Belgium Euthanizes Deaf Twins Going Blind - pg.2 | allnurses

Belgium Euthanizes Deaf Twins Going Blind - page 2

I am for the right to die......however, they weren't terminal, I am not sure how I feel about this....thoughts?... Read More

  1. Visit  uRNmyway profile page
    3
    No of course not, I specifically said I am for euthanasia. I just don't feel right making that decision for someone who does not understand it. That does not mean I would feel comfortable with seeing a loved one suffer. But it feels wrong, to me to choose to end the life of someone who can not speak for themselves.
  2. Visit  Conqueror+ profile page
    0
    I think it is one of those things that seems good and logical on paper. I can also see greedy relatives who decide that mom/dad are outliving the inheritance or a sick child who is simply viewed as a burden. I guess thats because I see it daily as a nurse. A dementia dx isn't hard to get and neither is declaring somone incompetent at least not in my state. There is a BIG difference in deciding on surgery or keeping someone alive artificially and basically executing them as it suits you. Talk about conflict of interest.
  3. Visit  CarryThatWeight profile page
    5
    I'll get flamed for this, but I'm horrified. Horrified that it's legal there, and horrified that the best help the medical community could come up with for these two brothers was euthanasia. What happened to do no harm? I agree that there are worse things than dying and that suffering is terrible, but I still believe euthanasia should not be in the medical community's scope of practice. Let's not even talk about being able to consent for others to be euthanized!
  4. Visit  Garethaus profile page
    1
    Quote from Esme12
    I am for the right to die......however, they weren't terminal, I am not sure how I feel about this....thoughts?
    It's (the patients) lives, to choose what to do with it. If they want to die, it's legal.

    It could be argued that it has placed an unfair ethical weight on the nursing / medical professionals who participated in the euthanization.

    I would support those (depending on legality) who wanted to die, who were mentally in their right mind, to die for good reasons. This action I don't see as being done for good reasons as presented in this story and I couldn't participate based on ethical issues.
    Last edit by Garethaus on Jan 16, '13
    Esme12 likes this.
  5. Visit  Prairienurse1989 profile page
    2
    In response to the possibility of extending euthanasia to dementia and child patients, I view it as something akin to taking a loved one off of life support. The outcome is the same, however the circumstances are very different.
    OCNRN63 and Esme12 like this.
  6. Visit  elkpark profile page
    2
    Quote from CarryThatWeight
    What happened to do no harm?
    Well, what happens to the basic ethical principle of self-determination? This was the choice of these individuals. Many would argue that respecting the wishes of these individuals, who (presumably) have the capacity to make the choice in a society in which this is legal, is not "harm."

    I work in C&L psychiatry, and a lot of what we do is capacity evals to determine whether people have the capacity (they are sufficiently informed and their judgment is not impaired by mental illness, delirium, medication effects, etc.) to choose to refuse treatment when that choice will result in their death. People choose to die all the time in the US, and we respect their wishes. Is that "harming" them? The only difference is that there is only one state in the US which permits physicians to actively participate in ending someone's life rather than simply withholding life-sustaining treatment.
    OCNRN63 and Esme12 like this.
  7. Visit  Esme12 profile page
    2
    Quote from elkpark
    Well, what happens to the basic ethical principle of self-determination? This was the choice of these individuals. Many would argue that respecting the wishes of these individuals, who (presumably) have the capacity to make the choice in a society in which this is legal, is not "harm."

    I work in C&L psychiatry, and a lot of what we do is capacity evals to determine whether people have the capacity (they are sufficiently informed and their judgment is not impaired by mental illness, delirium, medication effects, etc.) to choose to refuse treatment when that choice will result in their death. People choose to die all the time in the US, and we respect their wishes. Is that "harming" them? The only difference is that there is only one state in the US which permits physicians to actively participate in ending someone's life rather than simply withholding life-sustaining treatment.
    My issue is with they are considering dementia patients...so when you are tired of caring for Momma...and she is confused....put her to sleep...it is a slippery slope.
    VivaLasViejas and uRNmyway like this.
  8. Visit  uRNmyway profile page
    1
    Quote from Esme12
    My issue is with they are considering dementia patients...so when you are tired of caring for Momma...and she is confused....put her to sleep...it is a slippery slope.
    Right. Or worse, Momma has dementia and a nice-sized life insurance policy, let's just say she wouldn't want to live this way. And haven't there been cases of parents killing their disabled children as 'mercy' killings? I don't know, it just seems to me like there is so much potential for harm even if most probably WOULD have good intentions...
    CarryThatWeight likes this.
  9. Visit  anotherone profile page
    1
    for them , who are any of us to force them to suffer for years because of uncomfortable feelings about life. why life life life at any cost ? thier life, thier death, thier choice.
    elkpark likes this.
  10. Visit  VivaLasViejas profile page
    4
    Quote from CarryThatWeight
    I'll get flamed for this, but I'm horrified. Horrified that it's legal there, and horrified that the best help the medical community could come up with for these two brothers was euthanasia. What happened to do no harm? I agree that there are worse things than dying and that suffering is terrible, but I still believe euthanasia should not be in the medical community's scope of practice. Let's not even talk about being able to consent for others to be euthanized!
    I agree with you.

    Donning asbestos suit now.......
  11. Visit  subee profile page
    1
    It's difficult to evaluate this story from the Americanized medicine point of view. People who live in countries with socialized medicine have a different skew. Without any references to this case, patients on the ends of the spectrum of age, do not get the rescue measures that we offer because they couldn't afford to give it to the masses. Your 24 weeker fetus survives with simple measures.....or not. Of COURSE the story of the twins is different but Helen Keller had the same deficits and these young men had the advantage of having been able to see before blindness. She had a life of contribution and meaning without the "advantages" these two men had.
    AngelicDarkness likes this.
  12. Visit  Indy profile page
    2
    I think it would have been possible, given the right teaching and motivation, for those twins to have some quality of life with each other. The method Helen Keller had of communicating, via the sign language alphabet in a hand, would have worked for these two, also braille and there are good, relatively easy to use portable braille writers available these days. It seems to me they would have required some live-in help just to see to basics, cooking, cleaning and safety. And such a scenario would have required a lot of work. It just makes me sad to think these fellas had such a sense of despondency that they would choose death, when people in years past have shown just what is possible with these disabilities. It makes me think that they deserved better.
  13. Visit  leslie :-D profile page
    1
    Quote from CarryThatWeight
    What happened to do no harm?
    i believe that many would contend that allowing these twins to exist (not live, but exist) in total darkness and silence, is doing harm.
    that provided there wasn't any further recourse or options, euthanasia was the most compassionate allowance given to the brothers.
    i do not believe this decision was made so casually that other alternatives weren't explored.
    upholding the right of patient autonomy and self-determination, to me it would be causing harm in denying their wishes.
    this isn't about us, it's about them and what they wanted.
    we don't have to like or even agree with it.
    if it's legal and it is what they wanted, that is all that matters.

    i won't even address the slippery slope issue, but would be extremely proactive in preventing any type of euthanasia that takes one's life based on falsehoods, presumptions, and obscurity.
    this doesn't seem to be the case here (with the info that i've received).

    leslie
    moving400 likes this.


Nursing Jobs in every specialty and state. Visit today and find your dream job.

Visit Our Sponsors
Top
close
close