Belgium set to euthanize prisoner.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dennisch
  • 32 comments
  • 1,822 views

Dennisch

Humongous member
Premium
Messages
31,944
Netherlands
Buckwheat City
Messages
Dennisch
642x999_7381921.jpg


Belgium will euthanize 51 year old Frank van der Bleeken coming sunday after the inmate had requested it. He says that he needs treatment for his mental illness but isn't getting any. He has been imprisoned for nearly 30 years now for being a repeating sex offender and is suffering every day from his serious mental illness.

Now that van der Bleeken has being granted his wish to die 15 other inmates have filed for the same request.

Belgium's prison system has been criticized for a long time as being inadequate and since 1998 it has been convicted 14 times for it by the European court of Human rights.
 
He's a danger who knows this and is aware of it.

or

He's a coward who can't face up to his heinous crimes and wants a way out.

or

Let him rot in gaol.

The last opinion is detrimental to taxpayers' money but money ought not to get in the way of justice. I favour euthanasia but only for those who are of sound mind. This fellow apparently is not.
 
Some background information: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/16/belgium-convict-granted-right-to-die

A Belgian convicted of murder and rape who has been imprisoned for almost three decades has been granted the right to die after doctors agreed his psychiatric condition was incurable, an official and a lawyer said Tuesday.

Frank Van Den Bleeken sought the right to die because he was "suffering unbearably" from his psychiatric condition, his lawyer Jos Vander Velpen said.

Unable to control his sexual urges, the convict had no prospect of living in freedom.

"He has clearly said that he didn't want to leave prison because he didn't want to risk creating further victims," he said. Seeing himself as a danger to society, he could "no longer live like that", the lawyer said.

Belgium's justice minister approved Frank Van Den Bleeken's transfer to a hospital where doctors will end his life, an official said on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the case publicly.

Van Den Bleeken's lawyer declined to elaborate on his client's psychiatric condition or to discuss when the medically-assisted suicide would take place, citing his client's right to privacy.

Belgium has allowed euthanasia since 2002 in cases where patients' physical or psychological conditions are incurable and constant. About 1,400 people a year choose the option, but it has rarely ever been applied to convicts before. Belgium doesn't have the death penalty.

Van Den Bleeken had requested a transfer for treatment at a specialised psychiatric centre in the Netherlands or, failing that, a mercy killing. Belgian authorities denied the transfer request earlier this year. On Monday, a Brussels appeals court accepted an agreement to carry out the assisted suicide.

Euthanasia for the terminally ill is widely accepted in Belgium. However, a February decision by the country's lawmakers to extend the euthanasia law to terminally ill children under 18 stirred some controversy.

The sisters of one of Van Den Bleeken's victims, a woman he raped and killed while being temporarily out of prison in 1989, seemed appalled by the decision.

"Let him rot in his cell," the sisters, referred to as only Annie and Liliane, were quoted by Dutch daily Algemeen Dagblad as saying.

"All those commissions, doctors and experts concerned about the wellbeing of the murderer of our sister. Nobody has ever shown us that much attention," they said.

Belgium has allowed euthanasia since 2002 for the terminally ill, but the vast majority of cases involve physical illnesses.

Carine Brochier, a project manager with the Brussels-based European Institute of Bioethics, said Van Den Bleeken should not be allowed to die but receive proper treatment as would be the case in all other countries.

"This is a great failure of psychiatric care and the prison system in Belgium altogether," said Brochier, who opposes euthanasia. The decision amounts to a "death penalty through the backdoor," she said.

"And now this will set off a race of other convicts seeking to die," she warned.

Proponents of euthanasia supported the decision but acknowledged that Van Den Bleeken's case is complicated because he isn't suffering from a physical illness, which makes it harder to prove that his condition is incurable.

"The position that we have regarding a patient, detained or not, with a cancer is totally different from the position we have regarding what we can't see, meaning a psychiatric disorder," said Jacqueline Herremans, the president of Belgium's right to die association.

However, since psychiatrists following him for years have concluded that his mental condition is incurable and he could therefore never be set free, it was right to grant his euthanasia request despite his despicable crimes committed long ago, she said.

"Regardless, he's a human being; a human being who has the right to demand euthanasia," said Herremans, who also sits on Belgium's government-appointed euthanasia commission.

Euthanasia requests in Belgium have been rising over the past years, soaring from 1,400 in 2012 to 1,800 last year.

The majority of patients requesting it suffer from cancer; but 67 requests citing psychological disorders were also accepted last year, according to a government report. They included patients with Alzheimer's, Huntington's, dementia and psychosis, the report said.

While euthanasia for the terminally ill is widely accepted in Belgium, a decision in February by Belgian lawmakers to extend the euthanasia law to terminally ill children stirred some controversy.

The law empowers children with terminal ailments who are in great pain to ask to be put to death if their parents agree and a psychiatrist or psychologist certifies they are conscious of what their choice signifies.
 
What is the cost to actually euthanize him vs. keeping him in jail? I know that lethal injections in the states can get quite pricey.
 
What is the cost to actually euthanize him vs. keeping him in jail? I know that lethal injections in the states can get quite pricey.

In the Netherlands euthanasia is covered in the health insurance. I can't find any current prices but this article states that the highest price was roughly 100 euro.

So, euthanasia will earn itself back in 2 days tops.

Edit.

Putting down a horse costs 80-200 Euro. I think a horse gets a bigger dose than a human.
 
Last edited:
What is the cost to actually euthanize him vs. keeping him in jail? I know that lethal injections in the states can get quite pricey.
In the US that's more to do with court costs than the actual injections themselves, people fight those to the bitter end and it costs a lot of money to see a case like that through.
 
How can euthanasing someone cost more than $100.
It is just a huge dose of a anesthetic type drug.

Or just use a bullet, cheap, simple, effective and organs can be donated to boot.
 
I'd say give him the injection. The man's asking for it himself. If he served his sentence but doesn't feel like he can be a member of society again because of his mental illness, then why not?
 
It is just a huge dose of a anesthetic type drug.
No, it's not. Those drugs can cause serious complications if misused and/or they fail.

Or just use a bullet, cheap, simple, effective and organs can be donated to boot.
It's also inhumane. The point of euthanasia is to offer a peaceful death. Not a violent one. By using a bullet, it would be more of an execution than euthanasia, and while you might not see the difference, everyone from politicians to human rights activists will.
 
About Belgium's prison system, it is mostly known for being like a hotel with the majority of us Belgians. I read in an article a couple of months ago that in the prison of Hasselt they even give fresh inmates a "welcoming basket":

welcome-basket-image.png

My personal opinion on the subject is that it's both good for the man himself (if he is a permanent danger to society) and for the tax payer, so win win to say it crudely.
 
I don't see a problem with this.

The only potential problem would be if he wasn't mentally capable of making the decision. I assume that they've covered that.

I don't see any benefit to keeping someone alive who doesn't want to be.
 
By using a bullet, it would be more of an execution than euthanasia, and while you might not see the difference, everyone from politicians to human rights activists will.
Give him the gun, let him commit suicide, execution issue solved.
 
Give him the gun, let him commit suicide, execution issue solved.

It would be rather uncomfortable if he stuffed it up somehow though. Imagine if he only lobotomised himself or something.
 
Only an idiot or a despot that fears no consequence would allow such a PR nightmare to happen within a penal system on their watch.

I guess it really depends whether you think your citizens have their 🤬 together enough to accept that people can choose their own death.

Some societies are simply incapable. Some are fine with it. It's not an absolute reason not to let it go ahead, but it is a reason to consider whether the Belgian society in particular is capable.

Probably they'll be fine, as one of the countries that has recognised that euthenasia is acceptable under certain circumstances already.
 
Last edited:
Actually reminds me it's been almost a year now since Emiel Pauwels a 95 year old athlete from my hometown of Bruges committed euthanasia as he was diagnosed with terminal cancer.

Last party with Family and friends (champagne included):

emiel-pauwels-decede-ce-mardi-a-participe-a-une-fete-avec_379355_516x343.JPG


media_xll_6382371.jpg


Only a year before he won the European championship for seniors on the 60m dash:



This being one of the more romantic stories about euthanasia (if you can name it so).
 
It's also inhumane. The point of euthanasia is to offer a peaceful death. Not a violent one. By using a bullet, it would be more of an execution than euthanasia, and while you might not see the difference, everyone from politicians to human rights activists will.

Seems like a semantic difference to call it euthanasia in the first place.
 
It's still violent, unnecessary and inhumane.
It's "unnecessary and inhumane" even if the subject himself agrees to it? And yes it's violent in any case but again, if the subject agrees, why is it a bad thing?
 
It's "unnecessary and inhumane" even if the subject himself agrees to it? And yes it's violent in any case but again, if the subject agrees, why is it a bad thing?

Because the subject is mentally unstable and in no position to make any decision like this. Euthanasia, assisted dying, whatever you want to call it, should be permitted between consenting parties but only when both parties are of sound mind.
 
Because the subject is mentally unstable and in no position to make any decision like this.

Yet he's making the most logical decision? Just because he has a "mental condition" it doesn't mean to say he's incapable of making decisions for himself. In his case it just means he like to rape people and then murder them.

He's never getting out so at the very best all treatment will do is help him come to terms with having spent 50 years of his life locked in a cell wanting to rape and kill people - the outcome is the same one way or another. He's spending the rest of his life in a cell, the only real decision here is how long that's going to be.
 
@Imari, I was addressing @Grayfox's tangent that didn't even need to exist. "Give them a gun, yada, yada".

If the man is of sound mind, I have no problem with his potential euthanising. Even if he is not of sound mind I don't think he should automatically be denied. If his life is miserable and expensive, and there is no real hope of either of those things changing, despite it maybe sounding flippant it might be "cut your losses" time.
 
He served his time, I believe, and now he should receive psychological treatment but he isn't getting any. Normal circumstances would be to set him free. This guy cannot go back into the free world because he knows he will rape and possibly murder again.

I say let him have his wish and let him die. Saves a lot of money, mental suffering and possible victims.

Edit.

He was convicted but held unaccountable for his actions and should have been sent to an asylum but instead went to prison.

2 psychiatrists have deemed him mentally competent in his decisions, acknowledge that he has a mental disorder and that he is suffering from it.
 
Last edited:
Belgium has requested the Netherlands to take van den Bleeken and give him the treatment he needs.

Which kinda baffles me since earlier reports stated that he can not be cured. What's the point of the treatment? The only thing they can do to him is drug him up so much that he doesn't even know he's alive. Or just euthanize him. Which what will happen eventually, I expect.
 
Belgium has requested the Netherlands to take van den Bleeken and give him the treatment he needs

What treatment does he need and why can he not receive it in Belgium?

Which kinda baffles me since earlier reports stated that he can not be cured. What's the point of the treatment? The only thing they can do to him is drug him up so much that he doesn't even know he's alive. Or just euthanize him. Which what will happen eventually, I expect.

Why can Belgium not request help from a country like Switzerland to take care of the procedure? If the Belgian justice system was happy to issue a euthanasia decree, but for whatever reason not actually carry it out, the Belgian state department by proxy must be content that a foreign government, with Belgian permission and supervision, can euthanise a Belgian citizen condemned to death by the Belgian government?

Unless for some reason euthanasia is totally off the cards because of some new evidence or psychological evaluation and not because of public pressure. Sorry, I haven't been able to follow this story very well.
 
What treatment does he need and why can he not receive it in Belgium?

Because Belgium's penal system is pretty much worthless.

Why can Belgium not request help from a country like Switzerland to take care of the procedure?

Because we can take care of him apparently. And most likely give him the shot he wants.
 
Well, it took a sweet helluvalot time but the Dutch Bureaucracy engine has finally decided that Frank van den Bleeken will not be transferred to a Dutch clinic.

Apparently there is no legal ground to have him transferred.

Can someone just slip him a pill already?
 
Back