Belgian Twins Choose Euthanasia

Deaf twins who discovered they were going blind and would never see each other again are euthanized in Belgian hospital

Identical twin brothers euthanised by doctors in unique Belgium case'

Twins, who were born deaf, made decision after learning they would go blind

The brothers, who spent their lives together, were unable to bear the thought of never seeing each other again

14 January 2013 |

..

A pair of identical twins, who were born deaf, have been killed by Belgian doctors after seeking euthanasia when they found out they would also soon go blind.

In a unique case under the country's euthanasia laws, the 45-year-old brothers, from Antwerp, chose death as they were unable to bear the thought of never seeing one another again.

They were euthanised by doctors at Brussels University Hospital, in Jette, on December 14 by lethal injection after spending their entire lives together.

The unnamed twins who died together: They were euthanised by doctors at Brussels University Hospital, in Jette, on December 14, by lethal injection after spending their entire lives together.



Euthanasia is legal under Belgian law if those making the decision can make their wishes clear and are suffering unbearable pain, according to a doctor's judgement.

The Belgian law differs from that of Switzerland, famous for its Dignitas clinic, where only 'assisted suicide' is permitted. This means patients must play an active role in the administration of the drug that ends their lives.

In Belgium, some 1,133 cases of euthanasia - mostly for terminal cancer - were recorded in 2011, about one percent of all deaths in the country, according to official figures.
But this case was unusual as neither twin was suffering extreme physical pain or was terminally ill.

Brussels University Hospital: In Belgium, some 1,133 cases of euthanasia - mostly for terminal cancer - were recorded in 2011, about one percent of all deaths in the country, according to official figures

The two brothers, who have not been named but were pictured on Belgian television, both worked as cobblers and shared a flat together, The Telegraph has reported.

David Dufour, the doctor who presided over the euthanasia, told RTL television news the twins had taken the decision in 'full conscience'.

He said they were 'very happy' and it had was a 'relief' to see the end of their suffering.

'They had a cup of coffee in the hall, it went well and a rich conversation,' Mr Dufour said.

'Then the separation from their parents and brother was very serene and beautiful.

'At the last there was a little wave of their hands and then they were gone.'

Read more: Belgian twin brothers killed by doctors after choosing euthanasia over never being able to see each other again | Mail Online

____________________________

What do you think of this, folks? I think it's an abomination of God's will. Just because folks are too scared to face an unknown future doesn't give them the right to end their own life. Just my personal opinion. I'd hate to see laws passed making this legal in America*. Permanent solution to what could be a temporary problem

*Already legal in Oregon... but we all know Oregon is a little out there don't we?

 

I think whenever people use the "God's will" argument, they're at a loss for utilizing a logical argument.

Also, it's "God's will" to have these twins suffer through both deafness and blindness?

God sounds pretty sick if that's his intention.

 

The problem is that most people who are not Catholic are unaware that suicide is a mortal sin. So these men are now suffering in hell for their all too hasty decision to take an easy out and kill themselves.

 

not suicide. as incredably stupid as it, but not suicide.

 

This is...Wow.
So sad.
I can't really say what i think - it seems a bit hasty on their part, but i cant judge the way they felt when they knew they are going blind.
In any case - I'm in favor of Euthanasia.
I think that each of us should have a choice.

 

The problem is that religious nuts only want to allow choices that their faith approves of.

They're just as nanny statish as the liberals they criticize.

 

That's the issue with religion, isn't it?
Not only those that are religious must follow the religion, also those who do not believe in it must follow it, in one way or another.

 

Pretty much. It's why the separation of church and state is so important. Even here, we have to fight to keep the separation, just like other countries such as Turkey have to.

 

Oh please "Gods will" is nothing but a pathetic cop out excuse that has no real weight behind it. Try imagining going through the rest of your life without sight or sound ever. The decision to end your life is yours and yours alone! No body should have any say in what people with life crippling conditions choose. Its time America join the modern world and embrace the freedom to die at the patients request.

This reminds me of the Terry Shaivo case where the republican controlled house made a mockery out of a family choice by having the audacity to bring this issue to the house floor and forcibly stop the ex-husband (her caretaker) from pulling the plug. Take "gods will" and shove it ok?

 

I think that adults, who are not mentally incapactated, should be able to determine what to do with their lives, so long as they are not harming others.

Why should the state have any right to tell them that they cannot choose?

 

I can think of several situations where I would want the option of deciding whether to end my life- among them:

Impending dementia
Quadrapalegia
Loss of sight and hearing
Any condition which would permanently end my ability to control my arms and legs.

I may or may not end up deciding to end my life- but I would want it to be my decision- not yours- not some priest- not some policeman.

The reality is- any able bodied person can make that decision any time they want- only the seriously disabled can truly be prevented by you or the state from ending their lives.

 

Any one who wants to commit suicide obviously lacks the capacity to make an informed judgment. The desire to kill one's self is evidence of some mental affliction impairing capacity. Get a judge to rule on each such matter.

 

Not really. It depends on the situation.

An easy way to show that someone wants to die under certain conditions is to have a living will that states such things.

Even without euthanasia, we have legal contingencies in place. My grandfather opted for "do not resuscitate" status in the later stages of his cancer, for example. Long before his judgment was questionable, he communicated to my family that once his health reached a certain point, he didn't want to be revived.

I can think of a very specific situation where I would definitely take death over continued living.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locked-in_syndrome

If I had that, I would most certainly want someone to put me out of my misery.

So, informed judgments can easily be made for assisted suicide before said conditions arise.

Even in cases where they have arisen, a legal framework can be created so that next of kin along with doctors and psychologists can confirm decisions involving euthanasia.

Jack Kevorkian employed a similar technique with his euthanizations. He was very reluctant to administer euthanasia until it became clear the person involved was certain they wanted death.

 

Yes, and "abomination of god's will", as apparently some god has the desire to create something in his own likeness, then slowly torture it with disease.

They are grown men, capable of making their own decisions. If they wish to not endure the balance of their lives in a silent, dark state, then I say they are free to do what they like.

 

A DNR is very different from volitional suicide. In California someone who attempts suicide gets committed and evaluated for seventy two hours under the Lanterman Petris Short Act.

 

Everyone has the right to do whatever they want with their own lifes, including killing themselfs.
Anyone who denies people freedom to do what they want because of religious reasons is a retard.

 

The systems in place to handle suicide are mostly aimed at people who are simply depressed -- not people with vastly debilitating diseases.

A depressed person just needs treatment and/or medication. A person who has a terminal or horribly painful/crippling disease has much more of a legitimate reason to commit suicide.

 

Anyone who thinks they can not live a full life because of some disability must never have met some of the incredible people who have disabilities. This is just another way for the state to assist in its actions to push people who have disabilities to think its better to die than live. I wonder how much this saves the state with them dead rather than alive. Anytime the state allows someone to kill themselves the state has done no better than committing a murdered to death.

How many of you righteous liberals who believe someone should be able to kill themselves, thinks its wrong for the state to kill someone who has committed a horrific crime? I find it funny how liberals are so quick to pull the plug on those with disabilities wether it be in the womb or out.

 

The socialist governments of Europe are deliberately pushing people towards death to save money in medical bills. In the Netherlands, they are actually killing people. There is no bright line between voluntary euthanasia and involuntary euthanasia. Once you have one, you very quickly have the other.

 

I support the death penalty in addition to euthanasia.

And again, if a legal framework is devised, assisted suicide isn't an action of the state -- it can actually be a veritable private service.

As with any estate planning, lawyers are needed, and doctors are needed as counsel.

None of that requires the state.

 

Oh really?

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

I think you'll find that it's actually much more of a careful and voluntary process than you've stated here.

 

Assume for the sake of argument you are correct. Is this not a very subjective standard?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah...that's what lawyers really need...another potential source of malpractice liability.

 

Coming from the only country in the western world that allows death penalty, this is quite funny.

 

I'd rather see another source for that than keep suffering people in a position they want to escape but can't due to the self-righteousness of a few people.

And yes, it is somewhat subjective, but that's the whole point behind having a legal framework.

Rape is also subjective in many respects. How do you define consent in circumstances that involve multiple intoxicated people?

Euthanasia is just one of many grey areas legally that needs to be better fleshed out.

 

So only the State can decide whether or not I am competant to end my life?

Like i said before- any fully functioning adult can easily commit suicide- only the handicapped are hindered and require assistance and are being denied the choice of whether or not to end their lives.

I would prefer that I be in control of that choice. Declaring that anyone who wants to commit suicide 'lacks the capacity to make an informed judgement' is no more correct than saying that anyone who decides to get married lacks the capacity to make an informed judgement.