The decision by Mr. van
ver Bleeken’s to seek euthanasia as a response to his
sexually abusive raises a whole host of questions as well as issues for sex
offender treatment, rehabilitation and reintegration:
- Mr. van der Bleeken’s argument is that his
sexual impulses are innate and causing him severe psychological as well as
emotional trauma, as a consequence he is asking to be euthanatized so that his
pain can be abated. In saying this he is placing his sexual cognitions and motivations
in the same arena as other prolonged and depilating illnesses, such as MS,
which euthanasia is used for. This reframes sexual abuse, and the related
motivations, into a whole new biological light. Although, we recognise that
there may innate drives that can motivate some sexual offenders this is not the
case for all sexual offenders; sexual offending is heterogeneous in nature. Mr.
van der Bleeken’s argument for euthanasia as well as being reductionist also
works to cloud the fact that there are social aspects to sexual abuse. So even
though he may suffer from cognitions and drives that are emotionally and
psychologically based, so to do a lot of other individuals (i.e., people with
severe personality disorders, schizophrenia, depression, etc) for whom
euthanasia would not be considered. So why was euthanasia allowed for Mr. van der
Bleeken? As a consequence of the nature of his offences, or his level of
dangerousness, or his risk level? These seem difficult to justify, especially
in a country that does not have the death penalty.
- In
this case the argument is that treatment has not help Mr. van der Bleeken and
that another response is needed. Research has indicated that treatment works
for different individuals in different ways at different times (Beech et al,
2009; Baim & Guthrie, 2014); it is not a homogenous solution. However, the
suggestion that death is the only alternative solution to a failure in
treatment is a very worrying precedent to set and feeds into the longstanding,
although often rebuked, myth that nothing works with sex offenders so why
bother. As professionals we recognise that sexually abusive tendencies and
cognitions are incurable, and therefore that is not what treatment is really
about; treatment is really about giving people the skills to reduce and manage
these tendencies. Therefore it is a misnomer to say that the inability of
treatment to cure a sex offender means that we must move to the most radical
solution, death. This is why we have some individuals who are civilly
commitment for their own as well as society’s benefit, which is not to say that
everyone who is civilly committed is always going to be high risk forever but
instead to say that those most resistant to change and in need of the most
support have the appropriate responses available to them.
- This
case also raises the issue of prisoner rights, so should Mr. Van der Bleeken be
allowed to pursue this course of action when he is being held by the state for
a crime(s) that he committed? Part of the role of prison is to remove an
individual’s freedom and right for self-determination. However, prisoners do
have health related rights and therefore are Mr. Van der Bleeken’s concerns
over his emotional and psychological state congruent with prisoners suffering
for physical ailments for would euthanasia would be more readily accepted? Or
is it an attempt to downplay his responsibility for the sexual assaults as he
cannot control himself and his urges are beyond treatment? So in arguing for
assisted suicide Mr. van der Bleeken could be seen as bypassing the criminal
justice system as the Belgium government do not think that the death penalty is
not an appropriate response to his offences. However this goes beyond the offender
and the state to the victim, with the parents of Mr. van der Bleeken’s victims
not wanting him to have access to assisted suicide instead arguing that he
needs to serve out his sentence and be punished for his offences (Daily Mail). Consequentiality,
the Belgian government’s recommendation that Mr. van der Bleeken can be allowed
euthanasia means that the families of his victims feel betrayed by the criminal
justice system and that they are not getting the justice that they were originally
promised.
The Frank van der
Bleeken case raises a lot of questions about the viability and impact of sex
offender treatment (The
Globe and Mail). The main issue seems to be whether euthanasia is
appropriate response if sex offender treatment is not seen as successful by the
client. This could have serious implications for the view of treatment from the
judiciary as well as from the public, because if sex offenders feel that they
deserve the death penalty and that they cannot be cured is this probable cause
to invoke it?
References
Beech,
A.R., Craig, L.A., & Browne, K.D. (2009). Assessment and treatment of sex
offenders: A handbook. Chichester: Wiley.
Baim,
C., & Guthrie,L. (2014). Changing
Offending Behaviour. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Cohen
–Almagor, R. (2009). Belgian euthanasia law: a critical analysis. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35,
436-439
No comments:
Post a Comment