|
In Belgium, a mentally ill 24 year old woman has been granted access to euthanasia.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/healthy-24-year-old-granted-right-to-die-in-belgium/ar-AAckxLg?ocid=mailsignout
Doctors in Belgium are granting a healthy 24-year-old woman who is suffering from depression the right to die, as she qualifies for euthanasia, even though she does not have a terminal or life-threatening illness.
The 24-year-old female, known simply as Laura, has been given the go ahead by health professionals in Belgium to receive a lethal injection after spending both her childhood and adult life suffering from "suicidal thoughts," she told local Belgian media.
Laura has been a patient of a psychiatric institution since the age of 21 and says she has previously tried to kill herself on several occasions. She told journalists: "Death feels to me not as a choice. If I had a choice, I would choose a bearable life, but I have done everything and that was unsuccessful." The date of Laura's death is yet to be decided.
Two bioethicists recently published a compelling paper arguing that treatment resistant depression should be grounds for access to assisted dying.
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2015/05/02/medethics-2014-102458.full
Abstract Competent patients suffering from treatment-resistant depressive disorder should be treated no different in the context of assisted dying to other patients suffering from chronic conditions that render their lives permanently not worth living to them. Jurisdictions that are considering, or that have, decriminalised assisted dying are discriminating unfairly against patients suffering from treatment-resistant depression if they exclude such patients from the class of citizens entitled to receive assistance in dying.
What do you guys think about this issue?
|
Someone sent me something similar recently http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/22/the-death-treatment
I can't personally understand it. In contexts outside of euthanasia/assisted suicide, we generally think of debilitating mental illness as making someone incompetent - like when it's used as a criminal defense. So I don't see that it makes sense that we would trust someone in that state to make this decision.
And mental illness is a really broad umbrella. For instance, I see key differences between euthanasia for people suffering from, say, Alzheimer's or MS or ALS, and euthanasia for people suffering from depression, of which suicide and suicidal tendencies are not only symptoms, but also side effects of treatments. Most of us are probably laymen when it comes to psychiatry/neuroscience but what I mean is I'm not sure these fields themselves have the exactness (yet) to suggest something like this.
|
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
|
Oh, so she doesn't want to die, but is going to get a lethal injection, assisted that is. Maybe all her attempts were prevented by someone other than herself?
|
On July 02 2015 11:15 Uldridge wrote: Oh, so she doesn't want to die, but is going to get a lethal injection, assisted that is. Maybe all her attempts were prevented by someone other than herself?
I'll believe it when she's dead. Till then this sounds like a masterful play for attention by everyone involved.
|
I'm all for it. Not that I want people to die, I just can't stand the idea of governments telling people what they can and can't do. If she doesn't want to live then let her make her own choices and live and die by them.
|
TLADT24917 Posts
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.
|
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.
|
In the absence of a religious based argument I cannot see any reason for a person of age and in a sane state of mind to be barred from choosing to end their life.
If life is bad enough that the neutral condition, death, is preferable to that person over living then they ought to be allowed to make that choice, and be helped to do so if needed. I would not have a problem with any person wishing to die being made to undergo a mental health test and perhaps a short counseling session to make sure they are truly able to make such a decision, have made the effort to try and live, and are committed to ending there existence.
On what logical grounds would one block a rational, mentally sound person from being allowed to end their own life?
|
i dont think this "laura" exist, im sure her parents or relatives would reach out to journalists and so on but nothing showed up yet
|
Well, I prefere this girl to die assisted by professionals where she won't suffer more than reason. And call me heartless but I very much prefere this scenario instead of someone jumping in front of a train, traumatizing the conductor, and delaying hundred of people. The only problem I see with this is that we are getting closer to officially killing people for "some diseases" that aren't easy to dignostic, and some paranoid people could have aftertought. But it's in Belgium and I don't think we even have spy agencies or weird gouvernment shenanigans.
|
Marc Van Hoey that is probably pronounced different than I am imagining...
Well from someone who has had to deal with suicides, one upshot from assisted suicide vs 'the old fashioned way' is the friends/family/landlord doesn't get stuck cleaning up some bloody/stinky mess and dealing with the probable PTSD.
I have much less sympathy for successfully suicidal people than I should though.
|
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. Euthanasia in Belgium is only allowed if all other avenues have been explored and deemed futile by usually more than one doctor or specialist. It's not a decision that is taken lightly. Doctors can even refuse to do it if they don't feel comfortable about it, if I'm not mistaken.
|
On July 02 2015 16:31 maartendq 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. Euthanasia in Belgium is only allowed if all other avenues have been explored and deemed futile by usually more than one doctor or specialist. It's not a decision that is taken lightly. Doctors can even refuse to do it if they don't feel comfortable about it, if I'm not mistaken.
Alright, good to know.
Mr BigFan here just has bad reading comprehension
They say that she has depression. Are we supposed to believe that she has tried every possible treatment available at this point?
|
In this specific case, i don't see a problem. If a sane person of age wishes to die, i have no idea why they shouldn't be allowed to. Of course there need to be some protections in place to make sure that that is indeed the sincere wish of that person, as opposed to feeling pressured into it by the circumstances (For example not wanting to be a burden on their family). In this case, this does not seem to be a problem.
|
I think some psychological conditions can be so severe that a person can have a genuine and reasoable deathwish, and euthanasia then seems like the humane option. Requests of this nature have already been granted dozens of times in the Netherlands, and rightly so.
|
Netherlands4495 Posts
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.
Two bioethicists recently published a compelling paper arguing that treatment resistant depression should be grounds for access to assisted dying.
I agree with this, but in Laura's case I think 3 years is a bit early to call it a treatment resistant depression.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
So your opinion that we should keep someone alive that wants to die trumps that person's own experiences? Those same experiences that you just said you cannot possibly quantify or otherwise understand?
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.
It's pretty poor arguing to say that, just because someone wants to kill themselves, they are, by definition, mentally unstable and not able to make decisions for themselves.
You can't invalidate someone's point by simply saying that anyone who holds that point is mentally unstable. You need some actual evidence that shows that all individuals that want to end their lives are mentally incapable of making informed, independent decisions.
|
People who suffer from depression are mentally unstable. That's the nature of any major psychological disorder. This isn't about a terminally ill cancer patient who will definitely die and makes the rational decision to end his life over a few weeks of pain.
People suffering from depression want to die because their disease makes them feel like they want to die. If their symptoms are under control they will usually tell you that they're happy to live.
|
On July 02 2015 11:55 Aveng3r wrote: I'm all for it. Not that I want people to die, I just can't stand the idea of governments telling people what they can and can't do. If she doesn't want to live then let her make her own choices and live and die by them. the question is about big gubirment spending billions of tax payers dollars to build a sugar coated escalator down into hell for people so lazy they would rather die than get a job. no! they should foot the bill themselves.
they might have managed to hide from a job here on gods green earth, but there sure as shit ain't no thieving socialist welfare state teet to suckle down there, and satan, the original creditor, will mercilessly collect their debts without interference from the communist perversions of big gubirment.
in light of this new method of payment they might opt for ye ole cliff-toss rather than an expensive chemical concoction, much to the chagrin of the big gubirment officials who populate the producing company's list of shareholders. the roi on altitude, gravity, and smashing into the ground is very low.
this post is relevant on the topic of capital punisment as well.
|
Its unfortunate that there are so many therapeutic techniques available which have not been given over to Laura's attention as possible routes out of her depression loops.
|
Can't say I am for this. Same argument as many others, she shouldn't be determined to be rational and so she shouldn't be able to make a decision such as this.
Honestly though, real talk, if you want to kill yourself you don't *really* need approval from the state. Anyone knows this. So, she is putting on a show for some reason.
|
If you really wanted to die just put your head into the meat grinder like my granddad did.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 03 2015 05:20 travis wrote: Can't say I am for this. Same argument as many others, she shouldn't be determined to be rational and so she shouldn't be able to make a decision such as this.
Honestly though, real talk, if you want to kill yourself you don't *really* need approval from the state. Anyone knows this. So, she is putting on a show for some reason.
I imagine a reason a lot of people have difficulty committing suicide is because they "lack the constitution". Like they want to die, but they don't want to deal with pain or panic prior to death, they don't want to disfigure their bodies or force it upon someone else to find their disfigured corpse, or they don't want to end up surviving in a state of physical or mental disability. Euthanasia in this situation seems to be good option for them because it is a peaceful, pain-free, and guaranteed way of dying which is also respectful to other people. If you're choosing to die, you might as well die in the way you want to . I think it's something worth fighting for
|
On July 03 2015 05:11 METATERREN wrote: Its unfortunate that there are so many therapeutic techniques available which have not been given over to Laura's attention as possible routes out of her depression loops.
I don't know how I feel about being allowed to commit suicide when you have depression, but it seems a little odd that you would just assume that, in the 3 years she's been institutionalized (plus all the time prior to that), that she hadn't used a plethora of treatments for her depressive disorder and that, more importantly, the committee that OK's these suicides didn't think of this either.
Can't say I am for this. Same argument as many others, she shouldn't be determined to be rational and so she shouldn't be able to make a decision such as this.
Honestly though, real talk, if you want to kill yourself you don't *really* need approval from the state. Anyone knows this. So, she is putting on a show for some reason.
The idea that "anyone that REALLY wanted to die would just off themselves at home" is pretty shallow. First off, "home-made" suicide attempts frequently fail; people survive when they slit their own wrists, shoot themselves, try to O.D., etc., and part of this is due to the intervention of others around you. Physician-assisted suicide is a much more concrete and assured way of getting the job done. Second, committing suicide on your own is illegal, and therefore, if you are caught, you are then held by a psychiatric hold, which makes the whole process more difficult for everyone. Third, committing suicide at home is generally much more difficult, messy, and traumatizing, both for the person trying to do it and anyone that may find them or witness the act.
|
I feel I'll probably have to repeat thisa couple of times still: the patient makes this decision together with one or more psychiatrists, doctors and other specialists, and probably relatives as well. It is a process that actually takes a couple of months.
The link below provides an (unofficial) translation of the legal text concerning euthanasia for non-mental illnesses, for those who are interested: http://www.ethical-perspectives.be/viewpic.php?TABLE=EP&ID=59
|
On July 03 2015 05:00 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 11:55 Aveng3r wrote: I'm all for it. Not that I want people to die, I just can't stand the idea of governments telling people what they can and can't do. If she doesn't want to live then let her make her own choices and live and die by them. the question is about big gubirment spending billions of tax payers dollars to build a sugar coated escalator down into hell for people so lazy they would rather die than get a job. no! they should foot the bill themselves. they might have managed to hide from a job here on gods green earth, but there sure as shit ain't no thieving socialist welfare state teet to suckle down there, and satan, the original creditor, will mercilessly collect their debts without interference from the communist perversions of big gubirment. in light of this new method of payment they might opt for ye ole cliff-toss rather than an expensive chemical concoction, much to the chagrin of the big gubirment officials who populate the producing company's list of shareholders. the roi on altitude, gravity, and smashing into the ground is very low. this post is relevant on the topic of capital punisment as well.
Euthanasia is probably considered by the law to be a peaceful and respectful way of dying, so throwing someone off a cliff or shooting them in the back of the head, while cheaper, might not hold by the definition. Which I think is fair. Even if I disagreed with euthanasia as a concept I'd rather it be done in a respectful way, even if it is at greater cost to the government.
In any case euthanasia might end up saving the government money in situations like these, where the individual is looking to be institutionalized for a very long time. Euthanasia would probably be less appealing to this individual if she knew she was just gonna end up being thrown off a cliff. To do the procedure in the more respectful way could be considered a win for both parties
|
On July 03 2015 05:36 ViZe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 05:20 travis wrote: Can't say I am for this. Same argument as many others, she shouldn't be determined to be rational and so she shouldn't be able to make a decision such as this.
Honestly though, real talk, if you want to kill yourself you don't *really* need approval from the state. Anyone knows this. So, she is putting on a show for some reason. I imagine a reason a lot of people have difficulty committing suicide is because they "lack the constitution". Like they want to die, but they don't want to deal with pain or panic prior to death, they don't want to disfigure their bodies or force it upon someone else to find their disfigured corpse, or they don't want to end up surviving in a state of physical or mental disability. Euthanasia in this situation seems to be good option for them because it is a peaceful, pain-free, and guaranteed way of dying which is also respectful to other people. If you're choosing to die, you might as well die in the way you want to . I think it's something worth fighting for
Also she is in a psychiatric institution so I imagine they would try to stop her.
|
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.
I take it you've never seen or been close to someone with Dementia before. Its fucking AWFUL, they're not actually living. It's certainly the worst way to die I've ever seen. Once you're diagnosed you probably can't fully grasp the fact that you have it you'll rapidly mentally and physically decline day by day. So you'll probably be too far gone to make the decision for assisted suicide legally. As someone who has watched 2 grandparents die with it and has another family member who is a complete invalid at 55 because of it I see absolutely no reason I shouldn't be able to say I choose to die. It sure as hell looks to run in the family. I've witnessed with my own eyes how fucking devastating it is. Being of sound mind now and understanding its a very real possibility, should I be diagnosed I'd happily choose Euthanasia.
|
On July 03 2015 06:06 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +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. I take it you've never seen or been close to someone with Dementia before. Its fucking AWFUL, they're not actually living. It's certainly the worst way to die I've ever seen. Once you're diagnosed you probably can't fully grasp the fact that you have it you'll rapidly mentally and physically decline day by day. So you'll probably be too far gone to make the decision for assisted suicide legally. As someone who has watched 2 grandparents die with it and has another family member who is a complete invalid at 55 because of it I see absolutely no reason I shouldn't be able to say I choose to die. It sure as hell looks to run in the family. I've witnessed with my own eyes how fucking devastating it is. Being of sound mind now and understanding its a very real possibility, should I be diagnosed I'd happily choose Euthanasia.
As someone who's also known multiple individuals with dementia and schizophrenia, comparing depression to dementia or schizophrenia is pretty insulting. Mental illnesses in general are pretty horrible to live with, but schizophrenia and dementia are probably two of the worst diseases a human being could have. The mental capacity of someone with depression is completely different from someone with either of the other two. I think some people posting here have a pretty uninformed view of what depression actually is.
|
There seem to be some misconceptions about living with a major depression, or mental illness in general. As a person with bipolar II (my depressive phases are diagnosed major). I will try and give my input as a person with the personal experience of suffering from recurring major depressions.
On July 02 2015 20:34 xM(Z wrote: 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 have no idea what you're talking about, and are quite simply offensive to everyone who have or do live with a depression. When you're in a major depression, life hurts more than death - which is why suicide is seen as a way out.
"future wannabees" are going through more pain just by living with a depression than you can possible imagine.
On July 02 2015 19:29 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 18:05 Peeano wrote: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. Again. You have no idea what you're talking about. When you're in a state of depression, you cannot "go fight IS or something", something as menial as brushing your teeth is a challenge. Would you ask a guy with broken legs to "go run a marathon or something"? Depression is so far from just being sad (or whatever your idea of depression is). Your ignorant posts are frankly rude to people with a clinical depression, and I would advice you to actually educate youself on this matter. There is a lot of books written by people who live with a chronic depression and their struggles. A depression is appearently so far from what you perceive it to be.
I would advice everyone who haven't had firsthand experience of the struggles a person with a depression go through to read the books written by people who live with a chronic depression about their lives. It is an eye opener, and help breaking the stigmas we hear from society nearly everyday - "why dont you just pull youself together?".
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. This is a common misconception, I've seen multiple times in the thread (I'm not trying to single you out). The rate of failure for suicide is extremely high, way higher than the "succes" rate, especially among women. There's a plethora of more ways for a suicide to go "wrong" than there is for it to "succed".
Someone mentioned people manage to commit suicide in a "super safe" room in a psychiatric ward, this is close to impossible. If you're admited to a ward it's because you are in a psychotic depression in which case you're supervised around the clock. If you manage to muster the energy just to grab a smoke you're accompained by a nurse for example.
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.
Accupunture (NADA for instance) is starting be a custom offer for patients in psychiatric care. It actually works, you get so drowsy and relaxed afterwards; it varies a lot from person to person how you respond. Hope we'll start to see more options in regards to eastern remedies.
On July 03 2015 00:27 BronzeKnee wrote: But she isn't dying. So it shouldn't be used. Treatment resistant doesn't mean treatment proof. This so very much.
To be honest the idea of calling it a treatment-resistant depression after just 3 years of (intensive?) treament is borderline amateurish. In just 3 years there's no possible way to even try the various medicational options, just trying to hit the right serum-value of a single medical drug can easily take over half a year - and there's plenty of alternatives to try. Hell, after ten years we are still tweaking on my lamotrigine and quetiapine dosis.
On July 02 2015 17:20 Crushinator wrote: I think some psychological conditions can be so severe that a person can have a genuine and reasoable deathwish, and euthanasia then seems like the humane option. Requests of this nature have already been granted dozens of times in the Netherlands, and rightly so. I disagree. At least in regards to major depression, which is the case for Laura, in a major depression you're in no state of mind to value your own life and in a psychotic depression your lack of judgement is even more pronounced.
-----
I cant really add more to the thread other than finding it horrible by the doctors to already consider it impossible to treat her condition after such a short time and it's straight up stupid to be taking away something that precious which we in that state of mind have no possible idea of how to value - our life.
|
She hasn't been in treatment for only 3 years. She has suffered from depression with suicidal thoughts from early childhood. She has been institutionalized for 3 years. In institutions treatment isn't necessarily more intensive, its where we put people like her so she can't kill herself.
|
On July 03 2015 06:55 Crushinator wrote: She hasn't been in treatment for only 3 years. She has suffered from depression with suicidal thoughts from early childhood. She has been institutionalized for 3 years. In institutions treatment isn't necessarily more intensive, its where we put people like her so she can't kill herself. Ah. Thanks for clarifying. It doesn't change my opinion tho, she's far too young to "give up" on.
Treatment really isn't more intensive in Netherland's institutions? We're seen more often by psychiatrists and much more attention are brought upon our medications while hospitalized in Denmark.
|
I feel like I need to address quality of life issue again. How much longer are you willing to fight for yourself when you are constantly monitored, taking pills to alter your brain chemistry, feel like you're being altered against your natural state of mind? For some people this becomes their normal brain chemistry and even when they might become "cured" at one point in their lives, the chance of plunging back into the abbyss always stays relevant. I feel that if you don't have the power to even keep trying to make yourself better through external help because it constrains not only yourself but the other people invested in you (yes, depressed people still account for people other than themselves, I'd dare to say sometimes even more), you have the absolute right to ask for euthanasia.
|
TLADT24917 Posts
On July 03 2015 06:47 Jek wrote:There seem to be some misconceptions about living with a major depression, or mental illness in general. As a person with bipolar II (my depressive phases are diagnosed major). I will try and give my input as a person with the personal experience of suffering from recurring major depressions. Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 20:34 xM(Z wrote: 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 have no idea what you're talking about, and are quite simply offensive to everyone who have or do live with a depression. When you're in a major depression, life hurts more than death - which is why suicide is seen as a way out. "future wannabees" are going through more pain just by living with a depression than you can possible imagine. Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 19:29 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2015 18:05 Peeano wrote: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. Again. You have no idea what you're talking about. When you're in a state of depression, you cannot "go fight IS or something", something as menial as brushing your teeth is a challenge. Would you ask a guy with broken legs to "go run a marathon or something"? Depression is so far from just being sad (or whatever your idea of depression is). Your ignorant posts are frankly rude to people with a clinical depression, and I would advice you to actually educate youself on this matter. There is a lot of books written by people who live with a chronic depression and their struggles. A depression is appearently so far from what you perceive it to be. I would advice everyone who haven't had firsthand experience of the struggles a person with a depression go through to read the books written by people who live with a chronic depression about their lives. It is an eye opener, and help breaking the stigmas we hear from society nearly everyday - "why dont you just pull youself together?". 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. This is a common misconception, I've seen multiple times in the thread (I'm not trying to single you out). The rate of failure for suicide is extremely high, way higher than the "succes" rate, especially among women. There's a plethora of more ways for a suicide to go "wrong" than there is for it to "succed". Someone mentioned people manage to commit suicide in a "super safe" room in a psychiatric ward, this is close to impossible. If you're admited to a ward it's because you are in a psychotic depression in which case you're supervised around the clock. If you manage to muster the energy just to grab a smoke you're accompained by a nurse for example. Show nested quote +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.
Accupunture (NADA for instance) is starting be a custom offer for patients in psychiatric care. It actually works, you get so drowsy and relaxed afterwards; it varies a lot from person to person how you respond. Hope we'll start to see more options in regards to eastern remedies. Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 00:27 BronzeKnee wrote: But she isn't dying. So it shouldn't be used. Treatment resistant doesn't mean treatment proof. This so very much. To be honest the idea of calling it a treatment-resistant depression after just 3 years of (intensive?) treament is borderline amateurish. In just 3 years there's no possible way to even try the various medicational options, just trying to hit the right serum-value of a single medical drug can easily take over half a year - and there's plenty of alternatives to try. Hell, after ten years we are still tweaking on my lamotrigine and quetiapine dosis. Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 17:20 Crushinator wrote: I think some psychological conditions can be so severe that a person can have a genuine and reasoable deathwish, and euthanasia then seems like the humane option. Requests of this nature have already been granted dozens of times in the Netherlands, and rightly so. I disagree. At least in regards to major depression, which is the case for Laura, in a major depression you're in no state of mind to value your own life and in a psychotic depression your lack of judgement is even more pronounced. ----- I cant really add more to the thread other than finding it horrible by the doctors to already consider it impossible to treat her condition after such a short time and it's straight up stupid to be taking away something that precious which we in that state of mind have no possible idea of how to value - our life. I agree with your post for the most part but to clarify the medication and time aspect. To be fair, while there a lot of options for depression, with certain classes of medications such as SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) like citalopram for example, usually you see maximum results in 6-8 weeks (you see energy increases, mood changes and such happening in 3 and 4-6 weeks respectively) then can titrate up as needed and if that doesn't work, try another class of medication etc...
I guess what I want to say is that while 3 years sound so little, I can see how they could've tried a lot of different medications based on the timeline I previously mentioned Also, the two medications you mentioned are mostly used in bipolar or schizophrenia (quetiapine) so they are different and the experience can't be compared directly.
edit: depression is also pretty terrible so it's always saddening to see people (not necessarily on here) reply with 'get over it' or 'just get yourself to do it' kind of attitude instead of trying to understand how it works.
|
I actually don't know. But considering she spent most of her life depressed, I would assume she has pursued plenty of treatment options. Imo there is no reason to assume that those who considered her request were negligent on this front.
Seeing as you are familiar with severe depression: Can you honestly say that someone who has spent such a long time in such a state and has thus far not had benefits from treatment, is being irrational in wanting to end their life? How long does she need to be this way before you are satisfied, if ever?
|
On July 03 2015 07:45 Crushinator wrote: I actually don't know. But considering she spent most of her life depressed, I would assume she has pursued plenty of treatment options. Imo there is no reason to assume that those who considered her request were negligent on this front.
Seeing as you are familiar with severe depression: Can you honestly say that someone who has spent such a long time in such a state and has thus far not had benefits from treatment, is being irrational in wanting to end their life? How long does she need to be this way before you are satisfied, if ever?
I just don't see how if one (physically able person) really wants to kill themselves how they wouldn't be able to do it without putting it on other people.
I feel like if you can't do it yourself then you really just don't want it enough. Some part of you is still desperately hanging onto life, so people shouldn't just outsource it because they can't handle it.
|
David Cameron probably read about this story and immediately thought about how much he money could save on benefits.
|
On July 03 2015 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 07:45 Crushinator wrote: I actually don't know. But considering she spent most of her life depressed, I would assume she has pursued plenty of treatment options. Imo there is no reason to assume that those who considered her request were negligent on this front.
Seeing as you are familiar with severe depression: Can you honestly say that someone who has spent such a long time in such a state and has thus far not had benefits from treatment, is being irrational in wanting to end their life? How long does she need to be this way before you are satisfied, if ever? I just don't see how if one (physically able person) really wants to kill themselves how they wouldn't be able to do it without putting it on other people. I feel like if you can't do it yourself then you really just don't want it enough. Some part of you is still desperately hanging onto life, so people shouldn't just outsource it because they can't handle it.
You completely ignored the points that I and others have brought up in response to this "just do it yourself" idea.
The fact that (where it is allowed), applying for assisted suicide makes it legal, whereas doing it on your own is inherently illegal, is probably enough on its own to make the majority of people choose this method, not to mention the other issues I brought up.
|
On July 03 2015 09:03 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2015 07:45 Crushinator wrote: I actually don't know. But considering she spent most of her life depressed, I would assume she has pursued plenty of treatment options. Imo there is no reason to assume that those who considered her request were negligent on this front.
Seeing as you are familiar with severe depression: Can you honestly say that someone who has spent such a long time in such a state and has thus far not had benefits from treatment, is being irrational in wanting to end their life? How long does she need to be this way before you are satisfied, if ever? I just don't see how if one (physically able person) really wants to kill themselves how they wouldn't be able to do it without putting it on other people. I feel like if you can't do it yourself then you really just don't want it enough. Some part of you is still desperately hanging onto life, so people shouldn't just outsource it because they can't handle it. You completely ignored the points that I and others have brought up in response to this "just do it yourself" idea. The fact that (where it is allowed), applying for assisted suicide makes it legal, whereas doing it on your own is inherently illegal, is probably enough on its own to make the majority of people choose this method, not to mention the other issues I brought up.
I admit I skipped a lot of posts so I'll check on your other points.
Until then: What's the punishment for a criminal suicide?
EDIT: Think I found what you're talking about, I wouldn't have a problem with doctors helping, I just think they should commit the suicide themselves.
|
|
On July 03 2015 07:38 Uldridge wrote: I feel like I need to address quality of life issue again. How much longer are you willing to fight for yourself when you are constantly monitored, taking pills to alter your brain chemistry, feel like you're being altered against your natural state of mind? For some people this becomes their normal brain chemistry and even when they might become "cured" at one point in their lives, the chance of plunging back into the abbyss always stays relevant. I feel that if you don't have the power to even keep trying to make yourself better through external help because it constrains not only yourself but the other people invested in you (yes, depressed people still account for people other than themselves, I'd dare to say sometimes even more), you have the absolute right to ask for euthanasia. Depending on your definition of natural state of mind, with a severe mood disorder your mood regulating hormones are usually out of whack (to put it frank) and as such you are not in a natural state of mind, compared to a "normal" person. While everyone has the right to ask for euthanasia, I feel like some cases should always be refused; suffering from a mood disorder being one of them. Futher reasoning for my belief expressed in next answer.
When treatment starts to work, it's actually quite terrifying when you come to the realization that you've not been living as your "true self" before. As odd as it may sound.
On July 03 2015 07:45 Crushinator wrote: I actually don't know. But considering she spent most of her life depressed, I would assume she has pursued plenty of treatment options. Imo there is no reason to assume that those who considered her request were negligent on this front.
Seeing as you are familiar with severe depression: Can you honestly say that someone who has spent such a long time in such a state and has thus far not had benefits from treatment, is being irrational in wanting to end their life? How long does she need to be this way before you are satisfied, if ever? I believe every single sort of depressive disorder has a cause that can be "fixed", be the disorder induced by trauma, chemical inbalance, genetical or something else. Every case is unique and the "cure" I believe can just as likely be unique patient from patient. As such, I dont think euthanasia should ever be an option for persons suffering from a mood disorder. I am probably horrible biased since I've come to live a somewhat stable life, after over a decade of struggling. Until all possible forms of treatment, be it traditional or alternative, have been tried and tested the mere thought of euthanasia should never even cross the doctors as an option and even then they should still try to desperately help their patient instead of being willing to help take their life away.
As much as the doctors wants and tries to help, it can be just as hard for them to find the right diagnosis making treatment in some cases extremely hard.
On July 03 2015 07:45 BigFan wrote:I agree with your post for the most part but to clarify the medication and time aspect. To be fair, while there a lot of options for depression, with certain classes of medications such as SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) like citalopram for example, usually you see maximum results in 6-8 weeks (you see energy increases, mood changes and such happening in 3 and 4-6 weeks respectively) then can titrate up as needed and if that doesn't work, try another class of medication etc... I guess what I want to say is that while 3 years sound so little, I can see how they could've tried a lot of different medications based on the timeline I previously mentioned Also, the two medications you mentioned are mostly used in bipolar or schizophrenia (quetiapine) so they are different and the experience can't be compared directly. edit: depression is also pretty terrible so it's always saddening to see people (not necessarily on here) reply with 'get over it' or 'just get yourself to do it' kind of attitude instead of trying to understand how it works. I still find just 3 years of treatment sound extremely low, cases of psychotic depressions (which I guess she suffers from) from my understand can easily take a lot longer to treat. Wasn't aware she had been in treatment since teen years when I made my post tho.
In hindsight, I think I'm fairly uneducated in regards to strictly antidepressives, as I was quickly pulled off them. SNRI (effexor) had the "fun" side-effect of putting me in a constant hypomania.
|
On July 03 2015 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 07:45 Crushinator wrote: I actually don't know. But considering she spent most of her life depressed, I would assume she has pursued plenty of treatment options. Imo there is no reason to assume that those who considered her request were negligent on this front.
Seeing as you are familiar with severe depression: Can you honestly say that someone who has spent such a long time in such a state and has thus far not had benefits from treatment, is being irrational in wanting to end their life? How long does she need to be this way before you are satisfied, if ever? I just don't see how if one (physically able person) really wants to kill themselves how they wouldn't be able to do it without putting it on other people. I feel like if you can't do it yourself then you really just don't want it enough. Some part of you is still desperately hanging onto life, so people shouldn't just outsource it because they can't handle it.
Suicide pretty much always involves adding other people into it. They might not be pulling the proverbial trigger but odds are someone who didn't want to be involved is going to be dragged in. Whether its the train conductor who just watched someone jump in front of his train, or the sister that finds her brother's brains blown out. At the very least someone has to find your dead body and that person probably didn't want to find your dead body, and there's nothing to say that the person that did find it has the mental fortitude to deal with that. So run of the mill suicide isn't victimless by any stretch of the imagination. At least with assisted suicide the doctor will have signed off on it and made peace with it. He's not going to be surprised by walking in on a scene. It's much less violent and more peaceful than many standard options as well.
|
On July 03 2015 09:39 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2015 07:45 Crushinator wrote: I actually don't know. But considering she spent most of her life depressed, I would assume she has pursued plenty of treatment options. Imo there is no reason to assume that those who considered her request were negligent on this front.
Seeing as you are familiar with severe depression: Can you honestly say that someone who has spent such a long time in such a state and has thus far not had benefits from treatment, is being irrational in wanting to end their life? How long does she need to be this way before you are satisfied, if ever? I just don't see how if one (physically able person) really wants to kill themselves how they wouldn't be able to do it without putting it on other people. I feel like if you can't do it yourself then you really just don't want it enough. Some part of you is still desperately hanging onto life, so people shouldn't just outsource it because they can't handle it. Suicide pretty much always involves adding other people into it. They might not be pulling the proverbial trigger but odds are someone who didn't want to be involved is going to be dragged in. Whether its the train conductor who just watched someone jump in front of his train, or the sister that finds her brother's brains blown out. At the very least someone has to find your dead body and that person probably didn't want to find your dead body, and there's nothing to say that the person that did find it has the mental fortitude to deal with that. So run of the mill suicide isn't victimless by any stretch of the imagination. At least with assisted suicide the doctor will have signed off on it and made peace with it. He's not going to be surprised by walking in on a scene. It's much less violent and more peaceful than many standard options as well.
Well there are reasonably safe, easy, clean, ways to commit suicide, but they tend not to get published as to not entice the questionably stationed among us.
My larger point is don't make someone else take your life. Whether the physician signed up for it or not, it seems ridiculous that the suicidal person can't commit the suicide themselves. Make it as easy as you want (like pushing a button to release a drip) but let the patient push the button.
|
TLADT24917 Posts
On July 03 2015 09:32 Jek wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 07:38 Uldridge wrote: I feel like I need to address quality of life issue again. How much longer are you willing to fight for yourself when you are constantly monitored, taking pills to alter your brain chemistry, feel like you're being altered against your natural state of mind? For some people this becomes their normal brain chemistry and even when they might become "cured" at one point in their lives, the chance of plunging back into the abbyss always stays relevant. I feel that if you don't have the power to even keep trying to make yourself better through external help because it constrains not only yourself but the other people invested in you (yes, depressed people still account for people other than themselves, I'd dare to say sometimes even more), you have the absolute right to ask for euthanasia. Depending on your definition of natural state of mind, with a severe mood disorder your mood regulating hormones are usually out of whack (to put it frank) and as such you are not in a natural state of mind, compared to a "normal" person. While everyone has the right to ask for euthanasia, I feel like some cases should always be refused; suffering from a mood disorder being one of them. Futher reasoning for my belief expressed in next answer. When treatment starts to work, it's actually quite terrifying when you come to the realization that you've not been living as your "true self" before. As odd as it may sound. Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 07:45 Crushinator wrote: I actually don't know. But considering she spent most of her life depressed, I would assume she has pursued plenty of treatment options. Imo there is no reason to assume that those who considered her request were negligent on this front.
Seeing as you are familiar with severe depression: Can you honestly say that someone who has spent such a long time in such a state and has thus far not had benefits from treatment, is being irrational in wanting to end their life? How long does she need to be this way before you are satisfied, if ever? I believe every single sort of depressive disorder has a cause that can be "fixed", be the disorder induced by trauma, chemical inbalance, genetical or something else. Every case is unique and the "cure" I believe can just as likely be unique patient from patient. As such, I dont think euthanasia should ever be an option for persons suffering from a mood disorder. I am probably horrible biased since I've come to live a somewhat stable life, after over a decade of struggling. Until all possible forms of treatment, be it traditional or alternative, have been tried and tested the mere thought of euthanasia should never even cross the doctors as an option and even then they should still try to desperately help their patient instead of being willing to help take their life away. As much as the doctors wants and tries to help, it can be just as hard for them to find the right diagnosis making treatment in some cases extremely hard. Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 07:45 BigFan wrote:I agree with your post for the most part but to clarify the medication and time aspect. To be fair, while there a lot of options for depression, with certain classes of medications such as SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) like citalopram for example, usually you see maximum results in 6-8 weeks (you see energy increases, mood changes and such happening in 3 and 4-6 weeks respectively) then can titrate up as needed and if that doesn't work, try another class of medication etc... I guess what I want to say is that while 3 years sound so little, I can see how they could've tried a lot of different medications based on the timeline I previously mentioned Also, the two medications you mentioned are mostly used in bipolar or schizophrenia (quetiapine) so they are different and the experience can't be compared directly. edit: depression is also pretty terrible so it's always saddening to see people (not necessarily on here) reply with 'get over it' or 'just get yourself to do it' kind of attitude instead of trying to understand how it works. I still find just 3 years of treatment sound extremely low, cases of psychotic depressions (which I guess she suffers from) from my understand can easily take a lot longer to treat. Wasn't aware she had been in treatment since teen years when I made my post tho. In hindsight, I think I'm fairly uneducated in regards to strictly antidepressives, as I was quickly pulled off them. SNRI (effexor) had the "fun" side-effect of putting me in a constant hypomania. 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?
|
On July 03 2015 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 09:39 OuchyDathurts wrote:On July 03 2015 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2015 07:45 Crushinator wrote: I actually don't know. But considering she spent most of her life depressed, I would assume she has pursued plenty of treatment options. Imo there is no reason to assume that those who considered her request were negligent on this front.
Seeing as you are familiar with severe depression: Can you honestly say that someone who has spent such a long time in such a state and has thus far not had benefits from treatment, is being irrational in wanting to end their life? How long does she need to be this way before you are satisfied, if ever? I just don't see how if one (physically able person) really wants to kill themselves how they wouldn't be able to do it without putting it on other people. I feel like if you can't do it yourself then you really just don't want it enough. Some part of you is still desperately hanging onto life, so people shouldn't just outsource it because they can't handle it. Suicide pretty much always involves adding other people into it. They might not be pulling the proverbial trigger but odds are someone who didn't want to be involved is going to be dragged in. Whether its the train conductor who just watched someone jump in front of his train, or the sister that finds her brother's brains blown out. At the very least someone has to find your dead body and that person probably didn't want to find your dead body, and there's nothing to say that the person that did find it has the mental fortitude to deal with that. So run of the mill suicide isn't victimless by any stretch of the imagination. At least with assisted suicide the doctor will have signed off on it and made peace with it. He's not going to be surprised by walking in on a scene. It's much less violent and more peaceful than many standard options as well. Well there are reasonably safe, easy, clean, ways to commit suicide, but they tend not to get published as to not entice the questionably stationed among us. My larger point is don't make someone else take your life. Whether the physician signed up for it or not, it seems ridiculous that the suicidal person can't commit the suicide themselves. Make it as easy as you want (like pushing a button to release a drip) but let the patient push the button.
Most of the people who "involve someone else" in assisted suicide do it for an abundance of reasons that are completely arbitrary to the legal and social system they reside in. They choose to openly discuss the issue and involve legal professionals because other wise it creates social or legal issues for their families and loved ones. By going public you also push forward a social agenda rather than just dying, it forces the public to recognize the issues that push people to suicide rather than hiding it under the carpet which just perpetuates the status quo. Regardless of whether or not you believe suicide should be a legal or moral right, unless society can talk about it and debate it seriously and incorporate it into a legal code, suicidal individuals will never receive the help and attention they deserve (and need to actually move forward with their lives) due to fear of social oppression and added negative consequences to their social circle.
The principle of assisted suicide is consent and dialogue, rather than forcing other people to deal with it in your absence. It also shifts the public focus on the "victim" rather than his family and alleviates the negative social consequences. I know personally some families that would have much preferred to understand why somebody made such a decision in their lives, even if it lead to the same outcome, rather than having to live with the fact that they will never truly understand AND the blame and guilt placed on them for it occurring.
Case in point: Terry Pratchett had more than enough resources to die in a "safe, easy, and clean" way, but instead he chose to pursue assisted suicide and engaged the public in discussions, lectures, and helped present a BBC documentary on the matter. I would argue that his actions helped push forward the public conscience and was a positive good for the British society rather than a negative.
|
On July 03 2015 13:59 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2015 09:39 OuchyDathurts wrote:On July 03 2015 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2015 07:45 Crushinator wrote: I actually don't know. But considering she spent most of her life depressed, I would assume she has pursued plenty of treatment options. Imo there is no reason to assume that those who considered her request were negligent on this front.
Seeing as you are familiar with severe depression: Can you honestly say that someone who has spent such a long time in such a state and has thus far not had benefits from treatment, is being irrational in wanting to end their life? How long does she need to be this way before you are satisfied, if ever? I just don't see how if one (physically able person) really wants to kill themselves how they wouldn't be able to do it without putting it on other people. I feel like if you can't do it yourself then you really just don't want it enough. Some part of you is still desperately hanging onto life, so people shouldn't just outsource it because they can't handle it. Suicide pretty much always involves adding other people into it. They might not be pulling the proverbial trigger but odds are someone who didn't want to be involved is going to be dragged in. Whether its the train conductor who just watched someone jump in front of his train, or the sister that finds her brother's brains blown out. At the very least someone has to find your dead body and that person probably didn't want to find your dead body, and there's nothing to say that the person that did find it has the mental fortitude to deal with that. So run of the mill suicide isn't victimless by any stretch of the imagination. At least with assisted suicide the doctor will have signed off on it and made peace with it. He's not going to be surprised by walking in on a scene. It's much less violent and more peaceful than many standard options as well. Well there are reasonably safe, easy, clean, ways to commit suicide, but they tend not to get published as to not entice the questionably stationed among us. My larger point is don't make someone else take your life. Whether the physician signed up for it or not, it seems ridiculous that the suicidal person can't commit the suicide themselves. Make it as easy as you want (like pushing a button to release a drip) but let the patient push the button. Most of the people who "involve someone else" in assisted suicide do it for an abundance of reasons that are completely arbitrary to the legal and social system they reside in. They choose to openly discuss the issue and involve legal professionals because other wise it creates social or legal issues for their families and loved ones. By going public you also push forward a social agenda rather than just dying, it forces the public to recognize the issues that push people to suicide rather than hiding it under the carpet which just perpetuates the status quo. Regardless of whether or not you believe suicide should be a legal or moral right, unless society can talk about it and debate it seriously and incorporate it into a legal code, suicidal individuals will never receive the help and attention they deserve (and need to actually move forward with their lives) due to fear of social oppression and added negative consequences to their social circle. The principle of assisted suicide is consent and dialogue, rather than forcing other people to deal with it in your absence. It also shifts the public focus on the "victim" rather than his family and alleviates the negative social consequences. I know personally some families that would have much preferred to understand why somebody made such a decision in their lives, even if it lead to the same outcome, rather than having to live with the fact that they will never truly understand AND the blame and guilt placed on them for it occurring. Case in point: Terry Pratchett had more than enough resources to die in a "safe, easy, and clean" way, but instead he chose to pursue assisted suicide and engaged the public in discussions, lectures, and helped present a BBC documentary on the matter. I would argue that his actions helped push forward the public conscience and was a positive good for the British society rather than a negative.
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).
|
Just the fact that you are discussing about a depressive person, otherwise healthy, to kill herself as an option is totally insane. I have honestly no other words for that, so feel free to be offended. With all the events in the last years, I feel like living in the novel Sophie's World, where at the end the whole reality is collapsing, becoming more and more unrealistic, because the story is ending.
The whole problem of nearly anything that is going wrong today is the underlying philosophy of radical egocentrism. "I am smart enough to decide about ANYTHING, also about life and death. I can declare what is human life worth living and what isn't." It is like you are your own magisterium and supreme court together. The modern claim, in its core, is that the human mind is totally superior to matter, which, without you knowing it I assume, is Gnosis reloaded.
You may call it relativism, or nothing, because fewer and fewer people care anymore about the most important fundament of civilization, which is philosophy. Underestimating philosophy is the core fallacy of any contemporary movement, like the brights. We are killing philosophy by denying an objective truth. And by killing philosophy, trying to have it replaced by natural sciences, we are killing our civilization.
Relativism is ignoring the fact that we, as a whole mankind, or as a single human being, actually do not know enough to judge one topics like life or death. And that's why we have to be very careful even considering ending someone's life. To cut it short: Heliocentrism has been replaced by egocentrism.
I beg you to learn anything you can get regarding philosophy. Call me fatalistic or reactionary, but otherwise we are doomed.
|
Damn I totally forgot that the central tenet of philosophy is that some questions should never be asked. Thread cancelled, issue solved, this guy read Sophiie's World.
|
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.
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.
|
On July 03 2015 16:23 Quixotic_tv wrote: Just the fact that you are discussing about a depressive person, otherwise healthy, to kill herself as an option is totally insane. I have honestly no other words for that, so feel free to be offended. With all the events in the last years, I feel like living in the novel Sophie's World, where at the end the whole reality is collapsing, becoming more and more unrealistic, because the story is ending.
The whole problem of nearly anything that is going wrong today is the underlying philosophy of radical egocentrism. "I am smart enough to decide about ANYTHING, also about life and death. I can declare what is human life worth living and what isn't." It is like you are your own magisterium and supreme court together. The modern claim, in its core, is that the human mind is totally superior to matter, which, without you knowing it I assume, is Gnosis reloaded.
You may call it relativism, or nothing, because fewer and fewer people care anymore about the most important fundament of civilization, which is philosophy. Underestimating philosophy is the core fallacy of any contemporary movement, like the brights. We are killing philosophy by denying an objective truth. And by killing philosophy, trying to have it replaced by natural sciences, we are killing our civilization.
Relativism is ignoring the fact that we, as a whole mankind, or as a single human being, actually do not know enough to judge one topics like life or death. And that's why we have to be very careful even considering ending someone's life. To cut it short: Heliocentrism has been replaced by egocentrism.
I beg you to learn anything you can get regarding philosophy. Call me fatalistic or reactionary, but otherwise we are doomed.
This thread in of itself is very philosophical, so no, no-one is underestimating philosophy, IMHO we are just moving towards a different kind of philosophy. Besides, your post is pretty much 'word salad' anyway.
We are killing philosophy by denying an objective truth You seem to have forgotten to tell us this objective truth. This sentence just appears to be here as a vague reinforcement of whatever point you are trying to make. If you're that interested in philosophy, be more specific as to what you mean, put your argument in a clear format with a definite conclusion and some sort of evidence or logical thread to back that up. Frankly your post is just some babble that starts with the point that you disagree with euthanasia for mental illness patients.
|
Does this mean psychopatic and paranoid politicians and dictators could be euthanasied? That would be soooo useful!
|
On July 03 2015 16:23 Quixotic_tv wrote: Just the fact that you are discussing about a depressive person, otherwise healthy, to kill herself as an option is totally insane. I have honestly no other words for that, so feel free to be offended. With all the events in the last years, I feel like living in the novel Sophie's World, where at the end the whole reality is collapsing, becoming more and more unrealistic, because the story is ending.
The whole problem of nearly anything that is going wrong today is the underlying philosophy of radical egocentrism. "I am smart enough to decide about ANYTHING, also about life and death. I can declare what is human life worth living and what isn't." It is like you are your own magisterium and supreme court together. The modern claim, in its core, is that the human mind is totally superior to matter, which, without you knowing it I assume, is Gnosis reloaded.
You may call it relativism, or nothing, because fewer and fewer people care anymore about the most important fundament of civilization, which is philosophy. Underestimating philosophy is the core fallacy of any contemporary movement, like the brights. We are killing philosophy by denying an objective truth. And by killing philosophy, trying to have it replaced by natural sciences, we are killing our civilization.
Relativism is ignoring the fact that we, as a whole mankind, or as a single human being, actually do not know enough to judge one topics like life or death. And that's why we have to be very careful even considering ending someone's life. To cut it short: Heliocentrism has been replaced by egocentrism.
I beg you to learn anything you can get regarding philosophy. Call me fatalistic or reactionary, but otherwise we are doomed. And the point you're trying to make against euthanasia is what exactly? Christian philosophy that claims that all life is sacred?
And what is your argument for mankind not knowing enough to judge about life or death?
|
On July 03 2015 04:33 Stratos_speAr 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. So your opinion that we should keep someone alive that wants to die trumps that person's own experiences? Those same experiences that you just said you cannot possibly quantify or otherwise understand? that's pretty self-evident to me - when one doesn't have enough evidence, one doesn't sentence another to death-row. that being said, if she wants to die, she is free to kill herself. i'm not trumping her experiences. i am not forcing her to live.
@Gzerble - this: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. the double negative at the beginning = people with depression are aware that what they're feeling isn't irrational. and this:So, when a doctor says that the worst suffering he's seen is a woman in her moment of clarity realizing ... are mutually exclusive. or, one talks about depression and the other about schizophrenia. point being - you use a schizophrenic episode in your conclusion, to excuse the thoughts/actions of depressive patients.
|
We honestly need to re-evaluate our view on death, its going to happen to us all eventually.
If a person can be evaluated by a medical professional to be of sound enough mind to make the decision to die then they should be able to do that, even if the reason is simply they are done with life and want it to end on a high note. I have a hard time seeing why anyone would oppose that, we live in an individualistic society and we respect the rights of individuals.
If I want to die I can attempt this on my own, potentially messing it up or causing problems for other people with a messy death, this is costly both financially and emotionally, imagine the driver who hits someone attempting suicide, the man who has to fish a bridge jumper out of a river, the people who are responsible for cleaning the property of someone who slit their wrists, or even the medical staff who have to deal with a failed attempt.
If there was a service to allow someone to do this legally, not only could you hopefully intercept more people to prevent suicide, but you could determine if their desire to end their life was legitimate and do so in a clean way, sorting out all issues before and giving the person the respect they deserve.
The question really boils down to whether or not you can effectively do that with mental illness but personally I do not think forcing someone to live just because they might one day enjoy life is compassionate, this girl had been suffering for over a decade, it wasn't some sort of brief episode.
If 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.
|
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.
|
@Gzerble - this: Show nested quote +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. the double negative at the beginning = people with depression are aware that what they're feeling isn't irrational.
Show nested quote +So, when a doctor says that the worst suffering he's seen is a woman in her moment of clarity realizing ... are mutually exclusive. or, one talks about depression and the other about schizophrenia. point being - you use a schizophrenic episode in your conclusion, to excuse the thoughts/actions of depressive patients. Way to ignore the content. Look, in case you are unwilling to accept the fact that clinical depression is a serious illness that my brother put up there with schizophrenia and ahead of cancer in the list of the worst things he has seen as a doctor, then you have nothing to add to this conversation. I added my two cents about an anecdote that convinced me that mental illness is no less real than physical ones. You are nitpicking because you don't like the conclusion. Fair enough. Just don't be a douche about it.
I am saying that both of the (incurable, debilitating) diseases I mentioned have symptoms which fall under "extreme and chronic suffering" which won't allow them to live out their life. In both cases, there is solid rationalization behind allowing the extreme cases euthanasia. They try to kill themselves, but they live in the most suicide proof environments out there and are put on a ton of drugs. Some people have milder versions of the examples I'm giving, but saying that all of them are free to kill themselves if they want to is ignoring the fact that they can't, and even if they could, the same could be said about patients who have other diseases.
If you are against euthanasia in general, then fair enough. Pro-life is not my ideology. For me, this is about allowing very sick people a legal way to control their own destiny in the only way they can, and die with some dignity.
|
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.
|
|
|
|