August 18, 2024
Milou’s Parents Hit Back
By Louis Verhoof en Mireille Verhoof, Opinion, first published in Dutch in Trouw
Psychiatrist Wilbert Van Rooij and 13 other psychiatrists/doctors sent a letter to the Public Prosecutor’s Office (OM) at the end of April.
Co-signed by psychiatry professors Damiaan Denys and Jim van Os, others remained anonymous.
In the letter, they asked for ‘exploratory criminal investigations’ into the extent to which we as parents, together with psychiatrists Menno Oosterhoff and Kit Vanmechelen, may have influenced our 17-year-old daughter Milou in her euthanasia wish last year.
As parents, we have been in a nightmare since this ‘secret’ letter became public on July 22.
It is shocking that this instance of euthanasia is being used to put parents and practitioners in the dock.
Van Os and Denys visited the OM in July to explain the letter. But before that, the OM had already concluded that there was no reason for such an investigation.
That was not told to the media.
Indeed, the prosecution would share the concerns in the letter.
Thus, the media headlined a criminal investigation surrounding our daughter’s death.
Based on factual falsehoods.
A shadow over a difficult issue
Since then, a shadow has been cast over an important topic that belongs in a respectful debate.
In consultation with doctors, patients and relatives.
Because which next of kin will next dare to stand by his or her loved one?
Which psychiatrist will dare to supervise a euthanasia procedure?
Where can patients be heard if the conversation about thoughts of death or, in exceptional cases, euthanasia is not allowed?
None of these doctors who signed the letter were practitioners. None knew the years’-long trajectory. None spoke to our daughter.
The ‘case’ was named extensively in the letter. Something initially denied, yet later reluctantly admitted.
Sure, Milou’s case was only meant as a reference. It was not the essence of the letter, Denys said.
Van Rooij spoke of an ‘unclear wording’ in the letter. In it, investigations into prosecutions would never have been requested.
However, the letter is very clear on this. Was that enquiry deliberately cited, in order to tighten the legal framework of euthanasia within psychiatry?
That discussion belongs elsewhere.
Meanwhile, we were accused of ‘talking our way to death’.
Disciplinarily culpable, transgressive and disrespectful of the prevailing professional standard.
The euthanasia law was introduced to allow people to say goodbye to life in a humane manner.
The law does not discriminate on physical or psychological hopeless suffering or age, even if the person is exceptionally young.
To doubt tthe validity of our daughter’s persistent death wish feels like a dagger in our backs.
Is euthanasia be a more ‘attractive’ option than working towards recovery? Hardly.
Euthanasia is costly and requires caution.
The reports of the review committees show that this responsibility is taken very seriously by psychiatrists.
Their professional group NVvP also has no doubt about this.
Van Os told me he regretted that the letter came out. He said he felt sorry for us.
But in terms of the content of the letter, he says he still fully supports it.
As painful as this is, to his credit he does not anonymise himself. At least he stands by his views.
From the other doctors, we have heard nothing yet.
A Kick in the Teeth
This group of doctors have imposed their views as truth. In doing so they stubbornly want to continue treatment. They deny that some people can become resistant to precisely this treatment.
People between the ages of 16 and 18 are allowed by law to decide for themselves whether they want euthanasia.
That wish does not deserve a kick in the teeth or a cowardly letter that pretends that there were still options of recovery available: a letter that makes the parents a guilty party.
The review committee approved Milou’s euthanasia. The committee put the final ‘tick’ in this heartfelt process.
The psychiatrists who wrote this letter writers have no idea of the consequences of their action.
As parents, we are now being criminalised, openly pilloried and we are receiving threats.
Step out of anonymity, doctors!
We ask you today to withdraw the letter to the OM. We ask you to remove it from social media and on websites (as the journal ‘Medisch Contact’ has done).
We ask you to rectify the allegations in Trouw and on social media.
We ask you to apologise to those involved for this big misstep.
This is not how you posthumously deal with a person who suffered hopeless psychological suffering.
This is not how you deal with her parents.
This is not how you deal with your own colleagues.
One day, this may be your child.
