“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 has 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 away in an instant. 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.
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 whole 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.
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.
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).
What the fuck is “unaliving”. Are you saying that unironically? If so, it’s staggeringly Orwellian.
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?
“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.
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.
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 irresponsibly, 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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
This is the best “treatment” a capitalist shithole can give for mental health.
We live in a dystopia
What are you calling a capitalist shithole exactly? The Netherlands?
They did sort of invent it.
I’d say yes. Because it is.
Shithole no, capitalist very much so.
It’s more profitable for the capitalists.
Even in a utopia, some people wouldn’t want to live anymore. And it should be their legal right to end their lives painlessly at the time of their choosing.
I swear to god, if the aliens flew by and nuked half of the globe, you fuckers would rebuild society and mass media for the sole purpose of blaming capitalism.
You think a communist doctor could fix her? They were out of posible treatments, this isn’t about money.
This. Is. Awesome.
Good on her; for doing whatever was reasonable. For making an informed decision. For following the approved methods. And for sticking it out.
We “put down” pets when their suffering is too much, why can’t we let people make that same decision for themselves? Luckily the Dutch can.
Suicide isn’t “awesome,” and “good on her for sticking it out” in the context of suicide would pass as ironic edgelord humor 20 years ago on 4chan.
It’s terrifying that the exact same action, when done in a way that’s “clean” and legal makes people say things like that that presumably nobody would say otherwise. Setting up a legal pathway for suicide doesn’t change what it is.
Removed by mod
Giving the life the middle finger is the ultimate expression of freedom.
Before I said that something could pass as ironic edgelord humor 20 years ago on 4chan, but in this case, I think this is so edgy even the channers would make fun of it.
Killing yourself is the ultimate expression of freedom? Shouldn’t you be banned for saying that? When did it become acceptable to glamorize and encourage suicide?
Suicide isn’t “the ultimate expression of freedom” it’s the complete and total renunciation of freedom. Dead bodies aren’t free to do anything except rot.
I’m with you 100%. No one consents to being born, and it should be every human’s right to decide when they’ve had enough and consent to checking out of life.
We put down animals because they’re suffering, it’s seen as a mercy, yet when it comes to humans? Oh no, go through your fifth round of chemo, take two shots of morphine every day, exist in nothing but physical pain because wanting to die is somehow… Wrong?
I’ve suffered from depression the majority of my life, and I’ve even asked my therapist: what is so wrong, so bad, about wanting to die? We live in a society where the majority of wealth is held by very few, we’re watching governments across the world fall to fascism, people’s rights are being stripped away left and right, and yet the majority of the population believes “Well, you have XYZ, so you should be grateful! You have so much to live for!”
This is not a pro-suicide comment, either, to be clear. If you are suffering, please reach out to friends/family, or even better, a mental health professional if that is an option for you. Death is a permanent solution to what can be a temporary problem. But if an individual of sound mind and body wants to consent, for whatever reason, to no longer wanting to play this torture we call life, I believe they should 100% have the right to do so, and we should be glad we as a society have come so far as to extend the same mercy to human beings that we provide to pets.
Setting up a legal pathway for suicide helps people maintain agency and also allows for those with curable conditions to take the time to seek the help they really need thanks to the ample medical oversight.
I don’t think that it’s awesome. Having read the article, I think that she has full capacity to make the decision and am happy that she is doing so in a medically supported way. Botched suicide attempts can cause devastating disabilities. And I always hate when a family member finds the body of someone who died by suicide.
I don’t mind if you think it’s a good policy or better than the alternative, but I’m always going to push back against people describing suicide as “awesome.”
It isn’t awesome that her life is so miserable that, even though she has spent decades exhausting all medical treatment options, she still wants to die. What is awesome is that there is a comprehensive and humane way for her to end her suffering that assures this isn’t a rash decision, gives her loved ones a time frame to come to terms with it, and provides a situation where they do not have to deal with the aftermath of doing it herself.
Believe it or not, there are a lot of people out there who’s lives are nothing but pain and suffering. Pain and suffering despite seeking out all possible means to relieve themselves of this pain, and finding that none exist. Pain that isn’t going to end, and not having a life worth living to look forward to. There are also a lot of people out there that have loved these people and realized that, though it hurts them, the suffering the person they love is going through is far worse, and will not get better. Sometimes it is more selfish to demand someone not end their life than it is for them to do so.
You clearly have not actually been in this position, even if you have been suicidal before. Maybe you should admit that you don’t know everything about this, and let people have a humane way to stop their suffering.
I will never in a million years be convinced that “suicide is awesome” is a position that I should adopt or respect, sorry not sorry.
You still don’t get it, they saying aren’t suicide is awesome. So you continue on with your misinterpretation.
Clearly you don’t put nuance into it, and don’t care to. Enjoy (or hate) your black and white life.
I hope assisted suicide becomes more common. For everyone. Experience of conscious beings is the most important thing for me. But governments view people as manpower which is depressing.
Imagine thinking your life belongs to you, and then having to get permission to end it without suffering
There are other options other than this one that requires permission. The article mentions her reasons to choose this method.
From the article:
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.
Whether we agree with her or not, it’s her decision.
You’re asking someone else to take your life and expect them to do so no questions asked…?
There are in fact many questions asked, and any doctor can refuse for any reason.
Yes, hence kofe’s skeptical and maybe sarcastic question
I was genuinely asking, more so of the person that’s skeptical of having to get permission. I’m glad it seems to be an ethical requirement
Jumping off bridges is free, no?
Clearly, this is about a more complex social issue/concern.
I think it’s technically illegal in most countries (suicide I mean, not specifically the bridge variety).
/s
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.
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 any % of society not wanting to support the lives of those in need.
Its not value or no value. But priority of those values that differs.
IE states using its same power of violence to kill forign people who might disagree with the state. Can be argued with no worry about the value of those actions. They have no issue with not choosing to fund defence or the actual state ability to use violence to enforce its laws.
Just the state taking money via potential force to provide life to US citizens 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.
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.
Until they are asked to do something to help, then it’s crickets
I disagree with her decision for a few reasons but I’ll defend her right to choose.
There are always going to be people who don’t want to be here anymore for whatever reason, and so the government needs to provide a humane way of dealing with these situations.
Like with abortion, access to controlled procedures with trained professionals reduces harm. Restricting access to safe procedures will cause more harm than it prevents.
Definitely sad. Possibly the wrong choice for her, possibly the right choice, but it’s her choice to make despite how I might feel about it.
Idk, i am torn on this. Obviously people have had depression with suicidal tendencies since the dawn of humanity, but i feel like most modern suicides come from the failings of oir current systems. I am Zoraya’s age and have struggled with depression and finding a reason to live for well over a decade. Euthanisia should be available to anyone with a terminal condition, but she still has her whole lofe ahead of her. It saddens me that the state has decided it is better to let her have a painless suicide rather than address the issues that make her life no longer worth living. To me there is no excuse for otherwise healthy adults in the prime of their lives to feel hopeless, but that is the society we have collectively decided we want to live in.
I’m glad she will be able to die on her own terms, but there is no excuse for this to be her only option. Our society has failed Zoraya and countless people like her.
I have no doubts about her sincerity to die. I just think that a better society would have been able to find her a reason to live. She is absolutely in the right here, and has done nothing wrong. It’s her government which has failed her.
Why are you assuming that her mental situation developed as a result of society or “the government”? The article mentions that her conditions are chronic and started developing in early childhood. People can have mental conditions without any particular external trigger.
She has trauma, according to the article. Most traumas are largely systemic issues that have been improperly handled.
Fair enough — though the trauma is also just one of the named conditions, and we have no idea what that trauma was caused by.
Depression and anxiety are also heavily influenced by societal conditions. She would probably still have to deal with these issues but to a much less QoL damaging extent under a more humane system.
I read somewhere that we have way more suicides in general than before. That seemed plausiblevso I didn’t look it up proper. Also, whatever her problem is, that’s not what assisted suicide is for , she is abusing the system. The backlash from this improper use will impede access for the people who really need it.
She’s run out of treatment options and is still symptomatic to the point that her quality of life is severely diminished.
It wasn’t an overnight decision and has been reviewed by multiple medical teams, over 3 and a half years. All stated in the article.
the backlash from this improper use will impede access for the people who really need it
You aren’t her or any of the multiple doctors that have evaluated and tried various treatments with her. If you want to get into research and help look for cures for the vast, vast number of illnesses that contribute to people seeking this treatment, please do. Or help advocate for more money being funneled towards healthcare (including for education and training), cuz from what I understand there’s not a single country or healthcare system that has adequate resources to help everyone just in terms of the number of people available to provide what treatments we do have
but i feel like most modern suicides come from the failings of oir current systems
This is something you should probably confirm and not decide on gut feeling
I am Zoraya’s age and have struggled with depression and finding a reason to live for well over a decade.
Depression is not a binary thing… it’s not like you have it or not… most people “feel blue” every so often and that is mild depression… some people are rendered catatonic and can’t bring themselves to go to the bathroom so they soil themselves… that is also depression but a much more hardcore case… comparing whatever you have vs whatever this person you don’t know have (not counting they mentioned Zoraya suffers from other mental health issues as well) is not right… it could be like me comparing the salty burger I had the other day which I didn’t like vs the literally rotten food being served to inmates in Murica.
To me there is no excuse for otherwise healthy adults in the prime of their lives to feel hopeless
So you ARE comparing the salty burger vs rotten food on the same level…
I’m glad she will be able to die on her own terms, but there is no excuse for this to be her only option. Our society has failed Zoraya and countless people like her.
Again you double down on the notion that “her depression is just sadness, have you tried smiling today?”. Also, this is not her only option, this is the last option after a decade of trying other options
Unsolicited Conservative: “Has she tried to put God on that wound? If only she was religious…”
Dude, doctors will even try homeopathy before resorting to euthanasia.
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
“People think that when you’re mentally ill, you can’t think straight, which is insulting,” she told the Guardian.
So much this. I’ve had so many people tell me that when I tell them that I don’t see a way into the future and I want them to leave me the fuck alone, it actually means that I want more help. No, you donkey, it doesn’t. It means leave me alone.
Bonus points when they are coming up with “ideas for my future” that are just genuinely unappealing to me and are then livid when I say no. Do they really think that going on a vacation or changing my job was not something I already thought about and discarded because I know it would not help? Nah, I’m ill, so I also must be stupid. “You always just say no. I am trying to help and you always just say no.” Thanks for realizing that you are not helping me but just want to feel good about yourself.
I don’t know about your personal situation, and it may be different for whatever you are suffering with, however the part you quoted is true for a lot of cases.
Having just looked after my wife through a period of ~3 years really severe depression I’ve seen it first hand, it completely changed her personality and outlook and she was saying all kinds of stuff she’s quite embarrassed by now. She genuinely couldn’t think straight at all or see any way out, and in that moment if offered the choice to die she might have taken it (a fact she is quite scared by now, having mostly recovered).
Similar story with my brother, who has bipolar… when he’s manic he has an absolute inability to hold a train of thoughts together for longer than 30 seconds. When he’s depressed it’s absolutely awful. He’s now stable and enjoying his life.
I’m not arguing that this shouldn’t be an option for some very extreme chronic conditions, but it’s obviously complicated.
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.
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.
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)
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.
The slippery slope falacy is so passé my dude, get on with it.
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?
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.
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.
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.
“We should legislate what people do with their own bodies because I don’t like their decisions”
I mean, yes. That’s the vast majority of people, regardless of political affiliation, or where you live. I don’t think meth should be completely deregulated, for example. If someone goes to a hospital and asks a doctor to inject them with bleach to cure COVID, I don’t think the doctor should do it.
That doesn’t mean that I don’t support bodily autonomy, however. Just not as an absolute right, because I don’t consider any right as absolute. Rights have to be balanced against each other and considered in the context of their material consequences.
I don’t see how this is comparable to something like abortion, where only a fetus is being terminated, not a human being. Nor is it comparable to, for example, trans rights, where a person is aiming to live a happy and fulfilling life. Just because crazies want to restrict bodily autonomy in cases where there’s no valid reason to doesn’t mean that cases with valid reasons don’t exist, and discouraging suicide is one of them.
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.
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.
Death is permanent and cannot be undone. Once someone dies they take all their love, potential and beauty with them. We can only live with the memory of it, but that memory doesn’t have the ability to create new things or react to life in new ways.
That said, people should be able to end their suffering in a dignified manner of their choosing without suffering more. No one asked to be alive, it’s a burden imposed on them by the will of the living. The least we can do, then, is to make living as devoid of suffering as we can for everyone.
If potential is key, I say keep the context of the MAID process but instead of outright death make it cryonics. Plus other potential relevant volunteer stuff and organ donation stuff lined up. Even if the initial cryonics technique is not even close to viable, other stuff could be transformative. If cryonics has any chance to work, things will get appreciably better in 300-or-so years right?
Hopeful worst is my brain in a jar mostly playing VR and sometimes knitting yarn via robotic arms. Lots of ways it could be better. Also unlike traditional cyborg stuff with all-machine life-support, I would like to still have a complex microbiome if not taking it further with symbiosis.
I would never take that right away from someone, but I’m very sad nothing else worked for her. 29 just feels so young to have to exit, so many chances for experiences left.
