Belgian murderer Van Den Bleeken wins 'right to die'

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Interesting perspective on whether or not the death penalty really serves as a deterrent. It appears that life without parole is more of a punishment than death.

Belgian murderer Van Den Bleeken wins 'right to die'

A Belgian man serving a life sentence for rape and murder will be allowed to have doctors end his life, after a landmark ruling.

Unable to control his violent sexual urges, Frank Van Den Bleeken, who is 50, argued he would never be freed.

The decision follows a three-year legal battle by the prisoner, who was convicted in the 1980s.

The ruling is the first involving a prisoner since the assisted dying law was introduced in Belgium 12 years ago.

Van Den Bleeken will soon be transferred to a hospital where the medical procedure will take place, his lawyers told reporters.

"But I cannot say when or where that will happen," Jos Vander Velpen added.

Die 'with dignity'

Van Den Bleeken first requested euthanasia in 2011, citing "unbearable psychological anguish", but Belgium's Federal Euthanasia Commission wanted to consider every possible treatment option, before consenting to such a measure.

The number of euthanasia cases in Belgium has gradually risen each year since the law was first introduced in 2002 - and most are now uncontroversial, concerning older, terminally ill people. But new ground has been broken several times recently, and the legislation is not without its critics.

In January 2013, Belgian media reported the deaths of Marc and Eddy Verbessem - 45-year-old identical twins who were deaf and asked for euthanasia after finding out that they would go blind as a result of a genetic disorder.

In a case which received less coverage, Nathan Verhelst died last October. He was a transsexual and asked to die after several failed sex-change operations.

Belgian senator Els van Hoof called these cases deeply troubling. She was on the losing side of a vote early this year, when the Belgian senate approved a bill lifting all age restrictions on euthanasia - but she and others did manage to alter the law to apply only to children who were terminally ill.

Supporters have called euthanasia the "ultimate gesture of humanity". Critics such as Ms Van Hoof say how the law is interpreted could lead to a slippery slope - and Mr Van den Bleeken's case - a prisoner, not terminally ill but apparently in permanent psychological pain - might well lead to further criticism.

The European Court of Human Rights has criticised Belgium several times for its failure to properly treat mentally ill prisoners, the BBC's Piers Scholfield reports.

Belgium's euthanasia laws hit the headlines earlier this year when they were extended to cover children who are terminally ill.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hmmm that's a thorny one. Not sure what I think about that.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Hmmm that's a thorny one. Not sure what I think about that.

It's cutting edge for sure. Euthanasia is not an easy issue - too much to be considered.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well that's more than euthanasia. That debate is usually reserved for the chronically or terminally ill.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Let him swing

[Curmudgeon 227]

I don't think I know enough about the condition he has to draw any valid conclusion as to whether euthanasia is appropriate. I do believe that it shouldn't be used routinely to aid those who want to commit suicide for mental health reasons as apposed to physical pain/incapacity reasons. Most suicides for mental health issues are not made by people in a fit state to rationalize their decision, unlike those who make 'living wills' for end of life situations. It sounds on the surface as if the prisoner is suffering from an acute case of self realization and guilt. Not sure that's a good reason for the state to get involved in ending his life.

Let him swing

A thoughtful and nuanced response to a difficult moral question as usual. Thank you for your excellent contribution.

[Rich and Wen 101]

The man was sentenced to life in prison. That sentence should be carried out in full. No escapes because you can't live with yourself now.

"If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime."

[Ban Hammer 13,403]

3 posts removed. 2 for personal insults and 1 for quoting

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think I know enough about the condition he has to draw any valid conclusion as to whether euthanasia is appropriate. I do believe that it shouldn't be used routinely to aid those who want to commit suicide for mental health reasons as apposed to physical pain/incapacity reasons. Most suicides for mental health issues are not made by people in a fit state to rationalize their decision, unlike those who make 'living wills' for end of life situations. It sounds on the surface as if the prisoner is suffering from an acute case of self realization and guilt. Not sure that's a good reason for the state to get involved in ending his life.

A thoughtful and nuanced response to a difficult moral question as usual. Thank you for your excellent contribution.

Yeah I think that's fair - I don't have any problem with end of life euthanasia so long as it can be clearly demonstrated that the person asking for it is in full command of their faculties.

This sort of thing is a bit different. In this example of the murderer a lot of people probably won't have a problem with it because they think he deserves it (like the guy who said 'let him swing'). But it becomes a different issue if, say, someone who is depressed wants to be euthanased. In that situation, I'd suggest some therapy would be probably be a better choice.