Former Netherlands Prime Minister Dries van Agt and his wife both die by euthanasia

Here we have an elderly couple. Both were aged 93 and were in 'fragile health'. They had been together 70 years. They lived in the Netherlands where euthanasia is legal, so they took advantage of it and they decided to die together.

Is this a 'good for them' situation? They knew they were in poor health and they wanted to end it before it got really bad so they ended it together. Or is this a tragedy in that there was still life left in them and they could have lived their lives until the natural end, still experiencing life and family etc?

I won't judge them. I'm only 61 and I already feel like crap and if someone showed me 'the tunnel with the bright light' at the end of it I'd jump in. I can only imagine what it would be like being worse ... 93 and in 'fragile health'.

I won't judge, but it does open up interesting discussions - Euthanasia, should it be legal? If so, only for those terminally ill or should it be open to the chronically ill, or should it be open to ANY consenting adult since it's their life and their choice? etc etc

Former Netherlands Prime Minister Dries van Agt and his wife both die by euthanasia

Former Dutch Prime Minister, Dries van Agt, has died by euthanasia, 'hand in hand' with his beloved wife Eugenie. They were both 93.

Euthanasia has been legal in The Netherlands since 2002 for those experiencing 'unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement', and there has been a considerable rise in the number of people opting to end their lives by euthanasia in recent years.

The pair had been in fragile health for some time — in 2019, van Agt suffered a brain hemorrhage while giving a speech at a commemoration event for Palestinians after which he never fully recovered. The couple, who had been together for more than 70 years, had a farewell service and were buried in the city of Nijmegen this week.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Is this a 'good for them' situation? They knew they were in poor health and they wanted to end it before it got really bad so they ended it together. Or is this a tragedy in that there was still life left in them and they could have lived their lives until the natural end, still experiencing life and family etc?

In this case, I think it's a "good for them" situation. Forcing someone to live with poor health, suffering, and taking a myriad of pharmaceuticals just to keep them alive daily is not quality of life. I'm glad they had a way to end it if that was their choice.

On the other hand, it really bothers me when people use a permanent solution to a temporary problem, as one of my young family members did. It's a double edged sword.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Wow...together for 70 years.
Sounds like a wonderful love story.

A planned death is not only good for them, it's good for everyone around them.
They had the choice to get their affairs in order, to make sure all of their loose ends were tied up, and then they got to check out together so neither of them would have to suffer the loss of the other.

Sure their family mourns, but they had a chance to plan for it and say their goodbyes.

I can't think of a better way to handle the situation.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Qualify a natural death?
Last 20 years of their lives were probably on pain killers and medication
Alive by medical proxy, not in the least natural

I guess if death is the end, then one must be inclined to hold on

originally posted by: Creaky
Qualify a natural death?
Last 20 years of their lives were probably on pain killers and medication
Alive by medical proxy, not in the least natural

Good point.

originally posted by: Creaky
a reply to: FlyersFan

Qualify a natural death?
Last 20 years of their lives were probably on pain killers and medication
Alive by medical proxy, not in the least natural

I guess if death is the end, then one must be inclined to hold on

Keeping terminally ill people alive by artificial means isn't medicine. Keeping mentally ill people alive by revoking their autonomy and inflicting crippling debt on them, their family or tax payers isn't medicine either. Eventually the ill outnumber the healthy 3 to 1 and the 30% is stuck working 80+ a week and paying extra taxes to accommodate the sick and dying.

The truth hurts.

a reply to: Klassified

Well said, when I see people that struggle through problems I don’t think I could cope with, it always gives me a great sense of admiration for their courage and fortitude. Awe inspiring in fact!

On the other hand seeing the terminally ill forced to “live” through medical intervention when they just want to pass on, saddens me greatly.

Dbl post

I have a friend with an uncle who is terminally ill, bed ridden and on ridiculous amounts of morphine. He suffers everyday. He wants to die and his family want him to die to end the suffering.

Euthanasia is not legal in his country. It should be, it should be legal everywhere so people can die with dignity at a time of their choosing.

originally posted by: CarlLaFong
Sounds like a wonderful love story.

Sounds like a great way to set a TREND.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
They had been together 70 years...and they decided to die together.

I love my car...but I wouldn't drive off a cliff with it.

originally posted by: CarlLaFong
I love my car...but I wouldn't drive off a cliff with it.

My husband and I are soul mates. We met when I was 8 and he was 10. We are in our 60s now. When we die, I hope we go at the same time. Nearly impossible, I know. But that's my hope.

Some background about the legal requirements for Euthanasia in the Netherlands.


Euthanasia and assisted suicide are only allowed if a doctor is certain that the 6 requirements of the law apply.

1. Voluntary and well thought out
The doctor must be convinced that the patient's request for euthanasia is voluntary. And that the patient has thought about it carefully (well-considered). So the question really has to come from the patient himself. No one may force or pressure the patient. Not family and not friends either. The question should also not arise suddenly, because then the wish for euthanasia could suddenly disappear. Therefore, talk to your doctor about your wish on time and regularly.

2. Hopeless and unbearable suffering
The doctor must be convinced that the patient's suffering is hopeless and unbearable. When assessing hopelessness, the patient's diagnosis and prospects are central. There is hopelessness if:

the patient can no longer be cured;
the patient suffers unnecessarily and this cannot be reduced.
The doctor also examines how much improvement a treatment can still provide. And how difficult the treatment is for the patient.

Unbearable suffering is mainly about how the patient experiences it. This is different for everyone. For example, the diseases that someone has. The doctor must be able to empathize with the patient and his suffering.

3. Inform about the situation and prospects
The doctor must provide the patient with information about the medical situation. And what his situation will look like in the future. It is important that the patient understands all useful information about the situation. This way the patient can make a good choice. The doctor must check whether the patient knows enough. And whether the patient has also understood the information.

4. No reasonable alternative
The doctor must decide together with the patient that there is no reasonable other solution for the patient's situation. The doctor must always check whether there are other ways to make the suffering less severe. That does not mean that the patient should try all possible treatments.

Does the patient experience a lot of discomfort and pain from a particular treatment? Then that counts in the assessment. Sometimes treatment is very difficult and the patient's situation only improves slightly. The doctor and patient may then decide together to stop the treatment.

5. Consult an independent doctor
The patient's doctor must consult at least 1 independent doctor. This doctor is called a consultant. The consultant must see the patient. And assess whether the doctor has complied with the due care requirements. Independence means that the consultant is allowed to give his or her own opinion about the patient and the doctor. The consultant may not be involved in the patient's treatment. Or have a personal bond with the doctor or patient.

6. Medically careful execution
Finally, the doctor must carry out euthanasia (or assisted suicide) in a medically careful manner, for example with the right medications and in the right steps. Doctors and pharmacists have drawn up a guideline for this purpose: 'Implementation of euthanasia and assisted suicide'. The guideline contains requirements for how doctors should properly perform euthanasia and assisted suicide.
​
(translated with google)

Source : Central Government

My life my rules....

originally posted by: FlyersFan
...When we die, I hope we go at the same time. Nearly impossible, I know...

Not if you drink and drive a lot or like playing with matches.

a reply to: FlyersFan

On an individual level I am all for people being able to end their lives in a painless and dignified way. It reduces also the trauma that comes with other forms of suicide to family, loved ones and other persons. Just think of the poor guy driving the train someone decided to throw themselves in front of. Passengers, bystanders and whoever has to clean up the mess...

The question is how slippery becomes the slope on a society level. You are causing the state or the insurance company too much costs? Maybe you should take the final pill. You are no longer a productive member of society? Well then you are just contributing to global warming without doing anything useful, right? Come on take the ride to the other side, it's the responsible thing to do... Canada seems to be testing the waters in that regard.

While I truly believe that it should be legal here in the US, it won't be.

Life insurance companies and Health insurance companies make too much money off of us at the end, to allow it.
We need to fix that ASAP.

Yes, I believe this couple did what was best for them.
Wish we could do the same.

a reply to: FlyersFan

My type of Valentines Day story.

That's honestly beautiful. My parents have been together over 50 years, and that would be preferable for them.

I'm from an inverted household (per American standards) where my Mother always made the final decision, and that man will not live more than 2 months without her deciding for him if she goes first. And I'm not saying that to be insulting to my Dad, he just is worthless without her. Like Ozzy without Sharon.

In The USA; Oregon, Washington D.C., Hawaii, Washington, Maine, Colorado, New Jersey, California, and Vermont give you the option.

Personally, I will take that over a slow painful death. If I'm ever going towards life-ending care, I pick euthanasia. I don't want to turn into a shriveled husk of a person kept alive by their involuntary function. Some diseases, like Cancer, level everyone, and I'm glad I have the option to not let it do its absolute worst to me in the "stage 4/recommended for hospice" circumstance. I refuse to die like that.

I get the morality hang-ups. I think only virtuous self-immolation (Suicide by religious martyrdom) escapes the suicide purgatory punishment, so I can see the hesitancy.

But I think it's humane and empathetic. If it's humane to put down a beloved pet and end suffering, it's humane for a human to put themselves down.

Some might argue its a "best case scenario" to die together as they did.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: CarlLaFong
I love my car...but I wouldn't drive off a cliff with it.

My husband and I are soul mates. We met when I was 8 and he was 10. We are in our 60s now. When we die, I hope we go at the same time. Nearly impossible, I know. But that's my hope.

That just sounds so unreal to me, how's this even real? Fairy tales sound worse. Off course I know of no immediate couple like this.