Nathan Verhelst, 44, born Nancy, chose a medically assisted death after his sex change operation left him feeling like a ‘monster.’ Euthanasia is legal in Belgium, but a subject of controversy as more people are choosing it.
SOURCE – A Belgian transsexual who was “disgusted” with his sex change operation has died by euthanasia, according to reports.
Nathan Verhelst, 44, who was born a woman named Nancy, chose to end his life with the assistance of a doctor, citing “unbearable psychological suffering.” He died Monday afternoon.
Euthanasia is legal in Belgium, and the doctor who carried out Verhelst’s euthanasia procedure, Wim Distelmans, also made headlines last December for euthanizing a pair of deaf twins who were going blind.
Verhelst suffered years of emotional pain before and after his sex change operation, including a tormented childhood, he told Belgian newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws.
It’s sackcloth and ashes time.
Belgium is really gearing up its euthanasia followed by organ harvesting regime–and apparently the transplant medical community has no moral qualms. In fact, it has become so morally ho-hum, that it was the subject of discussion at the 21st European Conference on General Thoracic Surgery held in the UK in May.
It’s all just peachy keen. From the Abstract (0-099) of “Lung Transplantation with Grafts Recovered From Euthanasia Donors:
January 2007 and December 2012, 47/350 (13.4%) patients received pulmonary grafts from controlled DCDs [donation after cardiac death], including 6 (1.7%) after euthanasia in accordance with state legislation and approval by Ethics Committee. Patients suffered from an unbearable neuromuscular (n = 3) or neuropsychiatric (n = 3) disorder with explicit wish to donate organs. Euthanasia was executed by an independent physician in a room adjacent to the operating room in the absence of the retrieval team.
Did you get that? One set of doctors killed the patient, stepped out of the room, and another set of doctors entered for the harvest.
Now, the hunt is on for mentally ill and patients with disabling conditions such as MS to become “euthanasia organ donors.”
Euthanasia donors accounted for 12.8% of all lung DCDs. Immediate post-transplant graft function and long-term outcome in recipients was excellent. More euthanasia donors are to be expected with more public awareness.
In a better world, increased public awareness would cause universal public revulsion.
I can think of nothing more dangerous than making mentally ill and despairing disabled people believe their deaths have greater value than their lives. Well one thing, perhaps: Having a society accept the idea that it can benefit at the expense of people in desperate need of care–and whose care is very expensive.
People eagerly sign as activist tells them “We’re going to put them to sleep like you would your dog”
July 30, 2013
A video clip posted to YouTube by activist Mark Dice shows supporters of Obamacare blindly signing a petition calling for “mandatory euthanasia” under the new health law.
Dice was able to gather several signatures for the fake petition, telling people in San Diego that they were signing to support putting senior citizens “to sleep” in order to save healthcare costs.
See Video Below:
What would life be like without God? Would morals even matter?
By Gordon King
What keeps civilization civil? Is it merely the laws of man, preconceived and borne out of necessity for survival? The laws of which continually change for the benefit of the government and a wishy-washy society. “Changing Laws for Changing Times”, that should be the world’s motto. We need to change the laws to keep up with the whims and fancies of the world. After all, people get bored with the same old thing. They need more excitement and challenges.
What has happened to morality? The need for God’s commandments which govern us as a people? Without God we are a society of fads, whims and anything goes. Without the laws of God’s morality, then who’s to say what anyone can or cannot do?
We begin with homosexuality. Gay marriage. Gay adoption. Then what? Legalized sex with children? Sex with animals? Marriage to animals? Marriage to children? Without God, who is to say that this is wrong?
Abortion. Legalized abortion before the third trimester. Then after the third trimester if the mother is at harm. What about abortion just before birth. The mother just realized at the last-minute, that she made a mistake. Lets just abort the baby instead of giving birth. Why not? If there is no God, what difference does it make?
Euthanasia. The killing of a life due to sickness or injury. What about killing if someone is just done, they’ve had enough? Sounds like suicide. What about killing just for fun? Why not? If there is no God, what does it really matter? If I just don’t like you, then I kill you. What if the government thinks there are just way too many people in the world? Why not kill off a few billion? Why not?
What about rape? Rape is illegal, by man’s laws. But, what if the laws changed? Without God it wouldn’t really matter. If someone was standing in line at the store next to a beautiful woman, and decided to rape her right on the spot, he could. Rape would become widespread more than it already is. It is already widespread in some countries.
Thou shall not steal is one of God’s laws. What if God didn’t exist? If society decided that stealing was a normal part of life and abolished laws against it, would that matter? Could you imagine the chaos, confusion and insecurity in the world? I guess you can if you live in the world today.
Love thy neighbor as you love yourself. Without this law people will turn to self-love. Self absorption and self-fulfillment. Greedy, manipulative, hateful and envious. Oops! This is already happening.
Without God, anything goes. Whatever a person feels that he/she wants to do is ok. For there is no right or wrong. Only opinions. Morals and values lie in the perspective of the individual and the government. The breakdown of society and the world depend upon one of two things: Accept God or Reject God. That’s the bottom line. God did not give us the Ten Commandments for our own pleasure, but for our own good. To be able to live together as a people, as a society at large. To convict us of our sin and bring us to his salvation, for his glory.
It’s all about the Glory of God! It’s your decision. What you choose to do with it only determines the rest of your eternity!
God Bless Everyone! Amen 🙂
(NaturalNews) A proposed law on the verge of approval by the Belgium parliament would allow children to decide for themselves whether they should be euthanized (“killed”) by medical personnel. Currently, Belgian law limits euthanasia to persons 18 and older, but with the rise of autistic children thanks to biopesticides, GMOs and vaccines, nations are increasingly trying to figure out what to do with all these children who have been permanently damaged by the medical and biotech industries.
We’ve seen ethicists discussing the controversial topic of time of death and organ donation before. Now, another ethicist is discussing the “moral insignificance of death” when it comes to organ donation in the latest issue of Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics.
As pointed out by BioEdge, Walter Glannon, a Canada Research Chair in Medical Bioethics and Ethical Theory and professor at the University of Calgary, is among the many ethicists that have begun questioning whether it’s necessary to wait until death before harvesting organs, especially in light of recent shortages.
Glannon’s abstract states (the full article is available for purchase) “it is not the timing or declaration of death that matters morally in this type of organ donation” — this type being one based on patient autonomy (or lack there of) and nonmaleficence.
“This position rejects the conviction that whether donors are harmed depends upon when death is declared and that procuring organs before this declaration always harms them,” Glannon wrote.
Glannon continued that time of death can be “one of the most vexed questions” as it pertains to organ donation, because in some cases the organ will not remain viable after the official declaration of death is made. Glannon also argues that following the dead donor rule (DDR) doesn’t always protect the patient from harm in that it might “defeat their interest of donating viable organs.”
BioEdge expounded upon Glannon’s thoughts regarding how a patient could be harmed if their organs were not taken in time:
Harm, he says, is thwarting a person’s interests. If a patient wanted to donate his organs, he would harmed if they were not donated, or if they were unsuitable for donation because doctors waited for them to die first. “We should reject the view that organ donors are beyond harm only after they have been declared dead and that they are harmed if organ procurement occurs before this time.”
If this is true, though, why can’t people donate organs when they are well – perhaps as a way of committing suicide? Highly unlikely, [Glannon] responds. Such people would be irrational and hence not capable of the fundamental criterion, acting autonomously. “It is usually the experience of an irreversible, hopeless condition that makes a person conclude that life is no longer worth living.”
“Violating the DDR by carrying out earlier organ procurement from consenting donors can benefit them by realizing their intention to donate and can benefit transplant recipients by ensuring good graft survival,” Glannon wrote.
In his piece, Glannon discusses the controversy regarding time of death and explains how it is not “morally significant” when it comes to the “question of harm in organ donation.”
In his arguments, Glannon cites a patient who has a neurological condition rendering them permanently unconscious and “more controversially,” he acknowledges, cases of conditions where the patient might not remain permanently unconscious or is sure to die where it still might be permissible to harvest the organs.
Marc and Eddy Verbessem the two deaf twins killed by legal euthanasia in Belgium had their first requests to die refused in their local hospital.
The two men, 45, from the village of Putte, near the city of Mechelen outside Brussels, were both born deaf and sought euthanasia after finding that they would also soon go blind.
But their local hospital refused to end their lives by lethal injection because doctors there did not accept that the twins were suffering unbearable pain, the criteria for legal euthanasia under Belgian law.
“There is a law but that is clearly open to various interpretations. If any blind or deaf are allowed to euthanise, we are far from home. I do not think this was what the legislation meant by ‘unbearable suffering’,” doctors at the first hospital said.
Eventually the two brothers found doctors at Brussels University Hospital in Jette who accepted their argument that they were unable to bear the thought of not being able to see each other again.
Doctors “euthanised” the two men by lethal injection on December 14 last year and because the operation took place outside their local hospital each man was billed 180 euros for the cost of transporting their bodies home.
Neighbours and friends in the village of Putte said that the twins had to overcome strong resistance from their elderly parents to their demands for a mercy killing.
Dirk Verbessem, the older brother of Marc and Eddy, had defended the decision of his brothers to die.
“Many will wonder why my brothers have opted for euthanasia because there are plenty of deaf and blind that have a ‘normal’ life,” he said. “But my brothers trudged from one disease to another. They were really worn out.”
Mr Verbessem said his twin brothers were going blind with glaucoma and that Eddy had a deformed spine and had recently undergone heart surgery.
“The great fear that they would no longer be able to see, or hear, each other and the family was for my brothers unbearable,” he said.
Professor Wim Distelmans, the doctor that took the decision to “euthanise” the twins has also defended the decision. “It is certain that the twins meet all the conditions for euthanasia,” he said.
Chris Gastmans, professor of medical ethics at the Catholic University of Leuven, has criticised the decision and has concerns over the wider implications for the welfare of disabled people.
“I will not enter the legal discussion but I am left with questions,” he said.
“Is this the only humane response that we can offer in such situations? I feel uncomfortable here as ethicist. Today it seems that euthanasia is the only right way to end life. And I think that’s not a good thing. In a society as wealthy as ours, we must find another, caring way to deal with human frailty.”
Under Belgian law, euthanasia is allowed if the person wishing to end his life is able to make their wishes clear and a doctor judges that he is suffering unbearable pain.
The case is unusual because neither of the men was terminally ill nor suffering physical pain.
Just days after the twins were killed by doctors, Belgium’s ruling Socialists tabled a new legal amendment that will allow the euthanasia of children and Alzheimer’s sufferers.
If passed later this year, the new law will allow euthanasia to be “extended to minors if they are capable of discernment or affected by an incurable illness or suffering that we cannot alleviate”.
In 2002, Belgium was the second country in the world after the Netherlands to legalise euthanasia in but it currently only applies to people over the age of 18.
Some 1,133 cases of euthanasia – mostly for terminal cancer – were recorded in 2011, according to the last official figures.
In 2011, it emerged that people killed by euthanasia in Belgium are having their organs harvested for transplant surgery.