|
On July 02 2015 21:57 xM(Z wrote: 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.
Someone that is in unbearable anguish without hope of significant improvement should not have worry about whether or not the attempt is going to be succesful, shouldn't have to keep their decision a secret in fear of being stopped. Shouldn't have to worry what their friends and family will think or what the person who finds them will go through. A group of doctors recognizing that the person is indeed suffering without hope gives validity to the decision, shows to everyone that the decision was well considered, that nobody needs to wonder if they could have done more for that person. Allows those close to the person to say goodbye with some peace of mind.
There are actual arguments against euthanasia, a group of doctors could be wrong, for example. Can you really know that there is no hope for improvement? Is being dead really better than suffering?
But your absurd ideas are not amongst them.
|
If people are willing to suicide and no physical disabilities prevent them to do so, they usually succeed. It's a matter of will. Those really willing to suicide succeed rather easily, there are a bazillion easy way to do it. On the other hand, euthanasia is already a slippery rope when applied to disabled suffering people, we should not go further with helping those who can handle it themselves. People who want to suicide manage to do it in super safe rooms designed for depressed people (psychiatric ward). And I've witnessed (and also contributed) to some sort of euthanasias, it's not legalised at all and it's not that fast but mixing high doses of hypnotics and morphinics is damn close to euthanasia.
On July 02 2015 22:20 Crushinator wrote: A group of doctors recognizing that the person is indeed suffering without hope gives validity to the decision, shows to everyone that the decision was well considered, that nobody needs to wonder if they could have done more for that person. Allows those close to the person to say goodbye with some peace of mind. You have to realise it would destroy the lives of many doctors in the process. That's not the kind of decisions you can take and get off your head once your work day is over and have a happy meal with your family.
On July 02 2015 18:33 GreenHorizons wrote: 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.
It's wrong, we have some Eastern medicines in the West, it jsut needs to be sicentifically proven, hypnosis, acupuncture, massages. The truth is a lot of Eastern stuffs are some garbage old stuff which deviated too much from the original good idea. Their also responsible for the biggest slaugher of endangered species for useless shit like rhino's horns. No thanks, Let's stick to scientifically proven medicine, don't worry, the Eastern medicine is tested, not all of it yet, but those which were proven to work are currently applied.
|
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. granted. On the other hand, if it's really untreatable this state of mind just won't change for the rest of her life even if from an outside pov it might look stupid. The whole idea that it gets better is out of the window this way and it just isn't "we decide for you because you're clearly not thinking in a sane way right now. You'll thank us in 5 years when this is over" anymore.
|
On July 02 2015 22:24 nojok wrote:If people are willing to suicide and no physical disabilities prevent them to do so, they usually succeed. It's a matter of will. Those really willing to suicide succeed rather easily, there are a bazillion easy way to do it. On the other hand, euthanasia is already a slippery rope when applied to disabled suffering people, we should not go further with helping those who can handle it themselves. People who want to suicide manage to do it in super safe rooms designed for depressed people (psychiatric ward). And I've witnessed (and also contributed) to some sort of euthanasias, it's not legalised at all and it's not that fast but mixing high doses of hypnotics and morphinics is damn close to euthanasia. Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 22:20 Crushinator wrote: A group of doctors recognizing that the person is indeed suffering without hope gives validity to the decision, shows to everyone that the decision was well considered, that nobody needs to wonder if they could have done more for that person. Allows those close to the person to say goodbye with some peace of mind. You have to realise it would destroy the lives of many doctors in the process. That's not the kind of decisions you can take and get off your head once your work day is over and have a happy meal with your family.
Those doctors choose to do that work. The ones that don't want to make such decisions don't have to.
|
On July 02 2015 22:35 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 22:24 nojok wrote:If people are willing to suicide and no physical disabilities prevent them to do so, they usually succeed. It's a matter of will. Those really willing to suicide succeed rather easily, there are a bazillion easy way to do it. On the other hand, euthanasia is already a slippery rope when applied to disabled suffering people, we should not go further with helping those who can handle it themselves. People who want to suicide manage to do it in super safe rooms designed for depressed people (psychiatric ward). And I've witnessed (and also contributed) to some sort of euthanasias, it's not legalised at all and it's not that fast but mixing high doses of hypnotics and morphinics is damn close to euthanasia. On July 02 2015 22:20 Crushinator wrote: A group of doctors recognizing that the person is indeed suffering without hope gives validity to the decision, shows to everyone that the decision was well considered, that nobody needs to wonder if they could have done more for that person. Allows those close to the person to say goodbye with some peace of mind. You have to realise it would destroy the lives of many doctors in the process. That's not the kind of decisions you can take and get off your head once your work day is over and have a happy meal with your family. Those doctors choose to do that work. The ones that don't want to make such decisions don't have to. They choosed to do this work before there were some laws forcing them to decide who lives or not. Those jobs are tiring, stressful and results in lot of depressions when related to dying people.
|
On July 02 2015 22:44 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 22:35 Crushinator wrote:On July 02 2015 22:24 nojok wrote:If people are willing to suicide and no physical disabilities prevent them to do so, they usually succeed. It's a matter of will. Those really willing to suicide succeed rather easily, there are a bazillion easy way to do it. On the other hand, euthanasia is already a slippery rope when applied to disabled suffering people, we should not go further with helping those who can handle it themselves. People who want to suicide manage to do it in super safe rooms designed for depressed people (psychiatric ward). And I've witnessed (and also contributed) to some sort of euthanasias, it's not legalised at all and it's not that fast but mixing high doses of hypnotics and morphinics is damn close to euthanasia. On July 02 2015 22:20 Crushinator wrote: A group of doctors recognizing that the person is indeed suffering without hope gives validity to the decision, shows to everyone that the decision was well considered, that nobody needs to wonder if they could have done more for that person. Allows those close to the person to say goodbye with some peace of mind. You have to realise it would destroy the lives of many doctors in the process. That's not the kind of decisions you can take and get off your head once your work day is over and have a happy meal with your family. Those doctors choose to do that work. The ones that don't want to make such decisions don't have to. They choosed to do this work before there were some laws forcing them to decide who lives or not. Those jobs are tiring, stressful and results in lot of depressions when related to dying people.
You dont get it. Not every doctor has to make these decision. Only the ones who choose to. You can be a doctor and have a patient requesting euthanasia and just say I don't want any part of that, and someone who is willing may take over. There is also a specialized panel that sees to it that all proper procedures are followed and all requirements are met
|
On July 02 2015 22:44 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 22:35 Crushinator wrote:On July 02 2015 22:24 nojok wrote:If people are willing to suicide and no physical disabilities prevent them to do so, they usually succeed. It's a matter of will. Those really willing to suicide succeed rather easily, there are a bazillion easy way to do it. On the other hand, euthanasia is already a slippery rope when applied to disabled suffering people, we should not go further with helping those who can handle it themselves. People who want to suicide manage to do it in super safe rooms designed for depressed people (psychiatric ward). And I've witnessed (and also contributed) to some sort of euthanasias, it's not legalised at all and it's not that fast but mixing high doses of hypnotics and morphinics is damn close to euthanasia. On July 02 2015 22:20 Crushinator wrote: A group of doctors recognizing that the person is indeed suffering without hope gives validity to the decision, shows to everyone that the decision was well considered, that nobody needs to wonder if they could have done more for that person. Allows those close to the person to say goodbye with some peace of mind. You have to realise it would destroy the lives of many doctors in the process. That's not the kind of decisions you can take and get off your head once your work day is over and have a happy meal with your family. Those doctors choose to do that work. The ones that don't want to make such decisions don't have to. They choosed to do this work before there were some laws forcing them to decide who lives or not. Those jobs are tiring, stressful and results in lot of depressions when related to dying people. There isn't a single law forcing them to euthanise patients. Doctors have the right to refuse, which some of them actually do.
|
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?
Exactly.
I work in a psychiatric hospital, and if you are not mentally stable, you shouldn't be making decisions for yourself. Trust me.
Imagine if you've just suffered a bad concussion, and you're getting really bad headaches all the time and you keep talking about how you "wish you could die" at the moment. That doesn't mean you actually want to die, you just want the headaches to go away.
Depression is difficult to deal with, however in my professional opinion (rarely do I get to say that) as someone who has treated people with depression, it seems to me like these bioethicists and even her doctors have given up on her. Which is really sad. And that is probably one of the reasons why she feels like there is no hope, because no one is giving her any hope.
You don't give up on someone, ever, period.
The problem with physician assisted suicide has always been the potential misuse of it. Particularly concerning is that the poor might use it far more than the rich due to not wanting to burden their families with the cost of medical treatment or due to being unable to afford treatment for whatever disease they are suffering. While that situation isn't the case here, it is still misuse because it violates what it is supposed to be used for.
Physician assisted suicide should never be used as a replacement for medical care, it should only be used as something speed up the process of death when said process is particularly horrific.
But she isn't dying. So it shouldn't be used. Treatment resistant doesn't mean treatment proof.
|
Such speculation is not a professional opinion of any kind. Shame on you.
|
On July 03 2015 00:27 BronzeKnee wrote: The problem with physician assisted suicide has always been the potential misuse of it. Particularly concerning is that the poor might use it far more than the rich due to not wanting to burden their families with the cost of medical treatment or due to being unable to afford treatment for whatever disease they are suffering. While that situation isn't the case here, it is still misuse because it violates what it is supposed to be used for.
The solution to this particular problem isn't to deprive people of their right to die, but to provide universal healthcare like we do in civilised world (a.k.a Europe).
|
On July 03 2015 01:18 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 00:27 BronzeKnee wrote: The problem with physician assisted suicide has always been the potential misuse of it. Particularly concerning is that the poor might use it far more than the rich due to not wanting to burden their families with the cost of medical treatment or due to being unable to afford treatment for whatever disease they are suffering. While that situation isn't the case here, it is still misuse because it violates what it is supposed to be used for.
The solution to this particular problem isn't to deprive people of their right to die, but to provide universal healthcare like we do in civilised world (a.k.a Europe). If the civilized world, in addition to fully subsidizing the health care costs of the entire nation, kills their mentally ill (with the consent, of course, of the suffering patient), I'll stay uncivilized. Back to topic, change that sick law.
|
On July 03 2015 01:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 01:18 opisska wrote:On July 03 2015 00:27 BronzeKnee wrote: The problem with physician assisted suicide has always been the potential misuse of it. Particularly concerning is that the poor might use it far more than the rich due to not wanting to burden their families with the cost of medical treatment or due to being unable to afford treatment for whatever disease they are suffering. While that situation isn't the case here, it is still misuse because it violates what it is supposed to be used for.
The solution to this particular problem isn't to deprive people of their right to die, but to provide universal healthcare like we do in civilised world (a.k.a Europe). If the civilized world, in addition to fully subsidizing the health care costs of the entire nation, kills their mentally ill (with the consent, of course, of the suffering patient), I'll stay uncivilized. Back to topic, change that sick law.
Noone should ever tell another person that they should die. I think that is obvious in civilized society.
However, if someone specifically states that they wish to die, why do you think that you know better than that person herself whether she would like to continue living? Most people are already capable of killing themselves, be it via train, high house, or pills. However, all of these methods have a lot of problems associated with them, and are often not available to people in specific circumstances. Giving someone who honestly does not wish to live (And has thought the whole situation through thoroughly (a period of waiting should definitively be mandatory), and after assuring that the reasons for that wish are indeed internal as opposed to some sort of external pressure) a clean way to die is in no way a "sick law", it is indeed very humane, kind, and very much in the spirit of "personal freedom" that is usually so high up on your agenda.
|
On July 02 2015 22:20 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 21:57 xM(Z wrote: 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. Someone that is in unbearable anguish without hope of significant improvement should not have worry about whether or not the attempt is going to be succesful, shouldn't have to keep their decision a secret in fear of being stopped. Shouldn't have to worry what their friends and family will think or what the person who finds them will go through. A group of doctors recognizing that the person is indeed suffering without hope gives validity to the decision, shows to everyone that the decision was well considered, that nobody needs to wonder if they could have done more for that person. Allows those close to the person to say goodbye with some peace of mind. There are actual arguments against euthanasia, a group of doctors could be wrong, for example. Can you really know that there is no hope for improvement? Is being dead really better than suffering? But your absurd ideas are not amongst them. that part is an assumption. you can not quantify/measure the degree of pain a mind is in; a brain, sure, but not that of a mind. so you have nothing, your doctors have nothing but the subjective opinions of said mind. for me that's to little to go on, to kill someone who is physically healthy.
|
On July 03 2015 02:11 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 22:20 Crushinator wrote:On July 02 2015 21:57 xM(Z wrote: 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. Someone that is in unbearable anguish without hope of significant improvement should not have worry about whether or not the attempt is going to be succesful, shouldn't have to keep their decision a secret in fear of being stopped. Shouldn't have to worry what their friends and family will think or what the person who finds them will go through. A group of doctors recognizing that the person is indeed suffering without hope gives validity to the decision, shows to everyone that the decision was well considered, that nobody needs to wonder if they could have done more for that person. Allows those close to the person to say goodbye with some peace of mind. There are actual arguments against euthanasia, a group of doctors could be wrong, for example. Can you really know that there is no hope for improvement? Is being dead really better than suffering? But your absurd ideas are not amongst them. that part is an assumption. you can not quantify/measure the degree of pain a mind is in; a brain, sure, but not that of a mind. so you have nothing, your doctors have nothing but the subjective opinions of said mind. for me that's to little to go on, to kill someone who is physically healthy.
Yes it is an assumption, and I think a criticism that focuses on our ability to determine if someone's suffering is great enough, or hopeless enough is much more reasonble than the other drivel you came out with. I personally DO think there are people whose mental issues cause unbearable and hopeless suffering, and I do think a thorough evaluation can provide sufficient evidence of such a state.
Those with decade long struggles, a perstitent deathwish, who have never made any progress and find little to no joy in life will leave plenty of evidence of misery.
|
On July 03 2015 02:43 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 02:11 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2015 22:20 Crushinator wrote:On July 02 2015 21:57 xM(Z wrote: 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. Someone that is in unbearable anguish without hope of significant improvement should not have worry about whether or not the attempt is going to be succesful, shouldn't have to keep their decision a secret in fear of being stopped. Shouldn't have to worry what their friends and family will think or what the person who finds them will go through. A group of doctors recognizing that the person is indeed suffering without hope gives validity to the decision, shows to everyone that the decision was well considered, that nobody needs to wonder if they could have done more for that person. Allows those close to the person to say goodbye with some peace of mind. There are actual arguments against euthanasia, a group of doctors could be wrong, for example. Can you really know that there is no hope for improvement? Is being dead really better than suffering? But your absurd ideas are not amongst them. that part is an assumption. you can not quantify/measure the degree of pain a mind is in; a brain, sure, but not that of a mind. so you have nothing, your doctors have nothing but the subjective opinions of said mind. for me that's to little to go on, to kill someone who is physically healthy. Yes it is an assumption, and I think a criticism that focuses on our ability to determine if someone's suffering is great enough, or hopeless enough is much more reasonble than the other drivel you came out with. I personally DO think there are people whose mental issues cause unbearable and hopeless suffering, and I do think a thorough evaluation can provide sufficient evidence of such a state. Those with decade long struggles, a perstitent deathwish, who have never made any progress and find little to no joy in life will leave plenty of evidence of misery.
Still I find the whole concept of people being required to provide evidence for their misery also quite sick. Why can't you just let anyone die if they wish to?
|
If a person can choose how to live then why can't she choose how to die? As long as there is no one that depends on them (children, spouse) then I I don't see why not.
|
On July 03 2015 03:29 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 02:43 Crushinator wrote:On July 03 2015 02:11 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2015 22:20 Crushinator wrote:On July 02 2015 21:57 xM(Z wrote: 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. Someone that is in unbearable anguish without hope of significant improvement should not have worry about whether or not the attempt is going to be succesful, shouldn't have to keep their decision a secret in fear of being stopped. Shouldn't have to worry what their friends and family will think or what the person who finds them will go through. A group of doctors recognizing that the person is indeed suffering without hope gives validity to the decision, shows to everyone that the decision was well considered, that nobody needs to wonder if they could have done more for that person. Allows those close to the person to say goodbye with some peace of mind. There are actual arguments against euthanasia, a group of doctors could be wrong, for example. Can you really know that there is no hope for improvement? Is being dead really better than suffering? But your absurd ideas are not amongst them. that part is an assumption. you can not quantify/measure the degree of pain a mind is in; a brain, sure, but not that of a mind. so you have nothing, your doctors have nothing but the subjective opinions of said mind. for me that's to little to go on, to kill someone who is physically healthy. Yes it is an assumption, and I think a criticism that focuses on our ability to determine if someone's suffering is great enough, or hopeless enough is much more reasonble than the other drivel you came out with. I personally DO think there are people whose mental issues cause unbearable and hopeless suffering, and I do think a thorough evaluation can provide sufficient evidence of such a state. Those with decade long struggles, a perstitent deathwish, who have never made any progress and find little to no joy in life will leave plenty of evidence of misery. Still I find the whole concept of people being required to provide evidence for their misery also quite sick. Why can't you just let anyone die if they wish to?
Euthanasia and assisted suicide are both quite active things. The word is kill rather than let die. Should probably do that only for a good enough reason. I don't really have a better answer than that. Maybe futurama style suicide booths really are in our future
|
Suicidal thoughts are a symptom of major depression disorders. People suffering through these episodes are quite literally insane and do not make rational decisions. To let them have 'their will' or even assist them is simply unethical.
|
TLADT24917 Posts
On July 02 2015 13:36 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 12:10 BigFan wrote: While I'm pro-life and think that we should do everything in our powers to help these patients, I think what's most important is to understand things from the perspective of the patient before anything gets decided. They say that she has depression. Are we supposed to believe that she has tried every possible treatment available at this point? Overall though, this all feels like a slippery slope. People are free to die through doctor-assisted suicide if they want, but, lots of mental illness have medications that can help them deal with it and live as close to as normal life as possible especially something like depression which is quite common. I feel that we need more details which the article doesn't provide before we can come to a reasonable conclusion. It's called treatment-resistant depressive disorder for a reason. It's not a slippery slope. It might be when it's just general depression, and the misleading OP title should be changed. I assume doctors have done everything using the available knowledge in western medicine. lol. I know what treatment-resistant depression is, but, I looked through the article and there was no mention of a treatment-resistant depression. My understanding is that the OP linked that second paper for our interest and for more information on the ethics but that doesn't say much about what she has (implied in her article?). This brings me back to my original point: what has she tried? There are many different classes of medications for depression since you can't make a life changing decision (if we were) based on that lack of information.
Either way, it's her right to die if she wants to. It's definitely saddening but for people who are really suffering from mental illness and can't get any relief despite trying all the different possibilities out there, it's a big relief to them to know that the pain will all end.
|
On July 03 2015 04:28 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 13:36 JieXian wrote:On July 02 2015 12:10 BigFan wrote: While I'm pro-life and think that we should do everything in our powers to help these patients, I think what's most important is to understand things from the perspective of the patient before anything gets decided. They say that she has depression. Are we supposed to believe that she has tried every possible treatment available at this point? Overall though, this all feels like a slippery slope. People are free to die through doctor-assisted suicide if they want, but, lots of mental illness have medications that can help them deal with it and live as close to as normal life as possible especially something like depression which is quite common. I feel that we need more details which the article doesn't provide before we can come to a reasonable conclusion. It's called treatment-resistant depressive disorder for a reason. It's not a slippery slope. It might be when it's just general depression, and the misleading OP title should be changed. I assume doctors have done everything using the available knowledge in western medicine. lol. I know what treatment-resistant depression is, but, I looked through the article and there was no mention of a treatment-resistant depression. My understanding is that the OP linked that second paper for our interest and for more information on the ethics but that doesn't say much about what she has (implied in her article?). This brings me back to my original point: what has she tried? There are many different classes of medications for depression since you can't make a life changing decision (if we were) based on that lack of information. Either way, it's her right to die if she wants to. It's definitely saddening but for people who are really suffering from mental illness and can't get any relief despite trying all the different possibilities out there, it's a big relief to them to know that the pain will all end.
right :D
|
|
|
|