• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Euthanasia

You keep her alive today. Then you deal with later later.

And repeat this every single time she mentions she wants to die for the rest of her life and pretend to ourselves we're not consciously lying when we say "deal with later".
 
We already know how that would play out: the self-driving car would swerve to hit all four people, then burst into flames. If the car were built by Google it would burst into flames first, then hit the people. If it were built by Apple it would behave the same way but cost 20% more.

Far better would be to only drive self-driving cars made by Tesla; they would still hit all four people in this scenario, but only the driver would be killed, the rest being merely maimed.
 
Then again my late best friend found psychiatric hospitals (and he was sectioned many times) frightening and uncaring places where the kind of care you describe was simply unavailable.
Like nursing homes, they are not all the same. I worked in one that was very good.

As regards your assertion that "many people don't get the help they need, those who do are usually ready to face life again when they leave the hospital, and ongoing therapy continues to provide the tools and resources they need to put their traumas behind them." - the number of repeat admissions and the rate of suicides and other premature deaths leads me to think that "usually" is a vast overstatement.
Got data, preferably from the Netherlands to support that? Preferably one that shows numbers for depression as opposed to things like schizophrenia which is a chronic condition. Not all depressive disorders are chronic.

Do you know what the Netherlands invests in mental health treatment?
 
I'm still sad she's gone, and still very much believe in doing whatever is possible when trying to prevent people from taking irrevocable actions.

Some suggestions:

1. Increase penalties for sexual assault, and apply them consistently
2. Teach children as young as possible, in an age-appropriate way, what sexual assault is, to never believe anyone who tries to make it sound okay, and that they should always report it if it happens even when it's done by someone they love or like or are normally supposed to listen to and obey. Follow this up yearly with more advanced language as appropriate each year. And when children are old enough for typical sex-education in school, expand focus on sexual assault as a substantial part of the curriculum, rather than tacking a mention on as an afterthought.
3. Stop treating sexual aggression and harassment that stops short of assault as acceptable behavior, or a funny or charming personality quirk, regardless of age, and start treating it like the warning sign that it is.
4. Stop treating sexual trauma as something that should be "just gotten over". Stop shaming people for hangups, sex-aversion, or body-image issues they develop as a result of abuse. Strategize treatment as a long-term thing.
 
There will always be some people committing suicide, whether assisted or not (here, it was not assisted as has been noted except for agreeing not to force-feed her).

But, the story I read was when she went last year to seek assisted suicide, she was denied as she didn't fall within the criteria. Okay, fine, but what other help was she offered or given?! And, if someone is suicidal, even if they don't want to try therapy/counselling/psychoactive drugs, if they're not an adult, should that decision be respected or not?

Note, while I'm generally opposed to assisted suicide (not only for moral reasons, but because I think it too easy for people and the state to think, okay, low-cost solution = suicide) even someone in favour may have problems with the manner and ease of it. What alternatives are offered that are, guess what, more expensive and time-consuming than killing them? Or in another context, some people commit suicide because they're denied effective pain relief because of laws and regulations and desire to prevent people from getting addicted (too late...) = let people suffer because someone not experiencing their pain thinks they're taking too much. If someone wants suicide (assisted or not), despite what I or anyone else may think, I'm a lot more comfortable if they've genuinely been able to avail themselves of other potential treatments, but not if they've been denied them.
 
How would you have prevented her killing herself?

Take her away from her environment. Maybe a Meditteranean cruise, attain a place at a University with a good possibility of making new friends and taking up an interesting course of study.

At seventeen, all she had ever done was live at home.
 
I get the sense that you think that other people should want those things, but not everyone wants children or a spouse. Or in this case, even life itself.

That was just an example. 85% of the population do find their 'other half' (as Plato put it) and 85% have children. It's perfectly OK not to. Some studies show single females are the happiest group of all.
 
I have an opinion like other people in this thread do. When 90% of people who commit a failed suicide recover from their depression to a degree they don't try again, how do you say, well that one could have been one of the 10% so there's no reason to prevent that person's death?

At 17, I'm sorry but I don't believe that person needs support to die, they need support to get past this time in their life.

If that person had a terminal illness there would be different considerations that would go into the decision.


Let's change the circumstances and see what people think. Say a teenager had cancer with a 90% survival rate. If during the worst part of their illness that teen requested euthanasia would you say that was fine, it was their choice?

First there is the issue of the Hippocratic oath. Is it fair to ask doctors to end life instead of trying to heal people?

Secondly, end of life care for illnesses like cancer is much improved. Pain control is at its best these days. Terminal cancer sufferers and their loved ones are grateful for any extra time together.
 
I think for legal euthanasia it is fine to regulate and put safe guards in place to try and make it a decision only taken after an objective assessment of the facts. But in the end whether I live should be a decision for me to take.

You don't think it wrong to involve people from the caring professions?

A friend of mine who was a psychiatric nurse/carer had under her care in an institution for mentally distressed young people a girl who sadly killed herself on her watch.

My friend's agony that she wasn't able to resuscitate this girl has been unbearable: having to see the girl's parents blaming her ('the staff') and the look on the girl's mother's face of pure hatred and anger at the pubic inquiry. Having to be cross-examined by the coroner. She has to live with this irrational guilt for the rest of her life: an extremely caring person who had a young woman top herself whilst under her care, even though she had made many attempts before. All sympathies are with the girl's mother, who has been interviewed extensively on tv, none for her.

So if you took the decision, you would be happy for your carers to feel terrible about it?
 
*Winces* Okay... I don't want to uncover this can of worms but...

I don't think very many suicide attempts fail at all.
I think a lot of attention and/or help seeking under the guise of suicide fail.

On a purely mechanical, nuts and bolts level killing yourself ain't that hard.

Most of the time people who want to die, kill themselves. People who want help try to kill themselves.

How this interfaces with assisted suicide is... not clear.

Loads of suicide attempts fail

It is why women attempt suicide more than men, but mean succeed at it more than women.

It all comes down to the method.

Women just chose more passive methods of trying it.

You could argue a lot of the fails are actually cries out for attention, but that is a different topic
 
I guess for me a lot of this is the disparage between suicide and assisted suicide / euthanasia where the two actions carry such radically different standards.

If this girl (at least within the way the situation was first presented to us) had killed herself in the traditional sense/usage of the term it would have been a tragedy.

But she does it with the help of a doctor and it just... magically becomes different?
 
I guess for me a lot of this is the disparage between suicide and assisted suicide / euthanasia where the two actions carry such radically different standards.

If this girl (at least within the way the situation was first presented to us) had killed herself in the traditional sense/usage of the term it would have been a tragedy.

But she does it with the help of a doctor and it just... magically becomes different?

I am not surprised a teenage girl believes her whole life has been ruined by a traumatic experience like rape.

I expect the medical professional -and particularly a licensed doctor- to know better.

When the one turns his back on the prime directive of his career -to heal his patients- and instead chooses to kill one of them, that is a monumental leap in the wrong direction as far as I'm concerned. I'm somewhat better with "assisted suicides" of those who are terminally ill and absolutely will not get better.

I also feel the same about doctors administering lethal injections for executions.
 
As already noted, the reports of euthanasia were inaccurate. More details of what did happen and how it was misreported here - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ands-girl-not-legally-euthanised-died-at-home

According to multiple sources at British national newspapers, news outlets were alerted to the story by the newswire Central European News, which specialises in supplying unusual and quirky foreign stories to English-language news outlets.

CEN, which has previously been accused of providing unreliable information, did not immediately return a request for comment. Michael Leidig, who runs the agency, has always contested claims that it provides dubious information.

Earlier this year, the company lost the latest stage in a four-year libel case against BuzzFeed News over a 5,000-word article in which Leidig was described as the “king of ******** news”.
 
You don't think it wrong to involve people from the caring professions?

A friend of mine who was a psychiatric nurse/carer had under her care in an institution for mentally distressed young people a girl who sadly killed herself on her watch.

My friend's agony that she wasn't able to resuscitate this girl has been unbearable: having to see the girl's parents blaming her ('the staff') and the look on the girl's mother's face of pure hatred and anger at the pubic inquiry. Having to be cross-examined by the coroner. She has to live with this irrational guilt for the rest of her life: an extremely caring person who had a young woman top herself whilst under her care, even though she had made many attempts before. All sympathies are with the girl's mother, who has been interviewed extensively on tv, none for her.

So if you took the decision, you would be happy for your carers to feel terrible about it?
Re: the highlighted, if it's unbearable then that's where euthanasia can become an option.

Edit: the rest? Not interested in drama and eastender soap opera stuff, how someone feels about something has nothing to do with the reality of that something.
 
Last edited:
I guess for me a lot of this is the disparage between suicide and assisted suicide / euthanasia where the two actions carry such radically different standards.

If this girl (at least within the way the situation was first presented to us) had killed herself in the traditional sense/usage of the term it would have been a tragedy.

But she does it with the help of a doctor and it just... magically becomes different?

Don't see why it changes. It's a tragedy either way.
 
Why does there even need to be a state sanctioned medical procedure?

It seems most of the people getting it done could do it the old fashioned way.
I went out with a right-to-die activist. He lobbied to change laws; I tried to think of foolproof ways to kill yourself with minimal physical effort.

Like a cyanide capsule placed under the skin that would open when anyone said "tomfoolery." But given the current state of voice recognition software that seemed way too risky. You could say, "I don't like patchouli" and bang, lights out.

This guy would not answer me when I asked if he'd ever performed the deed for someone. But he had a big stash of off-the-books Valium and one technique I read about involved simply sedating a patient and then finishing with a plastic bag. These people didn't want to leave messes or traumatize others by jumping in front of a semi truck driver, for example. The right-to-die folks were nice, upbeat, perfectly normal people who just had strong feelings about anyone's enduring terminal misery in a hopeless situation. I might also add that under the U.S. health-care system there is a profit motive to keeping people alive until their assets have been exhausted. I don't think anyone is consciously doing it, necessarily.

Given the provenance of this story, I suggest there are people on the lookout for events in Europe that can be fashioned into troll material by manipulating the source material in order to give a false impression of the narrative. Pushed our buttons, didn't it? Childless Europeans killing white children who look reasonably healthy.
 
Don't see why it changes. It's a tragedy either way.
I think there are differences, but they're not magical.

Discussing your options with your family and friends, having a farewell and then dying in the presence of those old enough to understand what is happening is a lot different from swallowing a lead aspirin while the wife and kids are out. One of those is shattering in a way the other isn't.
 

Back
Top Bottom