Dutch woman, 29, granted euthanasia approval on grounds of mental suffering
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/may/16/dutch-woman-euthanasia-approval-grounds-of-mental-sufferingOpen linkView original on lemmy.ca452
Comments262https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/may/16/dutch-woman-euthanasia-approval-grounds-of-mental-sufferingOpen linkView original on lemmy.ca
Honestly and genuinely, I'm glad to see all that she has put into this decision and glad the state is allowing it. Now she doesn't need to cause further pain to others through a traumatic suicide and she can gain the peace she's been longing for.
Each day, so many lives are snuffed out of existence without a second thought. She has given this an incredible amount of thought, time, and work.
Rest in peace, Zoraya. 💜
P. S. There's thousands of live today that want to live. They don't want to die. And yet their lives are taken away in an instant. Perhaps we should focus on saving them rather than making someone like Zoraya feel even worse.
Life's one big experiment anyway.... There is no peace.
I can't understand why so many people are against someone dying with dignity. This is a form of harm reduction for not just the patient, but also their loved ones, and society in general.
Nobody wants to see their loved ones suffer endlessly or needlessly, and this is also a whole lot less traumatic than people committing suicide. Nobody wants the last memory of their loved ones to be the scene of their (potentially messy) suicide.
And that's not to mention the trauma inflicted on bystanders for some of the more public suicide methods (not to mention that jumping to your death or intentionally walking into/driving into traffic has a decent chance of physically injuring or killing said bystanders).
If this process is undertaken with care and compassion, it's far less likely to be traumatizing to all involved. And it prevents "spur of the moment" decisions, like many successful suicides are.
It may prevent some, but at least some of the ones experiencing acute issues will still go for the immediate option. The bureaucracy of it will add a layer that I suspect will deter some. If it takes months or years, people are just going to find their own way.
I'm not suggesting that we just help any person right off the street. I think the government has duty of care once they are involved. I'm just saying the reality is that many will still choose not to take this alternative path.
You don’t want people jumping in front of a train, but what do you think would happen if this concept were fully embraced by the American for-profit insurance industry? I’m imagining taking my mom to a doctor’s appointment for an expensive treatment and finding tasteful brochures for dying with dignity helpfully placed around the office.
I'm absolutely worried this will get taken advantage of in the US' hellscape that is their healthcare system, but that doesn't mean the concept is without merit.
It's like arguing that cars should not be available for purchase because someone might use one irresponsibly, while forgetting their utility outside of abuse.
In a healthcare system that optimizes outcome instead of profit, having the option to allow someone to choose to end their suffering should not be considered a bad thing.
You haven't seen all the hospice brochures? You don't even have to imagine - it's like the P.C. version of assisted suicide for old people.
This is people committing suicide, though.
That's both debatable on a semantic level (is it really suicide if it's assisted?) and not how I intended the use of the term.
What I tried to say is that this option is less traumatic than non-assisted options for ending your existence and comes with less risk of injury to bystanders to boot.
How is it debatable? If you're claiming it's not suicide because it's assisted, then by that logic it's murder.
It's one thing to support the policy, it's another thing to misrepresent what the policy is. Suicide is still suicide. Is it less disruptive to society? Absolutely. Is it a good policy? Debatably. But it is still suicide? Indisputably. Support it if you will but don't go around saying that it's "less traumatic than suicide" as if it isn't a form of suicide.
We have a great term for the realm between murder and suicide - assistance in dying.
It bridges the gap between the definition of murder (where one party unalives the other party against their consent) and suicide (where one party unalives themselves with intent) by having the person looking to be unalived explicitly expires their intent and consent for the other party to assist them.
I feel as if you're trying to create a false equivalency to undermine the validity of this option.
And as to whether this is less traumatic than suicide - you have got to be kidding or you've never had to deal with the reality of someone committing suicide versus someone choosing assistance in dying.
One generally involves a lot of shock and someone finding a dead body in some state, the other is generally a peaceful affair where loved ones say their goodbyes before the person peacefully falls asleep for the last time.
They are nowhere near the same thing for the survivors and you claiming otherwise is an insult to both. And if you can't see the difference between these two options I'm frankly done debating this with you.
See, the difference is that I'm not looking at how clean or messy the suicide is, I'm looking at the fact that a suicide occurred. I would have much more respect for you and your position if you were willing to look it in the eye and call it what it is, instead of hiding behind these nonsense euphemisms.
At no point did I make any claims regarding the trauma involved, except to say, "Is it less disruptive to society? Absolutely." The exact opposite of the position you ascribed to me, in other words.
But trauma and shock are merely side effects of suicide. Symptoms that exist to reflect the awfulness of the event. If a person kills themselves on a deserted island, no one is traumatized or shocked by it, but it is still, factually, a suicide.
I don't see why you're reacting so strongly to a simple clarification in terminology. Or rather, I'm beginning to see why, but I wish I didn't.
That's not entirely honest - you're also trying to argue that having this option is not a good or valid option (you called "debatable") and are trying to steer the conversation by creating a false equivalency between assistance in dying and suicide, which are not the same thing.
I fully agree with your example - someone unaliving themselves on a deserted island committed suicide. Never said they didn't.
What I said, and what you're conveniently omitting, is that suicide is an act by an individual, there is no other party to the unaliving. This is not the case in assistance in dying, and there's very good legal reason why we consider these distinct from eachother, and from murder (to your earlier point).
Even if we forget the traumatic angle I brought up earlier, surely you must see the difference between an act that involves one party and an act that involves two parties with express intent and consent.
What you're trying to do is the same as arguing masturbation and sex are the same thing because they end with the same result (orgasm).
What the fuck is "unaliving". Are you saying that unironically? If so, it's staggeringly Orwellian.
Saying it's "debatable" is not the same thing as asserting it's not a good or valid option. It just means that whether it's good or valid hasn't been conclusively established.
Assisted suicide is a form or suicide that is assisted. The thing that makes it different between it and regular suicide is that someone else is assisting. You've chosen the example of masturbation vs sex because it's one of the few analogies that would work for you. Tandem skiing is skiing. Assisted murder is murder. Skydiving with an instructor is skydiving.
The onus is on you to present why the addition of an assistant meaningfully changes the nature of the act.
I see no such thing. Solo suicide involves intent, and there is no need for consent because there isn't a second person involved. How on earth would the addition of a second person make it meaningfully different? Are you refusing to say the reason because you think it's obvious, or because it doesn't exist?
"Less traumatic than violent, ad-hoc suicide" perhaps?
There's no such thing as "non-violent" suicide. Maybe, "less traumatic than non-assisted suicide" or "regular suicide," or "suicide that isn't state approved," or any number of other phrasings so long as a spade is still called a spade.
Imagine thinking your life belongs to you, and then having to get permission to end it without suffering
There are other options other than this one that requires permission. The article mentions her reasons to choose this method.
From the article:
Whether we agree with her or not, it's her decision.
You're asking someone else to take your life and expect them to do so no questions asked...?
There are in fact many questions asked, and any doctor can refuse for any reason.
Yes, hence kofe's skeptical and maybe sarcastic question
I was genuinely asking, more so of the person that's skeptical of having to get permission. I'm glad it seems to be an ethical requirement
Jumping off bridges is free, no?
Clearly, this is about a more complex social issue/concern.
I think it's technically illegal in most countries (suicide I mean, not specifically the bridge variety).
/s
This. Is. Awesome.
Good on her; for doing whatever was reasonable. For making an informed decision. For following the approved methods. And for sticking it out.
We "put down" pets when their suffering is too much, why can't we let people make that same decision for themselves? Luckily the Dutch can.
I hope assisted suicide becomes more common. For everyone. Experience of conscious beings is the most important thing for me. But governments view people as manpower which is depressing.
Suicide isn't "awesome," and "good on her for sticking it out" in the context of suicide would pass as ironic edgelord humor 20 years ago on 4chan.
It's terrifying that the exact same action, when done in a way that's "clean" and legal makes people say things like that that presumably nobody would say otherwise. Setting up a legal pathway for suicide doesn't change what it is.
Setting up a legal pathway for suicide helps people maintain agency and also allows for those with curable conditions to take the time to seek the help they really need thanks to the ample medical oversight.
I don't think that it's awesome. Having read the article, I think that she has full capacity to make the decision and am happy that she is doing so in a medically supported way. Botched suicide attempts can cause devastating disabilities. And I always hate when a family member finds the body of someone who died by suicide.
I don't mind if you think it's a good policy or better than the alternative, but I'm always going to push back against people describing suicide as "awesome."
I'm with you 100%. No one consents to being born, and it should be every human's right to decide when they've had enough and consent to checking out of life.
We put down animals because they're suffering, it's seen as a mercy, yet when it comes to humans? Oh no, go through your fifth round of chemo, take two shots of morphine every day, exist in nothing but physical pain because wanting to die is somehow... Wrong?
I've suffered from depression the majority of my life, and I've even asked my therapist: what is so wrong, so bad, about wanting to die? We live in a society where the majority of wealth is held by very few, we're watching governments across the world fall to fascism, people's rights are being stripped away left and right, and yet the majority of the population believes "Well, you have XYZ, so you should be grateful! You have so much to live for!"
This is not a pro-suicide comment, either, to be clear. If you are suffering, please reach out to friends/family, or even better, a mental health professional if that is an option for you. Death is a permanent solution to what can be a temporary problem. But if an individual of sound mind and body wants to consent, for whatever reason, to no longer wanting to play this torture we call life, I believe they should 100% have the right to do so, and we should be glad we as a society have come so far as to extend the same mercy to human beings that we provide to pets.
Before I said that something could pass as ironic edgelord humor 20 years ago on 4chan, but in this case, I think this is so edgy even the channers would make fun of it.
Killing yourself is the ultimate expression of freedom? Shouldn't you be banned for saying that? When did it become acceptable to glamorize and encourage suicide?
Suicide isn't "the ultimate expression of freedom" it's the complete and total renunciation of freedom. Dead bodies aren't free to do anything except rot.
It isn't awesome that her life is so miserable that, even though she has spent decades exhausting all medical treatment options, she still wants to die. What is awesome is that there is a comprehensive and humane way for her to end her suffering that assures this isn't a rash decision, gives her loved ones a time frame to come to terms with it, and provides a situation where they do not have to deal with the aftermath of doing it herself.
Believe it or not, there are a lot of people out there who's lives are nothing but pain and suffering. Pain and suffering despite seeking out all possible means to relieve themselves of this pain, and finding that none exist. Pain that isn't going to end, and not having a life worth living to look forward to. There are also a lot of people out there that have loved these people and realized that, though it hurts them, the suffering the person they love is going through is far worse, and will not get better. Sometimes it is more selfish to demand someone not end their life than it is for them to do so.
You clearly have not actually been in this position, even if you have been suicidal before. Maybe you should admit that you don't know everything about this, and let people have a humane way to stop their suffering.
I will never in a million years be convinced that "suicide is awesome" is a position that I should adopt or respect, sorry not sorry.
You still don't get it, they saying aren't suicide is awesome. So you continue on with your misinterpretation.
Clearly you don't put nuance into it, and don't care to. Enjoy (or hate) your black and white life.
This is the best "treatment" a capitalist shithole can give for mental health.
We live in a dystopia
Even in a utopia, some people wouldn't want to live anymore. And it should be their legal right to end their lives painlessly at the time of their choosing.
It's more profitable for the capitalists.
You think a communist doctor could fix her? They were out of posible treatments, this isn’t about money.
I swear to god, if the aliens flew by and nuked half of the globe, you fuckers would rebuild society and mass media for the sole purpose of blaming capitalism.
What are you calling a capitalist shithole exactly? The Netherlands?
They did sort of invent it.
I'd say yes. Because it is.
Shithole no, capitalist very much so.
I disagree with her decision for a few reasons but I’ll defend her right to choose.
There are always going to be people who don’t want to be here anymore for whatever reason, and so the government needs to provide a humane way of dealing with these situations.
Like with abortion, access to controlled procedures with trained professionals reduces harm. Restricting access to safe procedures will cause more harm than it prevents.
Definitely sad. Possibly the wrong choice for her, possibly the right choice, but it’s her choice to make despite how I might feel about it.
Unsolicited Conservative: "Has she tried to put God on that wound? If only she was religious..."
Dude, doctors will even try homeopathy before resorting to euthanasia.
I feel like a lot of replies here have the same "every live is precious and needs to be protected at all costs"-vibe as you get with a lot of anti-abortion arguments.
You are casually ceding the "not wanting people to kill themselves" ground to the right while also allowing them to paint themselves as caring about human lives when in reality they just want to control women's bodies and protect fetuses, not people.
"Every life is valuable" is obviously a left-wing stance because the left are the ones who actually care about people's lives, even when they're disabled, downtrodden, and painted as burdens on society.
Oh right wing def feel every life has value.
Just less value then everybodies right not to be forced to pay for them.
They are fairly open about the value of a states non right to force an indevidual to fund anothers life. Being more important then anything.
That the value for all lives is based on either an indeviduals ability to self support. Or other indeviduals willingness to offer charity.
It is forced charity usinging the states ability to use violence they consider a greater crime then any % of society not wanting to support the lives of those in need.
Its not value or no value. But priority of those values that differs.
IE states using its same power of violence to kill forign people who might disagree with the state. Can be argued with no worry about the value of those actions. They have no issue with not choosing to fund defence or the actual state ability to use violence to enforce its laws.
Just the state taking money via potential force to provide life to US citizens in need.
Exactly. If we're talking about vibes, seeking to normalize suicide for people with disabilities gives me the same vibes as far-right eugenics stuff.
Ill say one thing. As some one with disabilities. While i have no desire myself. Heck my life will be short anyway.
I do feel it is a right people should have.
It just really requires a sound mind at the time of choice. And huge effort to ensure it is not a choice the paiteint is neing forced or guilted into making.
As I cant really come up with an effective and garenteed way to enforce those restrictions.
Im currently happy my natiin will not allow anyform of assisted suicide. It must be entirly at partients own control. And technocally even then its a crime. But one that xamt be punished. Where as an assistant will be jailed.
But I can hope/wish for a world where people could choose to have suffering ended without so much risk of others pushing them into it for thier ow. Reasons.
As I say its not a choice I would make. But my own health means it could be one I mY want amd need help to make in the future.
I have no clue why you're trying to push my argument into a political direction.
Is abortion not a political issue? What do you mean by that?
It is a political issue because people want it to be one. My comment was about the way the arguments sound, not about what political side says what.
Well, I was trying to push it in a political direction because I don't like my beliefs being compared to anti-abortionists based on vibes and appearances. It's necessary to engage more critically with the issue to demonstrate that any apparent similarities are just superficial.
There is no objective division between political and non-political. This is a question about government policy on which people are divided, so to me it's inherently a political issue.
I don't know what to tell you. It seems to me like you're critical about assisted suicide but are pro choice when it comes to abortions.
In my opinion those two things are different sides of the same coin. Regardless of politics.
I don't believe that they are different sides of the same coin. I see very little in common between the two.
From my perspective, it would be like saying opposition to war or the death penalty is just like being opposed to abortion, because anti-choice people claim to value life.
Until they are asked to do something to help, then it's crickets
Idk, i am torn on this. Obviously people have had depression with suicidal tendencies since the dawn of humanity, but i feel like most modern suicides come from the failings of oir current systems. I am Zoraya's age and have struggled with depression and finding a reason to live for well over a decade. Euthanisia should be available to anyone with a terminal condition, but she still has her whole lofe ahead of her. It saddens me that the state has decided it is better to let her have a painless suicide rather than address the issues that make her life no longer worth living. To me there is no excuse for otherwise healthy adults in the prime of their lives to feel hopeless, but that is the society we have collectively decided we want to live in.
I'm glad she will be able to die on her own terms, but there is no excuse for this to be her only option. Our society has failed Zoraya and countless people like her.
I have no doubts about her sincerity to die. I just think that a better society would have been able to find her a reason to live. She is absolutely in the right here, and has done nothing wrong. It's her government which has failed her.
Why are you assuming that her mental situation developed as a result of society or "the government"? The article mentions that her conditions are chronic and started developing in early childhood. People can have mental conditions without any particular external trigger.
She has trauma, according to the article. Most traumas are largely systemic issues that have been improperly handled.
Fair enough — though the trauma is also just one of the named conditions, and we have no idea what that trauma was caused by.
Depression and anxiety are also heavily influenced by societal conditions. She would probably still have to deal with these issues but to a much less QoL damaging extent under a more humane system.
True, but people are also influenced by society starting from a young age.
The Netherlands does have a slightly higher than average suicide rate. Maybe it is because they allow euthanasia, so it's just easier than other similar countries ... I don't know.
I have mixed feelings too, like the poster you are responding to, but it is her choice. We let people sign up to potentially die to join the military when they aren't even adults yet. This was a decision made with the support of loved ones and caregivers.
This is speculated in the wiki as well and honestly I'm conflicted on it too. If people are choosing it more when it's more readily available, does that necessarily reflect badly on the people providing it? or does it reflect worse on the societies where people are suffering so badly that they probably would choose suicide if it was easier?
In a kind of parallel way to abortion here, ban abortion and you get lower abortion rates but higher rates of poverty and lower education rates. Safe abortion options lead to higher abortion rates, but the quality of life is better for those that make the choice to do it safely.
Of course in this case it's a bit different because the quality of life in assisted death is no life, but is no life better than a fucking miserable one?
It's a lot to think about but, like others in this thread, i generally believe the majority of today's mental health problems (specifically depression, anxiety, and to some extent addiction) are systemic societal problems. I know others disagree and I'm not trying to be dismissive of people's very real mental health struggles, but I mean that they are caused systemically in the way lung cancer became more common because of cigarettes. Our environment affects us.
I read somewhere that we have way more suicides in general than before. That seemed plausiblevso I didn't look it up proper. Also, whatever her problem is, that's not what assisted suicide is for , she is abusing the system. The backlash from this improper use will impede access for the people who really need it.
She's run out of treatment options and is still symptomatic to the point that her quality of life is severely diminished.
It wasn't an overnight decision and has been reviewed by multiple medical teams, over 3 and a half years. All stated in the article.
You aren't her or any of the multiple doctors that have evaluated and tried various treatments with her. If you want to get into research and help look for cures for the vast, vast number of illnesses that contribute to people seeking this treatment, please do. Or help advocate for more money being funneled towards healthcare (including for education and training), cuz from what I understand there's not a single country or healthcare system that has adequate resources to help everyone just in terms of the number of people available to provide what treatments we do have
This is something you should probably confirm and not decide on gut feeling
Depression is not a binary thing... it's not like you have it or not... most people "feel blue" every so often and that is mild depression... some people are rendered catatonic and can't bring themselves to go to the bathroom so they soil themselves... that is also depression but a much more hardcore case... comparing whatever you have vs whatever this person you don't know have (not counting they mentioned Zoraya suffers from other mental health issues as well) is not right... it could be like me comparing the salty burger I had the other day which I didn't like vs the literally rotten food being served to inmates in Murica.
So you ARE comparing the salty burger vs rotten food on the same level...
Again you double down on the notion that "her depression is just sadness, have you tried smiling today?". Also, this is not her only option, this is the last option after a decade of trying other options
Goodbye Zoraya ter Beek, and never stop fighting!
Also the utter disrespect on social media, flooding her accounts with stupid Messages.
Actually her fight is over, that's the entire point
Never ever! Except a few weeks from now
Death is permanent and cannot be undone. Once someone dies they take all their love, potential and beauty with them. We can only live with the memory of it, but that memory doesn’t have the ability to create new things or react to life in new ways.
That said, people should be able to end their suffering in a dignified manner of their choosing without suffering more. No one asked to be alive, it’s a burden imposed on them by the will of the living. The least we can do, then, is to make living as devoid of suffering as we can for everyone.
If potential is key, I say keep the context of the MAID process but instead of outright death make it cryonics. Plus other potential relevant volunteer stuff and organ donation stuff lined up. Even if the initial cryonics technique is not even close to viable, other stuff could be transformative. If cryonics has any chance to work, things will get appreciably better in 300-or-so years right?
Hopeful worst is my brain in a jar mostly playing VR and sometimes knitting yarn via robotic arms. Lots of ways it could be better. Also unlike traditional cyborg stuff with all-machine life-support, I would like to still have a complex microbiome if not taking it further with symbiosis.
this struck me as a bit odd. In switzerland they cannot „act“, they can only prepare the drugs etc, but you have to do the final act by yourself, otherwise its considered murder.
interesting that they handle it differently
Actually both options are possible here in the Netherlands, it's a matter of preference of the patient. In both cases a doctor will be present, whom will also supply the drugs if a patient chooses to take them themselves.
This case is incredibly rare though, it is already extremely hard to have a euthanasia request granted for mental issues at an older age, let alone someone so young.
A bit more background on 'the aftermath' by the way, as the article doesn't mention that: after the euthanasia has taken place a coroner will establish that this was indeed the cause of death. Once that is done the public prosecutor needs to give permission before the remains may be buried or cremated.
Also, the coroner will send the report of both the physician who approved and performed the euthanasia and that of the SCEN-doctor, who performed the obligatory 2nd opinion mentioned in the article, to a special committee that will check if everything went by the book. Not only the procedure leading up to the euthanasia, but also the act of the euthanasia itself. If there are doubts about whether or not all means of treatment were exhausted and if there really was undue and indefinite suffering, or if there are any doubts if the patient really wanted to go through with the procedure at 'the moment supreme', a doctor can be held accountable for that. Fortunately that is rare, as the whole procedure is not taken lightly.
Let people be free.
And healthcare is for everyone. The means are healthcare in this case. And social & cultural support helps.
I’m glad she will be able to end her suffering painlessly.
The world we live in, where this news travels all over the globe, and we get to argue about the death of a girl on the internet.
Funny times, to say the least.
So much this. I've had so many people tell me that when I tell them that I don't see a way into the future and I want them to leave me the fuck alone, it actually means that I want more help. No, you donkey, it doesn't. It means leave me alone.
Bonus points when they are coming up with "ideas for my future" that are just genuinely unappealing to me and are then livid when I say no. Do they really think that going on a vacation or changing my job was not something I already thought about and discarded because I know it would not help? Nah, I'm ill, so I also must be stupid. "You always just say no. I am trying to help and you always just say no." Thanks for realizing that you are not helping me but just want to feel good about yourself.
I don't know about your personal situation, and it may be different for whatever you are suffering with, however the part you quoted is true for a lot of cases.
Having just looked after my wife through a period of ~3 years really severe depression I've seen it first hand, it completely changed her personality and outlook and she was saying all kinds of stuff she's quite embarrassed by now. She genuinely couldn't think straight at all or see any way out, and in that moment if offered the choice to die she might have taken it (a fact she is quite scared by now, having mostly recovered).
Similar story with my brother, who has bipolar... when he's manic he has an absolute inability to hold a train of thoughts together for longer than 30 seconds. When he's depressed it's absolutely awful. He's now stable and enjoying his life.
I'm not arguing that this shouldn't be an option for some very extreme chronic conditions, but it's obviously complicated.
Maybe if the medical industrial complex surrounding mental health wasn't so profit-hungry and dehumanising, then she might not think that death is an option that she needs to take.
I've been in and out of therapy and on and off meds for 32 years, nothing has helped, I wish this was an option. God speed to her.
I love you username
Thanks
I hope she finds the peace she didn't have in life.
If you die, there is no peace to find … there is nothing.
"Nothing" is peace for some people.
And that's perhaps the most peaceful peace. A peace only nothingness can bring.
Nothing is a peace.
I used to think that, and then I smoked some space dust and now I'm not sure anymore.
Is space dust what the kids are calling PCP these days?
DMT, PCP isn't really my thing
Never tried it, just know it was called Angel Dust at one point
Asking as an atheist myself: what is "nothing"?
Remember the 13 billion years before you were born? More of that.
Yes, I remember parts of it because I enjoy learning about history. But I'm remembering something, which is not nothing.
Imagine a mind, a person, a body… then imagine it is not there anymore.
But that requires me to imagine something, which is not nothing
What do you remember about before you were born?
Lots, see another reply I've made
That's a pedantic way to answer a question that you understand the purpose of, but are choosing to answer it hyper literally. So, I'll respond hyper literally. You don't remember anything about before you were born because you weren't there to experience it. You're recalling scientific theories and stories passed down through the years about historic events that took place before your birth.
The question again since you want to be hyper literal is "what do you remember about 'your life' before you were born?". It's a thought experimemt to make you think about the totality and finite of nothingness.
I get what you meant by the question but I'm trying to demonstrate that it is impossible for us to conceptualize what nothingness is without something. It's a philosophical issue that science can't answer. You're welcome to whatever beliefs and answers to the question you like, but without a way to falsify it, that's all it is. A belief* (edited correction to autocorrect). Not scientific truth.
Further edit: just to be sure I'm clear, you've asked me to imagine what life was like before I was born, thereby pointing to my birth, which is something. My life is something. I don't know what life would be like without
Beige. Forever.
Amazing
making someone else do it because although you want it done, you can't bring yourself to do it when the time comes
making someone else do it because you don't want to fuck it up and deal with the rather significant aftermath after waking up 3 hours later with only a pumped stomach
Plus, gathering from comments about the article cuz I'm lazy, but I gather (and empathize) there's the added benefit of giving any loved ones time to prepare and say their goodbyes without potentially traumatizing anyone that might find you after
Quick edit someone else commented the same thing literally right below 😶🌫️
For me I don't want someone to have to find me and deal with the aftermath. I'd much rather it be a planned thing so no one else has to suffer just because I needed to end it all. Unfortunately I'm in a country where that's not possible so when the time comes I need to go deep into a forest or something.
This is mentioned in the article. She chose euthanasia because someone she knew growing up committed suicide and she saw how it devastated the family.
Also I imagine the anxiety about messing up without professional expertise would be awful. Plus worrying about legal repercussions for any assistance. Etc. etc.
Its still suicide.
Again, no, it's assisted death. Quite different.
It’s her choice what can we really do? It’s tragic but because it is so visible while many others are in this position without such visibility.
I pray I never experience this state of things however at the same time I know I will sooner or later. I sometimes approach the state of insufferable mental torture however it is never permanent or hopeless but I have some tiny glimpse to understand her decision.
The choice of how one exits life is the last bastion of power the living have.
We can change societies in a few ways to reduce the number of people that reach her situation. That's going to take a very long time. Another thing that could be done is creating a plan for people in her situation. I think this will happen in the future (and will impact society in general). It has to do with the use of psychedelics. It may sound crazy to some, but I'd recommend we give people like this some shrooms, then escalate that to something like Ayahuasca and then DMT. If she still feels like nothing is worth it at that point, so be it, but I believe she'd change her mind on this path and have the potential to live a much happier life. This comment may seem extreme now, but looking back, I don't think it will be.
I'd be willing to bet she's already tried that. She requested this over three years ago.
I feel sorry for her partner watching your loved one die is fucking brutal.
Hope they get supported in the aftermath.
I've had those depressive thoughts, I've fought self harm and depression. I have mostly gotten past it and during the period, I don't think I ever saw light at the end of the tunnel.
I'm glad she is able to get the relief she needs. I couldn't imagine putting someone through the turmoil that I had during my lowest points. It's sad, but it's okay for things to be sad in life. I'm glad she is able to have frank discussions on her desires and her wellbeing. It's going to be hard for her partner, friends, and family, but it would be so much worse and so traumatic if she didn't have help or had to hide the desires until she took her own life regardless of the laws.
I'm not sure that's true. Losing someone to suicide is in itself quite traumatic. One relief many people have is when they wrap their head around how a self destructive impulse in the heat of an especially devastating moment could have led to it. But living with the fact that your daughter/wife/sister/friend very consciously decided she would rather be dead than to share in this life with you - that's tough. It's not unusual with relatives of suicide victims to struggle with feelings of intense anger towards the person they lost, which in turn can lead to feelings of guilt and shame. It's hard to work through something like that. And I don't think it gets any easier if the circumstances are as emphasised as in this case.
I think there are very valid use cases for assisted suicide. Personally I doubt that depression is one of them, because suicidality is such an inextricable part of the disorder itself. At the end of the day this is a suicide, just with extra steps and a stamp of approval by a national agency. The people surviving her will not only have to work through the fact of her suicide but process the official approval as well.
The only advantage to a "regular" suicide I can think of is avoiding the trauma of the person finding you. (Although there are probably ways around that anyway.) But I guess she has her reasons to have chosen this specific method and setting.
Yeah I also got a friend like that which I just met over Snapchat. I'm from Austria and I immediately started crying when I heard that. I mean good when people can choose how to go out but still sad. She's still living though and going strong 💪
Ah and she's also from the Netherlands
I am all about giving people the possibility to put an end to their lives and there are plenty of people who are living almost unbearable lives, full of pain and suffering. And I know it is wrong to judge people without being in their shoes but, part of me is refusing to accept that a person who is apparently, young and physically healthy and in a relationship where the other partner obviously cares about her is so depressive and miserable that she wants to die.
So I have mixed feelings in this particular case and I feel sorry for her family and partner, who I am sure really wanted her to get better.
Nevertheless, I am happy that there are still doctors who are willing to take such cases because I can imagine how hard and psychologically challenging it would be to work with those people and they have my full respect.
Yeah, especially with curable and non progressive conditions
Did you read the article? She's been in intensive care for her mental health for a decade. This wasn't some spur of the moment decision. Its taken 10 years to get to this point. To state that mental illnesses are curable and non-progressive is pure ignorance and you would do yourself well to learn how poor the prognosis is for people with severe mental illness. There isn't a cure. You never feel whole or normal. Medication is a shot in the dark most of the time. Therapy doesn't help everybody. Some people are truly and completely untreatable, and she is one of those people
Lol
Name a single curable mental illness.
I'll help you out: there aren't any. Some can be managed and worked around in day to day life. Some people may achieve a reasonable quality of life, but their illness will never totally disappear
I am a psychotherapist. Mental disorders are often curable. Our mind, our psyche, our brain develop and change in every waking moment, one small increment at a a time. A good indication for this are mental disorders themselves. Their emergence is proof of our mind's capability to change - for the worse, in this case, but change nonetheless.
So in theory it should always be possible to change the other way around, to get significantly better to the point where the disorder is no longer present. (If you define a episode of mental health and wellbeing after a depressive episode as "managing" a still present disorder, then sure, they are incurable, but that's because that's part of your definition to begin with. The symptoms of a mental disorder can definitely disappear.) A more difficult question would be if our surroundings and social realities allow for so much change to take place. And sometimes, unfortunately, this isn't possible, since our society can be a fucked up place and economic constrains have an unavoidable influence on our capability to shape our own path.
Still, in my personal experience working with hundreds of patiens in different therapeutic setting, most people can (and do) reclaim their mental health, given supportive surroundings and adequate treatment. From your pessimistic outlook at mental health I will cautiously assume that you don't have those widely available to you. In this case you'd be somewhat right: Under such circumstances the possibilities to cure mental disorders are limited. Another complicating factor might be mental disorders themselves though. The feeling of "this is never going to get better, I'll never be happy again" is one most people with depressive disorders know all to well. So if we ask the affected people directly we will often arrive at the conclusion that the disorders are in fact incurable. And that's a horrible feeling for sure. I find it important to remember though that what our thoughts tell us in those dark episodes isn't necessarily the truth. In this case I'd argue it isn't. I've seen too many examples of the opposite, luckily.
This isn't a problem with "my" definition of cure. I'm using the commonly understood definition. If someone is successfully managing their type 1 diabetes with insulin and a healthy diet we don't say they're cured. They still have diabetes. If they stopped taking their meds and ate a ton of carb heavy foods they'd wind up in the hospital in a matter of days.
Same goes with mental illness. If you stop taking your meds, going to therapy, etc. your mental state will decline again. They're still mentally ill, they're just managing it.
Perhaps some people have acute moments of distress to the point where it's clinically significant and treatment helps them weather that moment. Eventually they may return to their baseline of not needing drugs or therapy. But given the context of this thread (a woman killing herself after a decade of unsuccessful treatment) I figured it was fair to assume chronic mental illness. Something to the tune of major depression, bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, etc.
The word cure isn't a fluid term to me or most people. It's something that connotes permentant relief of a person's signs and symptoms of a given illness. Something that often isn't the case for mental illness
I’m sure this is very difficult for her, her partner, and her family, but I’m glad that there is an option for her, other than committing suicide on her own. It gives her a chance to say goodbye to everyone on her own terms, and prevents her and her partner from suffering even more.
I’m in favor of these kinds of laws, and maybe there could be (of course with her consent) a thorough study of her brain to try to help others in similar situations.
It’s a very sad situation, but the best we can all do for her is try to understand her decision and try not to judge her. I hope she finds the peace she’s looking for.
Don't really agree with this. If you look at it on an individual level, there's a case for it, but on a social level, it's dangerous. Individualist societies look for individual solutions even if the problem is social. There are problems that can't be solved with any sort of medication, therapy, etc, because the cause of the problem isn't with the individual. It's impossible to know for sure if any kind of social change would fix her problems, but if suicide is simply the go-to answer when such a problem is encountered, then we will never know. And once this becomes normalized and people start accepting it as a viable solution, then it's going to be a lot harder to materially improve things for people in these situations. Often it's only when people see that there is no individualist solution that they start thinking in terms of systemic changes, and if there's any kind of "solution," no matter how horrid it is, they'll turn to that first. I don't want to create a future where, "I've tried everything I can to fix myself and I still feel like shit," is met with a polite and friendly, "Oh, well have you considered killing yourself?"
Suicide is violence. Self-harm is harm. It's nonsense to describe a process that kills you as "safe." I understand that many people view it terms of rights or personal wills because those are prevailing ways to look at things, in individualist cultures. But life is inherently valuable and if someone thinks otherwise about their own, then they are wrong. I would make an exception for someone with severe, incurable physical pain, but while mental pain is just as real and valid as physical pain, the way it functions is more complex, and so I'm skeptical that it could be declared "incurable" to a sufficient standard, especially if solutions aren't limited to the individual level.
The fact is that we ought to be striving to accommodate as widely diverse minds as possible. Both because it's the right thing to do, and because diversity is valuable, and people who see things differently may notice or understand things that others don't. If the diversity of minds starts to narrow, I'm concerned that it will continue to narrow until neurodiverse people are effectively eliminated from society, or be isolated without community, as more and more pressure builds against anyone who doesn't fit the mold of a productive worker.
sorry that's simply your opinion. for most who seek it for medical reasons, it's the final escape. I don't have enough familiarity with this case to judge but would want the option open should I need it. You have no idea what kind of physical pain people have to live with - shit that can't be touched by opioids or other painkillers, like bone cancer. The only out for some of these folks is to be gorked to unconsciousness. I'd prefer to pass on that and go straight to the end myself.
the problem with exceptions is that they're often nebulous and lead to cover-your-ass decision making that disregards the best outcome for the patient. SEE: Texas birth control laws that supposedly have exceptions for the mother's health, but in fact result in them waiting for their once-fetus to send them into sepsis.
I would simply not be a fascist pretending to care about people's rights and not design laws as if I were one.
And that's great, but I have more faith in you - rando from the internet who's expressed clearly well meaning desires - than I do in the system, whether that's us's crappy healthcare, NHS in the uk or whatever - I do not have faith in governments and with healthcare providers impressed into the task of deciding who gets to claim their pain is unbearable.
And for the remainder: people will suicide. If you take away their options, they'll step in front of busses or jump off bridges, potentially traumatizing and putting others at risk. They'll suicide by cop, they'll drive their cars into the opposing lane. There's something to be said for giving people the dignity of choice.
Good luck.
I likewise don't have faith in governments or healthcare providers, but that's where I don't want to just place this in their hands and trust them to handle it in a responsible way.
But it is it a greater harm to decline her request and force her to endure suffering (or risk more drastic methods)?
I hear where you're coming from (I think), and agree this is tragic, but part of me is jealous of her.
How much that part of me equates to changes each day with my tension headaches
Personally, I think the greater harm would come from the normalization of suicide, because it will lead to cases where it is unnecessary. It's better to err on the side of caution.
The prototypical case where assisted suicide is pitched is an elderly person, lying in bed in constant pain, unable to end their life without it. That I can accept.
But in this case, it's possible that something could change that would allow her to live a healthy and happy life, and she wasn't confined to a hospital bed, so if it was so important for her to kill herself she could've found a way to. What assisted suicide is doing in that case is not providing a last resort option, but removing the social barriers and stigma around what should be considered a last resort option. Making the process sterilized, clean, and beurocratic.
People on here have said stuff like, "Oh it's so much less traumatic to her loved ones this way." But what about without the policy? What would be stopping her from communicating to her spouse and family her intentions and the necessity of the act, because of the pain she was in? What exactly changes about the situation just because the state rubber stamps the act?
Many people choose suicide rashly and impulsively, and the social barriers we've created exist for a reason, because it's supposed to be discouraged, it's supposed to be stigmatized. Because if stigma and discouragement are enough to dissuade you, then it wasn't actually necessary.
I don't believe it's stigmatized because society is compassionate and wants to help. It's stigmatized because society loses a worker or soldier or taxpayer. I know that's just how things work but it is disgusting.
Thanks for this, I really appreciate your nuanced stance.
I fear you may be correct, which feels uncomfortable (I disagreed with you originally)
Are you for real? This kind of thing is a last resort that nobody is going to just outright suggest unprompted to a suffering person, unless that person asks for it themselves. No matter how "normalized" suicide might become, it's never gonna be something doctors will want to recommend. That's just... Why would you even think that's what's gonna happen
Why indeed
...and did you notice how everyone was outraged by that? That incident was not an issue with assisted suicide being available, that was an issue with fucked up systems withholding existing alternatives and a tone-deaf case worker (who is not a doctor) handling impersonal communications. Maybe it's also an issue with this kind of thing being able to be decided by a government worker instead of medical and psychological professionals. But definitely nothing about this would have been made better by assisted suicide not being generally available for people who legitimately want it, except the actual problem wouldn't have been put into the spotlight like this.
You're the one that specified doctors, not me. I just said I don't want to create a future where anyone thinks it's ok or normal to recommend suicide to people. You dismissed my fears as unrealistic, and then I presented evidence that it's not just a far off possibility, but something that's actually happened. Many people may find that story outrageous now, but it's clearly pushing things in a direction such that in 20 years, who's to say how people will react.
Literally the whole thing would not have happened without the policy.
Except that's already happening even without it being normalized, there have always been assholes that are gonna tell people to kill themselves, especially if they've never seen the person they're talking to before. I don't see how this is any different.
It also wouldn't have happened if a fucked up system wasn't withholding actual, reasonable alternatives that the person was clearly asking for. That's my point. Let's fix the actual problems, rather than try to silence the symptoms.
Bringing up gamers telling each other to kill themselves (sometimes genuinely, although they wouldn't admit they were actually that angry) is not the gotcha you think it is.
Why dont you engage with what the person you are replying to is actually saying instead of grasping at straws.
What makes you think that severe chronic depression is more curable than severe chronic pain? maybe within a year someone will come up with a new drug or therapy that cures certain types of severe chronic pain? Should we force people to endure the pain in the basis of this possibility?
Or what makes you think this woman's problem is social? What if she has some genetic or neural predisposition to having such problems? Should we deny her request on the basis that normally mental health issues are social?
You are talking about accommodating neurodiversity but your view of life and mental health conditions is extremely black and white.
Mental health is socially defined to a very large extent. One of the ways that we evaluate a person's mental health is whether their issues interfere with an ability to live a "normal" life, which includes providing for themselves. Well, a person's ability to provide for themselves can vary drastically based on external circumstances, like how rich they are or what social services they have access to.
It's my belief that it's rare for evolution to screw up. Of course, sometimes it does, but I'd argue that many mental illnesses are the result of one's mind being equipped for a different set of circumstances than the one they're in. In some cases, there's clear evidence that this is the case, but in other cases it's more difficult to prove.
I just don't believe we should give up on a person just because they ask us to. If a friend came up to me and asked me to help them kill themselves because of a mental illness, I would do everything I could to find an alternative solution and talk them down from it. I feel like that's the normal response anyone would have, and people are treating it differently just because a state said that it's ok.
That's not how it works, I'm pretty sure... Mutations will have random effects and the species evolves based on characteristics being selected for based on better survivability, reproductive effectiveness, etc.
I've read your other messages and it seems that you're thoroughly convinced that this wasn't the case here. I suggest that you get a bit more context about this whole situation, as it has been a long path of trying multiple treatments and approaches, without any success. So it's not even remotely close to what you suggest here. No Futurama suicide chambers here.
That's why I said that it's rare for evolution to screw up, not that it's impossible.
I've made a lot of comments but few of them have been about the details of this specific case, I'm not sure which ones you're referring to.
I don't really see why you say you'd make an "exception" for strong and lasting physical pain (which by the way are of course the vast majority of assisted suicide cases), but not for mental health reasons. In this case multiple doctors concluded that the patient is unlikely to improve, and no progress has been made in over 10 years of therapy.
What do you mean by "not limited to the individual level"?
What I mean by that is that there are some problems that affect individuals which are not caused by anything wrong with the individual, but by the world at large. For example, climate change. It can't be solved at the individual level, and it may be possible to shut out and ignore it, but that's not really a proper way of handling it. No amount of therapy or drugs will make climate change go away.
I'm not saying that the woman in question is killing herself for that reason. But I am saying that how much things like that can affect people's mental health is something that is difficult to study and prove. One example that does have evidence though is social support for gender transition - trans people with social support generally have much better mental health than those without, but addressing this issue can require changes to society as a whole and not just the individual trans person's behavior or mentality.
My concern is that people will overlook potential social changes to accommodate people, if they view the issue as solved by means of assisted suicide.
The slippery slope falacy is so passé my dude, get on with it.
Especially in a situation where someone could feasibly find other ways to “solve” their problem. Why would the slippery slope apply when people are already ending their own lives?
It's not a fallacy to say that policy designed with the goal of normalizing something over time will cause it to become more normalized over time.
Besides, the responses in this thread are terrifying enough already.
No, but as a voter, it is my choice (to a degree) how the state responds to the situation.
Safe to her? No. Neither option can boast that.
Euthanasia is safer to everyone else around her. And tidier.
Get it?
Those two words are why I find this thread so terrifying and so alienating. I'll never "get" the perspective that tidiness is a significant factor when discussing matters of life and death, and to be perfectly frank, it makes me feel like a lot of this is coming from a mentality towards suicidal people of "Get them out of my sight so I don't have to deal with them and their negative vibes bring me down" rather than genuine empathy and concern for wellbeing. And that sort of mentality surrounding this, about how neat and tidy and clean it all is, how it avoids disruption to society, is exactly what makes the policy so concerning to me.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A 29-year-old Dutch woman who has been granted her request for assisted dying on the grounds of unbearable mental suffering is expected to end her life in the coming weeks, fuelling a debate across Europe over the issue.
Zoraya ter Beek received the final approval last week for assisted dying after a three and a half year process under a law passed in the Netherlands in 2002.
Her case has caused controversy as assisted dying for people with psychiatric illnesses in the Netherlands remains unusual, although the numbers are increasing.
An article about her case, published in April, was picked up by international media, prompting an outcry that caused Ter Beek huge distress.
“I knew I couldn’t cope with the way I live now.” She had thought about taking her own life but the violent death by suicide of a schoolfriend and its impact on the girl’s family deterred her.
“I was on a waiting list for assessment for a long time, because there are so few doctors willing to be involved in assisted dying for people with mental suffering.
The original article contains 837 words, the summary contains 180 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
This should be a standard option at annual physicals. Skip the BP check I just want out.
Can I have one to? I'm 8 years older than her, so it shouldn't be a problem, right?
Seriously, is everyone on Lemmy 37 years old?
Fuck... I'm 37 years old :O
Today is my birthday. Guess my age...
Yah happy 37th to you Brothersister!
Thank you friend 😃
Nah, I'm 38
I can fix her!
I'm currently midway through a program to become a therapist. I've been in the mental health space for quite some time, and worked with students of many ages.
This is the wrong decision. Suicide is usually a consequence of hopelessness. In my experience, hope can be brought back to most people suffering from mental health issues.
It also sets a dangerous precedent. A way out, so to speak, for people with a temporary, overcomable problem.
(For the record, I am ok with medical assistance in dying when it comes to chronic severe pain and illness).
So you are not a therapist.
Bodily autonomy includes the right to die, if one choses to do so. Are you against bodily autonomy?
And what do you think would happen if she had been denied? Instead of a dignified death in a safe environment she might have resorted to options available to her, possibly endangering other people as well.
The previous commentor sounds exactly like all those people who have harassed Zoraya with their bullshit "miracle cures".
It had always astounded me that we offer painless, merciful euthanasia to our pets and animals, both wild and domesticated, yet not to our fellow humans, who must suffer until the bitter end.
It's the remnants of the religious infestation that still slumbers in the collective consciousness of society that makes madness like that possible.
There definitely is not a miracle cure, and sending someone random messages is not the way. I definitely agree with you there. Medical Assistance in Death should be more widely available as well. The one point I think is important to clarify is that it shouldn't be used if there is reasonable expectation of some kind of improvement. In mental health, I think the vast majority of cases are improvable, at least beyond the point of suicide ideation.
I responded to another comment with some clarifications.
How did you misconstrue their comment so badly? Are therapists not allowed to work with students? I believe there is a clear and obvious difference between bodily autonomy, having the right to die with dignity, and euthanasia. This lady stated she "cannot cope with the suffering" and yet she proceeded to do so for three years while waiting patiently for approval. IMO anyone with truly intolerable suffering (mental or otherwise) would have found a way out long before this decision.
Read the comment again and try to figure out why I said they aren't a therapist. Hint: It's in the very first sentence.
How would you know?
Have you read the article?
How is this a temporary and overcomable problem? It seems clear that it is not temporary and no kind of treatment worked for her. As per the law, there must be unbearable suffering without prospect of improvement, and during the multiple stages of this process, apparently no one came to the conclusion that that wasn't the case for her. So how can you make that assessment?
Do you really think that becoming a therapist is a good idea when you can't even read the article which lays out her hopeless situation?
Also this isn't a precedent.
Also why are you okay with assistance in dying when it comes to pain and illness but not mental illness? Because you can't see/diagnose the latter so easily?
This is definitely a nuanced discussion and every situation is different, so I'm not going to make any sweeping statements about the whole thing, but I generally see suicidality as a symptom of something else. If we can improve the "something else," the suicidality improves or even goes away in the vast majority of cases.
This is different from other Medical Assistance in Death situations because in the cases where it is implemented because of pain and illness, there is no reasonable hope of improving their outcomes. In the vast majority of mental health cases, there is a lot of hope, even if the patient does not see it (which is often. Most situations where a person expresses suicidal ideation and intention to family, friends, or therapists do not end in follow through. Having someone to talk to about those thoughts helps. Even validating their thoughts helps: "It makes sense that you feel like that, honestly." But ultimately, you want to help them get through to the next day. The vast majority of people who were in this circumstance are glad they did not follow through).
Again, the discussion is nuanced and I don't think Lemmy is the best place to facilitate this discussion, but that is more or less my take on it.
Dude... Did you still not read the article?
And do you think that it was willy billy that the state approved her request?
If it was as easy as that she would never have gotten her request approved. It is extremely rare for someone at her age to have her euthanasia request approved on account of mental issues. Hell, it is near impossible to get your request approved for this at old age, let alone when you are in your 20's or 30's. So please be careful with comments like this, as having exhausted all available treatments is a prerequisite and there are a lot of them. Mental healthcare in the Netherlands is in a fairly shitty state thanks to 20 years of budget cuts and 'let the market solve it'-policy, but it is not so shitty that we just resort to killing off troubled people.
If medical professionals would even have had the slightest feeling that there was a way remaining to get her some semblance of a normal life, she wouldn't have been eligible.
I don't think your distinction makes sense.
You're saying most mental health/suicide cases have hope, and thants probably true! But the article wasn't "every suicidal person granted euthanasia approval", it was approved for one very extreme case of mental suffering with no indication of improving. That would be like saying "most cases of pain still have hope". Yes exactly, they do, but there are rare, chronic cases where euthanasia may be a valid option, right? And just as much as suicidality is just 'a symptom of something' else, isn't pain also just a symptom of something else?
And obviously we should help suicidal people to improve their mental health, but in her case she has been struggling since childhood with no indication of improvement. So how was this "the wrong decision" for her?
I didn't agree with this decision. Life is precious.
She should do some extreme sports. Jump out of a plane with one of those flying squirrel things.
Hopefully she donates her organs
"I'm depressed and want to take my life. I've been struggling since my childhood and in 10 years of different kinds of treatments, nothing worked."
"Have you tried jumping out of a plane with one of those flying squirrel things?"
"Oh wow, that was it, that fixed it! Thanks!" /s
Just jump into the Happy Canon that shoots you into Happyland you will be so much more Happy!
"Going into Happyland" sounds like a great euphemism. I'm going to steal it if you don't mind.
Please do. It's just a variation of the job cannon meme.
She is really pretty, and it's sad she wants to go. However, I believe in personal agency, and if she wants to go, let her fucking go.
It is so bizarre to me that regarding an article about a woman who wants to die because of constant mental anguish, the very first thing you felt was worth saying is "she is really pretty".
If I'm being perfectly honest, I don't entirely know my own point, I just had to comment on it because it stood out as do bizarre to me.
Bro's really doing the "nooo don't kill yourself your so sexy aha" meme
It is an odd and unfitting statement, but the feeling is genuine and not raw sexual desire. It is easier to relate to good looking people than ones with disfigurement. Some Special Books By Special Kids thumbnails gross me out brutally, even if it is not something I want to happen.
I'm against it. Not sure what else to say.
Thats fine to have your opinion as long as youre not stopping someone else from doing what they want with their own life
I think the question is one of balance for me personally. Where do you draw the line?
Like, this person seems to have been in a pretty long queue and had a lot of time to evaluate, but is that denying her dignity? Should there be a waiting period, or is that denying someone healthcare?
I think we would all agree that we shouldn't allow an 18yo who just broke up with their first SO to decide to have a doctor help them unalive themselves, right?
Is the three and a half years of waiting and treatments that this woman has undergone too much? Not enough?
I'll admit that it feels bad to me to allow a 29yo to go down this particular path. People who are seeking death are rarely in the kind of headspace where I think they are able to meaningfully consent to that?
And this feels meaningfully different than the case of a 90yo who's body is slowly failing them. This is an otherwise healthy young person.
Idk, there are no easy answers here. Bodily autonomy is important, but so is helping people not engage in extremely self destructive behavior. If we didn't have that imperative, fire departments wouldn't try and stop people from jumping off bridges, right? Where is that line? I don't know, and I wouldn't want to have to make that call.
I share a lot of your questions about this, but the following parts made me uncomfortable agreeing with you:
She has the following to say about that: “People think that when you’re mentally ill, you can’t think straight, which is insulting.”
Mental illness is an illness, and can be chronic and progressive. They can cause someone to be unable to carry on living, maintaining a livelihood, afford their own medication, psychiatric visits and therapy that they would need to even want to live in the first place. That's not even to go into the absolute hell people in such situations can go through everyday.
We can debate on what constitutes “a well-thought-out decision that takes into consideration every available option” and I would actually say that one should give those options a try, but to deny that a mentally ill person can make their own EOL decisions makes me terribly uncomfortable.
In my opinion, sure, there should be a waiting period, to filter out those chronic episodes that lead to spur-of-the moment impulses, or decisions that are strongly linked to temporary conditions. This waiting period can be used to think things through, prove that they've tried means available to them, or even give them the chance to try the means they wouldn't have had access to otherwise (like specialized help, therapy that wouldn't have been available to them, etc). Now, I think what happens next is up to these medical professionals: do they deem one's condition to be intractable and no amount of medication and therapy and counseling can make a difference? If they deem the situation to be hopeless, and the patient agrees, then yeah, the patient can make their exit. Otherwise, the medication, therapy, counseling or whatever it is that they've been trying should continue. If funds are needed for this to continue, then so be it. Those people who want to be no exits can be counted upon to fund this, right? Those people denying exit should put their money where their mouths are.
If signing up to an EOL waiting list could be the way for people to consider their situation and try out things that might help them, then so be it.
Oh, sorry, I've been rambling. My point is, yeah, there should be a waiting period that would double as a chance for people to get the help they need (but don't have access to or maybe the motivation to). And more importantly, that anyone, and I mean anyone (okay, there'd be a triage system in place, but just allow everyone in, and sort them out once they're in) can sign up.
The way I imagine things would go is I can just walk into some office, inform the person in the counter that I want to have a passport to neverwhere, and they'd ask me to file some paperwork and after a few days, I'd be in a clinic where someone would perform a psychological check-up on me, and do some interviews. Then after a few more days, some doctor will be informing me of my diagnosis and options—or perhaps just flat out saying I'm completely mentally healthy and my petition is denied (if I'm lucky maybe given a list of people to contact to help with my problems). If I'm continuing the process, then I'd choose which option I want, go with the treatment or other, and like, hopefully continue until I can manage my situation with minimal help!
Do we really need people to sign up for a passport to the great beyond just to get the help they need? No, in an ideal world, there shouldn't even be a need for this. But in this kind of world we live in, I think allowing people to safely cross the streams with dignity and peace of mind (after giving it a good try, and concluding that it really can't be helped) is a small kindness society can give to the suffering.
EDIT: Some proofreading.
See, I feel like your whole post could be summarized as, "some people's mental illness makes them unable to work and earn money, so they're too poor to afford treatment, and therefore the morally correct thing is to just let those people kill themselves."
And while I don't think that's exactly what you meant, it's how it comes across. Almost all of your points are some variation of who's gonna pay for their treatment and take care of their physical needs.
And I would strongly argue that the answer is instead to have more robust social safety nets to cover those needs. Allowing people to kill themselves as the solution is hella dystopian.
But, I'm not saying that this is 100% always right. This is a hard issue with no clear answers, and I am absolutely not minimizing the pain of mental illness. My point is that mental illness is much less understood than physical illness, and I wouldn't trust any diagnosis that said the condition could never be resolved. In the same way that I would be loathe to euthanize someone with a physical illness that has an acceptable chance of being transient, I'm loath to do the same with most if not all cases of mental illness. Especially if the person is otherwise very young/healthy.
Indeed, that's not what exactly what I meant. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
My main point can be summarized in that second to the last paragraph, which I doubt has communicated things adequately.
To reiterate: it won't be initiated by the medical professionals. They're simply there to ensure that someone applying for this procedure are indeed "proceeding of their own accord and have made sure options have been considered". The waiting period is there to make sure that not only they've arrived at this decision after careful deliberation, but also to force them to consider and try out the options available to them. The process can be terminated at any point by the patient, and the final step will not proceed without their permission.
I accept this point. This is why I put the emphasis on the decision of the patient. And this is where I think our positions fundamentally differ. Promising treatments may or may not be there, may or may not be there in the immediate or far future, but it's on the patient to consider. The medical professionals are there to ensure that the patient has considered available options, and have exerted reasonable effort to improve their situation. Whether or not the patient has made "the correct decision" isn't the point—but rather whether or not the patient has made an informed and well-thought-out decision.
I share your opinion that in an ideal world, this shouldn't even be needed. That even though the option would be there for anyone to take, no one will take it in an ideal world. But we are not in such an ideal world. We can strengthen our social safety nets to help people suffering from the debilitating effects of mental illness (among other sources of suffering), and that will do a lot of good, but until we arrive at a society which no longer needs a dignified exit because no one ever wants to exit, I am of the opinion of giving them that option.
And you achieve what? A person to constantly suffer, for what? Your righteous high ground? You condemn that person to torture, you realise that right?
You're the person who would force a baby to be born and live a life of pain, suffering, and burden on those around them instead of abortion. You're not saving a life, you're destroying them.
Answer me this, why? Why are you against it?
This is more of an anti-natalist position than a pro-choice one. The right to bodily autonomy includes the right to reproduce, even if you think the parents are too poor. The two situations aren't comparable because one involves a person making a decision about a fetus, and the other involves the life of a full-fledged human being.
It also includes the right to end your own life. Are you against bodily autonomy?
If someone walks into a hospital and says they want to inject bleach into their veins to cure COVID, is that still covered under bodily autonomy?
She didn't want to cure Covid in a hospital, she wanted to end her suffering by ending her life in a dignified way.
So are you against bodily autonomy?
Nobody is forcing anyone to abort a pregnancy? Those are simply options for parents to take if they want to.
So is this option to die with dignity when life is suffering.
Where is your attorney badge, for you clearly missed your appointment.
People have the right to have children, regardless of if the circumstances they'll be brought up in are up to your approval. To say they shouldn't have that right is not pro-choice, it's anti-natalist.
Yes and who denies them having children?
Cool. Don't do it yourself then. Not sure what else to say.
Her life is not your choice though. Thankfully.
None of us signed up for this shit.
I truly mean this in good faith: you would honestly rather that she continue suffering?
I'm not against it but I upvoted you because I think you have a fair position and expressed it honestly and in a completely reasonable way.
Why?