Vincent
Humbert, a quadriplegic, was totally immobilized in his hospital
bed. He was also mute and almost totally blind. Unable to swallow,
he was fed by a gastric tube. He viewed death as a deliverance
and was begging his physicians to help him reach it. Instead,
for nearly three years, they forced him to be subjected to that
living death, some of them alleging a respect for the law, while
others invoked their personal concepts of ethics. Using the
one finger he could still move, Vincent had succeeded in sending
a petition to the President of the French Republic, whose only
reply was to urge Vincent to bear with his inhuman plight until
a « natural death » intervenes.
Finally, Vincent's own mother, who was desperately anguished
by her son's suffering, had the courage to brave the prohibition
maintained obstinately by the medical, religious and political
« elites »; on her own, she poured into her son's gastric tube
the barbiturates that would deliver him from his plight.
Presently, the physicians who had kept Humbert alive against
his will, attempted again to perseverate ; to prevent him from
dying, they added artificial respiration to all the other measures
which kept him alive. Just imagine the debates of conscience,
and, perhaps also, the outside pressures which finally persuaded
the physicians to stop the respirator and thus to allow Marie
Humbert's action to reach its goal. Theirs was a minimal decision;
the alternative, i.e., to maintain Humbert on the respirator
and to bring him out of the comatose state in order to return
him to his bed of torture, would have been the last straw! There
have been attempts by some to claim that the credit for the
end of Vincent Humbert's torments should go to that decision
to stop treatment. Those who made such a claim overlooked the
fact that the said decision implied instead a recognition of
the legitimacy of the active euthanasia practiced by the mother.
She did not allow the consequences of this « assassination »
to stop her.
The hypocritical pronouncements of the cabinet ministers, calling
upon the judiciary to introduce some « humanity » into the application
of the consequences of this « assassination », in no way conceal
the fact that the legal prohibition of voluntary euthanasia
engenders tragedies, stifles the consciences and forces people
to lie.
Today, in Belgium, Vincent Humbert would have been given the
opportunity to die serenely, at a moment chosen by him, and
by means of a peaceful sleep induced in the presence of his
family who would thus have been allowed to leave him after bidding
their last farewells. This mother would not have been left with
no choice but to be the lone figure in a tragedy of conscience,
acted in concealment, a tragedy easily surmised by anyone: she
was anguished both by her fear of failing and by her uncertainty
about how her son would die.
Let us put aside the assertion - we have already heard it -
that Vincent Humbert's case is unique and thus does not justify
a modification of the legislation or even the opening of a debate.
While his case is indeed unique in terms of the causes of his
suffering and the seriousness of his physical disability, every
day other - but just as unbearable -kinds of suffering are endured
by patients with generalized and incurable cancers or with relentlessly
progressive neurological diseases to whom palliative care is
unable to bring any relief, a fact that is confirmed stirringly
by the declarations of euthanasias reviewed routinely by the
Belgian commission of control.
For the past year in Belgium, thanks to the legal de-criminalization
of euthanasia, which was preceded by a wide-open democratic
debate and is respectful of all views, patients can choose the
manner by which they wish to have their life terminated. This
law thus makes it possible that such human tragedies be handled
in dignity, openly, and in the most adequate medical manner,
while taking all the necessary precautions against abuses. The
important role played by this de-criminalization of euthanasia,
in allowing physicians to act according to their conscience
and without resorting to equivocation, is demonstrated by the
numerous calls for help that reach us from other countries (obviously,
we cannot respond to such calls).
It is conceivable that Marie Humbert's action - as happened
in Belgium following the long and publicized struggle of J.M.Lorand
- may contribute to the opening of a debate in France on the
management of end-of-life problems, in spite of the resistance
of those who remain obstinately deaf and blind when confronted
with the torments of disease and of death.
