Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Belgian twins choose euthenasia


evil_kenshin
 Share

Recommended Posts

1. OverSword provided a painless method. And what would be painful about landing on concrete from 100ft? You'd be dead before you would have a chance to feel it.

Euthanasia is for their benefit, not yours. You and OverSword go off yourselves however you like.
2. I want the government to have no part in taking the life of a physically healthy, mentally unhealthy person, no. I want the government to have no part in taking the life of someone who can take their own. I want doctors to have no part in this either.

I want you to mind your own business.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not following Hasina. You can't ask for first hand experience, as it would then be, by definition, second hand information because you had to ask someone else for it. Do you mean you have first hand experience?

Pretty much, but I also meant, I don't need to have it explained to me how some people's minds work. I know some suicidal people, after rehabilitation, aren't anymore. I've also known people, including myself, who've grown resentful of the way suicide is treated, especially when the mind set of 'I'd rather die then live' is backhanded with the guilt trip of 'think of your friends and family'. Everyone thinks 'a healthy person doesn't want to die', are you so certain? 100%?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. OverSword provided a painless method. And what would be painful about landing on concrete from 100ft? You'd be dead before you would have a chance to feel it.

Most people don't want a messy death. Why is that so hard to understand? When my time is near, I couldn't jump from a building as I'm afraid of heights and I could never put a gun to my head. I should be allowed to die in a manner of my choosing....nobody else should decide.....

2. I want the government to have no part in taking the life of a physically healthy, mentally unhealthy person, no. I want the government to have no part in taking the life of someone who can take their own. I want doctors to have no part in this either.

What you want is irrelevant. This is about the person that wants to end their life (for whatever reason). There will always be those willing to talk to, listen to, and understand this person's reasons for wanting to end their life.

It should be regulated, but by whom? The government? Who are you to say that doctors can have no part of this? There should be more Jack Kevorkians in this world, and the government shouldn't call him a murderer for easing people's death.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, it would have been more acceptable IF they had of waited until their sight was completely gone..?

I believe so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe so.

From what I have read, it was practically gone anyway.( they where not far off it ) . Basically what you are saying here is, the only difference is time...Wait until you can see no more and then do as you please...!!!!

I feel there is more depth to the story at hand,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people don't want a messy death. Why is that so hard to understand? When my time is near, I couldn't jump from a building as I'm afraid of heights and I could never put a gun to my head. I should be allowed to die in a manner of my choosing....nobody else should decide.....

What you want is irrelevant. This is about the person that wants to end their life (for whatever reason). There will always be those willing to talk to, listen to, and understand this person's reasons for wanting to end their life.

It should be regulated, but by whom? The government? Who are you to say that doctors can have no part of this? There should be more Jack Kevorkians in this world, and the government shouldn't call him a murderer for easing people's death.

Are you freaking serious? Kevorkian got his jollies from exing people...he talked people into his death machine that hadn't really thought that much about it...he trolled for patients in other words. That is just sick...more Kevorkians? That is sick!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every last word of that is a great depth of understanding and looking at it from a broader scale.. I agree 100% with you..

I feel not everyone has put enough thought into this..

It is easy to sit and cry out - It's selfish, what about their family and so on ? Thing is, if you took a deeper look into the actual story itself, you would likely not be as quick to cast judgement... I am not saying to anyone here that they should all just change their minds and go for a different view, but I feel that not everyone has given it as much thought as they believed they had done

Questions I asked myself was - If I had been through all the twins had done, and I was in a world of darkness and silence, how would I communicate ? How could I cope with every day life? What does being blind and deaf feel like?

To make a final decision like these middle aged twins did, I feel there is a lot more to it than so many like to think

Exactly. And also, i find the argument that this decision was selfish to be non-existent. The fact that they chose euthanasia in part so they wouldn't be a burden upon their family shows they were anything but selfish. Also, the fact that they waited and waited for the euthanasia to be granted, instead of just offing themselves in a more horrid way proves this yet again.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe so.

Well, I find that pretty sadistic. That you would demand of them that they suffer to the max and be scared to the max before their suffering can be alleviated.

Their remaining brother himself says they've had several issues with their health, they've been through enough already.

Who are you to say "get over it". You simply refuse to put yourself in their shoes, probably because the thought alone of being locked in yourself is too scary to even imagine it is a reality for some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. And also, i find the argument that this decision was selfish to be non-existent. The fact that they chose euthanasia in part so they wouldn't be a burden upon their family shows they were anything but selfish. Also, the fact that they waited and waited for the euthanasia to be granted, instead of just offing themselves in a more horrid way proves this yet again.

Another good point you bring to the table.. So many feel horrible of that very same thing..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you freaking serious? Kevorkian got his jollies from exing people...he talked people into his death machine that hadn't really thought that much about it...he trolled for patients in other words. That is just sick...more Kevorkians? That is sick!

Damn serious!

Any proof to back up any of your claims? Any?

You're just another person that wants to control others lives.

You would have people live in pain rather than letting someone ease their suffering........and you think I'm sick??

You need to rethink things.......and stay out of people's business!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is getting super heated! I'm going to add more fuel to the fire because I agree its a personal decision but in some situations family and loved ones should be factors in the decision. Once agAin it should never be an impulse decision.

And no one should be able to say, well, let's put grandma down cuz I'm titted of picking up her groceries, our any such ridiculous crap. That is murder.

I used to work in a nursing home which had residents as old as 103 and as young as 26. They were all they because they could not take care of themselves, they needed 24 hour care.

Whether they were in that situation due to illness or accident they needed help to stay alive and maintain a certain quality of life.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard the words, "I wish I were dead". Most of the time the people that uttered those words were not as bad off as the ones who could not speak, the points that could only stare at the staff and breathe, barely.

Sometimes we met new residents who entered able to walk and talk only to watch them deteriorate to the point where their bodies are literally falling apart, every touch causing so much indescribable pain; I say indescribable because the can't talk anymore.

I recall one woman who had Alzheimers/dementia who was friendly and somewhat aware that ended up incontinent of bowel and bladder and violent, smearing poop all over, trying to hit the people that are caring for her.

Do you honestly think she wanted to be that way??

What kind of quality of life its that for her and her family / caregivers?

I could go I'm and on with different examples, unless you've worked in the same environment you will never understand that sometimes euthanasia can be the biggest act of compassion and love.

Please forgive typos, done from my phone.

Edited by Lava_Lady
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you freaking serious? Kevorkian got his jollies from exing people...he talked people into his death machine that hadn't really thought that much about it...he trolled for patients in other words. That is just sick...more Kevorkians? That is sick!

Very sick and very dangerous.

Potential Kervokians are the reason why I think euthanasia should remain very, very controlled, absolutely last resort for only the most unfortunate people who actually suffer unbearable physical pain, with no hope for any recovery or relief.

I still can’t believe the article told the whole story... if that is so, the world has officially ended. I mean, doctors killing depressed people on request... that would be so abused by all kinds of psychos and that would be abuse of profession to start with.

I said “would” because I still refuse to believe a doctor would accept expected period of depression caused by prospect of losing eye-sight as valid reason for euthanasia. (!!)

Maybe those brothers had other issues, but the article should have clearly stated them then.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I find that pretty sadistic. That you would demand of them that they suffer to the max and be scared to the max before their suffering can be alleviated.

Their remaining brother himself says they've had several issues with their health, they've been through enough already.

Who are you to say "get over it". You simply refuse to put yourself in their shoes, probably because the thought alone of being locked in yourself is too scary to even imagine it is a reality for some.

When people who are not terminal are granted euthenasia it's only a matter of time before people that are becoming a burden to thier families are expected to voluntarily die. And since some peoples tolerance for inconvenience is very low they will expect grandpa to get offed just so they don't have to spend money feeding him any more. That is one thing about this particular case which is so disturbing to me. That a medical professional would actually kill someone who is not terminal and experiencing unbearable pain is wrong.

BM, I noticed you never answered my question so I'll pose it to all who think this was a good thing.

Last year I physically pulled a jumper off of a bridge right at the moment that he was leaning forward to go. This person would have, by his own actions, been killed no doubt about it. He was not happy with me at all. Was I wrong? Should I have just stood there and watched this man plummet to his death.

Answers?

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very sick and very dangerous.

Potential Kervokians are the reason why I think euthanasia should remain very, very controlled, absolutely last resort for only the most unfortunate people who actually suffer unbearable physical pain, with no hope for any recovery or relief.

So you basically believe that people have no rights over their own bodies. Everyone is owned by the government. Death can only be by accident, disease, or natural causes. Other than that, the government has complete control of you.......might as well be in prison. My life, my choice......no matter how terrible you find death, it will find us all eventually......why can't we each have a say in how that's accomplished?

I still can’t believe the article told the whole story... if that is so, the world has officially ended. I mean, doctors killing depressed people on request... that would be so abused by all kinds of psychos and that would be abuse of profession to start with.

I said “would” because I still refuse to believe a doctor would accept expected period of depression caused by prospect of losing eye-sight as valid reason for euthanasia. (!!)

Maybe those brothers had other issues, but the article should have clearly stated them then.

Again, who are you to define quality of life? Are doctors or the government able to define each person's quality of life? We all have different requirements.

There are legalities to work out, but if you start out with "no way", they must die on their own, then you are a cruel person. If I lose my eyesight (which I'm slowly doing), or have to be hooked up to machines to live, then I choose death. I also may not want to live if I'm not ambulatory, am in constant pain, or have lived a live with chronic depression. Again, it is my choice, not yours, not the governments....but mine!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you basically believe that people have no rights over their own bodies. Everyone is owned by the government. Death can only be by accident, disease, or natural causes.

You are wrong. Having institutionalized euthenasia gives the government control over assisted suicide not freedom for you to choose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When people who are not terminal are granted euthenasia it's only a matter of time before people that are becoming a burden to thier families are expected to voluntarily die. And since some peoples tolerance for inconvenience is very low they will expect grandpa to get offed just so they don't have to spend money feeding him any more. That is one thing about this particular case which is so disturbing to me. That a medical professional would actually kill someone who is not terminal and experiencing unbearable pain is wrong.

BM, I noticed you never answered my question so I'll pose it to all who think this was a good thing.

Last year I physically pulled a jumper off of a bridge right at the moment that he was leaning forward to go. This person would have, by his own actions, been killed no doubt about it. He was not happy with me at all. Was I wrong? Should I have just stood there and watched this man plummet to his death.

Answers?

May I butt in with my answer? It’s a hobby of mine :D

Seriously, I think you did the right thing. Not just from moral, but from common sense angle.

You’ll probably never know if you stopped or only delayed him, were his suicidal thoughts justified in any way or not, but even if that man didn’t change his mind about dying later, you still gave him a chance to think again. In my opinion, it’s a precious chance - if we know that only some people attempt suicide again after someone stopped them the first time.

So in my opinion it wasn’t you restricting his freedom of choice, it was you, the human being, giving another human another chance.

If only every suicidal person had someone interrupt them. Just to make sure once again if dying is what they really want to do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you basically believe that people have no rights over their own bodies. Everyone is owned by the government. Death can only be by accident, disease, or natural causes. Other than that, the government has complete control of you.......might as well be in prison. My life, my choice......no matter how terrible you find death, it will find us all eventually......why can't we each have a say in how that's accomplished?

Again, who are you to define quality of life? Are doctors or the government able to define each person's quality of life? We all have different requirements.

There are legalities to work out, but if you start out with "no way", they must die on their own, then you are a cruel person. If I lose my eyesight (which I'm slowly doing), or have to be hooked up to machines to live, then I choose death. I also may not want to live if I'm not ambulatory, am in constant pain, or have lived a live with chronic depression. Again, it is my choice, not yours, not the governments....but mine!

I could b**** slap the conspiracy theorists right now.

I’m rather paranoid myself, but this government hysteria has gone too far. If doctors are not allowed to kill people it means government is controlling me? Do you read what you post?

See my reply to OverSword for clarification of my opinion of suicide in general, see all my previous posts for clarification of my support for justified euthanasia and calm the **** down.

Edited by Helen of Annoy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are wrong. Having institutionalized euthenasia gives the government control over assisted suicide not freedom for you to choose.

That's your opinion.

The choice of euthanasia should be a choice between the individual and their doctor. If it wasn't illegal, there would be doctors willing to perform consented euthanasia. There should be non-biased witnesses though present at the request (Doctors). No family intervention, no government intervention.

I still haven't heard what it is that makes you think you have the right to intervene in someone else's life/death. How is it your business?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could b**** slap the conspiracy theorists right now.

I’m rather paranoid myself, but this government hysteria has gone too far. If doctors are not allowed to kill people it means government is controlling me? Do you read what you post?

See my reply to OverSword for clarification of my opinion of suicide in general, see all my previous posts for clarification of my support for justified euthanasia and calm the **** down.

I'm calm as can be!

Doctors are not allowed to euthanize because of government intervention. Without it there would be doctors willing.......like Jack Kevorkian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support their choice. Thank god there's a place in the world that let's adults choose their own way out.

I wonder if this site would party if I went down there and had that done,Bet there would be a lot of people who would pay my way down there just so they wouldnt have to read my stupid comments on this site,bet more than half of them would party for a month.REALLY.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's your opinion.

The choice of euthanasia should be a choice between the individual and their doctor. If it wasn't illegal, there would be doctors willing to perform consented euthanasia. There should be non-biased witnesses though present at the request (Doctors). No family intervention, no government intervention.

I still haven't heard what it is that makes you think you have the right to intervene in someone else's life/death. How is it your business?

The point you're not getting (or possibly accepting) is that once you have legalized euthenasia it is regulated through law, at which point it ultimately falls under government supervision. Do you really not get that? Dense a little? Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When people who are not terminal are granted euthenasia it's only a matter of time before people that are becoming a burden to thier families are expected to voluntarily die. And since some peoples tolerance for inconvenience is very low they will expect grandpa to get offed just so they don't have to spend money feeding him any more. That is one thing about this particular case which is so disturbing to me. That a medical professional would actually kill someone who is not terminal and experiencing unbearable pain is wrong.

BM, I noticed you never answered my question so I'll pose it to all who think this was a good thing.

Last year I physically pulled a jumper off of a bridge right at the moment that he was leaning forward to go. This person would have, by his own actions, been killed no doubt about it. He was not happy with me at all. Was I wrong? Should I have just stood there and watched this man plummet to his death.

Answers?

my first responce would be to let him jump,But my first reaction would of been to stop him.I just wouldnt be able to live with myself if I would have let him jump. Edited by The Unseen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point you're not getting (or possibly accepting) is that once you have legalized euthenasia it is regulated through law, at which point it ultimately falls under government supervision. Do you really not get that? Dense a little?

The point that you are not getting is that the government should have no say whatsoever. What is and what should be are two entirely different things.

So now you've put yourself in the gutter by calling me dense? Nice.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm calm as can be!

Doctors are not allowed to euthanize because of government intervention. Without it there would be doctors willing.......like Jack Kevorkian.

I’m sorry then! It must be cultural difference! Because over here exclamation marks indicate the writer is exclaiming something!

See what OverSword said, and also:

Euthanasia is one of those issues where authorities and laws, therefore the government, are necessary. It can’t be between me and dr. Kevorkian, because good doctor might be psychopath crackpot and I could be going through suicidal phase that would go away without his “assistance”.

It’s not doctors not doing something widely accepted because of evil meddling government, it’s the highly controversial issue being brought to public awareness.

There must be laws that will allow necessary use and prevent any misuse or my life will depend on your and dr.Kevorkian’s whim. No, thanks. I’d rather have my government between your "progress" and the only life I have at the moment.

When my time comes, I’ll do it in privacy and silence, not involving half of Europe in it. Like people always did before this insane epidemic of fake personal freedom ate the common sense away.

I said fake because true personal freedom requires no Kevorkians to tell me when my time has come.

Since it became obvious that you truly don’t realize you have contradicted yourself in each post in this thread this conversation is futile from my point of view.

Edit: BTW, "dense" sounds appropriate. Not meant as an insult, it's just progressive method of calling things and phenomena by their actual, existing names.

Edited by Helen of Annoy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point that you are not getting is that the government should have no say whatsoever. What is and what should be are two entirely different things.

So now you've put yourself in the gutter by calling me dense? Nice.......

I apologize that you're being dense. See Helens post for an explanation of what you're being dense about. What is and what should be???? You're kidding right? If wishes were horses I'd have a yard full of horse turds. Helen and I are talking about reality, not some touchy feely place where everyone is trusted to do what's right by everyone else.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.