|
On July 02 2015 18:21 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 18:07 coverpunch wrote: Interesting test case and it's a lot tougher if you think about it more than five seconds...and you believe Belgian doctors aren't idiots and already tried the broad solutions like antidepressant medication, exercise, music, etc.
I don't think they should euthanize her, personally, but I can see how it could be an option for someone who has no intention or ability to function in society but keeps bringing grief to herself and others with her repeated attempts at suicide. It might not just be humane for her but for her family and caretakers. Euthanasia is up to the patient. Doctors do not "euthanise" people, they merely execute the patient's (final) request after all other methods have been exhausted. Up until the last moment doctors will keep inquiring whether this really is what the patient wants.
I feel like it's something the patient should have to do themselves personally. The doc's should rig em up or whatever but I think it's pretty tough to push that onto doctors. That's the kind of stuff that will give you nightmares (or me anyway). It would eat me up to find out I hadn't tried something.
Someone eluded to it before but I would personally want at least some eastern medicine remedies attempted. Western medicine is pretty damn cool, but we miss a LOT of stuff.
We are just now coming around to the medical uses of cannabis.
Not that I would ever find myself in such a situation, I already have a suicide plan should my life come to it....
+ Show Spoiler +Viagra, MDMA, and the best prostitutes I can afford, until my heart explodes.
|
I'm all for Euthanasia if it means I don't have to read news about someone driving his/her car under a upcoming truck or a person jumping in front of a train.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i would generally be against euthanasia for mood affecting illnesses such as depression, but for degenerative/conditions with no serious chance of future cure, yes.
|
On July 02 2015 18:29 Amarok wrote: Would we give the same right to death to someone with dementia?
Uhm, that already happened. Around 7 years ago. Well, Alzhmeimers, especially "only" 2 years in isn't dementia in its broad terminology, but it's a subset I guess. People whose quality of life has become so bad tey prefer death over life, can definitely be granted their wish in my opinion. It's time we stop stigmatizing it or keep it taboo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Claus#Death
|
On July 02 2015 18:29 Amarok wrote: Why do people keep referring to her as a "sane person" who just happens to want to die? She's clearly severely mentally unbalanced. Would we give the same right to death to someone with dementia? Schizophrenia?
I'm not against euthanasia or even against it in this case but referring to this person as sane seems pretty crazy.
So someone that wants to die is insane per definition. And someone who is insane can't be allowed to die. Hmmm... That sounds like a familiar type of catch.
And yes, when the right conditions are met, people with dementia and schizophrenia should have their death request granted.
|
On July 02 2015 18:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 18:21 maartendq wrote:On July 02 2015 18:07 coverpunch wrote: Interesting test case and it's a lot tougher if you think about it more than five seconds...and you believe Belgian doctors aren't idiots and already tried the broad solutions like antidepressant medication, exercise, music, etc.
I don't think they should euthanize her, personally, but I can see how it could be an option for someone who has no intention or ability to function in society but keeps bringing grief to herself and others with her repeated attempts at suicide. It might not just be humane for her but for her family and caretakers. Euthanasia is up to the patient. Doctors do not "euthanise" people, they merely execute the patient's (final) request after all other methods have been exhausted. Up until the last moment doctors will keep inquiring whether this really is what the patient wants. I feel like it's something the patient should have to do themselves personally. The doc's should rig em up or whatever but I think it's pretty tough to push that onto doctors. That's the kind of stuff that will give you nightmares (or me anyway). It would eat me up to find out I hadn't tried something. Someone eluded to it before but I would personally want at least some eastern medicine remedies attempted. Western medicine is pretty damn cool, but we miss a LOT of stuff. We are just now coming around to the medical uses of cannabis. Not that I would ever find myself in such a situation, I already have a suicide plan should my life come to it.... + Show Spoiler +Viagra, MDMA, and the best prostitutes I can afford, until my heart explodes. Usually it is done by doctors that have treated the patient for the duration of the illness and who know how much the patient is suffering.
And like I said, doctors can refuse to do it if they feel it is against their personal ethical code. It cannot be understated that a patient is actually asking a doctor to kill him.
|
Czech Republic12116 Posts
On July 02 2015 18:29 Amarok wrote: Why do people keep referring to her as a "sane person" who just happens to want to die? She's clearly severely mentally unbalanced. Would we give the same right to death to someone with dementia? Schizophrenia?
I'm not against euthanasia or even against it in this case but referring to this person as sane seems pretty crazy. If someone is considered not sane because of some mental illness (s)he can suffer until (s)he naturally dies, because they are not sane to decide of their death. Is that what you are saying? Way to go, humanity. So we are talking about not torturing animals, but we will torture endlessly not sane human beings, because why not, they are not sane enough so they cannot tell they are suffering? I kinda don't know what to think other than animals have better PR than mentally ill people.
Tell me - how long suffering is adequate until the person is healed? Lets say that in 5 years they discover a treatment, which would help her. Is 5 more years of suffering for her OK?
|
On July 02 2015 18:05 Peeano wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 02:47 xM(Z wrote:i could maybe agree with this is she'd be an organ donor, but barely. why does she fails at suicide anyway?. + Show Spoiler +'cause she doesn't really want to die Not sure if troll or not. It makes sense to me that you're Romanian. why don't you translate that, porfa ... it's a chicken shit way to die when you're physically whole. go fight IS or something; and there, there's always the option of putting one through your brain if it gets to much. 2 birds with one stone.
in this day and age people do not own themselves. there is energy spent in raising them so they owe a payback. organ donor is a good place to start if you've done nothing 'till that point.
|
That is a very bad way of thinking. You are kind of close to indentured slavery at that point, if you assume that people owe a great deal just for existing.
On the other hand, i really thing being an organ donor should be the standard rather than the exception. I don't see any reason for someone not to be an organ donor. I am generally a friend of the idea of making organ donations opt-out instead of opt-in. But this is an entirely different topic.
|
I still can't understand where anyone gets their right to tell other people to live. Everyone who wants to kill himself should be given easy tools to do so, in fact it is one of the very few rights I can really see that should be granted unequcially to everyone. What is more of my business than my very LIFE? And if something is a slippery slope then it is the idea of disallowing people the right on suicide based on medical assesment. The view on what is a psychiatrical condition and what isn't is constantly changing, the mind of every person is different and it's not anyone elses business.
And before you start on me that I don't know what I am talking about, I fucking do, my wife was suicidal for many years, she would harm herself routinely, wander off to be found atop a high cliff etc... of course I tried to stop her, because I fucking love her, but that doesn't mean that the state has the right to do so by force.
|
On July 02 2015 19:34 Simberto wrote: That is a very bad way of thinking. You are kind of close to indentured slavery at that point, if you assume that people owe a great deal just for existing.
On the other hand, i really thing being an organ donor should be the standard rather than the exception. I don't see any reason for someone not to be an organ donor. I am generally a friend of the idea of making organ donations opt-out instead of opt-in. But this is an entirely different topic. if you raise yourself by yourself you own yourself, else nope. there isn't a great deal owed(but there is some) and most people pay it back in their own way - working, creating, comforting, advising and so on, else energy is wasted.
|
On July 02 2015 19:48 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 19:34 Simberto wrote: That is a very bad way of thinking. You are kind of close to indentured slavery at that point, if you assume that people owe a great deal just for existing.
On the other hand, i really thing being an organ donor should be the standard rather than the exception. I don't see any reason for someone not to be an organ donor. I am generally a friend of the idea of making organ donations opt-out instead of opt-in. But this is an entirely different topic. if you raise yourself by yourself you own yourself, else nope. there isn't a great deal owed(but there is some) and most people pay it back in their own way - working, creating, comforting, advising and so on, else energy is wasted.
You are a truly deranged individual.
|
On July 02 2015 19:44 opisska wrote: I still can't understand where anyone gets their right to tell other people to live. Everyone who wants to kill himself should be given easy tools to do so, in fact it is one of the very few rights I can really see that should be granted unequcially to everyone. What is more of my business than my very LIFE? And if something is a slippery slope then it is the idea of disallowing people the right on suicide based on medical assesment. The view on what is a psychiatrical condition and what isn't is constantly changing, the mind of every person is different and it's not anyone elses business.
And before you start on me that I don't know what I am talking about, I fucking do, my wife was suicidal for many years, she would harm herself routinely, wander off to be found atop a high cliff etc... of course I tried to stop her, because I fucking love her, but that doesn't mean that the state has the right to do so by force. what right does she have to demand help from the state?. i'm not against suicide per-se. if you can do it by yourself, fine; it's a waste but w/e. if you can't(are impaired in some way), under certain circumstances, you may ask for assistance.
but if you can suicide yourself and don't or fail, you should not be given any help.
|
On July 02 2015 19:48 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 19:34 Simberto wrote: That is a very bad way of thinking. You are kind of close to indentured slavery at that point, if you assume that people owe a great deal just for existing.
On the other hand, i really thing being an organ donor should be the standard rather than the exception. I don't see any reason for someone not to be an organ donor. I am generally a friend of the idea of making organ donations opt-out instead of opt-in. But this is an entirely different topic. if you raise yourself by yourself you own yourself, else nope. there isn't a great deal owed(but there is some) and most people pay it back in their own way - working, creating, comforting, advising and so on, else energy is wasted. In Belgium, you cannot sign contracts below a certain age, and definitely not as a baby. This directly implies that children have no obligation whatsoever to make sure they have paid back all the money the state invested in them by the time they die.
We left the feudal age behind us a long time ago, thank you. The Belgian state doesn't own me. As a matter of fact, I can leave whenever I want, get a job abroad and never pay back the tens of thousands of euros it spent on me.
|
I don't understand your point of view because for me it's completely different. Coming into this world is not something you chose, it's someone making that choice for you. Therefore, those people are automatically completely responsible for you. You don't owe nobody. Not a single person, not multiple people, not institutions. Yes, you get the food, yes you get the education, yes you get the shelter (if you're lucky); but this is not something you should be grateful for, per se. If you ask why, read back to my first point, but I have another claim: genetics. People aren't dealt the same hands on that level, and if you happens to have a very disturbed life because of that, mentally, physically, or both, or the environment is harsh on you because malnutrition/neglect/discrimination, why would you ever have to pay this world back for what you've become? Living (comfortably) is not a fucking privilige, it should be a right that everyone should be able to practise. And with that, you should also be able to choose whether you end it or not. Not someone else, but only yourself.
what right does she have to demand help from the state? Because she is a citizen of said state and the state should be able to provide a platform or infrastructure for the citizen to let her do what she needs to do in order to become a satisfied person. If not, the state in itself fails to help its citizen. I'm not saying a state or its government have to hold your hand on every step of the way, but if you govern a large amount of people you need the tools and legislation to give the people what they want and to show them what they can and can't do. I mean, don't you try to live your life to become happy, satisfied, saturated, untill you've said (in ideal conditions) you've lived your life and you can end it in peace? Well, for some people they feel that it needs to end alot sooner than it needs to because they just can't find a way to become happy, satisfied and saturated. Denying them that right is fucking torture.
|
On July 02 2015 19:58 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 19:44 opisska wrote: I still can't understand where anyone gets their right to tell other people to live. Everyone who wants to kill himself should be given easy tools to do so, in fact it is one of the very few rights I can really see that should be granted unequcially to everyone. What is more of my business than my very LIFE? And if something is a slippery slope then it is the idea of disallowing people the right on suicide based on medical assesment. The view on what is a psychiatrical condition and what isn't is constantly changing, the mind of every person is different and it's not anyone elses business.
And before you start on me that I don't know what I am talking about, I fucking do, my wife was suicidal for many years, she would harm herself routinely, wander off to be found atop a high cliff etc... of course I tried to stop her, because I fucking love her, but that doesn't mean that the state has the right to do so by force. what right does she have to demand help from the state?. i'm not against suicide per-se. if you can do it by yourself, fine; it's a waste but w/e. if you can't(are impaired in some way), under certain circumstances, you may ask for assistance. but if you can suicide yourself and don't or fail, you should not be given any help.
Why can you ask for assistence in any other thing? Why would you single suicide out? And remember that the state is actively working towards making killing yoursefl difficult - it is not easy to get a weapon (even less so if you show mental illness), most easily lethal substances are probhibited, high bridges are secured against jumping ... Yes, you can jump in front of a train, but that's really silly that people are forced to incovenience possibly thousands of other people just because there is no other easy way.
And the idea that you owe something and thus should not die is just laughable.
|
@maartendq - i wasn't talking about money, owing money, and i won't; that's another can of worms. @Uldridge - i'm not stopping her from killing herself(i'd try to if i were somehow able to, but eventually, i won't stop her). i agree withBecause she is a citizen of said state and the state should be able to provide a platform or infrastructure for the citizen to let her do what she needs to do in order to become a satisfied person. so she alone should kill herself.
also, i don't agree with it being made painless(in this case mostly). suicide should hurt, it's supposed to hurt. pain serves as deterrence for future wannabees. jumping in front of a train hurts(even when watching it censored on tv), hanging/drowning is pretty fucked up, shooting can backfire and so on. the fear factor should always be there. being sent to Oz while having the live drained out of you is objectively wrong.
|
You make the decision to never exist forever. Shouldn't that enough? Juming in front of a train isn't necessarily painful. Choking is fucked up. I mean, dying shouldn't and doesn't hurt per se, nor should it be frightening (but it actally is I think, unless you're truly done with your life), so I really want to know why you think that it should be something you need to endure. Why does someone need one last excruciating trial before the endless relief?
|
you are mixing things. a decision is theoretical in nature while an action is practical. i can make the decision to never exist forever right now and nothing happens. i keep existing(doh) because there is no follow up to that decision - the action to end said existence.
in the end it boils down to the balance of pain? caused by depression vs fear/pain of a suicide. if, when compared, the suicide is the lesser evil then you'll commit suicide. if the depression is the lesser evil, then you don't deserve to die. not yet at least.
|
On July 02 2015 21:57 xM(Z wrote: in the end it boils down to the balance of pain? caused by depression vs fear/pain of a suicide. if, when compared, the suicide is the lesser evil then you'll commit suicide. if the depression is the lesser evil, then you don't deserve to die. not yet at least.
That logic is a bit weird, in this day and age really. Let's say i've got shoulder pain, so I should only operate if the pain is greater than the one of a live surgery?
And, just taking the pain out, the amount of complications that can follow a missed suicide are enough to justify that someone would be provided assistance in finding death.
|
|
|
|