My arguements against this are the same as my arguements against the death penalty.
People make mistakes, even those who wish to die. Im not trusting the state with the power to kill me, even if its by assisted suicide.
I only support this for people who are terminally ill and about to die.
I get where you’re going but on the other side of your fear of the state you are denied release from what could be immense suffering because the state deems it.
Body autonomy is in my opinion a very crucial part of human rights even if the decisions is ultimately a mistake. You can’t really stop people from committing suicide, all you can do is make it less humane.
I get where you’re going but on the other side of your fear of the state you are denied release from what could be immense suffering because the state deems it.
Often times its the state causing the immense suffering…
Modern psychology really misses the mark in the sense often times its just treating the symptoms so they can get you back to work as quickly as possible.
Im more interested in restorative justice with psychology, as well as treating the symptoms; we should be treating the causes too…
Body autonomy is a myth, ‘biopower’ is a concept that has been utilized since the industrial age, the role of the structres of society are to keep you healthy enough to work.
Regardless, I caveeted that yes, if you’re physically about to die and under immense suffering id support these actions. In a privatesed health system with an aging demographic though you cannot prevent abuses of power from happening with assisted suicide; family members pressuring mentally ill family members into an early suicide to remove there care burden, people doing it for inheritance, people thinking they have a uncurable mental illness when in reality the effective treatments are denied to them (I think of PTSD war sufferers denied MDMA which is proven 90%+ effective in treating PTSD who go onto kill themselves…)
There are so many ethical concerns with this stuff that only takes a little foresight to see how bad it would be in reality.
This comment should framed and hung in the office of psychologists
Goodbye Zoraya ter Beek, and never stop fighting!
Also the utter disrespect on social media, flooding her accounts with stupid Messages.
Actually her fight is over, that’s the entire point
Never ever! Except a few weeks from now
I’m against it. Not sure what else to say.
None of us signed up for this shit.
I’m not against it but I upvoted you because I think you have a fair position and expressed it honestly and in a completely reasonable way.
Thats fine to have your opinion as long as youre not stopping someone else from doing what they want with their own life
Actually I’m going to go prevent a young person from killing themselves, just to watch you cry.
You’re the person who would force a baby to be born and live a life of pain, suffering, and burden on those around them instead of abortion. You’re not saving a life, you’re destroying them.
Answer me this, why? Why are you against it?
This is more of an anti-natalist position than a pro-choice one. The right to bodily autonomy includes the right to reproduce, even if you think the parents are too poor. The two situations aren’t comparable because one involves a person making a decision about a fetus, and the other involves the life of a full-fledged human being.
Nobody is forcing anyone to abort a pregnancy? Those are simply options for parents to take if they want to.
So is this option to die with dignity when life is suffering.
Where is your attorney badge, for you clearly missed your appointment.
People have the right to have children, regardless of if the circumstances they’ll be brought up in are up to your approval. To say they shouldn’t have that right is not pro-choice, it’s anti-natalist.
Yes and who denies them having children?
The right to bodily autonomy includes the right to reproduce
It also includes the right to end your own life. Are you against bodily autonomy?
If someone walks into a hospital and says they want to inject bleach into their veins to cure COVID, is that still covered under bodily autonomy?
She didn’t want to cure Covid in a hospital, she wanted to end her suffering by ending her life in a dignified way.
So are you against bodily autonomy?
And you achieve what? A person to constantly suffer, for what? Your righteous high ground? You condemn that person to torture, you realise that right?
I think the question is one of balance for me personally. Where do you draw the line?
Like, this person seems to have been in a pretty long queue and had a lot of time to evaluate, but is that denying her dignity? Should there be a waiting period, or is that denying someone healthcare?
I think we would all agree that we shouldn’t allow an 18yo who just broke up with their first SO to decide to have a doctor help them unalive themselves, right?
Is the three and a half years of waiting and treatments that this woman has undergone too much? Not enough?
I’ll admit that it feels bad to me to allow a 29yo to go down this particular path. People who are seeking death are rarely in the kind of headspace where I think they are able to meaningfully consent to that?
And this feels meaningfully different than the case of a 90yo who’s body is slowly failing them. This is an otherwise healthy young person.
Idk, there are no easy answers here. Bodily autonomy is important, but so is helping people not engage in extremely self destructive behavior. If we didn’t have that imperative, fire departments wouldn’t try and stop people from jumping off bridges, right? Where is that line? I don’t know, and I wouldn’t want to have to make that call.
I share a lot of your questions about this, but the following parts made me uncomfortable agreeing with you:
People who are seeking death are rarely in the kind of headspace where I think they are able to meaningfully consent to that?
And this feels meaningfully different than the case of a 90yo who’s body is slowly failing them. This is an otherwise healthy young person.
She has the following to say about that: “People think that when you’re mentally ill, you can’t think straight, which is insulting.”
Mental illness is an illness, and can be chronic and progressive. They can cause someone to be unable to carry on living, maintaining a livelihood, afford their own medication, psychiatric visits and therapy that they would need to even want to live in the first place. That’s not even to go into the absolute hell people in such situations can go through everyday.
We can debate on what constitutes “a well-thought-out decision that takes into consideration every available option” and I would actually say that one should give those options a try, but to deny that a mentally ill person can make their own EOL decisions makes me terribly uncomfortable.
In my opinion, sure, there should be a waiting period, to filter out those chronic episodes that lead to spur-of-the moment impulses, or decisions that are strongly linked to temporary conditions. This waiting period can be used to think things through, prove that they’ve tried means available to them, or even give them the chance to try the means they wouldn’t have had access to otherwise (like specialized help, therapy that wouldn’t have been available to them, etc). Now, I think what happens next is up to these medical professionals: do they deem one’s condition to be intractable and no amount of medication and therapy and counseling can make a difference? If they deem the situation to be hopeless, and the patient agrees, then yeah, the patient can make their exit. Otherwise, the medication, therapy, counseling or whatever it is that they’ve been trying should continue. If funds are needed for this to continue, then so be it. Those people who want to be no exits can be counted upon to fund this, right? Those people denying exit should put their money where their mouths are.
If signing up to an EOL waiting list could be the way for people to consider their situation and try out things that might help them, then so be it.
Oh, sorry, I’ve been rambling. My point is, yeah, there should be a waiting period that would double as a chance for people to get the help they need (but don’t have access to or maybe the motivation to). And more importantly, that anyone, and I mean anyone (okay, there’d be a triage system in place, but just allow everyone in, and sort them out once they’re in) can sign up.
The way I imagine things would go is I can just walk into some office, inform the person in the counter that I want to have a passport to neverwhere, and they’d ask me to file some paperwork and after a few days, I’d be in a clinic where someone would perform a psychological check-up on me, and do some interviews. Then after a few more days, some doctor will be informing me of my diagnosis and options—or perhaps just flat out saying I’m completely mentally healthy and my petition is denied (if I’m lucky maybe given a list of people to contact to help with my problems). If I’m continuing the process, then I’d choose which option I want, go with the treatment or other, and like, hopefully continue until I can manage my situation with minimal help!
Do we really need people to sign up for a passport to the great beyond just to get the help they need? No, in an ideal world, there shouldn’t even be a need for this. But in this kind of world we live in, I think allowing people to safely cross the streams with dignity and peace of mind (after giving it a good try, and concluding that it really can’t be helped) is a small kindness society can give to the suffering.
EDIT: Some proofreading.
See, I feel like your whole post could be summarized as, “some people’s mental illness makes them unable to work and earn money, so they’re too poor to afford treatment, and therefore the morally correct thing is to just let those people kill themselves.”
And while I don’t think that’s exactly what you meant, it’s how it comes across. Almost all of your points are some variation of who’s gonna pay for their treatment and take care of their physical needs.
And I would strongly argue that the answer is instead to have more robust social safety nets to cover those needs. Allowing people to kill themselves as the solution is hella dystopian.
But, I’m not saying that this is 100% always right. This is a hard issue with no clear answers, and I am absolutely not minimizing the pain of mental illness. My point is that mental illness is much less understood than physical illness, and I wouldn’t trust any diagnosis that said the condition could never be resolved. In the same way that I would be loathe to euthanize someone with a physical illness that has an acceptable chance of being transient, I’m loath to do the same with most if not all cases of mental illness. Especially if the person is otherwise very young/healthy.
I truly mean this in good faith: you would honestly rather that she continue suffering?
Cool. Don’t do it yourself then. Not sure what else to say.
Her life is not your choice though. Thankfully.
I feel sorry for her partner watching your loved one die is fucking brutal.
Hope they get supported in the aftermath.
I feel like a lot of replies here have the same “every live is precious and needs to be protected at all costs”-vibe as you get with a lot of anti-abortion arguments.
You are casually ceding the “not wanting people to kill themselves” ground to the right while also allowing them to paint themselves as caring about human lives when in reality they just want to control women’s bodies and protect fetuses, not people.
“Every life is valuable” is obviously a left-wing stance because the left are the ones who actually care about people’s lives, even when they’re disabled, downtrodden, and painted as burdens on society.
I have no clue why you’re trying to push my argument into a political direction.
Is abortion not a political issue? What do you mean by that?
It is a political issue because people want it to be one. My comment was about the way the arguments sound, not about what political side says what.
Well, I was trying to push it in a political direction because I don’t like my beliefs being compared to anti-abortionists based on vibes and appearances. It’s necessary to engage more critically with the issue to demonstrate that any apparent similarities are just superficial.
There is no objective division between political and non-political. This is a question about government policy on which people are divided, so to me it’s inherently a political issue.
I don’t know what to tell you. It seems to me like you’re critical about assisted suicide but are pro choice when it comes to abortions.
In my opinion those two things are different sides of the same coin. Regardless of politics.
I don’t believe that they are different sides of the same coin. I see very little in common between the two.
From my perspective, it would be like saying opposition to war or the death penalty is just like being opposed to abortion, because anti-choice people claim to value life.
Oh right wing def feel every life has value.
Just less value then everybodies right not to be forced to pay for them.
They are fairly open about the value of a states non right to force an indevidual to fund anothers life. Being more important then anything.
That the value for all lives is based on either an indeviduals ability to self support. Or other indeviduals willingness to offer charity.
It is forced charity usinging the states ability to use violence they consider a greater crime then there own the selfishness of a % of society not wanting to support the lives of those in need.
Exactly. If we’re talking about vibes, seeking to normalize suicide for people with disabilities gives me the same vibes as far-right eugenics stuff.
Ill say one thing. As some one with disabilities. While i have no desire myself. Heck my life will be short anyway.
I do feel it is a right people should have.
It just really requires a sound mind at the time of choice. And huge effort to ensure it is not a choice the paiteint is neing forced or guilted into making.
As I cant really come up with an effective and garenteed way to enforce those restrictions.
Im currently happy my natiin will not allow anyform of assisted suicide. It must be entirly at partients own control. And technocally even then its a crime. But one that xamt be punished. Where as an assistant will be jailed.
But I can hope/wish for a world where people could choose to have suffering ended without so much risk of others pushing them into it for thier ow. Reasons.
As I say its not a choice I would make. But my own health means it could be one I mY want amd need help to make in the future.
Until they are asked to do something to help, then it’s crickets
Don’t really agree with this. If you look at it on an individual level, there’s a case for it, but on a social level, it’s dangerous. Individualist societies look for individual solutions even if the problem is social. There are problems that can’t be solved with any sort of medication, therapy, etc, because the cause of the problem isn’t with the individual. It’s impossible to know for sure if any kind of social change would fix her problems, but if suicide is simply the go-to answer when such a problem is encountered, then we will never know. And once this becomes normalized and people start accepting it as a viable solution, then it’s going to be a lot harder to materially improve things for people in these situations. Often it’s only when people see that there is no individualist solution that they start thinking in terms of systemic changes, and if there’s any kind of “solution,” no matter how horrid it is, they’ll turn to that first. I don’t want to create a future where, “I’ve tried everything I can to fix myself and I still feel like shit,” is met with a polite and friendly, “Oh, well have you considered killing yourself?”
Suicide is violence. Self-harm is harm. It’s nonsense to describe a process that kills you as “safe.” I understand that many people view it terms of rights or personal wills because those are prevailing ways to look at things, in individualist cultures. But life is inherently valuable and if someone thinks otherwise about their own, then they are wrong. I would make an exception for someone with severe, incurable physical pain, but while mental pain is just as real and valid as physical pain, the way it functions is more complex, and so I’m skeptical that it could be declared “incurable” to a sufficient standard, especially if solutions aren’t limited to the individual level.
The fact is that we ought to be striving to accommodate as widely diverse minds as possible. Both because it’s the right thing to do, and because diversity is valuable, and people who see things differently may notice or understand things that others don’t. If the diversity of minds starts to narrow, I’m concerned that it will continue to narrow until neurodiverse people are effectively eliminated from society, or be isolated without community, as more and more pressure builds against anyone who doesn’t fit the mold of a productive worker.
If someone wants to end their own life, that isn’t your choice to make.
No, but as a voter, it is my choice (to a degree) how the state responds to the situation.
Ah yes, you’re one of those people. “We should legislate what people do with their own bodies because I don’t like their decisions”
You people are already ruining the US, so now let’s do it to the world. Except that it was mentioned in the article that this was legislated and settled over 20 years ago where she lives.
I don’t want to create a future where, “I’ve tried everything I can to fix myself and I still feel like shit,” is met with a polite and friendly, “Oh, well have you considered killing yourself?”
Are you for real? This kind of thing is a last resort that nobody is going to just outright suggest unprompted to a suffering person, unless that person asks for it themselves. No matter how “normalized” suicide might become, it’s never gonna be something doctors will want to recommend. That’s just… Why would you even think that’s what’s gonna happen
…and did you notice how everyone was outraged by that? That incident was not an issue with assisted suicide being available, that was an issue with fucked up systems withholding existing alternatives and a tone-deaf case worker (who is not a doctor) handling impersonal communications. Maybe it’s also an issue with this kind of thing being able to be decided by a government worker instead of medical and psychological professionals. But definitely nothing about this would have been made better by assisted suicide not being generally available for people who legitimately want it, except the actual problem wouldn’t have been put into the spotlight like this.
You’re the one that specified doctors, not me. I just said I don’t want to create a future where anyone thinks it’s ok or normal to recommend suicide to people. You dismissed my fears as unrealistic, and then I presented evidence that it’s not just a far off possibility, but something that’s actually happened. Many people may find that story outrageous now, but it’s clearly pushing things in a direction such that in 20 years, who’s to say how people will react.
But definitely nothing about this would have been made better by assisted suicide not being generally available for people who legitimately want it, except the actual problem wouldn’t have been put into the spotlight like this.
Literally the whole thing would not have happened without the policy.
where anyone thinks it’s ok or normal to recommend suicide to people
Except that’s already happening even without it being normalized, there have always been assholes that are gonna tell people to kill themselves, especially if they’ve never seen the person they’re talking to before. I don’t see how this is any different.
Literally the whole thing would not have happened without the policy.
It also wouldn’t have happened if a fucked up system wasn’t withholding actual, reasonable alternatives that the person was clearly asking for. That’s my point. Let’s fix the actual problems, rather than try to silence the symptoms.
Bringing up gamers telling each other to kill themselves (sometimes genuinely, although they wouldn’t admit they were actually that angry) is not the gotcha you think it is.
Why dont you engage with what the person you are replying to is actually saying instead of grasping at straws.
Self-harm is harm. It’s nonsense to describe a process that kills you as “safe.”
Safe to her? No. Neither option can boast that.
Euthanasia is safer to everyone else around her. And tidier.
Get it?
And tidier.
Those two words are why I find this thread so terrifying and so alienating. I’ll never “get” the perspective that tidiness is a significant factor when discussing matters of life and death, and to be perfectly frank, it makes me feel like a lot of this is coming from a mentality towards suicidal people of “Get them out of my sight so I don’t have to deal with them and their negative vibes bring me down” rather than genuine empathy and concern for wellbeing. And that sort of mentality surrounding this, about how neat and tidy and clean it all is, how it avoids disruption to society, is exactly what makes the policy so concerning to me.
Suicide is violence
sorry that’s simply your opinion. for most who seek it for medical reasons, it’s the final escape. I don’t have enough familiarity with this case to judge but would want the option open should I need it. You have no idea what kind of physical pain people have to live with - shit that can’t be touched by opioids or other painkillers, like bone cancer. The only out for some of these folks is to be gorked to unconsciousness. I’d prefer to pass on that and go straight to the end myself.
I would make an exception for someone with severe, incurable physical pain
the problem with exceptions is that they’re often nebulous and lead to cover-your-ass decision making that disregards the best outcome for the patient. SEE: Texas birth control laws that supposedly have exceptions for the mother’s health, but in fact result in them waiting for their once-fetus to send them into sepsis.
Texas birth control laws
I would simply not be a fascist pretending to care about people’s rights and not design laws as if I were one.
And that’s great, but I have more faith in you - rando from the internet who’s expressed clearly well meaning desires - than I do in the system, whether that’s us’s crappy healthcare, NHS in the uk or whatever - I do not have faith in governments and with healthcare providers impressed into the task of deciding who gets to claim their pain is unbearable.
And for the remainder: people will suicide. If you take away their options, they’ll step in front of busses or jump off bridges, potentially traumatizing and putting others at risk. They’ll suicide by cop, they’ll drive their cars into the opposing lane. There’s something to be said for giving people the dignity of choice.
Good luck.
I likewise don’t have faith in governments or healthcare providers, but that’s where I don’t want to just place this in their hands and trust them to handle it in a responsible way.
I don’t really see why you say you’d make an “exception” for strong and lasting physical pain (which by the way are of course the vast majority of assisted suicide cases), but not for mental health reasons. In this case multiple doctors concluded that the patient is unlikely to improve, and no progress has been made in over 10 years of therapy.
especially if solutions aren’t limited to the individual level.
What do you mean by “not limited to the individual level”?
What I mean by that is that there are some problems that affect individuals which are not caused by anything wrong with the individual, but by the world at large. For example, climate change. It can’t be solved at the individual level, and it may be possible to shut out and ignore it, but that’s not really a proper way of handling it. No amount of therapy or drugs will make climate change go away.
I’m not saying that the woman in question is killing herself for that reason. But I am saying that how much things like that can affect people’s mental health is something that is difficult to study and prove. One example that does have evidence though is social support for gender transition - trans people with social support generally have much better mental health than those without, but addressing this issue can require changes to society as a whole and not just the individual trans person’s behavior or mentality.
My concern is that people will overlook potential social changes to accommodate people, if they view the issue as solved by means of assisted suicide.
What makes you think that severe chronic depression is more curable than severe chronic pain? maybe within a year someone will come up with a new drug or therapy that cures certain types of severe chronic pain? Should we force people to endure the pain in the basis of this possibility?
Or what makes you think this woman’s problem is social? What if she has some genetic or neural predisposition to having such problems? Should we deny her request on the basis that normally mental health issues are social?
You are talking about accommodating neurodiversity but your view of life and mental health conditions is extremely black and white.
Mental health is socially defined to a very large extent. One of the ways that we evaluate a person’s mental health is whether their issues interfere with an ability to live a “normal” life, which includes providing for themselves. Well, a person’s ability to provide for themselves can vary drastically based on external circumstances, like how rich they are or what social services they have access to.
It’s my belief that it’s rare for evolution to screw up. Of course, sometimes it does, but I’d argue that many mental illnesses are the result of one’s mind being equipped for a different set of circumstances than the one they’re in. In some cases, there’s clear evidence that this is the case, but in other cases it’s more difficult to prove.
I just don’t believe we should give up on a person just because they ask us to. If a friend came up to me and asked me to help them kill themselves because of a mental illness, I would do everything I could to find an alternative solution and talk them down from it. I feel like that’s the normal response anyone would have, and people are treating it differently just because a state said that it’s ok.
It’s my belief that it’s rare for evolution to screw up.
That’s not how it works, I’m pretty sure… Mutations will have random effects and the species evolves based on characteristics being selected for based on better survivability, reproductive effectiveness, etc.
I would do everything I could to find an alternative solution and talk them down from it.
I’ve read your other messages and it seems that you’re thoroughly convinced that this wasn’t the case here. I suggest that you get a bit more context about this whole situation, as it has been a long path of trying multiple treatments and approaches, without any success. So it’s not even remotely close to what you suggest here. No Futurama suicide chambers here.
That’s not how it works, I’m pretty sure… Mutations will have random effects and the species evolves based on characteristics being selected for based on better survivability, reproductive effectiveness, etc.
That’s why I said that it’s rare for evolution to screw up, not that it’s impossible.
I’ve read your other messages and it seems that you’re thoroughly convinced that this wasn’t the case here.
I’ve made a lot of comments but few of them have been about the details of this specific case, I’m not sure which ones you’re referring to.
The slippery slope falacy is so passé my dude, get on with it.
It’s not a fallacy to say that policy designed with the goal of normalizing something over time will cause it to become more normalized over time.
Besides, the responses in this thread are terrifying enough already.
Especially in a situation where someone could feasibly find other ways to “solve” their problem. Why would the slippery slope apply when people are already ending their own lives?
But it is it a greater harm to decline her request and force her to endure suffering (or risk more drastic methods)?
I hear where you’re coming from (I think), and agree this is tragic, but part of me is jealous of her.
How much that part of me equates to changes each day with my tension headaches
Personally, I think the greater harm would come from the normalization of suicide, because it will lead to cases where it is unnecessary. It’s better to err on the side of caution.
The prototypical case where assisted suicide is pitched is an elderly person, lying in bed in constant pain, unable to end their life without it. That I can accept.
But in this case, it’s possible that something could change that would allow her to live a healthy and happy life, and she wasn’t confined to a hospital bed, so if it was so important for her to kill herself she could’ve found a way to. What assisted suicide is doing in that case is not providing a last resort option, but removing the social barriers and stigma around what should be considered a last resort option. Making the process sterilized, clean, and beurocratic.
People on here have said stuff like, “Oh it’s so much less traumatic to her loved ones this way.” But what about without the policy? What would be stopping her from communicating to her spouse and family her intentions and the necessity of the act, because of the pain she was in? What exactly changes about the situation just because the state rubber stamps the act?
Many people choose suicide rashly and impulsively, and the social barriers we’ve created exist for a reason, because it’s supposed to be discouraged, it’s supposed to be stigmatized. Because if stigma and discouragement are enough to dissuade you, then it wasn’t actually necessary.
I don’t believe it’s stigmatized because society is compassionate and wants to help. It’s stigmatized because society loses a worker or soldier or taxpayer. I know that’s just how things work but it is disgusting.
Thanks for this, I really appreciate your nuanced stance.
I fear you may be correct, which feels uncomfortable (I disagreed with you originally)
On the appointed day, the medical team will come to Ter Beek’s house. “They’ll start by giving me a sedative, and won’t give me the drugs that stop my heart until I’m in a coma. For me, it will be like falling asleep. My partner will be there, but I’ve told him it’s OK if he needs to leave the room before the moment of death,” she said.
this struck me as a bit odd. In switzerland they cannot „act“, they can only prepare the drugs etc, but you have to do the final act by yourself, otherwise its considered murder.
interesting that they handle it differently
Actually both options are possible here in the Netherlands, it’s a matter of preference of the patient. In both cases a doctor will be present, whom will also supply the drugs if a patient chooses to take them themselves.
This case is incredible rare though, it is already extremely hard to have a euthanasia request granted for mental issues at an older age, let alone someone so young.
A bit more background on ‘the aftermath’: after the euthanasia took place a coroner will establish that this was indeed the case and once that is done the public prosecutor needs to give permission before the remains may be buried or cremated.
Also, the coroner will send the report of both the physician who approved and performed the euthanasia and that of the SCEN-doctor, who performed the obligatory 2nd opinion mentioned in the article, to a special committee who will check if everything went by the book. Not only the procedure leading up to the euthanasia, but also the act of the euthanasia itself. If there are doubts about whether or not all means of treatment were exhausted and if there really was undue and indefinite suffering, or if there are any doubts if the patient really wanted to go through with the procedure at ‘the moment supreme’, a doctor can be held accountable for that. Fortunately that is rare, as the whole procedure is not taken lightly.
I’m glad she will be able to end her suffering painlessly.
I didn’t agree with this decision. Life is precious.
She should do some extreme sports. Jump out of a plane with one of those flying squirrel things.
Hopefully she donates her organs
“I’m depressed and want to take my life. I’ve been struggling since my childhood and in 10 years of different kinds of treatments, nothing worked.”
“Have you tried jumping out of a plane with one of those flying squirrel things?”
“Oh wow, that was it, that fixed it! Thanks!” /s
Just jump into the Happy Canon that shoots you into Happyland you will be so much more Happy!
“Going into Happyland” sounds like a great euphemism. I’m going to steal it if you don’t mind.
Please do. It’s just a variation of the job cannon meme.
Let people be free.
And healthcare is for everyone. The means are healthcare in this case. And social & cultural support helps.
I can’t understand why so many people are against someone dying with dignity. This is a form of harm reduction for not just the patient, but also their loved ones, and society in general.
Nobody wants to see their loved ones suffer endlessly or needlessly, and this is also a while lot less traumatic than people committing suicide. Nobody wants the last memory of their loved ones to be the scene of their (potentially messy) suicide.
And that’s not to mention the trauma inflicted on bystanders for some of the more public suicide methods (not to mention that jumping to your death or intentionally walking into/driving into traffic has a decent chance of physically injuring or killing said bystanders).
If this process is undertaken with care and compassion, it’s far less likely to be traumatizing to all involved. And it prevents “spur of the moment” decisions, like many successful suicides are.
And it prevents “spur of the moment” decisions, like many successful suicides are.
It may prevent some, but at least some of the ones experiencing acute issues will still go for the immediate option. The bureaucracy of it will add a layer that I suspect will deter some. If it takes months or years, people are just going to find their own way.
I’m not suggesting that we just help any person right off the street. I think the government has duty of care once they are involved. I’m just saying the reality is that many will still choose not to take this alternative path.
Nobody wants to see their loved ones suffer endlessly or needlessly, and this is also a whole lot less traumatic than people committing suicide.
This is people committing suicide, though.
That’s both debatable on a semantic level (is it really suicide if it’s assisted?) and not how I intended the use of the term.
What I tried to say is that this option is less traumatic than non-assisted options for ending your existence and comes with less risk of injury to bystanders to boot.
How is it debatable? If you’re claiming it’s not suicide because it’s assisted, then by that logic it’s murder.
It’s one thing to support the policy, it’s another thing to misrepresent what the policy is. Suicide is still suicide. Is it less disruptive to society? Absolutely. Is it a good policy? Debatably. But it is still suicide? Indisputably. Support it if you will but don’t go around saying that it’s “less traumatic than suicide” as if it isn’t a form of suicide.
“Less traumatic than violent, ad-hoc suicide” perhaps?
There’s no such thing as “non-violent” suicide. Maybe, “less traumatic than non-assisted suicide” or “regular suicide,” or “suicide that isn’t state approved,” or any number of other phrasings so long as a spade is still called a spade.
We have a great term for the realm between murder and suicide - assistance in dying.
It bridges the gap between the definition of murder (where one party unalives the other party against their consent) and suicide (where one party unalives themselves with intent) by having the person looking to be unalived explicitly expires their intent and consent for the other party to assist them.
I feel as if you’re trying to create a false equivalency to undermine the validity of this option.
And as to whether this is less traumatic than suicide - you have got to be kidding or you’ve never had to deal with the reality of someone committing suicide versus someone choosing assistance in dying.
One generally involves a lot of shock and someone finding a dead body in some state, the other is generally a peaceful affair where loved ones say their goodbyes before the person peacefully falls asleep for the last time.
They are nowhere near the same thing for the survivors and you claiming otherwise is an insult to both. And if you can’t see the difference between these two options I’m frankly done debating this with you.
See, the difference is that I’m not looking at how clean or messy the suicide is, I’m looking at the fact that a suicide occurred. I would have much more respect for you and your position if you were willing to look it in the eye and call it what it is, instead of hiding behind these nonsense euphemisms.
At no point did I make any claims regarding the trauma involved, except to say, “Is it less disruptive to society? Absolutely.” The exact opposite of the position you ascribed to me, in other words.
But trauma and shock are merely side effects of suicide. Symptoms that exist to reflect the awfulness of the event. If a person kills themselves on a deserted island, no one is traumatized or shocked by it, but it is still, factually, a suicide.
I don’t see why you’re reacting so strongly to a simple clarification in terminology. Or rather, I’m beginning to see why, but I wish I didn’t.
That’s not entirely honest - you’re also trying to argue that having this option is not a good or valid option (you called “debatable”) and are trying to steer the conversation by creating a false equivalency between assistance in dying and suicide, which are not the same thing.
I fully agree with your example - someone unaliving themselves on a deserted island committed suicide. Never said they didn’t.
What I said, and what you’re conveniently omitting, is that suicide is an act by an individual, there is no other party to the unaliving. This is not the case in assistance in dying, and there’s very good legal reason why we consider these distinct from eachother, and from murder (to your earlier point).
Even if we forget the traumatic angle I brought up earlier, surely you must see the difference between an act that involves one party and an act that involves two parties with express intent and consent.
What you’re trying to do is the same as arguing masturbation and sex are the same thing because they end with the same result (orgasm).
That’s not entirely honest - you’re also trying to argue that having this option is not a good or valid option (you called “debatable”)
Saying it’s “debatable” is not the same thing as asserting it’s not a good or valid option. It just means that whether it’s good or valid hasn’t been conclusively established.
Assisted suicide is a form or suicide that is assisted. The thing that makes it different between it and regular suicide is that someone else is assisting. You’ve chosen the example of masturbation vs sex because it’s one of the few analogies that would work for you. Tandem skiing is skiing. Assisted murder is murder. Skydiving with an instructor is skydiving.
The onus is on you to present why the addition of an assistant meaningfully changes the nature of the act.
surely you must see the difference between an act that involves one party and an act that involves two parties with express intent and consent.
I see no such thing. Solo suicide involves intent, and there is no need for consent because there isn’t a second person involved. How on earth would the addition of a second person make it meaningfully different? Are you refusing to say the reason because you think it’s obvious, or because it doesn’t exist?
What the fuck is “unaliving”. Are you saying that unironically? If so, it’s staggeringly Orwellian.
You don’t want people jumping in front of a train, but what do you think would happen if this concept were fully embraced by the American for-profit insurance industry? I’m imagining taking my mom to a doctor’s appointment for an expensive treatment and finding tasteful brochures for dying with dignity helpfully placed around the office.
You haven’t seen all the hospice brochures? You don’t even have to imagine - it’s like the P.C. version of assisted suicide for old people.
I’m absolutely worried this will get taken advantage of in the US’ hellscape that is their healthcare system, but that doesn’t mean the concept is without merit.
It’s like arguing that cars should not be available for purchase because someone might use one irresponsibility, while forgetting their utility outside of abuse.
In a healthcare system that optimizes outcome instead of profit, having the option to allow someone to choose to end their suffering should not be considered a bad thing.
“People think that when you’re mentally ill, you can’t think straight, which is insulting,” she told the Guardian. “I understand the fears that some disabled people have about assisted dying, and worries about people being under pressure to die… But in the Netherlands, we’ve had this law for more than 20 years. There are really strict rules, and it’s really safe.”
She embarked on intensive treatments, including talking therapies, medication and more than 30 sessions of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). “In therapy, I learned a lot about myself and coping mechanisms, but it didn’t fix the main issues. At the beginning of treatment, you start out hopeful. I thought I’d get better. But the longer the treatment goes on, you start losing hope.”
After 10 years, there was “nothing left” in terms of treatment. "I’ve never hesitated about my decision. I have felt guilt – I have a partner, family, friends and I’m not blind to their pain. And I’ve felt scared. But I’m absolutely determined to go through with it.
Honestly and genuinely, I’m glad to see all that she has put into this decision and glad the state is allowing it. Now she doesn’t need to cause further pain to others through a traumatic suicide and she can gain the peace she’s been longing for.
Each day, so many lives are snuffed out of existence without a second thought. She given this an incredible amount of thought, time, and work.
Rest in peace, Zoraya. 💜
P. S. There’s thousands of live today that want to live. They don’t want to die. And yet their lives are taken anyway. Perhaps we should focus on saving them rather than making someone like Zoraya feel even worse.
Life’s one big experiment anyway… There is no peace.
The world we live in, where this news travels all over the globe, and we get to argue about the death of a girl on the internet.
Funny times, to say the least.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A 29-year-old Dutch woman who has been granted her request for assisted dying on the grounds of unbearable mental suffering is expected to end her life in the coming weeks, fuelling a debate across Europe over the issue.
Zoraya ter Beek received the final approval last week for assisted dying after a three and a half year process under a law passed in the Netherlands in 2002.
Her case has caused controversy as assisted dying for people with psychiatric illnesses in the Netherlands remains unusual, although the numbers are increasing.
An article about her case, published in April, was picked up by international media, prompting an outcry that caused Ter Beek huge distress.
“I knew I couldn’t cope with the way I live now.” She had thought about taking her own life but the violent death by suicide of a schoolfriend and its impact on the girl’s family deterred her.
“I was on a waiting list for assessment for a long time, because there are so few doctors willing to be involved in assisted dying for people with mental suffering.
The original article contains 837 words, the summary contains 180 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
