|
On July 03 2015 19:58 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 19:34 adwodon wrote: We honestly need to re-evaluate our view on death, its going to happen to us all eventually.
you want to apply philosophy here why not take a utilitarian approach, would allowing people to die in this situation lead to an increase or decrease in overall happiness. Would ending the long term suffering of a few justify the loss of the even smaller few who may well recover and live a happy life? We live in a society that values the individual and their rights, this is a murky approach as psychological research increasingly shows us we aren't beings with true 'free will' and our thoughts are easily influenced but we have to draw a line somewhere and if a person is not in the state of acute mental illness (noting the difference between acute and chronic here) then they should be allowed to enter a process which could legally end their life if other avenues fail to convince them otherwise and a professional is willing to perform the procedure. I think there is a good argument that from a utilitarian standpoint this would be beneficial for both the individual and society. Its a really difficult question. I have no doubt that we do need to re-evaluate how we judge human life and death. The preservation of life at all costs is highly outdated IMO and based on religious ideals rather than any relevant philosophy. At the same time, anyone with any experience of the mental health sector will tell you countless stories of people who were suicidal and not only recovered, but went on to make it clear that they are glad they never succeeded in killing themselves. When a doctor decides that someone is of sound enough mind to be able to make a decision like that, it isn't a simple decision and is never clear cut. Even the slightest doubt about someone's state of mind means that they might want to change their mind in the future, which casts doubt on something as final as death. So although we do need to re-evaluate our attitude to death, we still have to respect its seriousness and finality.
No doubt about that, which is why I think it should be something the medical community should arbitrate. I'm fairly sure that they would have at least a reasonable understanding of who may and may not recover though and from stories from my friends and partner (can't escape Doctors in my personal life it seems) there are enough people out there who are clearly suffering immensely and show little signs of being able to change, maybe in an ideal world they could but stretched services can only accomplish so much when they have no friends and family to pick up the slack.
I think ultimately though these kinds of grey areas could be regulated, my personal views on death are probably quite far off your average persons, I don't really see life as sacred, its important but in an increasingly cramped world with limited resources difficult decisions have to be made. I'll avoid going further with that as it could easily get off topic but really I'm waiting for these kinds of discussions about euthanasia to move beyond these sorts niche cases.
|
I thought this was gonna be for schitzophrenics with violent tendencies.Fair enough in that case. It's way too extreme a policy for depression.
|
I think everyone is entitled to make use of their life as they wish, including suicide or Euthanasia. And since mental illnesses are in my eyes much tougher than physical ones because they take you the ability to have sane control of your mind. And no, you cannot control your mind and decisions as a depressive. This is the only problem actually since you need to question whether a person can objectivly decide to end their life if they are mental ill. Usually I would prefer if young adult were given the option to decide if they are entitled to be granted Euthanasia on wish, if they get mental ill, but in this case I'd say, that this woman can do what she WANTS to (as long it doesn't hurt anyone else.
|
On July 03 2015 14:36 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm not generally talking about elderly or dying people. I'm talking about reasonably youthful depressed people. Though I still think so long as they are able, they should all be "pressing their own button"
I'd prefer mental healthcare not focus exclusively on western medicine and would look deeper into what is the source for people's depression.
Especially if they are going to, what seems to me, to be caving into adult children's tantrums for someone to kill them.
If they aren't even going to "push the button" themselves then I think the medical community should keep trying to address the depression. Having the doctor do it, plays into the often present mentality, that everything is happening to them and that it is outside of their control (no matter how much influence they themselves play).
One of the problems with "pushing their own button" is studies of survivors show the majority were not truely intent on dying when looking at their attempt in hindsight, if you supply them with a failsafe method of death which would eventually be a socially acceptable way of ending the pain. It begs the question of how many "professional" suicides could have been avoided by given enough treatment?
On July 03 2015 18:10 Gzerble wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I'll start with some story time:
My brother is a doctor. When he was choosing what to specialize in, he worked many jobs, to get a taste for the field. Very few truly disturbed him. One of our parents had cancer; our time there left me avoiding hospitals for years. The nights there are usually dead silent except for a few people who can't sleep because the painkillers aren't strong enough. That moaning, when they're too weak to make any other noise... you don't forget that. You'd think something like the oncological ward would be the worst; people there are being eaten from the inside, and are treated with poison that kills cancer faster than it kills them. People there are in pain you can't really imagine. I thought that nothing could be worse than that. Then he told me about how people die of schizophrenia. What people know about it is that you hear voices, feel compulsions to do things, see things that aren't there. What most people don't know is that over time, it also degrades cognitive functions. What people choose not to understand is that there is no cure, and that it only gets worse over time. People die of schizophrenia when they realize that and kill themselves. They kill themselves when they have the realization that it is only a matter of time before their brain degrades to the point where they won't be able to make that choice. That they won't be able to make any choices. That the person, who they really are, is dying, and what will be left is a disease inside their body to haunt anyone that ever cared about them. He told me about some extreme cases of treatment-resistant depressive disorder. People with it aren't unaware that what they're feeling isn't rational. Some of them are extremely clever. But they just can't cope with the world. They can't hold a job. It's a struggle to get out of bed. They can't be good parents, not when they can break down into a weeping mess at any given moment. And they know that theoretically, if only they could ignore that irrational part of themselves, they could live out life like everyone else. Except that's impossible, and the only reason people think it is possible is because they don't understand that this is a disease. So add feelings of inadequacy, personal failure, and at a certain point, they just want nothing more than for it to stop. They always try and kill themselves, while the rest of the world seems to fight for prolonging their suffering. It ends up with suicide, or the facilities where they're locked in for life incarcerating them in a way that they cannot kill themselves while doping them up on a ton of drugs. So, when a doctor says that the worst suffering he's seen is a woman in her moment of clarity realizing she broke her (55 year old) mom's legs because the voices in her head told her so and she could find nothing more natural to do at the time, rather than his own parent suffering through chemotherapy, then perhaps the question should be, dare we not consider it? In this case, to be approved through the supreme court, then it means all treatment options have been tried. It's either dope her up on extreme doses of drugs, keep her monitored 24/7, force her to live in an institution for the rest of her life where eventually no one will visit her anymore, and have her still want to kill herself during that time and occasionally try, or to allow her at least some dignity. + Show Spoiler +People who know nothing about mental disease might think that this is any different an issue than someone with other forms of incurable and debilitating conditions. It isn't. Some cases are extreme enough to warrant euthanasia. I'm glad the court was enlightened enough to allow her choice in the matter, and that this huge step towards eliminating the bias against mental illness ("nutters", "crazy people", "they just need to get laid", "why can't they just buck up and cope?", etc).
edit: also, considering she's been in an institution for years, it is actually not trivial to kill yourself there. Those things are built to make it as hard as possible to commit suicide. "do it yourself" isn't an option there. While schizophrenia is a chronic disorder, it's not impossible live a stable life with proper treatment, many patients recover to live a good life. The biggest part of how well a patient respond to treatment is largely based on how fast they are put in to treatment, a psychotic incident (which is part of the schizophrenia) is the primary source of hurting the cognitive function - if you're "caught" in the first psychotic incident you're very likely to respond well to treatment.
There's been a lot of break-throughs in studies regarding alternative treatment in regards to treatment-resistant depression; usage of formly shunned drugs, direct nerve stimulation a lot of which the doctors are not familiar with (yet) and are thus (understandably) not confident in trying them. Considering psychiatry is such a new field of study, compared to other fields, I feel like there's a lot more exploration to do before we're ready to give up hope. Something to note is treatment-resistant does not equal treatment-immune.
Researchers need long-term data of patients to make conclusions (for instance to make certain of the correlation between smoking and lung cancer was a research over 50 years) which would be impossible if we are fast to allow euthanasia to a general population of the victims of the monster that is treatment-resistant depression, while this is cruel and cynical it's is sadly the harsh reality. Which raise another tough question; how much are we willing to sacrifice for the greater good?
On July 03 2015 11:58 BigFan wrote:Trust me on this one Yes, antidepressants are never given to someone with bipolar because they can swing a patient into mania like you had. Out of curiosity, did you get to try lithium? Never did try lithium. Have been talking about it with my psychiatrist, as it would allow me to cut down on the amount of different medications I have to take (a cocktail of VPA, lamotrigine, quetiapine with a dash of setraline). Despite everyone I know who have tried it are happy, I am sort of scared about trying something new as we have finally found something that works. The experience of withdrawal symptons from the effexors also terrifies me of stopping on my current medications.
|
9 patients with psychiatric conditions were granted euthanasia or assisted suicide in the Netherlands last year. To answer your question: Should they have been forced to stay alive just to be part of your medical data? No, of course not. That reasoning works in no other context, why would it in this one?
One woman had severe and crippling mysophobia (fear of stains) along with depression, when the physicians came to end her life she made them wear special shoes so they wouldn't bring dirt into the house she spent all day of every day keeping clean. I thought that was quite interesting.
|
On July 04 2015 00:02 Jek wrote: One of the problems with "pushing their own button" is studies of survivors show the majority were not truely intent on dying when looking at their attempt in hindsight, if you supply them with a failsafe method of death which would eventually be a socially acceptable way of ending the pain. It begs the question of how many "professional" suicides could have been avoided by given enough treatment?
The other question is: How many people must suffer and for how long, before dying painfully and undignified by their own hand, totally alone because they can't tell anyone, all because the idea of a preventable suicide makes you uncomfortable?
|
TLADT24917 Posts
On July 04 2015 00:02 Jek wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 11:58 BigFan wrote:Trust me on this one Yes, antidepressants are never given to someone with bipolar because they can swing a patient into mania like you had. Out of curiosity, did you get to try lithium? Never did try lithium. Have been talking about it with my psychiatrist, as it would allow me to cut down on the amount of different medications I have to take (a cocktail of VPA, lamotrigine, quetiapine with a dash of setraline). Despite everyone I know who have tried it are happy, I am sort of scared about trying something new as we have finally found something that works. The experience of withdrawal symptons from the effexors also terrifies me of stopping on my current medications. ah I see. That's quite the cocktail that you got there lol. Well, it's really up to you when it comes to that. I would definitely give it some good thought before deciding if you want to stick with your current combo or try lithium. As for effexor, yes, it has some nasty withdrawal symptoms even if you miss a day. I wouldn't worry though, your medications should be titrated down anyways and if you start getting any symptoms, the titration will be slowed down
|
On July 04 2015 01:34 Crushinator wrote: 9 patients with psychiatric conditions were granted euthanasia or assisted suicide in the Netherlands last year. To answer your question: Should they have been forced to stay alive just to be part of your medical data? No, of course not. That reasoning works in no other context, why would it in this one?
One woman had severe and crippling mysophobia (fear of stains) along with depression, when the physicians came to end her life she made them wear special shoes so they wouldn't bring dirt into the house she spent all day of every day keeping clean. I thought that was quite interesting. From a morality point of view, of course not and that is also what my heart tells me. But the coldblooded fact is we need medical data to help treat future generations, and the future will have more persons fighting the disorder than the present.
On July 04 2015 01:53 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2015 00:02 Jek wrote: One of the problems with "pushing their own button" is studies of survivors show the majority were not truely intent on dying when looking at their attempt in hindsight, if you supply them with a failsafe method of death which would eventually be a socially acceptable way of ending the pain. It begs the question of how many "professional" suicides could have been avoided by given enough treatment? The other question is: How many people must suffer and for how long, before dying painfully and undignified by their own hand, totally alone because they can't tell anyone, all because the idea of a preventable suicide makes you uncomfortable? It's a failure of society to not reach out to those individuals you are talking about, rather than choosing to let there be a professional suicide we should rather be open, break the taboo and embrace them. The vast majority of suicides fail, and the majority of survivors are not truely intent of dying. In most cases with treatment and care said persons lives a rich and fullfilling life.
Any preventable suicide should be stopped, most suicidal persons do not want to die.
|
On July 04 2015 00:02 Jek wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 14:36 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm not generally talking about elderly or dying people. I'm talking about reasonably youthful depressed people. Though I still think so long as they are able, they should all be "pressing their own button"
I'd prefer mental healthcare not focus exclusively on western medicine and would look deeper into what is the source for people's depression.
Especially if they are going to, what seems to me, to be caving into adult children's tantrums for someone to kill them.
If they aren't even going to "push the button" themselves then I think the medical community should keep trying to address the depression. Having the doctor do it, plays into the often present mentality, that everything is happening to them and that it is outside of their control (no matter how much influence they themselves play).
One of the problems with "pushing their own button" is studies of survivors show the majority were not truely intent on dying when looking at their attempt in hindsight, if you supply them with a failsafe method of death which would eventually be a socially acceptable way of ending the pain. It begs the question of how many "professional" suicides could have been avoided by given enough treatment?
On July 04 2015 01:53 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2015 00:02 Jek wrote: One of the problems with "pushing their own button" is studies of survivors show the majority were not truely intent on dying when looking at their attempt in hindsight, if you supply them with a failsafe method of death which would eventually be a socially acceptable way of ending the pain. It begs the question of how many "professional" suicides could have been avoided by given enough treatment? The other question is: How many people must suffer and for how long, before dying painfully and undignified by their own hand, totally alone because they can't tell anyone, all because the idea of a preventable suicide makes you uncomfortable?
People are reading that I'm fine with the physician assisting right? I do think there are potential remedies/treatments that don't get explored, but if you really want to kill yourself, and a patient and (I think it should be 3 physicians) agree that "we've tried everything" then go for it.
But if the doctors come and set you up with a suicide kit, you better have the balls to do it yourself, or I call bullshit on your desire for death being greater than your desire for life. I say you're just some sort of misanthrope/crybaby who wants an easier out. Get help, or be ready to do your own dirty work imo.
|
I think Euthanasia for treatment-resistant mental illnesses is somewhat similar to physical illnesses with no treatment currently available. There's a belief that in the future, a cure or successful treatment could be found, or that in the future they'll find one treatment which does work, or the patient will make progress. There's so much uncertainty is in the outcome, and you could be condemning them to a few months of suffering, or a few years of suffering. How many people commit suicide over things that they might be able to deal with in the future. Maybe some people are in a rut. Mental illness aren't born simply from genetics, the environment plays a huge part in successful treatment and rehabilitation. It really is difficult to approve a choice made by someone in a state of mind that could be the product of so many things, even after years of treatment. I don't think it's that black and white and that people can say "it's unthinkable to allow this" or "she should absolutely be allowed to die". That said, I think I lean more towards the die side. There's something that seems really wrong with saying you're only allowed to die when we think you're in the right state of mind to say you can die, while the reason you want to die is because you're not in the right state of mind.
|
On July 04 2015 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2015 00:02 Jek wrote:On July 03 2015 14:36 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm not generally talking about elderly or dying people. I'm talking about reasonably youthful depressed people. Though I still think so long as they are able, they should all be "pressing their own button"
I'd prefer mental healthcare not focus exclusively on western medicine and would look deeper into what is the source for people's depression.
Especially if they are going to, what seems to me, to be caving into adult children's tantrums for someone to kill them.
If they aren't even going to "push the button" themselves then I think the medical community should keep trying to address the depression. Having the doctor do it, plays into the often present mentality, that everything is happening to them and that it is outside of their control (no matter how much influence they themselves play).
One of the problems with "pushing their own button" is studies of survivors show the majority were not truely intent on dying when looking at their attempt in hindsight, if you supply them with a failsafe method of death which would eventually be a socially acceptable way of ending the pain. It begs the question of how many "professional" suicides could have been avoided by given enough treatment? Show nested quote +On July 04 2015 01:53 Crushinator wrote:On July 04 2015 00:02 Jek wrote: One of the problems with "pushing their own button" is studies of survivors show the majority were not truely intent on dying when looking at their attempt in hindsight, if you supply them with a failsafe method of death which would eventually be a socially acceptable way of ending the pain. It begs the question of how many "professional" suicides could have been avoided by given enough treatment? The other question is: How many people must suffer and for how long, before dying painfully and undignified by their own hand, totally alone because they can't tell anyone, all because the idea of a preventable suicide makes you uncomfortable? People are reading that I'm fine with the physician assisting right? I do think there are potential remedies/treatments that don't get explored, but if you really want to kill yourself, and a patient and (I think it should be 3 physicians) agree that "we've tried everything" then go for it. But if the doctors come and set you up with a suicide kit, you better have the balls to do it yourself, or I call bullshit on your desire for death being greater than your desire for life. I say you're just some sort of misanthrope/crybaby who wants an easier out. Get help, or be ready to do your own dirty work imo.
I think this point of view is fair. But in practice I don't personally think there is a meaningful difference between starting the procedure with a word or a button. I mean they do double check to make sure you still want it before going through with it.
|
On July 04 2015 05:23 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2015 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2015 00:02 Jek wrote:On July 03 2015 14:36 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm not generally talking about elderly or dying people. I'm talking about reasonably youthful depressed people. Though I still think so long as they are able, they should all be "pressing their own button"
I'd prefer mental healthcare not focus exclusively on western medicine and would look deeper into what is the source for people's depression.
Especially if they are going to, what seems to me, to be caving into adult children's tantrums for someone to kill them.
If they aren't even going to "push the button" themselves then I think the medical community should keep trying to address the depression. Having the doctor do it, plays into the often present mentality, that everything is happening to them and that it is outside of their control (no matter how much influence they themselves play).
One of the problems with "pushing their own button" is studies of survivors show the majority were not truely intent on dying when looking at their attempt in hindsight, if you supply them with a failsafe method of death which would eventually be a socially acceptable way of ending the pain. It begs the question of how many "professional" suicides could have been avoided by given enough treatment? On July 04 2015 01:53 Crushinator wrote:On July 04 2015 00:02 Jek wrote: One of the problems with "pushing their own button" is studies of survivors show the majority were not truely intent on dying when looking at their attempt in hindsight, if you supply them with a failsafe method of death which would eventually be a socially acceptable way of ending the pain. It begs the question of how many "professional" suicides could have been avoided by given enough treatment? The other question is: How many people must suffer and for how long, before dying painfully and undignified by their own hand, totally alone because they can't tell anyone, all because the idea of a preventable suicide makes you uncomfortable? People are reading that I'm fine with the physician assisting right? I do think there are potential remedies/treatments that don't get explored, but if you really want to kill yourself, and a patient and (I think it should be 3 physicians) agree that "we've tried everything" then go for it. But if the doctors come and set you up with a suicide kit, you better have the balls to do it yourself, or I call bullshit on your desire for death being greater than your desire for life. I say you're just some sort of misanthrope/crybaby who wants an easier out. Get help, or be ready to do your own dirty work imo. I think this point of view is fair. But in practice I don't personally think there is a meaningful difference between starting the procedure with a word or a button. I mean they do double check to make sure you still want it before going through with it.
I beg to differ. There is a big difference between telling someone to kill someone and having to do it oneself. The difference between killing ones own pet and having the vet do it may be easier for some to relate to.
|
On July 04 2015 05:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2015 05:23 Crushinator wrote:On July 04 2015 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2015 00:02 Jek wrote:On July 03 2015 14:36 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm not generally talking about elderly or dying people. I'm talking about reasonably youthful depressed people. Though I still think so long as they are able, they should all be "pressing their own button"
I'd prefer mental healthcare not focus exclusively on western medicine and would look deeper into what is the source for people's depression.
Especially if they are going to, what seems to me, to be caving into adult children's tantrums for someone to kill them.
If they aren't even going to "push the button" themselves then I think the medical community should keep trying to address the depression. Having the doctor do it, plays into the often present mentality, that everything is happening to them and that it is outside of their control (no matter how much influence they themselves play).
One of the problems with "pushing their own button" is studies of survivors show the majority were not truely intent on dying when looking at their attempt in hindsight, if you supply them with a failsafe method of death which would eventually be a socially acceptable way of ending the pain. It begs the question of how many "professional" suicides could have been avoided by given enough treatment? On July 04 2015 01:53 Crushinator wrote:On July 04 2015 00:02 Jek wrote: One of the problems with "pushing their own button" is studies of survivors show the majority were not truely intent on dying when looking at their attempt in hindsight, if you supply them with a failsafe method of death which would eventually be a socially acceptable way of ending the pain. It begs the question of how many "professional" suicides could have been avoided by given enough treatment? The other question is: How many people must suffer and for how long, before dying painfully and undignified by their own hand, totally alone because they can't tell anyone, all because the idea of a preventable suicide makes you uncomfortable? People are reading that I'm fine with the physician assisting right? I do think there are potential remedies/treatments that don't get explored, but if you really want to kill yourself, and a patient and (I think it should be 3 physicians) agree that "we've tried everything" then go for it. But if the doctors come and set you up with a suicide kit, you better have the balls to do it yourself, or I call bullshit on your desire for death being greater than your desire for life. I say you're just some sort of misanthrope/crybaby who wants an easier out. Get help, or be ready to do your own dirty work imo. I think this point of view is fair. But in practice I don't personally think there is a meaningful difference between starting the procedure with a word or a button. I mean they do double check to make sure you still want it before going through with it. I beg to differ. There is a big difference between telling someone to kill someone and having to do it oneself. The difference between killing ones own pet and having the vet do it may be easier for some to relate to.
I don't really see the moral justification for forcing someone to do it themselves. It just seems like a dick move for no measurable reason other than wanting to "stick it to" the person that wants to end their life.
What some people seem to forget is that these requests for suicide aren't just, "Hey. I want to die. Go get the drugs." This tends to be quite a long, drawn-out process that has to be reviewed and approved. Fairly exhaustive measures have to be taken to treat these individuals, and they have to dwell on this and be sure about wanting to end their life for quite a long time.
|
I'd still say that if they are physically able to, ideally the person who wants to do should be the one to push the button.
Firstly, this is another step to verify that they actually wish to do this. Pressing the button themselves might make the decision more real for some persons. Furthermore, i would assume that this has a real mental effect on the doctor. There is a huge difference between enabling someone to kill themselves or killing them yourself. At least i think there is, luckily enough i don't have any experience in that matter.
And i really don't see any negatives or "sticking it to that person".
|
On July 04 2015 17:57 Simberto wrote: I'd still say that if they are physically able to, ideally the person who wants to do should be the one to push the button.
Firstly, this is another step to verify that they actually wish to do this. Pressing the button themselves might make the decision more real for some persons. Furthermore, i would assume that this has a real mental effect on the doctor. There is a huge difference between enabling someone to kill themselves or killing them yourself. At least i think there is, luckily enough i don't have any experience in that matter.
And i really don't see any negatives or "sticking it to that person". Yeah I agree wholeheartedly. I hope that one day soon there is a safe, cheap and reliable method for people to commit suicide, but unless absolutely necessary it should always be the responsibility of that person to go through the process. I don't see why anyone would want someone else to do it for them. It seems like an uncomfortable way to go compared to doing it yourself.
The problem with suicide attempts right now is the permanent debilitating effects that can come from failure. Many people live through a personal hell for most of their lives because either they failed at committing suicide (especially with drug overdoses - the most risky and least likely to succeed) - or because they don't want to try in case of failure.
|
On July 04 2015 17:57 Simberto wrote: I'd still say that if they are physically able to, ideally the person who wants to do should be the one to push the button.
Firstly, this is another step to verify that they actually wish to do this. Pressing the button themselves might make the decision more real for some persons. Furthermore, i would assume that this has a real mental effect on the doctor. There is a huge difference between enabling someone to kill themselves or killing them yourself. At least i think there is, luckily enough i don't have any experience in that matter.
And i really don't see any negatives or "sticking it to that person".
It really depends on your view as a doctor. For most doctors death isn't an adversary - it's a companion which many of us recognize can be the best outcome for our patient if there is little to no hope.
With that said there is in Denmark a widespread agreement among doctors that it is not a task we would like to take on. Either let the person themselves do it or make it a separate job from that of being a doctor. Having people do it themselves (i.e. actually inject the drug - we can put up the i.v. line and everything) is really not a huge requirement for something so important as deciding that one does not wish to live any longer.
|
User was banned for this post.
|
|
|
|