Euthanasia. Twins born deaf and sought euthanasia after finding that they would also soon go blind.

[Little Star]

Belgian identical twins in unique mercy killing
Identical twins were killed by Belgian doctors last month in a unique mercy killing under Belgium's euthanasia laws.

Telegraph
By Bruno Waterfield
13 Jan 2013

The two men, 45, from the Antwerp region were both born deaf and sought euthanasia after finding that they would also soon go blind.

The pair told doctors that they were unable to bear the thought of not being able to see each other again.

The twin brothers had spent their entire lives together, sharing a flat and both working as cobblers.

Doctors at Brussels University Hospital in Jette "euthanised" the two men by lethal injection on 14 December last year.

David Dufour, the doctor who presided over the euthanasia, told RTL television news the twins who died together had taken the decision to die in “full conscience”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/9798778/Belgian-identical-twins-in-unique-mercy-killing.html

Physician-assisted suicide in the United States is legal in the states of Oregon, Montana, and Washington. Here in Massachusetts we failed to adopt this law in November 2012.

Personally, I'm torn regarding this issue tho I did vote in favor of such a law.

[hlthe2b]

1. This one really saddens me... but in this country, without a lot of personal resources...

they could be left to die together--deaf, blind, and helpless on the street. I hardly think the US can hold itself up as the "kinder", more humane nation any more.

[Little Star]

11. It's heartbreaking.

[tavalon]

22. They made a personal choice in a country that allows such humanity

Yes, it's sad, but it's also empowering to choose the time and method of one's leaving.

[hlthe2b]

23. Yes... as much as I am conflicted on this one, I agree on that basic point

[Bluenorthwest]

2. This would not be even close to legal under the Oregon law, just fyi.

The law here gives the option to those who have a terminal illness only. "On October 27, 1997 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act which allows terminally-ill Oregonians to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose."
Lots of information at the link. The case in the OP most certainly not legal in Oregon.

http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/Evaluationresearch/deathwithdignityact/Pages/index.aspx

[dipsydoodle]

3. So sad.

Words defeat me.

[GETTINGTIRED]

8. agreed...

....silence....

[marions ghost]

4. Slippery slope

Euthanasia should be a legal choice in the case of terminal illness or vegetative state. But should we go to assisted suicide? That worries me. Of course otherwise people may do it anyway. It's hard to keep people here if they really don't want to be here. They will find a way to die.

[Little Star]

9. Yes, people will find a way to die if they really want to...

no matter what any law says.

But should we make it more humane? Or would such laws make it too easy for people who are perhaps just depressed, etc.? Like I said, I'm torn regarding this issue.

[marions ghost]

14. For me the issue is

that people (even a medical person) might "help" a person commit suicide when they really just want to be rid of them. I think this is a real danger.

There is a state of depression that makes life unbearable. I have seen some come through it, especially as they age, usually with good treatment--which should absolutely come first. But if all treatment fails, should we let these people decide to end it in a better way--ie. prepare and tell their loved ones goodbye, not resort to guns, plan for things they want done after death? Probably so, if proper procedures are followed and their state of depression has been documented. I don't think I would trust our current health care "system" to do this the right way however.

As I said, what I worry about is another person or institution capitalizing on (or even promoting) the patient's depression in some way and benefiting from their death.

[Little Star]

15. And therein lies the problem.

[progressoid]

18. Other than on an episode of Law and Order, I think the likelihood of that happening is very slight.

[marions ghost]

19. Happens more than you think

...at the time of a death, people don't want to acknowledge what really happened....

[progressoid]

21. How do you know?

[marions ghost]

25. Let's just say

experience. I am associated with people in medicine who deal with dying all the time. The idea of assisted suicide only works if you trust the assistants...

[progressoid]

28. OK

So what you're talking about is murder?

[marions ghost]

41. Sometimes

people have different views about what is merciful. This happens when in fact it is not a person's place to make such a judgment, though they are well-meaning and trying to do what they themselves would want. I don't know if I would call it murder--more like a "death wish" where they honestly wish for suffering to be over,
for the "good" of the sufferer --and so they influence the situation, directly or indirectly. I've seen it a few times. And survivors often exhibit denial about the circumstances of death. In one case, I saw it clearly as murder. But murder that would be very difficult to prove. Most people (ie on a jury) are not equipped psychologically to evaluate such a borderline situation. Certainly there is opportunity for those whose intentions are not good, to take advantage of a person who has a death wish. And easily get away with it. Easily.

I'm just saying that assisted suicide is a slippery slope. Not every case is so cut and dried. There would have to be some very tight legal definitions to protect the innocent. You can't rely on notions of inherent good intentions of those assisting, be it family or others. If there were enough controls, OK. I don't know what those controls look like in Holland or how they may differ from here. That would be an interesting comparison.

[wickerwoman]

54. This isn't a case of depression though,

it's a case of a demonstrable, measureable diminishment of quality of life.

I think physician assisted suicide should be available to people who have a desire to die and who can demonstrate that they have a medical condition which will no longer allow them to live independantly or without constant pain. Someone who was blind and deaf would certainly qualify. Someone who was crippled by arthritis to the point where they couldn't use the toilet for themselves would qualify. Someone on dialysis, in constant pain from neuropathy and facing multiple amputations would qualify.

People should be able to define for themselves a level of loss of quality of life beyond which they no longer wish to live and be assisted, having been screened and counselled for depression, in dying with dignity on their own terms.

[tavalon]

24. That's my thought

It is important to make sure people who choose this route have adequate mental health care.

[marions ghost]

26. Right

otherwise you can imagine a host of abuses.

[HiPointDem]

65. I don't want *any* state assistance in suicide, period. Very slippery slope, especially in these

neoliberal times.

If people want to die, they can kill themselves. No assistance is needed for one who really wants death.

[marions ghost]

68. We agree

I wonder if there is a difference between here and Holland because of the greater level of trust in a proportionally representative democracy where everyone feels they have a voice (ie. Holland)...vs. here--where the country is run on the ethics of American business (ie. ruthless and exploitative).

So what do you think of Oregon then? It is generally considered a progressive decision to allow assisted suicide there.

[HiPointDem]

82. i don't like it. & oregon isn't really very progressive.

[smackd]

5. i'm not sure...

blindness and deafness? i dont know...this seems to be getting somewhere in the vicinity of 'kill me because i'm depressed' or 'kill me because my life is hard'...?

not that i could fathom just how difficult life like that would be. but something in me feels like there should be a line somewhere...debilitating pain, terminal illness, losing all motor functionality, etc.

not my decision, but i think i would have difficulty with this one. sad.

[tavalon]

27. I could imagine that losing both my hearing and my eyesight would be a deal killer

But not having faced that, I could be wrong. I would like the option to be available for me.

[Auntie Bush]

32. You speak for me too.

If these twins relied on sign language to communicate ...that would be a pretty awful situation to be in.

[KamaAina]

42. Deafblind people use sign language

one fingerspells into the other's hand. Blind people also use this technique to communicvate with their Dea friends (I've seen it!)

[Gormy Cuss]

44. +1

I've seen it too.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

61. Yes, there's an extended family in Louisiana that has a genetic disease in which

certain members of the family are born deaf and then start to lose their sight when they're in their thirties or forties. There was footage of them using not only fingerspelling but ASL by touch.

[WinkyDink]

6. This is so very sad.

[polly7]

7. What a heart-wrenching story.

I can imagine the fear of knowing they'd be completely isolated from one another once blindness set in. It would be terrifying. While this case surprises me a bit ... I'm 100% in favour of physician-assisted suicide. I believe ending one's life in a dignified way is a basic human right. I wish my Dad had had the option.

[theKed]

10. People that want to die

Who really, truly, want to die, will find a way to kill themselves. Allowing a doctor to do it reduces suffering, pain, mess, and can provide an opportunity to have a real conversation with doctors, psychologists, and families about what is happening and why they want to. It can be compared, in some ways, to the abortion issue. Women, previously, who really, truly wanted abortions would get them. It would be painful, unsafe, and full of shame and worry - back alley "doctors", even coat hangers. Making it legal brings it into the light and removes shame and danger.

...And, cue the torrent of outrage from comparing those two topics.

[Little Star]

12. Everything you said is why I am so torn about this & why I voted in favor of this law for MA. n/t

[tavalon]

29. You won't get an argument from me on the comparison

I think they are both personal choice issues and should be handled in similar ways.

[sadbear]

13. I wonder if they believed in the afterlife.

[WinkyDink]

35. Why do you wonder? (It's likely not; the Dutch are pretty secular.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_the_Netherlands

[KittyWampus]

37. Being secular has absolutely nothing to do with spiritual beliefs. It only means people don't belong

to a religious organization or adhere to dogma.

[sadbear]

40. These guys were Belgian.

Seems like an easier choice if you believe there is something there after you die.

Yeah, deaf and blind sucks big time, but there's no way I'd end it all for that if I didn't believe in an afterlife.

[RedCappedBandit]

62. I don't, and I would end it.

[sadbear]

71. You would end it if you were blind and deaf?

For me, there's still the taste and smell of good food and drink and the feel of a woman's body. I think that would probably be enough to keep me going.

[siligut]

16. There are things worse than death.

I don't know everything about these twins, but I do know that there are things worse than death.

[randome]

17. The only point I would want to know is how much time they were given to rethink their decision.

[stevenleser]

20. I think Helen Keller showed that being blind and deaf doesnt have to mean a bad life. She had

a pretty big impact, not just on the disabled and how we perceive them, but on workers rights and organized labor.

I do have compassion for these guys. Just the idea of going either blind or deaf is upsetting and both at the same time is terrifying, particularly as others noted, with the scant resources for the disabled in the US. But I have Keller's shining example that would give me hope that my life could still have an impact.

[tavalon]

30. I don't think mine would and especially if I was going to lose the other in midlife

[JI7]

52. But Helen Keller was very young when she went deaf and blind

it's easier when you start at such a young age and learn to deal with it than for it to suddenly happen later in life, especially when you have already been an adult for most of your life.

[JimDandy]

58. I think the opposite.

These men had a huge advantage over Helen Keller in that they had 45 years of sight. Helen never saw a flower, a color, the transparency of clear glass or relections of a sunset in the water. If these men had choosen to live, they would have had all of their memories of such sights to draw upon and to relate to each other and to the world around them.

I cannot come to any other conclusion but that they were cowards for choosing to let go of life so easily.

[JVS]

63. No, Keller had it way harder than these guys.

These men had fully developed understandings of communication. Keller went deaf and blind when she was on the cusp of being able to speak. Imagine how hard it is to teach a kid who never fully learned to speak and who doesn't know the alphabet how to spell things out with her fingers. Keller had to be taught language from the ground up. These guys already knew Dutch, were literate, and could fully understand what their communicative limitations would be. It's just a matter of learning a sign language that you feel instead of see.

[ChazII]

75. Good points. n/t

[Gormy Cuss]

76. Easier, but not impossible

I knew someone who lost sight and hearing in his 50s. Still spoke to communicate but learned to "hear" others through his hands.

[dmallind]

31. Pretty simple. Their lives, their decision. That's how a truly civilized society must see it.

I have no patience with those who would seek to impose an artificial and arbitrary barrier on how bad other people think someone's life must be in order to grant them a certain, dignified, painless way to end it of their own free will. Sure there's always the shotgun or the train or the tall building - but these ways risk and traumatize people who are and should remain uninvolved. The only possible reason to deny humans the dignity we extend to pets is temporary insanity - and not the bullshit circular reasoning lie that only the insane might wish to end their own lives, but those who truly are incapable of reasoning.

If we don't own our own lives, we are not free.

[sinkingfeeling]

33. +1000 I was going to post the exact same, "Their lives, their decsion".

[cali]

34. actually, no it's not that simple.

not when it involves another person. And physician assisted suicide most certainly does. And please, if there was only the shotgun and tall building than no one would ever ever od in order to kill themselves. You do realize that many people do just that, right?

It's because I support physician assisted suicide for those who are terminally ill that I do not support this.

[dmallind]

36. Not necessarily, unless you include very tangential involvement.

Kevorkian's machine was simply filled by products you need an MD to prescribe. It's operation was enrirely patient-controlled.

OD's are also very easy to mess up - the risk of emesis, miscalculated dosage, unwanted interference resulting in painful treatment, the pain of many medications themselves. It's also the method of suicide FAR most likely to fail. 55% of US suicides are by firearm for a reason, with the next most common being by hanging - both guaranteeing trauma for the discoverer. OD's are an excellent argument FOR a more certain and controlled method.

Why is physician assisted suicide for a cancer patient any different? We are all dying, and choosing to control the timing and nature of that death should not be restricted to those with a narrow range of short-term prognoses. It should simply be a matter of expected benefits from continued life minus expected suffering from continued life resulting in a negative number in the opinion of the only person whose opinion matters one iota - the one whose life it is. If MD's get all weak-kneed about personal involvement, it is surely not beyond the wit of inventors and chemical engineers to combine painless anaesthesis with lethal substances in an entirely doc-free package. It really is very simple if we cared as much for human dignity as we do canine.

[cali]

70. Want to shuffle of the mortal coil? You have my blessing. go for it.

but physician assisted? There society does have a voice and should have a voice. The potential for abuse is enormous and history is replete with good reasons why it shouldn't be as unfettered as you would have it.

[dmallind]

81. Why should "society" have a voice?

Reasoning, sane people making the decision. Doctors willingly providing requested service. With those conditions, why do we - society - have a right to interfere? Doctors are not timid flowers who need our protection. Just like providing abortions, it's perfectly feasible to let the squeamish or objecting MDs opt out as long as the service is made available.

There is no more potential for abuse than there is for lawyers to fabricate fraudulent wills, and the same kind of protections would work in each case. Modern technology could even impose tighter restrictions, perhaps requiring video approval and patient-access only biometric/passworded initiation.

[Budgies Revenge]

46. agree completely

If a person really wants to end their life, it's not my place to tell them they can't--anymore than it would be their place to tell me the same. I can council, I can try to persuade, but I can't order a person to keep living.

[Hoyt]

56. While not really that simple, still a good rule-of-thumb.

Though one. But if life just isn't truly worth living, people should not suffer when help us. . . . . . .

I'm leaning toward a compassionate death panel, for lack of better term.

[Aerows]

38. They made their choice

They went with dignity by the hand of a doctor. They could have just as well jumped off of a cliff together or done something horribly messy instead.

[LiberalFighter]

39. If I were in their shoes I might be inclined to follow the same path.

I'm severely hearing impaired and near sighted. I remember getting fitted with a new hearing aid and it not working. It was at that time that I also found out that there were few manufacturers that made the type of hearing aid that I needed. I was depressed for a few days. If it turned out in the future that they stop making my type and my old hearing aids stop working it would make life difficult and I would feel very isolated.

[Liberal_in_LA]

49. neighborhood woman is deaf & blind, lives a full life, participates at board meetings

signers sign into her hands. it's amazing to watch. the signer and deaf/blind woman sit facing each other, knee to knee. she cups her hands, their hands are within her cupped hands signing.

[LiberalFighter]

50. The neighborhood and daily interactions would have to be right.

I don't think I would be lucky enough in that respect.

[KamaAina]

43. This is downright scary to people who live with significant disabilities

the vast majority of who very much prefer to be alive.

Becoming deafblind sounds scary, to be sure, but it needn't be a fate worse than death. There are even worldwide gatherings of deafblind people. In Seattle, a celebrity chef who's deafblind recently closed his fancy restaurant to focus on his high-end catering business! Seattle, in fact, is the capital of the deafblind world, thanks to a worker at the Lighthouse for the Blind there years ago. Deafblind people elsewhere managed to find out about it and began to settle there.

Perhaps these two people would have been better off in Seattle than wherever they may be.

[wickerwoman]

55. Possibly that's true,

but I respect their decision about their own tolerance for loss of quality of life and hope that the same respect would be paid to my wishes when and if the times comes.

[HiPointDem]

66. Yes. And such laws are a very slippery slope, imo.

[JVS]

67. I agree. The lower the bar gets set for euthanasia, the more it becomes expected that the...

disabled will avail themselves of the choice. In turn the support system that would be built to meet these people's needs remains unbuilt and the next person with the problem faces it without the benefit of strategies for better quality of life having been developed.

[ChazII]

78. Agree with your comments

and that is why this makes me apprehensive.

[Bonobo]

45. Why do we say they were "euthanized" rather than saying that got help

in their desire to end their lives?

[Little Star]

47. Yep. There's one side of the coin.

[forestpath]

48. Rest in peace. I completely understand.

[Deep13]

51. They were in control of their lives to the end.

They knew what blindness would mean and rationally decided not to live with it.

[JimDandy]

53. This was wrong

unless there is more to the story. They were not terminally ill or even close to it, which should be a requirement for qualifying for doctor assisted suicide.

Helen Keller didn't just endure what they so cowardly avoided, but rose above it and was greatly admired the world over for her nearly heroic endeavors.

[wickerwoman]

57. The law shouldn't require people to be heroic.

It should respect their ability to make decisions about their own health care and quality of life.

[JimDandy]

60. The law can,

should, and does in some jurisdictions require that you be terminally ill before allowing medically assisted suicides.

And, really, how heroic is it to simply continue being? They were not blind at the time of death. They had not even TRIED to live under the conditions Helen Keller was born with. Being afraid to try is not heroic.

[forestpath]

73. What judgmental bullshit!

[HeiressofBickworth]

59. One of my very dear friends chose assisted suicide in 2007

She had ALS, she lost her ability to swallow, eat, talk, and was also losing the use of her hands, an awful thing for the artist she was. She lived in Holland but spent 4 or 5 months a year in the US. When she was here, we got together often. Once she was diagnosed she began to discuss suicide. We talked about it often and when she lost her ability to speak, she used a small computer-like device that talked for her while she used a finger to type into it. She first thought she would kill herself by some method. But, as another poster pointed out, there are problems with this -- miscalculations, errors, leaving one alive but in worse condition. Then there was the thought that her two sons (both adults) would likely be the ones to discover her. The end in store for her without assisted suicide was a loss of breathing muscles and strangling to death. In the end, she availed herself of the assisted suicide allowed in Holland. The law there was that she had to have two doctors certify that she was terminal and that her end was near. When she felt ready to die, she made application for the procedure. One of the doctors (who didn't know her - only met her once for the exam) decided she wasn't sick enough and denied it. A month later, she received the certification she needed. Her sons took her to a hospital where the procedure was performed -- she died a quiet death without struggle or pain. To chose assisted suicide is not easy as there are so many emotional issues surrounding death. She was more afraid of strangling to death than she was of being assisted to her end. She was a loving friend, a talented artist in several mediums, endlessly interesting and I still miss her after all these years.

[LisaLynne]

72. I am sorry for the loss of your friend.

I am glad she was able to have a quiet death, free from pain. I have seen many die at the end of terminal illnesses in pain and suffering and I have always hoped that eventually we as a society would find a way to be more humane.

[Little Star]

74. ALS is truly horrible. I'm glad that your friend had the choice of assisted suicide...

I had a friend with ALS who didn't have that choice here in MA. I'm sorry for your loss.

[RedCappedBandit]

64. I can't see myself losing that much independence

Like another poster stated.. their lives, their choices.

[Puzzledtraveller]

69. Ultimately I agree but they still had each other

no matter what right? they had each others touch, their breath, life presence, now it's all gone, forever. All in all, utterly regrettable.

[DreamGypsy]

77. Wisdom, strength, courage, opportunity

(This subject of this thread was posted earlier yesterday on another DU thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022192407

I replied to that thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2192921, but I decided to copy the contents of my reply here since this thread is getting more traction.)



Basing an opinion or comment about a case of euthanasia on anything other than personal involvement is probably a very bad idea, but here goes.

From the statements in the articles I think these two gentlemen had a great understanding of their mutual situation and of what mattered in their lives. They had the wisdom to reach a conclusion on a course of action that would be most fulfilling of their lives. They had the strength and compassion to reconcile their decision with the shock, confusion, and probable anger felt by their family and friends, until all were accepting of the answer. They had the courage to spend 2 years living with their decision, while they struggled to find a doctor who understood the depth of their reasons for pursuing the path they choose. Marc and Eddy were fortunate to live in a country that gave them an opportunity to make a decision about their own lives and to act on that decision.

Now, pure speculation. When I read the story my first thoughts were...having spent 45 years together and knowing the challenges they would soon face with blindness and apparently other health issues, they would have asked each other that very hard question, "What will you do when I die?" And each brother would probably have answered that he would have no reason to live. So, let it be together.


My father died from consequences of dementia, probably Alzheimer's though no autopsy was done. He was a PhD chemical engineer and nuclear scientist. My family, mos ly my mother, had to observe as, over several years, he lost first his social, then mental, then physical abilities. The time between his descent into an essentially vegetative state until his death was too long. My older brother, only 65, is now in a care facility on a similar trajectory. Stories like this are commonplace. I suggest to my wife, that when I can no longer appreciate her, our dogs, music, beer, and being out in the beauty of the natural world, then she should mail me out of town. It's only half joking. I hope that our society becomes more enlightened so that if that day comes, the appropriate postage will be available: wisdom, strength, courage, opportunity.

[ecstatic]

79. I hope they got a second and third opinion

before assuming they would go blind. Recently I've learned that the fear and anxiety surrounding certain things that have not happened are often worse than what would be experienced if the event were to actually occur. There are several examples of blind people who did exceptional things; and as as others have pointed out, they had each other. I really hope they were at least given counseling before making such a drastic, final decision.

[KamaAina]

80. When someone without a disability expresses a wish to die, we offer them counseling

When someone with a disability does so, we (at least in Belgium) offer them... the syringe.