It's disheartening so many don't see the brain as a physical part of ourselves, just the mental. To describe this individual as suffering from "crippling depression" but also "physically healthy" when they clearly suffer from long term mental health problems feels like an oxymoron.
I'm not sure for what reason people think everyone needs to be alive and live long natural lives. If she doesn't end her life humanely and in the comfort of trained professionals, she can just simply do it at home in a far more unpleasant way. Hope it all goes well for them.
> If she doesn't end her life humanely and in the comfort of trained professionals, she can just simply do it at home in a far more unpleasant way
What's the difference? It's unavoidable that long term if assisted suicide is normalized (and even endorsed by the healthcare system) more people who wouldn't have chosen that option on their own will decide to kill themselves (or ask a doctor to do it).
How do you think a person suffering from a mental illness would be affected by their psychiatrist telling them that he can't help him anymore and that maybe they should consider killing themselves? A terminal cancer patient has no hope and is doomed to die regardless of anything else. That's not the case if you suffering from a severe mental health issue:
- there are many other treatment options that they didn't try (because they couldn't afford to, are not available in their home country, they aren't aware of them etc. etc.)
- a definitive diagnosis is impossible, psychiatrists are not oncologists and due to the nature of the field only have a very vague understanding of what they are even doing.
I'm certainly not judging the person who chose this path (even if they weren't indirectly forced into it by other people and had no other options, even if I find it hard to believe that could be the case very often) but from the perspective of the state/society/healthcare system this creates some very perverse incentives. The cost difference between investing large amounts of money into new advances/expensive (possibly not even financially but politically) treatments and using euthanasia as a way to solve the same problem (just way more effectively) is pretty big.
> How do you think a person suffering from a mental illness would be affected by their psychiatrist telling them that he can't help him anymore and that maybe they should consider killing themselves
Is that happening as policy? Anyway, we can always add a rule not to do this.
> What's the difference? It's unavoidable that long term if assisted suicide is normalized (and even endorsed by the healthcare system) more people who wouldn't have chosen that option on their own will decide to kill themselves (or ask a doctor to do it).
What does that matter? Aren’t we all supposed to be entitled to have that control over our own lives?
My BIL suffered from depression all his life - ups and downs and sometimes he had to get electroshock therapy when the meds did not work.
The last time I saw him he was just like a zombie from all the medications he was on.
He committed suicide just before Xmas a few years back and I had to wait for the coroner and the cops before I could move the step ladder and they kindly removed the rope from the beam.
I wished he had a more dignified option available to him and that his wife did not find him like that but I doubt his family would have accepted his decision to end his own life.
The Cynic and Stoic schools of anqiue philosophy found freedom in choosing death.
It's a big part of why so many big name romans fell on their swords on defeat, metaphorically or literally. Self-determination was seen as a bigger virtue than life, and e.g. Cato killing himself was regarded as a way to rob Julius Caesar of ultimate victory, turning him into a sort of martyr for the philosophy.
I am willing to grant them the point that in a hypothetical society where suicide was not taboo, but an mundane and uncontroversial act, a lot of things we consider problems would vanish overnight. Indentured servitude, extortion, social injustice, slavery. All these hinge on a human being having no way out of mistreatment. In such a society, it would be largely impossible to compel anyone to do something against their will.
At first glance, this seems like it would benefit the bullies, but if you think further, you realize they would find themselves completely isolated without allies. The only way to successfully work with other people would be through cooperation.
It's obviously not entirely realistic to have a society that functions this way, but it's arguably an underexplored counterfactual that raises questions regarding who actually benefits from particular taboo.
> Indentured servitude, extortion, social injustice, slavery. All these hinge on a human being having no way out of mistreatment. In such a society, it would be largely impossible to compel anyone to do something against their will.
Unfortunately for those of us in most of the world, we need to work jobs that may not be appealing to us at all, and may even beat us down physically and mentally over time, in order to pay bills and support families. I'd argue most people are working against their will, but it's a lever they can pull to dump money into their bank accounts.
I know I wouldn't have a 9-5 job if I truly had the choice, and I happen to like my job and have fun with it most of the time!
Sure, this is the premise behind the entire current economic system. I'm asking what if that is not possible? What would a society that is by brute necessity based on voluntary cooperation look?
I don’t find the premise logical - that suicidal taboo prevents people from action
> Indentured servitude, extortion, social injustice, slavery. All these hinge on a human being having no way out of mistreatment. In such a society, it would be largely impossible to compel anyone to do something against their will.
> At first glance, this seems like it would benefit the bullies
Sure, people can remove themselves from harm, but most of the time they will remove the harm themselves - this definitely would not favor the bully
I think de-stigmatizing suicide wouldn't exactly prevent slavery. The thing stopping slaves from killing themselves is probably not the social stigma surrounding suicide.
All these hinge on a human being having no way out of mistreatment.
Hope is what you may be referring to here. If a person in mistreatment could let go of hope and accept the now as the way it always will be, they would be freed to end their life and have that dignity of self determination. I have read somewhere that kidnappers will give their victims false hope of being released because it makes the victim less willing to fight back.
I believe this is yet another case of people being skeptical about the very existence of mental illness.
Euthanasia for incurable cancer patients is a no-brainer, but for incurable depression sufferers? Well, their bodies are healthy. What if it's just a phase they'll grow out of? Maybe they're just faking it? They should probably be more grateful for the gifts they've received from God, and they'll be happy. Maybe they're just bad people?
We don't object to euthanasia for incurable cancer because we understand that A) it's painful and B) it's terminal.
But that's not the case for depression because there are literally millions of people that have recovered or at least learned how to live with depression.
Nonsense - you clearly never had somebody close to you suffer from it.
My daughter suffers from depression - it is not a state of mind or a funk you can snap out of.
> Euthanasia for incurable cancer patients is a no-brainer, but for incurable depression sufferers? Well, their bodies are healthy.
These are fundamentally different situations. Incurable cancer patients are basically guaranteed to die because of their condition in the near future.
Allowing "euthanasia"/assisted suicide only normalizes suicide and encourages the state/societe/health-providers to dedicate less resources to mental health since we have a much cheaper/easier solution now. How do you determine that someone suffering from a mental health condition "terminally ill"? The patients surely can't do that themselves and the healthcare system(private or public) is only able to dedicate a certain amount of resources to a relatively limited number of approved treatment options.
I don't know what happened in this case but I'd bet that there were certainly many experimental (and probably mainstream) treatment options that she simply had no access to. Cancer and other terminal patients beyond a certain point are effectively doomed and can't be saved regardless of money/resources, they can't wait for another year or two for improved treatments, which IMHO is a huge difference because "euthanasia" shouldn't be an acceptable option unless every other option has been exhausted.
How can she be "physically healthy" if she has depression? What is causing the depression, if not a malady of her physical body, such as her brain? It's an organ and it can be irreparably damaged, just like a kidney.
"But what if she gets better?", some say. What if she doesn't? What if there is no cure in her case? You may have gotten over a case of depression yourself, just like some people have recovered from a cancer. Does that mean that all cancers patients will eventually heal? So what makes you think that depression is any different?
Either way, if an adult is unwilling to live, they should be allowed to end their lives with dignity. Your desire to not go through with it yourself is not sufficient to deny it to others. We are all adults and can make our own decisions.
I haven't found a before|after comparison of suicide in the area, the report distinguishes between "Termination of life on request" (the bulk of cases) and "assisted suicide" - the criteria for differentiation of these likely has to do with terminal illness and quality of life.
In 2021 it was 7,459 Termination on request Vs 189 assisted suicide.
It's a very difficult choice to make and I have full sympathies for the lady. I also respect herc choice, considering that it was made by her own free will and complies with the law of the land.
However, I still feel a bit conflicted about this situation. As per the report, she is physically fit, has a loving boyfriend, a pet cat, and doesn't seem to be in any monetary duress. Plus, she happens to be living in one of the happiest and prosperous countries in the world.
When I compare her with a vast multitude of people in developing countries who continue to toil against all odds (physical, mental, societal, economic, etc.), I feel that she should have been encouraged to not give up.
An old song that has always stuck with me has lyrics that say, "there is so much pain in the world; (comparatively) my pain is so little. When I saw people's pain, I forgot my own."
Of course, these are just my thoughts. I fully respect her (& everybody else's) rights to decide what's best for them. May she be at peace with her decision and enjoy her remaining days in a better frame of mind.
My partner has a loving partner, loving children, a safe home environment. Yet her abusive upbringing has left her with systemic self-regard challenges, self-regulation challenges, and very little executive functioning skills. She dips into a suicidal mode a few times a year.
Some folks have mountains of internal pain and anguish that they necessarily mask from everyone around them every day. For them, the thought of the relief of death is very tempting.
See, much like others you put an accent on physicalities (how she’s not in some dirty hole in a very poor and dangerous country), and then switch to relativities.
But WHY do you consider it fair to compare her condition to others’?
You don’t know what’s going on in her mind, you have absolutely no idea how agonizing a mental state can be. Yet you judge her as she’s perceiving things and feeling feelings just like you or anybody else. But that is not the case.
The sad thing about suffering is that if you don’t encounter it before a certain individual threshold amount, it’s very easy to dismiss. For some people, encouraging them to stay here is just another pain point that you can’t even begin to fathom that you’re advocating to add to their struggle with existence.
How about pausing and thinking for a second, what a real, tangible and not “socially feel-good” compassion would mean in such cases?
Readit News
I'm not sure for what reason people think everyone needs to be alive and live long natural lives. If she doesn't end her life humanely and in the comfort of trained professionals, she can just simply do it at home in a far more unpleasant way. Hope it all goes well for them.
What's the difference? It's unavoidable that long term if assisted suicide is normalized (and even endorsed by the healthcare system) more people who wouldn't have chosen that option on their own will decide to kill themselves (or ask a doctor to do it).
How do you think a person suffering from a mental illness would be affected by their psychiatrist telling them that he can't help him anymore and that maybe they should consider killing themselves? A terminal cancer patient has no hope and is doomed to die regardless of anything else. That's not the case if you suffering from a severe mental health issue: - there are many other treatment options that they didn't try (because they couldn't afford to, are not available in their home country, they aren't aware of them etc. etc.) - a definitive diagnosis is impossible, psychiatrists are not oncologists and due to the nature of the field only have a very vague understanding of what they are even doing.
I'm certainly not judging the person who chose this path (even if they weren't indirectly forced into it by other people and had no other options, even if I find it hard to believe that could be the case very often) but from the perspective of the state/society/healthcare system this creates some very perverse incentives. The cost difference between investing large amounts of money into new advances/expensive (possibly not even financially but politically) treatments and using euthanasia as a way to solve the same problem (just way more effectively) is pretty big.
Is that happening as policy? Anyway, we can always add a rule not to do this.
What does that matter? Aren’t we all supposed to be entitled to have that control over our own lives?
Deleted Comment
The last time I saw him he was just like a zombie from all the medications he was on.
He committed suicide just before Xmas a few years back and I had to wait for the coroner and the cops before I could move the step ladder and they kindly removed the rope from the beam.
I wished he had a more dignified option available to him and that his wife did not find him like that but I doubt his family would have accepted his decision to end his own life.
It's a big part of why so many big name romans fell on their swords on defeat, metaphorically or literally. Self-determination was seen as a bigger virtue than life, and e.g. Cato killing himself was regarded as a way to rob Julius Caesar of ultimate victory, turning him into a sort of martyr for the philosophy.
I am willing to grant them the point that in a hypothetical society where suicide was not taboo, but an mundane and uncontroversial act, a lot of things we consider problems would vanish overnight. Indentured servitude, extortion, social injustice, slavery. All these hinge on a human being having no way out of mistreatment. In such a society, it would be largely impossible to compel anyone to do something against their will.
At first glance, this seems like it would benefit the bullies, but if you think further, you realize they would find themselves completely isolated without allies. The only way to successfully work with other people would be through cooperation.
It's obviously not entirely realistic to have a society that functions this way, but it's arguably an underexplored counterfactual that raises questions regarding who actually benefits from particular taboo.
Unfortunately for those of us in most of the world, we need to work jobs that may not be appealing to us at all, and may even beat us down physically and mentally over time, in order to pay bills and support families. I'd argue most people are working against their will, but it's a lever they can pull to dump money into their bank accounts.
I know I wouldn't have a 9-5 job if I truly had the choice, and I happen to like my job and have fun with it most of the time!
> Indentured servitude, extortion, social injustice, slavery. All these hinge on a human being having no way out of mistreatment. In such a society, it would be largely impossible to compel anyone to do something against their will. > At first glance, this seems like it would benefit the bullies
Sure, people can remove themselves from harm, but most of the time they will remove the harm themselves - this definitely would not favor the bully
This is where revolutions and revolts come from
Suicide taboo is not holding anyone back
Hope is what you may be referring to here. If a person in mistreatment could let go of hope and accept the now as the way it always will be, they would be freed to end their life and have that dignity of self determination. I have read somewhere that kidnappers will give their victims false hope of being released because it makes the victim less willing to fight back.
Ah mate I don't know about that.
> healthy young woman who struggles with crippling depression, autism and borderline personality disorder
Besides a large hole and some rust, the Titanic is in tip top shape.
Isn't it about curability and pain?
Euthanasia for incurable cancer patients is a no-brainer, but for incurable depression sufferers? Well, their bodies are healthy. What if it's just a phase they'll grow out of? Maybe they're just faking it? They should probably be more grateful for the gifts they've received from God, and they'll be happy. Maybe they're just bad people?
We don't object to euthanasia for incurable cancer because we understand that A) it's painful and B) it's terminal.
But that's not the case for depression because there are literally millions of people that have recovered or at least learned how to live with depression.
I'm just not sure that a 28 year old is really facing incurable depression.
You can be in a pretty long deep depression in your 20s and pull out of it in your 30s and 40s.
This is absolutely not a universally held belief.
Nonsense - you clearly never had somebody close to you suffer from it. My daughter suffers from depression - it is not a state of mind or a funk you can snap out of.
These are fundamentally different situations. Incurable cancer patients are basically guaranteed to die because of their condition in the near future.
Allowing "euthanasia"/assisted suicide only normalizes suicide and encourages the state/societe/health-providers to dedicate less resources to mental health since we have a much cheaper/easier solution now. How do you determine that someone suffering from a mental health condition "terminally ill"? The patients surely can't do that themselves and the healthcare system(private or public) is only able to dedicate a certain amount of resources to a relatively limited number of approved treatment options.
I don't know what happened in this case but I'd bet that there were certainly many experimental (and probably mainstream) treatment options that she simply had no access to. Cancer and other terminal patients beyond a certain point are effectively doomed and can't be saved regardless of money/resources, they can't wait for another year or two for improved treatments, which IMHO is a huge difference because "euthanasia" shouldn't be an acceptable option unless every other option has been exhausted.
"But what if she gets better?", some say. What if she doesn't? What if there is no cure in her case? You may have gotten over a case of depression yourself, just like some people have recovered from a cancer. Does that mean that all cancers patients will eventually heal? So what makes you think that depression is any different?
Either way, if an adult is unwilling to live, they should be allowed to end their lives with dignity. Your desire to not go through with it yourself is not sufficient to deny it to others. We are all adults and can make our own decisions.
May the earth be light upon her.
Would you recommend death in all circumstances just in case?
Sitting here without crippling depression I certainly disagree with the choice.
Would you like a side of straw man with your order of controversial topic?
Nobody is proposing euthanasia as a first line of treatment for anything, folks. It is a desperate measure for desperate times.
Related material:
Dutch Euthanasia Report 2021 (English PDF): https://wfrtds.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/RTE_JV2021_ENG...
Number cases (1998-2022): https://www.statista.com/statistics/1363041/netherlands-euth...
Odd internal variations by district and other factors: https://healthcare-in-europe.com/en/news/a-critical-look-at-...
I haven't found a before|after comparison of suicide in the area, the report distinguishes between "Termination of life on request" (the bulk of cases) and "assisted suicide" - the criteria for differentiation of these likely has to do with terminal illness and quality of life.
In 2021 it was 7,459 Termination on request Vs 189 assisted suicide.
However, I still feel a bit conflicted about this situation. As per the report, she is physically fit, has a loving boyfriend, a pet cat, and doesn't seem to be in any monetary duress. Plus, she happens to be living in one of the happiest and prosperous countries in the world.
When I compare her with a vast multitude of people in developing countries who continue to toil against all odds (physical, mental, societal, economic, etc.), I feel that she should have been encouraged to not give up.
An old song that has always stuck with me has lyrics that say, "there is so much pain in the world; (comparatively) my pain is so little. When I saw people's pain, I forgot my own."
Of course, these are just my thoughts. I fully respect her (& everybody else's) rights to decide what's best for them. May she be at peace with her decision and enjoy her remaining days in a better frame of mind.
Some folks have mountains of internal pain and anguish that they necessarily mask from everyone around them every day. For them, the thought of the relief of death is very tempting.
For how long would you say? Have they not discussed this for an extended amount of time with multiple people?
But WHY do you consider it fair to compare her condition to others’?
You don’t know what’s going on in her mind, you have absolutely no idea how agonizing a mental state can be. Yet you judge her as she’s perceiving things and feeling feelings just like you or anybody else. But that is not the case.
The sad thing about suffering is that if you don’t encounter it before a certain individual threshold amount, it’s very easy to dismiss. For some people, encouraging them to stay here is just another pain point that you can’t even begin to fathom that you’re advocating to add to their struggle with existence.
How about pausing and thinking for a second, what a real, tangible and not “socially feel-good” compassion would mean in such cases?