Deaf twins going blind euthanized by request in Belgium

[Jub]

This is a bit of a tangent, but I feel like I need to say this; depression isn't that easy to just get over.

Picture being sad enough that getting out of bed and eating seems like a chore. Picture lacking energy enough that you put off doing things that you enjoy to grab a few more hours of fitful sleep. Picture doubting yourself on a fundamental level. Now add being blind and deaf on top of it and then ask yourself if you'd be having a life worth living.

[Knife]

The people in this thread making grand pronouncements about how these twins should have been forced to continue living remind me of the all-male Senatorial panels talking to all-male clergy about women's access to birth control.

Funny, I was thinking the same for your side of the argument as well. Seems a lot of people are being pretty glib with the 'just let the Doctors off em' too.

When you become unable to properly feed yourself, dress yourself, take care of yourself, go anywhere, or do anything, with the knowledge that you will never see, hear, or talk to any of your loved ones ever again for the rest of your life, which could be for several more decades with proper hospital care, then I will take your opinion as to whether these two should have just sucked it up and dealt with it into consideration.

I do this for a living, thank you. I'm quite aware that not only is quality of life a big issue, but depression just can't be beat with a pill.

My grandmother died last year, a combination of congestive heart failure and a variety of other ailments resulting from being old. She spent the last month of her life living with my parents on hospice care, the last couple weeks effectively bed-ridden, and the last couple days so doped up on morphine she was effectively in a coma.

First off, my sympathies to you and your family. So, perhaps your emotional baggage my be coloring your perspective too?

There are very few times death isn't ugly. Patients who pass with a terminal illness like CHF or Kidney disease usually linger and pass more from dehydration or starve. It's never pretty. That said, easing someone's passage to death is a bit different then a patient telling a healthcare worker they want to die but don't want a messy drawn out one so kill me are two different things.

I get it, Belgium has a system in place. Cool. Hell I even understand the impulse. But just off the info we have in this article, seems like a failure to cope rather than a death wish, and even if it's legal and Doctors are 'cool' with it, it will eventually make a toll on the people doing it. Wonder what system they have in place for the Doctors and nurses who do this to help them?

As callous as it may sound, when I heard she was dead, I was relieved. It was obviously sad that she's not around anymore, but her dying meant she was no longer suffering. And most important for me, it meant that my mom didn't have to watch her suffer.

Guilt is very common in those situations. Families are often wracked by it. Did you do everything possible? Is she in pain now? She just moved, is that pain? Is she dying now? Should I do something? I should have been here earlier? Again, my sympathies.

My grandmother died mostly on her terms, and in doing so it allowed the rest of us to move on and remember her as she was when she was healthy. I do not begrudge those brothers choosing to do the same.

Sure, but hospice easing her pain and discomfort at the end of life is a bit different than the two twins in the article. Unfortunately, your grandmother would have passed with or without care from heart failure. Hospice eased her pain and discomfort while she was dieing. The doctors in the article are actually going to kill the twins, by their wish admittedly. Now before you all go off and write huge posts about how I want to force my opinions on others who are suffering, ironic as I think that is for you all, I'm not against this per say. Rather, I understand Broom's position and sympathies with it. I also understand these twin's position as presented. My biggest worry on this subject is actual the glip nature in which proponents of this in this threat are about having Doctors just off people. If that's the road we go down, fine, but lets at least not be causal about it.

[Stark]

Do you understand and sympathise with her hysterical fear Belgian doctors may murder her based on an example that clearly highlights the drawn-out, consensual process involved in their assisted suicide laws?

I need a reading on the 'how dumb are you' scale. The strawman from 'legal and non-coercive = up to them' to 'HAHAH LET THE DOC SLAY EM LOL' is pretty good, but I think we can go deeper.

[Knife]

Do you understand and sympathise with her hysterical fear Belgian doctors may murder her based on an example that clearly highlights the drawn-out, consensual process involved in their assisted suicide laws?

I need a reading on the 'how dumb are you' scale. The strawman from 'legal and non-coercive = up to them' to 'HAHAH LET THE DOC SLAY EM LOL' is pretty good, but I think we can go deeper.

I'm fairly certain her 'hysterical fear of Belgian doctors' was hyperbole, but I guess it's hard to mock if you look at it that way huh?

[Stark]

If you think its hard to mock her 'position', that has given me the reading on the idiot scale I needed.

Regardless, putting aside jokes about 'I WAS JOKING OBVIOUSLY', if you attempt to characterise something in a way that shows you are either entirely ignorant of it or dishonestly portraying it, you deserve everything you get. Kind of like you, discussing the laws of another country and exhorting people to not be 'casual' about a process that takes years and is couched in legal requirements.

The best part is where you characterise those saying the Belgians have a right to determine their own laws (or people have a right to choose the time and manner of their deaths) as 'forcing opinions'. Do you apply this rationale to your own country, or things you agree with? Or just foreigners who don't follow your own values?

[AniThyng]

Is it so implausible that the medical personnel can have a framework of ethics or rationalization? nobody spends this much time questioning the emotional motives of people who want and perform abortions! Yes I know we are just scoring "clumps of cells"so its fine, which is why I can't fathom why when its with euthanasia in a justifiable case its so contentious.

[Knife]

If you think its hard to mock her 'position', that has given me the reading on the idiot scale I needed.

Regardless, putting aside jokes about 'I WAS JOKING OBVIOUSLY', if you attempt to characterise something in a way that shows you are either entirely ignorant of it or dishonestly portraying it, you deserve everything you get. Kind of like you, discussing the laws of another country and exhorting people to not be 'casual' about a process that takes years and is couched in legal requirements.

Perhaps you should start reading instead of mocking, you suck at both. I said it's hard to mock her position, unless you view her hyperbole as honest fear.

The best part is where you characterise those saying the Belgians have a right to determine their own laws (or people have a right to choose the time and manner of their deaths) as 'forcing opinions'. Do you apply this rationale to your own country, or things you agree with? Or just foreigners who don't follow your own values?

See you suck again, they can have their laws, and they can have their right to determine their positions. So do I. Hell, I'm even a pro euthenasia person. But I guess my opinions don't count since I'm an icky American and not one of those cool Aussies or New Zealanders huh? LOL.

That is the irony of the whole, how dare you give opinions on others opinions. It's also a hoot when you just snipe from the moral rafters shithead.

[Knife]

Is it so implausible that the medical personnel can have a framework of ethics or rationalization? nobody spends this much time questioning the emotional motives of people who want and perform abortions! Yes I know we are just scoring "clumps of cells"so its fine, which is why I can't fathom why when its with euthanasia in a justifiable case its so contentious.

Uhm, they do spend an awful lot of time on their ethical and moral frameworks man. A significant amount of schooling for healthcare personnel is their ethical/moral/and legal training.

[Civil War Man]

Funny, I was thinking the same for your side of the argument as well. Seems a lot of people are being pretty glib with the 'just let the Doctors off em' too.

It doesn't quite fit when you reverse the situation, since the right-to-die advocates in this thread are not demanding that care be denied because it makes them uncomfortable.

I do this for a living, thank you. I'm quite aware that not only is quality of life a big issue, but depression just can't be beat with a pill.

More importantly, neither can being both blind and deaf. While the twins weren't terminal or in any physical pain, a lot of people don't really comprehend how being unable to see or hear anything is about as close as you can get to a living Hell. Considering how much of our communication is visual or auditory, it's a pain to compensate for the loss of one of those senses. Missing both effectively shuts you off from the rest of the world. Quality of life is not just an issue, it's virtually non-existent. If you were to write up the list of people who were successful while being both blind and deaf, that list would pretty much consist entirely of Helen Keller, who 1) grew up with no sight and no hearing, and so never relied on having them at any point in her life, and 2) was from a family who could afford the care necessary to teach her to compensate.

So, perhaps your emotional baggage my be coloring your perspective too?

It's colored my perspective in the sense that I believe they had the right to die on their own terms. They should not be forced to suffer, and any other family they had should not be forced to suffer, because the thought of them willingly being euthanized makes people who would have never met them anyway uncomfortable.

I think that's an important distinction. The article didn't mention whether these brothers had other family. If they did, how do you think they would have felt being unable to communicate with them? At least in this case, while their deaths are still sad, there can be closure for everyone involved.

I get it, Belgium has a system in place. Cool. Hell I even understand the impulse. But just off the info we have in this article, seems like a failure to cope rather than a death wish, and even if it's legal and Doctors are 'cool' with it, it will eventually make a toll on the people doing it.

Think of it this way: forcing prisoners of war to undergo sensory deprivation is considered a violation of the Geneva Convention. Because it's torture. If we learned that two brothers were going to be locked in separate pitch dark, completely soundproofed and sound absorbent rooms all day every day for the rest of their lives, we'd be horrified. But because the torture's being inflicted on them by poor health, we're supposed to tell them to just suck it up and cope?

Wonder what system they have in place for the Doctors and nurses who do this to help them?

Probably the same system they have in place for anyone working hospice.

[Singular Intellect]

If they were of sound mind and presented with all practical alternatives prior to making their final decision, I see zero problem with the situation. Everyone's life is their own, they have the final say on whether it's worth living or not.

So long as society assesses soundness of mind and presents all practical alternatives, it has fulfilled its duty to the individual and the final choice is theirs.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Just because they having training and experience does not make it right.

The Tuskegee Experiment was scientifically sound. But ethically dubious.

Their experience does not make something ethically sound. It just means they are experienced in their specific field.

I am concerned about the ethics here. Ethics are much less concrete. And sadly far more opinionated. But still very important to everyone.

Oh. Oh fuck you.

Alright you miserable little shit. This and the tuskeegee experiment are not even remotely comparable.

The subjects/victims of the tuskeegee experiment were the subject of an experiment to prove that syphilis progresses in black men in the same manner it does in white men. The original study of white men was done on a prison population that already had the disease before treatment was available (so they were just sort of..watched, which was all that could be done). The tuskeegee experiment was done on free-living black men who already had the disease, but once treatment was available in the form of Penicillin, were actively denied it by being put on what amounts to a medical black-list. Informed consent was not obtained.

In this case, the patients have requested, of their own free will and not under the influence of a persistent mental condition, that they be assisted in dying with their dignity in-tact. The two are completely different things. Moreover, doctors were not educated in ethics back when the tuskeegee experiment was performed. In Belgium, an extensive ethical and medical review process is required, and in every medical school and university in the western world, bioethics is required coursework for those going into the health professions. Hell, it was strongly encouraged for me, and I was on track to be an ecologist, and took the damn class. In fact, the aftermath of Tuskeegee is what made that a thing.

You comparing the two is so disingenuous as to insult the intelligence of everyone in this thread--even the ones who agree with you. Go fuck yourself.

Hi Knife! Just so you are aware, your opinion is a thing I respect. Unlike Alyeska up there....

Wonder what system they have in place for the Doctors and nurses who do this to help them?

Dude. It is Belgium. 21st best healthcare system in the world (and not for lack of trying to be #1, but their competition consists of countries like Norway and Switzerland). They have really good mental health care.

[Alyeska]

This and the tuskeegee experiment are not even remotely comparable.

Others have stated in this thread that as long as medical professionals follow the law, there is nothing to complain about. My point was that just because it is legal does not make it right.

But you completely ignored that and made multiple ad hominen attacks and constructed a strawman argument against me while completely ignoring the actual point I made.

So Double Dumbass on you.

[Grumman]

Others have stated in this thread that as long as medical professionals follow the law, there is nothing to complain about. My point was that just because it is legal does not make it right.

They've made the point that as long as medical professionals follow this law there's nothing to complain about, not because morality is subservient to legality but because this particular law seems to have been written correctly to avoid abuses of power like the ones you're railing against.

[AniThyng]

Is it so implausible that the medical personnel can have a framework of ethics or rationalization? nobody spends this much time questioning the emotional motives of people who want and perform abortions! Yes I know we are just scoring "clumps of cells"so its fine, which is why I can't fathom why when its with euthanasia in a justifiable case its so contentious.

Uhm, they do spend an awful lot of time on their ethical and moral frameworks man. A significant amount of schooling for healthcare personnel is their ethical/moral/and legal training.

Precisely, so it seems to me that saying we should consider the mental health of medical professionals who might choose to be the ones to perform the procedure seems overplayed - like I've said, no one goes into other threads moaning about the mental health of religious doctors who have to put aside their personal values for the sake of the profession and scientific consensus. Furthermore, unlike most other procedures, doctors in these cases have ample opportunity to recuse themselves without rammifications.

[Alyrium Denryle]

{quote]
Others have stated in this thread that as long as medical professionals follow the law, there is nothing to complain about. My point was that just because it is legal does not make it right.

But you completely ignored that and made multiple ad hominen attacks and constructed a strawman argument against me while completely ignoring the actual point I made.

So Double Dumbass on you.[/quote]

Um. Here. Let me clarify what it is you said. I want to make sure you are not conjuring false memories out of the ether.

In response to this:

Alyeska, are you going to address the absurdity of you thinking that you, as someone with absolutely no training or experience and having never even met the patients in question are able to better diagnose them than doctors who are trained for this exact circumstance and have been with them for years?

You said:

Just because they having training and experience does not make it right.

The Tuskegee Experiment was scientifically sound. But ethically dubious.

Their experience does not make something ethically sound. It just means they are experienced in their specific field.

I am concerned about the ethics here. Ethics are much less concrete. And sadly far more opinionated. But still very important to everyone.

When challenged about your hubris regarding a medical diagnosis and the ethical ramifications thereof, you equivocated the situation under discussion with Tuskeegee.

So on top of all that, you assumed I dont or cannot read, and then lied about the context of your own statements. Jesus christ.

[Alyeska]

So on top of all that, you assumed I dont or cannot read, and then lied about the context of your own statements. Jesus christ.

Quote out of context much? Since you claim incredible reading skills, why not go back and read the entire thread. I know damned well why I mentioned the Tuskegee Experiment, and I admitted as much. I am certainly not lying about the context of my statement.

I've had no problem disagreeing with people here on this subject. Why the fuck would I lie?

So take your sanctimonious attitude and go shove it up your ass.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So on top of all that, you assumed I dont or cannot read, and then lied about the context of your own statements. Jesus christ.

Quote out of context much? Since you claim incredible reading skills, why not go back and read the entire thread. I know damned well why I mentioned the Tuskegee Experiment, and I admitted as much. I am certainly not lying about the context of my statement.

I've had no problem disagreeing with people here on this subject. Why the fuck would I lie?

So take your sanctimonious attitude and go shove it up your ass.

You discussed the tuskeegee experiment twice. To two different people. Talking about two subjects. One was legal--and how legality does not equal morality. The other one, the one I responded to, was part of a different discussion entirely--namely the question of whether or not you know better than a physician what the medical and psychological prognosis was for these patients, and the ethical ramifications of fulfilling their desire to die.

Those are not the same topics of discussion. You do not get to use the one--which makes sense as a case study in legality vs ethics and is perfection on point--as a shield when called out on bullshit regarding the other.

You are just digging your hole deeper.