Mythology has a little bit of truth and not the whole truth. It comes with a hero, a victim and a villain.
Just like the ‘father of history’, Herodotus, who took the stories of the soldiers in Ancient Greeco-Persia wars and turned them into grand tales of battles won and heroes fallen. But Herodotus is also known as the ‘father of lies’ because he created myths. The stories possibly represented real people and events but it has been covered in a cloak of glamour to make it appeal to the masses.
Last week, we had such a story in the national press. It is the tale of Belgian twins, who were euthanised on December 14th, 2012. Their names were Marc and Eddy and they were ill with spinal problems, heart issues, and glaucoma (Many Tribes blog). But this story was written in a different way:
Deaf twins who discovered they were going blind and would never see each other again are euthanised in Belgian hospital. (Daily Mail, Jan 14th, 2013)
Belgian identical twins in unique mercy killing (The Telegraph, Jan 13th, 2013)
The latter story referred to the Socialist Party member, Thierry Giet, who has tabled a new amendment to the euthanasia law (since 2002) that will allow people with specific conditions to be euthanised, if it is passed.
It was easy to construe that deafness and the potential onslaught of blindness caused by glaucoma were viewed as potential conditions that would fall under the amendment. And this news went viral.
The Deaf community, deaf blind people and Deaf academics started to throw questions to object to or clarify the messages in the press. As it is always with the press, the messages are confused and sometimes false links are created. There is also confusion on how people are euthanised and what are the true reasons for the twins’ plea to the state.
In fact, the twins died happily.
“One had respiratory symptoms which meant he could only sleep sitting upright, the other had undegone a neck operation because a spinal cord was damaged and he could hardly walk. There was not only psychological suffering. They were indeed suffering physically.
“For the last half dozen years specialists were consulted in order to improve their physical condition, but this solved nothing. Many medications could not be used due to the fragile state of their eyes.
“In recent months they did not come out, they ate almost nothing. Each week I [the doctor] received a letter from them in the letterbox in which they clearly indicated that they wanted to die. During the home visits it was strongly suggested that they would deprive themselves of life if ever their request for euthanasia was not granted.
“In short, the doctor says: They were so determined that we were compelled to make decisions.” (Belgian article in De Standaard translated by Thierry Haesenne)
As you can see, there is no mention of deafness or blindness. The story was warped into a commercially viable story for the Belgian press in the context of Giet’s amendment to the euthanasia law.
The news originated in a Flemish newspaper, Het Laaatste Nieuws (the lastest news), which quoted the statement, “they could not bear the thought of not being able to see each other again”. The specific condition was elicited from the story and purported as a potential ‘specific condition’ Giet might be referring to.
Professor Wim Distelmans, the doctor that took the decision to euthanise the twins, defended his decision.
“It’s the first time in the world that a ‘double euthanasia’ has been performed on brothers,” he said. “There was certainly unbearable psychological suffering for them. Though there is of course it always possible to stretch the interpretation of that. One doctor will evaluate differently than the other.” (The Telegraph, Jan 14, 2013)
But the Telegraph continued to relate the professor’s statement to the amendment:
“Last month, Belgium’s government announced plans to amend the law to allow the euthanasia of children and Alzheimer’s sufferers. If passed, 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’.”
Somehow, I feel that Belgium is starting to walk into dangerous territory. If a person has Alzheimer, the person may already be in the late stages of the illness, it would be very difficult for the person to state their desire to be euthanised. Also, doctors are able to diagnose an illness and suggest possible routes to therapy, surgery or medication that can alleviate the condition – at what point do they become experts about the ‘quality of life’. Are they the best people to advise?
Despite this, I am reassured the system is complex and it is not easy to be selected for euthanasia:
In order to be euthanised, a person must repeatedly ask for mercy killing, see at least three different doctors (one of them should be the GP) over a time span long enough to convince the doctors that it is not just a passing fad. He must convince them that he is suffering unbearable pain that cannot be alleviated. Then the doctors must write a report which will be signed by the patient before being passed to a psychiatrist who will meet the patient several times. Then, if all 4 (doctors and psychiatrist) give their approval, the request is forwarded to the ethical commission at the hospital where the patient wishes to be euthanised. Several doctors are on this commission and the vote must be unanimous. If ever ONE of them does not give his approval, the patient’s request is automatically denied. (Thierry Haesenne, fb comment, Jan 15th, 2013)
The process is difficult and lengthy, and the applicants may not be willing to wait that long; many do commit suicide before the final decision is made.
So where is the story. Is it about the twins? Is it about Giet’s amendment? Or is it about the press romanticising the story? What we do know is that the tale of the twins is very different from the story purported in the press, so we can take that out of the equation. The twins got what they wanted, no matter how much we feel it is right or wrong. It was most probably little to do with deaf blindness but more about their long term experience of illness.
The press has a lot to answer for. They have peddled the story by selecting a few facts and mixing it with glamour to create a myth. The myth is on the backdrop of Giet’s amendment and the press created a news item with a political agenda; that myth has got nothing to do with what actually happened to the twins.
But then I am left with the medical profession, who comes together to decide whether the individuals who wish to be euthanised should be supported or refuted. Professor Distelmans’ reference to ‘psychological trauma’ as the justification of euthanasia cast a doubt in my mind whether the twins received the support they needed.
In the little collaboration I have with universities in Belgium, I was made aware of a low standard of mental health intervention in the country that falls far short of what we are used to in the UK. Here, we had the Towards Equity and Access report from the Department of Health, which outlined the increased incidence of mental health problems in the deaf population, and it was supported with different resources. I just wonder if more could have been done for the twins to improve their mental health before they got this stage.
I don’t think Thierry Giet has the answer. He is walking into dangerous territory where the proposed amendment will extend euthanasia to people who do not have a voice, such as terminally ill children and people with Alzhiemers. Also, the mention of ‘people with specific conditions’ will start associating a range of conditions with ‘death’. Until now, the decision to die always came from the individual – allowing relatives, carers and the state to be part of the decision to impose death is scary. Forget about the myths, this is a reality I don’t want to see.
[contributions from Thierry Haesenne published with his permission]
This article was first posted on John Walker’s blog, which you can read here: http://deafcapital.blog.com/2013/01/16/the-belgian-twins-euthanasia-and-the-myth/
John Walker is a senior research fellow at University of Brighton. Deaf, and sign language user by informed choice. He writes a blog on topics related to the Bourdieusian principle, by the title “Deaf Capital” . It is concerned with the ‘value’ that people place on the Deaf community or the cultural elements of deaf lives that can be askew or misconstrued. Follow him on twitter as @chereme
Please take a moment to check out the sponsors who make this site possible! The Limping Chicken is supported by Deaf media company Remark!, sign language communications agency Deaf Umbrella, provider of video interpreting services SignVideo, theatre captioning charity STAGETEXT, legal advice charity the RAD Deaf Law Centre, and Remote Captioning provider Bee Communications.
Robert Mandara
January 22, 2013
Thank you John for taking the time to analyse the story in depth. At the very least it’s good to know that there’s much more to the story than was presented in the newspapers. All the same, it’s terribly sad that the brothers felt they had no other option.
Rob
January 22, 2013
Great article and interesting to read your views as well. I am glad that you looked into this further as it did not ring true from the original article as stated and from my own perosnal knowledge of how things work in Holland, Belgium and even in Oregon USA which all follow similar principles of end of life choices and decisions,
It shows how dangerous and irresponsible newspapers can be in misleading the public! That always makes me nervous of the average person walking the streets reading such articles like that.
We need better journalists who are prepared to follow a story and state facts and never sensationalise events. You have my admiration for the above article even if we dont agree on certain points!! Well done and all the newspapers should follow your example.
Linda Richards
January 22, 2013
Thank you John for this.. This is one of the most significant pieces of writing I’ve ever read. I saw someone’s FB and twitter object to euthanasia ‘for’ Deaf people and I just sighed because if anyone should have been putting them right about this, it was the interpreter who did the translation of the newspaper for them (as the person with the ability to translate the source material). Where were the Deaf organisations – both here and elsewhere – in their condemnation of the press’s massaging of the situation and facts? Thanks… Requisite reading for all kinds of training courses (and many deaf organisations too!) and the possibility of further debates around the insidious aspects of eugenics, etc., etc.. Many thanks. Lmr
Mick ✯ Canavan
January 22, 2013
Well done John, the press love to sensationalise and ‘create’ a story….good work!
cherry
January 22, 2013
this is an excellent informative response John as i echo what has already been said by yourself and the replies you are getting on here. I never take it as a given when press such as Daily Mail use such eye catching headlines – your through research to get the full picture is much valued and i am not surprised either. Thank you
John D Walker
January 23, 2013
I think the press steamrolled this one because the original text in the Daily Mail was the same as the text in Het Laatste Nieuws, word for word. Newspapers do tend to follow each other throughout the world, especially if they share the same place on the political spectrum. Unfortunately, the sensationalised stories do tend to go much further than the records of reality, which came out a day later.
The media focus has created another difficult situation where the doctor who authorised the decision to euthanise the twins was accused of breaching patient confidentiality. The doctor felt compelled to defend their position. The political debates in Belgium will decide how more tentative decisions, that grab the attention of the media, can be addressed in the future.
Thank you for the kind comments and I am glad this article has helped to inform your position on the subject.
Martyn Brown
January 25, 2013
What an immense article, superbly written.
I remember reading the original story and fell for it hook, line and sinker. Thank you John for restoring the cynic in me. I remember you (but not the tash) from my NDCS Deaf Role Model training a few years ago.