone's suffering directly is ridiculous, precisely because you have supported it with nothing.

It's hard on the health care folk to do shit like that. Tis my only position.

Hi Knife!

Which is why you dont force it on anyone. The doctor who performs the procedure has to be willing. If he or she backs out, they back out. Need to find someone who does not.

The whole thing at issue really is that of consent, and that includes the healthcare workers. Medical ethics do not prohibit euthanasia or assisted suicide. At least not explicitly (some individual interpretations yes, but not explicitly), but that does not mean that a physician should be obliged to do it. Yet, they ought not be prohibited either. That should, and in Belgium is, left to their conscience.

[Aaron MkII]

Hi Knife!

Which is why you dont force it on anyone. The doctor who performs the procedure has to be willing. If he or she backs out, they back out. Need to find someone who does not.

The whole thing at issue really is that of consent, and that includes the healthcare workers. Medical ethics do not prohibit euthanasia or assisted suicide. At least not explicitly (some individual interpretations yes, but not explicitly), but that does not mean that a physician should be obliged to do it. Yet, they ought not be prohibited either. That should, and in Belgium is, left to their conscience.

The doctor may be willing but the brain is an odd thing and not well understood. It's important that the doctors keep an eye on their mental health as well as on their colleagues who provide the same service.

Know what I mean?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Hi Knife!

Which is why you dont force it on anyone. The doctor who performs the procedure has to be willing. If he or she backs out, they back out. Need to find someone who does not.

The whole thing at issue really is that of consent, and that includes the healthcare workers. Medical ethics do not prohibit euthanasia or assisted suicide. At least not explicitly (some individual interpretations yes, but not explicitly), but that does not mean that a physician should be obliged to do it. Yet, they ought not be prohibited either. That should, and in Belgium is, left to their conscience.

The doctor may be willing but the brain is an odd thing and not well understood. It's important that the doctors keep an eye on their mental health as well as on their colleagues who provide the same service.

Know what I mean?

Oh, naturally. On the other hand, many many doctors, particularly those dealing with end of life issues are... accustomed to it. It is not an uncommon practice to consciously turn off life-saving equipment, or even administer lethal doses of opiates to terminally ill patients in extreme pain at that patient's request (it is illegal in the US, but it happens). The ritual of those processes is comforting, and alleviates a lot of the psychological distress that is often attached with killing someone.

So, provided it is done right, and the doctors involved get the appropriate counseling before and after should they need it, it is not that huge a thing. Not huge enough to prohibit the practice outright anyway.

[Knife]

LOL, doctors don't do that shit, nurses do.

[Alyrium Denryle]

LOL, doctors don't do that shit, nurses do.

OK. Health care professionals. Either way, it is not an insurmountable issue.

[Broomstick]

Those of you who keep asking me for some "justification" for my views have already had my answer: my ethics. As there is no universal, self-obvious ethical code, or objective reason for choosing one ethical code over another, what the hell are you expecting me to say? "Oh, after a 30 year intensive study of Kant I have chosen his system as the best" or "Nietzsche was right" or "I worship John Galt" or "utilitarianism is totally the thing!"?

I find very few instances where I can justify self-harm, asking someone else to cause you permanent harm (which killing would definitely be) is absolutely abhorrent to me. Sorry if my morals don't exactly match yours, would you rather I lie?

Now, I am perfectly willing to live with the fact other people operate under different ethical systems than I do. Sometimes I find those systems objectionable, but I acknowledge their existence and I'm not going to convert massive numbers of people to my viewpoint. I get the distinct impression, however, that there is an attempt here to convert me. It is very unlikely to happen. These aren't opinions hatched at the spur of the moment but matters I have thought about for many, many years. I am perfectly willing to discuss different viewpoints but understand that one thread on a message board is unlikely to change my mind.

Belgium obviously has a very different view of killing dying people than I do. I'm actually glad I know that now as I will very strenuously avoid any possibility of entrusting myself to any medical personnel in Belgium unless I can determine their views on this matter in advance. Should I have reason to spend time in Belgium I will make sure I have on my person legal documents expressing my absolute opposition to doctors killing me in the event I become too incapacitated to make my wishes known. Actually, a lot of problems involving end-of-life care could be avoided if people would just write this stuff down in advance, it's a good idea for everyone to make their wishes clear.

If it's the choice of the patient then why can't the patient be the one to perform the act? It certainly makes it clear that it really was the choice of the person doing the dying, doesn't it?

He totally can. Why can't the patient ask for help? You're just stating no third party should help them, but so far you haven't justified it in any way, merely stated they should not.

No, I'm not stating the patient can't have help, I very much stated that the most severely disabled patients should receive help in setting up an apparatus enabling the patients to take such actions themselves when suicide is justified. I draw the line at someone else doing the active killing. If the patient wants to die then the patient has to kill him or herself.

So for what reason? Why is there such a huge difference between handing someone a syringe full of morphine and doing the injection yourself, as long as you are not forced to, of course? What philosophical reasoning brought you to this conclusion?

Because I think the ONLY moral reason for taking the life of an another human being is self defense. A severely disabled patient is not a threat to anyone else, therefore no one else is morally justified in killing that person.

This thread is not the first time I've stated that. I've brought it up in pretty much every death penalty discussion we've had here.

It's a mass media reported story. Journalists can and do get their facts wrong. Is there an issue with questioning such a report?

No, but you probably should do at least cursory research before questioning something, otherwise you quickly go into moon hoaxer "Why no stars on photos?" territorry.

Although I only linked to just one article I've sought more information and found nothing additional. Every article I've found on line so far just regurgitates the same scanty information. If someone has more details I'd be interested in hearing them.

I think it's pretty awful to ask someone else to kill you. We could probably construct a bizarre scenario involving someone horribly injured out in the wilderness with someone asking a companion to dispatch them rather than allow them to suffer where such a thing might be the least bad of no good alternatives but we're not talking about that.

It's not that convoluted: During WW2, prisoners of the Gestapo "Pawiak" prison in Warsaw regularly asked the doctors to do just that, and the doctors regularly complied - but I get what you're saying.

A rather extreme set of conditions, I agree - but, again, in this situation we're talking about normal conditions in a First World nation with adequate health care for all.

I would like to ask what your point is in insisting that the doctor should not assist by directly administering the drug.

Because I think the ONLY moral reason for taking the life of an another human being is self defense. A severely disabled patient is not a threat to anyone else, therefore no one else is morally justified in killing that person.

It can't be the claim that the doctor would be traumatized like a train conductor when he runs you over. After all, since all parties, the patient and the two doctors, agree that this is the best way to deal with this (as it is demanded by law), the doctor is already convinced of doing an act of kindness by administering a drug in accordance with the patient's repeatedly uttered request for it, even in written.

Doctors actually can be traumatized by their work, as can other medical personnel. As an example, it's not unusual for hospitals to require personnel working in burn wards to periodically rotate to other areas to give them a break from the strain of caring for those patients even when every procedure is done for the benefit of a patient who actively wants to live and recover.

There are conditions where such may not be possible. The advanced stages of Alzheimers may be one such example.

Someone in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's can't consent to anything, they're not mentally competent.

If you don't want to linger in the end stages of dementia perhaps you should make arrangements while you are still competent. If I recall, Terry Prachett intends to kill himself while he is still capable of performing the deed himself. People with Alzheimer's don't go from perfectly normal to drooling vegetable overnight, after all.

I certainly don't have objections for people with advanced dementia opting for palliative care or non-resuscitation. I do oppose active killing of someone who can not consent. Alright, I pretty much oppose active killing of any patient, but if that's what the patient wants then he or she will have to kill themselves, not ask someone else to do it for them.

How is this a valid argument? A lot of medical procedures (like setting up a lethal injection!) are obviously too difficult to *do properly* by yourself and thus require a professional to intervene to smooth the process.

Sure, professional intervention to set effective dose, set up apparatus, etc. but the person who does the actual killing, commits the final irrevocable act, should be the patient in my view.

Regardless, there are always qualms. One of the forefighters of the legalization of euthanasia in Belgium, Hugo Vanden Ende, always carried on his person a paper detailing the conditions in which he wanted to be euthanized. He got into an accident which left him in exactly such a condition. It took an entire team of university professors a month before they managed to get him out of the Catholic hospital to which he was brought after the hospital - because the hospital adamantly refused to either execute the procedure or let him transfer to another hospital.

Well, yeah, of course – for Catholics it's immoral to kill another human being. Sure, they haven't always followed that rule (see Crusades, Inquisition, etc.) but right now they're being at least somewhat consistent. They're opposed to abortion, capital punishment, and assisted suicide/euthanasia and it all stems from the same source. For them to act otherwise would be hypocritical. If you want an abortion or a doctor to kill you don't go to a Catholic hospital.

Broomstick appears to be arguing the position that it should be legally prohibited.

Except she has not yet produced any coherent argument as to why, only personal emotive arguments why she personally doesn't like it.

You don't like it either, that's fine, but that doesn't make a case for legal prohibition.

If a person considers a particular act to be murder is it puzzling that he or she would want to prohibit it? Is wanting to outlaw murder an "emotive argument"?

People who consider abortion to be the murder of a human being want it outlawed. There's nothing puzzling about that. I might not agree that aborting a three week old fetus is murder, but I can certainly understand why someone who does consider it murder wants it outlawed.

I consider euthanasia, a deliberate killing of one person by another, to be murder even if the murder victim gives consent. Yeah, I want it outlawed. If you don't think it's murder, well, I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, but is it really that puzzling that I'm opposed to something I see as murder?

Why do able-bodied people wishing to die require other people to administer their deaths? That what euthanasia is - sanctioned killing of one human being by another. What prevents these men from suicide?. Sure, IF you're going to go that route doctors and pharmacists calculating a lethal dose makes sense, but the person wanting to die can do the deed then why is someone else required?

Because it is clean. In more ways than one. My mother found her fiance when I was 13. He had performed fellatio on a shotgun.

If we start to allow assisted suicide for the mentally ill/depressed (I'm assuming that was the case here, if he was suffering from a terminal illness please correct my impression) then doctors/pharmacists/other appropriate personnel could be involved in providing pills, appropriate doses, etc. for a “cleaner” experience. We could have pre-death counseling. Etc. So, while I understand that was traumatic for everyone (my family, too, have experience with suicide) I don't see where it supports allowing someone to kill someone else. If your mother's finance ate a shotgun he was just as capable of swallowing pills or injecting himself with something lethal.

And, as hard as it is to consider, sometimes the messy suicides want to hurt other people with their deaths. I see suicide stemming from mental illness as a separate issue from those arising from chronic/terminal illness or disability.

Unethical. Doctors shouldn't be involved in killing people. If someone wants to die they can damn well do it themself.

Why? Because your definition of harm in the Hippocratic oath is very very narrow? Harm can also be permitting pain and suffering to continue.

I never took the Hippocratic oath, and it has nothing to do with it. Once again: Because I think the ONLY moral reason for taking the life of an another human being is self defense. A severely disabled patient is not a threat to anyone else, therefore no one else is morally justified in killing that person.

The unsupported claim that doctors should not be in the business of ending someone's suffering directly is ridiculous, precisely because you have supported it with nothing.

Where did I say I oppose doctors treating suffering? Nowhere. I just oppose defining killing a patient as a “treatment”. Why? Because I think the ONLY moral reason for taking the life of an another human being is self defense. A severely disabled patient is not a threat to anyone else, therefore no one else is morally justified in killing that person.

[Gaidin]

Broomstick wants to answer my post as if I was saying arrangements weren't even made. Ok. I'm not at all sure what the hell kind of position she's taking now that can be called reasonable if she can just cut off half my post that specifically outlines arrangements being made and then say 'make arrangements beforehand'.

[Thanas]

Belgium obviously has a very different view of killing dying people than I do. I'm actually glad I know that now as I will very strenuously avoid any possibility of entrusting myself to any medical personnel in Belgium unless I can determine their views on this matter in advance. Should I have reason to spend time in Belgium I will make sure I have on my person legal documents expressing my absolute opposition to doctors killing me in the event I become too incapacitated to make my wishes known.

Have you gone round the bent or why are you going into this stupid ZOMG BELGIANS TOTALLY HAVE DEATH PANELS spiel?

[Vendetta]

People who consider abortion to be the murder of a human being want it outlawed. There's nothing puzzling about that. I might not agree that aborting a three week old fetus is murder, but I can certainly understand why someone who does consider it murder wants it outlawed.

I consider euthanasia, a deliberate killing of one person by another, to be murder even if the murder victim gives consent. Yeah, I want it outlawed. If you don't think it's murder, well, I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, but is it really that puzzling that I'm opposed to something I see as murder?

Not only do I think you're wrong, I think you're just as arrogantly wrong as anti-abortion campaigners who have decided that their personal opinion trumps everyone else to the extent that the choices of legal avenues should be restricted only to those you personally find palatable.

The right to die is a personal moral decision which only the people directly involved in any specific case get to make. Exactly the same as the right to an abortion. Each individual must make their own personal decision on whether to seek or agree to assist or administer. The law in these cases should only seek to ensure that the person seeking euthanasia is mentally fit to make that decision, and that their decisionmaking process is, as much as can reasonably be assured, free from any coercion.

In this, as in every other case involving the sovereignty of the individual over their own body where no harm to others (nb. actual material harm not emotional hurt) occurs, your ethics can only guide you in cases you are personally involved in, they apply to no-one else.

[Knife]

The right to die is a personal moral decision which only the people directly involved in any specific case get to make. Exactly the same as the right to an abortion. Each individual must make their own personal decision on whether to seek or agree to assist or administer. The law in these cases should only seek to ensure that the person seeking euthanasia is mentally fit to make that decision, and that their decisionmaking process is, as much as can reasonably be assured, free from any coercion.

You're reading too much into her argument. It's her moral decision to no like this event. She's even stated a couple times that she agrees her moral stance should not be interpreted as making other people, or forcing others to do it her way. You can't have it both ways, if it's a personal moral decision, then there are going to be some people who think it is abhorrent even if they don't want to prevent others from doing it.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Of course the ethics would be questionable if they had a psychological disorder. That being so is highly unlikely however, since they were screened by doctors for such.

The article in the OP didn't mention anything about the screening, which is why I brought it up.

I also resent the notion that living together under such circumstances is in any way indicative of a psychological disorder. <snip>

I never said it was. But neither is it indicative of a healthy mindset. It is simply abnormal, and when you combine this with the fact that they wanted to die (at a relatively young age), you really can't ignore the possibility of psychological disorder. I was simply pointing out that I hope they were effectively screened.

[Vendetta]

The right to die is a personal moral decision which only the people directly involved in any specific case get to make. Exactly the same as the right to an abortion. Each individual must make their own personal decision on whether to seek or agree to assist or administer. The law in these cases should only seek to ensure that the person seeking euthanasia is mentally fit to make that decision, and that their decisionmaking process is, as much as can reasonably be assured, free from any coercion.

You're reading too much into her argument. It's her moral decision to no like this event. She's even stated a couple times that she agrees her moral stance should not be interpreted as making other people, or forcing others to do it her way. You can't have it both ways, if it's a personal moral decision, then there are going to be some people who think it is abhorrent even if they don't want to prevent others from doing it.

She's saying that it should be illegal, that is stating that others should be forced to do it her way. She is saying that the law should impose her moral point of view in all situations on all people. That's what saying that something should be illegal is.

[Vendetta]

Of course the ethics would be questionable if they had a psychological disorder. That being so is highly unlikely however, since they were screened by doctors for such.

The article in the OP didn't mention anything about the screening, which is why I brought it up.

The article in the OP is from the Daily Mail. It's not surprising that it lacks detail on the case. Frankly its more surprising that it wasn't using the case to imply that EU bureaucracy wanted to euthanise the pound or something.

[AniThyng]

To be fair somewhere along the way she got very hung up on treating this as a "murder" the doctors was "forced" to do, and not a "assisted suicide".

Pity alyeska has not came in to explain why doctors are to be condemned for doing thier jobs in accordance with the law.

[SomeDude]

Those of you who keep asking me for some "justification" for my views have already had my answer: my ethics. As there is no universal, self-obvious ethical code, or objective reason for choosing one ethical code over another, what the hell are you expecting me to say? "Oh, after a 30 year intensive study of Kant I have chosen his system as the best" or "Nietzsche was right" or "I worship John Galt" or "utilitarianism is totally the thing!"?

If your argument is that morality is relative, it doesn't make sense to want to impose it on others.

Belgium obviously has a very different view of killing dying people than I do. I'm actually glad I know that now as I will very strenuously avoid any possibility of entrusting myself to any medical personnel in Belgium unless I can determine their views on this matter in advance. Should I have reason to spend time in Belgium I will make sure I have on my person legal documents expressing my absolute opposition to doctors killing me in the event I become too incapacitated to make my wishes known.

Are you intentionally being obtuse? The entire topic has been about how Belgium has installed a legal procedure for euthanasia which involves plenty of controls, requiring the intervention of witnesses, the repeated and express will of the patient, the signing of legal documents, a waiting period, the consultation of multiple doctors and the presence of unbearable pain. You are not at risk of being 'accidentally euthanized' if you come to Belgium.

Regardless, there are always qualms. One of the forefighters of the legalization of euthanasia in Belgium, Hugo Vanden Ende, always carried on his person a paper detailing the conditions in which he wanted to be euthanized. He got into an accident which left him in exactly such a condition. It took an entire team of university professors a month before they managed to get him out of the Catholic hospital to which he was brought after the hospital - because the hospital adamantly refused to either execute the procedure or let him transfer to another hospital.

Well, yeah, of course – for Catholics it's immoral to kill another human being. Sure, they haven't always followed that rule (see Crusades, Inquisition, etc.) but right now they're being at least somewhat consistent. They're opposed to abortion, capital punishment, and assisted suicide/euthanasia and it all stems from the same source. For them to act otherwise would be hypocritical. If you want an abortion or a doctor to kill you don't go to a Catholic hospital.

You don't get to choose which hospital you go to after you get into an accident. An ambulance shows up and brings you to the nearest hospital. The entire point of this anekdote was that the patient didn't get any choice about going to a Catholic hospital, and that the Catholic hospital refused to let him transfer to another hospital after discovering he wanted euthanasia.This is not a religious rights issue - this is a patient rights issue.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Those of you who keep asking me for some "justification" for my views have already had my answer: my ethics.

I am sorry. That is not how ethics works.

As there is no universal, self-obvious ethical code, or objective reason for choosing one ethical code over another, what the hell are you expecting me to say?

Something not completely circular. Perhaps something other than "Voluntary euthanasia is different from and worse than assisted suicide because I say it is and I wish to impose this view on others without further justification."

The reason utilitarianism, kant etc cannot be viewed as superior to the other is not because they are arbitrary. It is because they are all right (or at least some of them), but incomplete.

Should I have reason to spend time in Belgium I will make sure I have on my person legal documents expressing my absolute opposition to doctors killing me in the event I become too incapacitated to make my wishes known.

WTF. Euthanasia in Belgium is voluntary. Jesus fucking christ.

If we start to allow assisted suicide for the mentally ill/depressed (I'm assuming that was the case here, if he was suffering from a terminal illness please correct my impression) then doctors/pharmacists/other appropriate personnel could be involved in providing pills, appropriate doses, etc. for a “cleaner” experience. We could have pre-death counseling. Etc. So, while I understand that was traumatic for everyone (my family, too, have experience with suicide) I don't see where it supports allowing someone to kill someone else. If your mother's finance ate a shotgun he was just as capable of swallowing pills or injecting himself with something lethal.

You missed my point. How he did it is secondary. Mom would have been fucked up almost as much if she had walked in and found a three day old corpse bloated and pale in bloody fetid bathwater, or sprawled on the bed covered in maggots with a bloated GI tract.

There is value in the process of assisted suicide and euthanasia. The argument you make regarding pain and suffering for the family is made moot by the fact that the ritual surrounding that process makes the whole ordeal much much easier for everyone.

A severely disabled patient is not a threat to anyone else, therefore no one else is morally justified in killing that person.

And because you simply back that up with "these are my arbitrarily decided ethical positions", your argument is both a non sequitur and circular. Why on earth should other people be beholden to your logical fallacies? You may say these are your personal morals, but the question is one of policy and you vote. Rare is the event that someone views something as wrong and not wish to make their ethical positions generally applicable.