• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Deaf Twins Going Blind Euthanized

I take the extreme minority position. I cannot support this (and that part at the end of the article about looking into the possibility of euthanizing children blows my mind).

Now, even though nobody has even responded to me yet, I already feel defensive. :lol: Keep in mind, debate site and all.
 
Last edited:
In a lot of cases of euthanasia the patients may be too feeble or otherwise physically incapable of doing it themselves. That's why they seek doctor assistance, as well as to ensure that proper procedures of the method used is followed.

I've seen quadrapalegics shoot rifle matches with their mouths, sam. My father taught technical drawing/drafting to a kid who used his FEET like hands. We can come up with a means for these people to be able to make their intent perfectly clear by initiating the final act themselves. I'll explain why below.

What difference does it make? The men want a service performed, the doctor is willing to provide it.

In my mind it makes a major difference. First of all, since I do not trust the vast majority of the medical practitioners out there, I'm not certain that I want them to have that sort of power. Especially as we move into a place where medical insurance payments and things of that nature have become more and more of a concern.

I also believe that requiring the individual to initiate the final act has significant moral and legal implications.....

On the legal side, suicide is not a crime which can easily be prosecuted, while murder is. Obviously some states still have issues with assisted suicide, but I feel that's less of an issue than the potential murder/manslaughter charge and the possibility of civil liability.

On the moral side there are issues as well. The first is the willingness of the individual to take their own life. My way of doing things forces that individual to truly make the FINAL decision. There is no chance of error or recanting just beyond the moment of truth. They make the decision and must carry it out themselves. There is also the issue of the Hypocratic Oath that the doctor takes, and whether doing this would violate that. Lastly, there is the idea that one should stand before their Maker and accept responsibility for their own actions. Therefore, what is the impact on the Immortal Soul of having someone else do this for you.

Additionally, at least in my own case, my living will and DNR order include stipulations that many medical professionals do not agree with. Things that I do not wish to live through; treatments I will not accept; and common situations that I would/will deal with in very different ways than they prefer. Therefore, I do not want those decisions placed in the hands of the medical community, should it ever come to that.
 
If there is just one thing you should be able to own, it is yourself. Just a terrible situation, i can't imagine having to live like that.

RIP.
 
I have no issue with this. But I have issues in some cases.. two were mentioned already.. Children and Dementia. The others I have problems with are people who decide to "exit" early in a disease which knowledge can be gathered to treat future patients. Now I am not talking about people who are stage 4 cancer but rather (say) people with Congenital Heart Defect who are hitting their early 30s and 40s who are the first generation of patients who've survived that long and there is tons of new information being learned due to it. I see those cases of selfishness which could mean the denial of a child in the future of a longer healthier life.
 
There are members of my family who, having seen the suffering of loved ones, have no desire to succumb to the same fate. I imagine in today's society here in America they'll be forced to either die painfully by rejecting nutrients or risk a botched suicide attempt via pills or bullets....or they'll suffer the fate they sought to avoid, spending their last years as shells of their former selves. Where's the dignity in any of that? As another poster said, ones own birth is not our choice...but the rest of our lives should be. Any older teen or adult who can be categorically shown to know the difference between life and death should be allowed to choose which they want, assuming their desire for death is unrelated to treatable mental illness or side effects of medications such as Zoloft or Chantrix (proven to cause suicidal thoughts/desires).

But when somebody is tortured by medical conditions, whether they're terminal or chronic, there should be absolutely no question of their right to end that suffering.

Can you even imagine a single day in the life of these men? Living in a world of total darkness and silence, ESPECIALLY when you've lived your life in the light...that's unimaginable. These men would have gone from relatively independent to wholly incapable of living w/o extreme aid. They wouldn't be able to communicate as before, no reading, no TV, no views of their loved ones, no idea what's happening around you. I couldn't live that way and maintain my sanity.
 
But when somebody is tortured by medical conditions, whether they're terminal or chronic, there should be absolutely no question of their right to end that suffering.

I'm totally in agreement, tessa. My only concern is that the individuals should be asked to do it by their own hand rather than having a doctor truly make that final decision. Whether it's a plunger, or some other form of active involvement, it would in my mind make their wishes much more fully known to take that final act themselves rather than leaving it to a medical professional.

Can you even imagine a single day in the life of these men? Living in a world of total darkness and silence, ESPECIALLY when you've lived your life in the light...that's unimaginable. These men would have gone from relatively independent to wholly incapable of living w/o extreme aid. They wouldn't be able to communicate as before, no reading, no TV, no views of their loved ones, no idea what's happening around you. I couldn't live that way and maintain my sanity.

There are many, considerably less extreme situations that I have no interest in living through, nevermind what these two men were going to experience. I would hope that people would make their wishes known both to their loved ones and in writing, concerning what they are and are not willing to endure. It just makes things so much easier for the family to truly know what your wishes are ahead of time rather than having to guess and hope they made the right decision down the road.
 
I learned two lessons, nearly simultaneously, a long time ago.

1) Empathize with the other person's reality and view of themselves

2) Learn to be careful about putting yourself and your abilities into the lives of others

As a result, I am in the middle here.

I have sight and hearing, and rely on the latter more than the former (as a result of disability). As a result of my abilities and my orientation to learning, I would be crushed if I lost my ability to hear and had to overcome my disability in order to rely on sight. Nevertheless, I know that it can be done to a certain extent, and I would find a way to do it.

When it comes to others, I am more willing to let an individual make the choice, but to do so being as free from societal pressure as possible. The reason is that the second lesson showed me that often times, we have ourselves saying "oh my gosh, I can't imagine living like that!" with regard to many disabilities, and as a result, seek to correct the "problem" or prevent such a life from forming to begin with-simply because we think our lives are preferable to others. You'll frequently see this happening to those who are not deaf (or those who eventually became deaf) talking to those who are deaf (especially those who were essentially born into deafness). On the flip side, I also know that we can have the tendency to thrust life onto others because we prefer it that way, but perhaps do not think enough what it is to be that person. And then again, we can suggest that that is the victimhood of what we call a false consciousness of disability (meaning, those with disabilities adopt prejudicial opinions of themselves socially constructed by society that are not inherently true), which very well may be the case. However, there are no absolutes here, and someone may very well wish to end their existence, because they find their lives that much less meaningful if they try to live it out.

This is why people in the disability rights movement see much of the euthanization debate as being argued from an out-of-whack perspective, and conversely, many find themselves against many instances of it (or perhaps the entire thing). I'm not willing to go so far as to be against the concept of it, but rather against how many people actually frame it.

I guess what I am saying is, while I see unanimity, I also see some rather careless statements in the thread as well.
 
Last edited:
For those interested in deafblindness, you may want to consider that it isn't completely as it would seem either.

Such children are effectively alone if no one is touching them. Their concepts of the world depend upon what or whom they have had the opportunity to physically contact. If a child who is deaf-blind has some usable vision and/or hearing, as many do, her or his world will be enlarged. Many children called deaf-blind have enough vision to be able to move about in their environments, recognize familiar people, see sign language at close distances, and perhaps read large print. Others have sufficient hearing to recognize familiar sounds, understand some speech, or develop speech themselves. The range of sensory impairments included in the term "deaf-blindness" is great.

What is Deaf-Blindness

Then, of course, a good Wikilist of prominent Deafblind individuals (some I hold in higher esteem than others):

Francisco Goya (1746 – 1828): Spanish painter, deaf and blind by the time of his death.[4]
Victorine Morriseau (1789 – 1832): first deafblind person to be educated in Paris.
James Mitchell (1795 – 1869): congenitally deafblind son of Scottish minister.[5]
Sanzan Tani (1802 – 1867): Japanese teacher who became deaf in childhood and blind later in life, communicating with students by touch.
Hieronymus Lorm (1821 – 1902): inventor and novelist.
Laura Bridgman (1829 – 1889): first deafblind child to be successfully educated in the US.
Mary Bradley (? – 1866): first deafblind child to be successfully educated in the UK.
Joseph Hague: second deafblind child to be successfully educated in the UK.
Yvonne Pitrois (1880 – 1937): French biographer.
Helen Keller (1880 – 1968): author, activist, and lecturer, first deafblind person to receive a Bachelor of Arts degree and perhaps the person most popularly associated with the condition.
Alice Betteridge (1901 – 1966): first deafblind Australian to be educated. Teacher, traveller, writer.
Jack Clemo (1916 – 1994): British poet who became deafblind as an adult.
Richard Kenney (1924 – 1979): educator, lecturer, and poet; third deafblind person to graduate from an American university; president of the Hadley School for the Blind from 1975 to 1979.[6]
Robert Smithdas (1925 – ): first deafblind person in the US to receive a master's degree.
Mae Brown (1935 – 1973): Canada’s first deafblind university graduate; developed services for the deafblind at the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB). [7]
Vasile Adamescu (1944 – ): Romanian teacher and sculptor.
Theresa Poh Lin Chan (1945? – ): Singaporean teacher and writer.
Anindya (Bapin) Bhattacharyya (1970? - ): technology expert living in the US.
 
Last edited:
Deaf Twins Going Blind Euthanized - Yahoo! News




Thoughts?

Should this kind of thing be "allowed" by a modern, intelligent, and caring society?

Well considering they have hearing implants I find this idiotic decision to me extremely misguided and potentially influenced.

But this is the type of crap you get with a progressive society - they murder people.

These sick fools claim they care about people and they want to help but all they do is murder...

It angers me anyone would allow this to happen considering technology could fix them - but I suppose that would be too expensive so the only option "for the greater good of society" in their case is to commit suicide.
 
You should have sovereignty over your own body. It is fundamental.
 
Well considering they have hearing implants I find this idiotic decision to me extremely misguided and potentially influenced.

But this is the type of crap you get with a progressive society - they murder people.

These sick fools claim they care about people and they want to help but all they do is murder...

It angers me anyone would allow this to happen considering technology could fix them - but I suppose that would be too expensive so the only option "for the greater good of society" in their case is to commit suicide.

We can "fix" blindness and/or deafness?
 
We can "fix" blindness and/or deafness?

Yes. You can get cornea transplants for your eyes and can get hearing implants for your ears.

Good as new.

They can fix just about anyone these days.

Hell there is this one paralyzed dude who has a computer input hooked to his brain and he can control a mouse courser with his brain and I saw that several years ago.
 
Last edited:
Deaf Twins Going Blind Euthanized - Yahoo! News

Thoughts?

Should this kind of thing be "allowed" by a modern, intelligent, and caring society?

Definitely. All hopeless, mindless and confused, blind people suffering under bizarre delusions should be euthanized. Such as liberals. And Dallas Cowboys fans, don't forget them. :2razz:

But seriously, the only way this differs from practice in the US is that they apparently used some method to actively end the children's lives rather than withdrawing care and giving them something to keep them comfortable while they died.
 
Yes. You can get cornea transplants for your eyes and can get hearing implants for your ears.

Good as new.

They can fix just about anyone these days.

Hell there is this one paralyzed dude who has a computer input hooked to his brain and he can control a mouse courser with his brain and I saw that several years ago.

apparently the conditions these 2 men had were NOT fixable...
 
I don't see anything wrong with it, but it's always hard to hear stories like this.



















(I know, I know, I'm sorry that's terrible)
 
I am torn

I think people should have the right to end their suffering, but am also concerned that many will choose to do so for inappropriate reasons such as depression, family pressure, cultural memes, etc
 
Am I missing something? The brothers were deaf, and going blind...As far as I know, not terminal, not in pain, nothing to suggest that they were anything other than disabled.....So is that the take now, the disabled are useless to society, so they should just check out? What the hell?
 
Am I missing something? The brothers were deaf, and going blind...As far as I know, not terminal, not in pain, nothing to suggest that they were anything other than disabled.....So is that the take now, the disabled are useless to society, so they should just check out? What the hell?

Imagine the 100% isolation. Imagine the feeling of being completely helpless. For the rest or your life.

If they are of sound mind, why can't they make an honest and intelligent choice to end their existence while they can still have some level of control over things?
 
Imagine the 100% isolation. Imagine the feeling of being completely helpless. For the rest or your life.

If they are of sound mind, why can't they make an honest and intelligent choice to end their existence while they can still have some level of control over things?


Sorry, although I have compassion for their plight, and can not imagine even slightly what they would have gone through, I still don't think it is right to allow them to just give up and check out.
 
Sorry, although I have compassion for their plight, and can not imagine even slightly what they would have gone through, I still don't think it is right to allow them to just give up and check out.


Why not? If it's 100% their choice, and they've made it clear that it's not just a knee-jerk reaction to a difficult prognosis, why can't they make that decision?
 
Why not? If it's 100% their choice, and they've made it clear that it's not just a knee-jerk reaction to a difficult prognosis, why can't they make that decision?

Because we still value life in society....Now I guess you can make all the emotion based arguments you care to, but I don't agree.
 
Why not? If it's 100% their choice, and they've made it clear that it's not just a knee-jerk reaction to a difficult prognosis, why can't they make that decision?

Because being blind and deaf need not mean being 100% isolated. I would prefer some effort be made to relieve their suffering before hitting them with the needle.
 
Back
Top Bottom