Merged Euthanasia

[Butter!]

I'm sorry you had to go through that.

Thank you .

It's just hard for me to accept "complete personal autonomy" pro-suicide arguments when I know my friend was ill and troubled and sometimes delusional. He'd made up his mind, yes, but his mind had been off meds for a few months. He wasn't himself. I could tell he wasn't himself when I spent time with him, I just didn't realize how bad it was this time. I knew he had "good days and bad days" and all that.

When he wasn't ill, he was a joyful, loving person who adored life and was kind to everyone, way beyond what he needed to do. He used to round up homeless kids in the south side and take them home for big vegan dinners he'd cooked. It sounds like I'm making **** up to make him sound like a saint, but I'm not. He really was kind of a saint.

 

[bluesjnr]

The tying part struck me as odd as well. I figured that was what you meant.

Just seeing all this pro-suicide stuff in this thread dug up those dreadful memories, and my tale came pouring out. I sent emails to my friend's account for years after he was dead, just telling him I was sorry and saying what was going on in my life. Not very much like my usual skeptical self. Grief makes you wacky. Guilt too.

I don't expect it will change anyone's mind, but it's a perspective.

And thank you for sharing.

 

[DragonLady]

The tying part struck me as odd as well. I figured that was what you meant.

Just seeing all this pro-suicide stuff in this thread dug up those dreadful memories, and my tale came pouring out. I sent emails to my friend's account for years after he was dead, just telling him I was sorry and saying what was going on in my life. Not very much like my usual skeptical self. Grief makes you wacky. Guilt too.

I don't expect it will change anyone's mind, but it's a perspective.

It has brought up bad memories for me, too.


I just can't imagine anyone sitting by their child's bed, watching them slip away of starvation or thirst without taking every measure available in the galaxy to try to prevent it.

 

[Hungry81]

and... my friend killed himself. tied himself to a tree and poured petrol on him and then lit it up. so please continue your pos-vibe people talking about future husbands/wives. can you the ef imagine for a second and for a tenth of it, how he felt?

Well that was dumb of him. People do stupid things all the time. Doesn't mean we have to support those stupid things.

 

[Butter!]

It has brought up bad memories for me, too.


I just can't imagine anyone sitting by their child's bed, watching them slip away of starvation or thirst without taking every measure available in the galaxy to try to prevent it.

I can't either. I'm trying not to judge and condemn people I don't know in faraway situations, but it's hard to imagine it going in a way that isn't horrible!

 

[JoeMorgue]

A tragedy, but at least it's her life to take.

And I don't disagree in the abstract, or even in the practical really.

All I've ever been saying is that it's kind of off that in order to be comfortable with assisted suicide/euthanasia and still treat traditional suicide as tragic we've just had to create two different "types" of suicide that don't really have any defining characteristic beyond how much of a warm and fuzzy we feel about it after the fact and that is something we should be able to talk about.

I'm not saying we should deal with suicide as a problem and I'm not saying people don't have the right to end their own life (but even those look at how weird that statement is one the surface) I'm just saying the idea the Person A is a hospital bed saying they want to die and Person B just sitting at home saying they want to die are that much of a different scenario is something I'm not 100% sure if I agree with.

 

[cosmicaug]

We had a patient in the first hospital I worked at that blew his face off because he aimed the gun under his chin and angled it wrong. I've seen two other persons in the news who survived similar suicide attempts, one who was glad she survived even though she went from very beautiful to quite disfigured.

At least a couple of face transplant recipients got to that point stemming from suicide attempts with a firearm: Cameron Underwood & Katie Stubblefield.

 

[DragonLady]

And I don't disagree in the abstract, or even in the practical really.

All I've ever been saying is that it's kind of off that in order to be comfortable with assisted suicide/euthanasia and still treat traditional suicide as tragic we've just had to create two different "types" of suicide that don't really have any defining characteristic beyond how much of a warm and fuzzy we feel about it after the fact and that is something we should be able to talk about.

I'm not saying we should deal with suicide as a problem and I'm not saying people don't have the right to end their own life (but even those look at how weird that statement is one the surface) I'm just saying the idea the Person A is a hospital bed saying they want to die and Person B just sitting at home saying they want to die are that much of a different scenario is something I'm not 100% sure if I agree with.

I agree with you.

We tend to use the two statements to mean different things -or at least treat them as if they mean different things- because many of us do empathize with those who wish to die because of physical pain; and want to prevent the deaths of those who believe they wish to die, but in fact just want to stop hurting emotionally.

It all comes down to "why" and whether we perceive that reason as valid in the long-term.

Suicide is a permanent "solution" for what is often temporary problems, and I don't think very many of us want to see young people take that course when age & experience have informed us that eventually time heals nearly every emotional wound.

 

[Butter!]

And I don't disagree in the abstract, or even in the practical really.

All I've ever been saying is that it's kind of off that in order to be comfortable with assisted suicide/euthanasia and still treat traditional suicide as tragic we've just had to create two different "types" of suicide that don't really have any defining characteristic beyond how much of a warm and fuzzy we feel about it after the fact and that is something we should be able to talk about.

I'm not saying we should deal with suicide as a problem and I'm not saying people don't have the right to end their own life (but even those look at how weird that statement is one the surface) I'm just saying the idea the Person A is a hospital bed saying they want to die and Person B just sitting at home saying they want to die are that much of a different scenario is something I'm not 100% sure if I agree with.

I think it's a pretty clear distinction if you draw the line at "assisting suicide is okay when the person has an agonizing and/or terminal illness." That's clearly two different kinds of suicide without any need for fuzzies. If the person is already terminal and they want to hasten the process with dignity, that is one thing. It's closer to people who voluntarily stop chemotherapy than people who throw themselves off bridges.

In any other situation, nobody has any business "assisting" anybody in suicide.

My opinion, of course. Worth every penny!

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think it's a pretty clear distinction if you draw the line at "assisting suicide is okay when the person has an agonizing and/or terminal illness." That's clearly two different kinds of suicide without any need for fuzzies. If the person is already terminal and they want to hasten the process with dignity, that is one thing. It's closer to people who voluntarily stop chemotherapy than people who throw themselves off bridges.

In any other situation, nobody has any business "assisting" anybody in suicide.

My opinion, of course. Worth every penny!

But in the case here, how long do you put her in restraints in bed and force feed her for?

 

[Butter!]

But in the case here, how long do you put her in restraints in bed and force feed her for?

In the States, suicidal people are often committed for at least 72 hours to attempt psychological intervention once they get to such a point. I don't always like this practice - I do believe that the system gets clogged with (for example) drunk people making idle statements who have to be committed because it's policy. That just wastes everyone's time, and it makes people afraid to talk to police or doctors if even the slightest thing is wrong with them. Many people hold back information from their psychiatrists, in fact, because they are afraid dark thoughts will be interpreted as suicidal and they'll be tossed in the hospital for 3 days or more. I don't know about you, but I can't just disappear from my life for 3 days. That would make things worse; I've got **** to do.

So yeah, I don't always like the way we do things here, and I don't know what the right answer is. It could have possibly helped in this situation, though if they had a similar policy there. You don't know.

I find it a little weird that some people are bringing up this "force-feeding her" like it's waterboarding. A few years ago, I pointed out how disturbing it is to me when people (in fiction and in life) who "save" drug addicts they care about by confining them or tying them up until they detox are treated as heroes. But when it's a 17-year-old rape victim, trying to save her is monstrous and cruel? I just don't get it.

On a personal note, pt, I sometimes feel as though no matter what I say, you will find a way to condemn it.

 

[Butter!]

Also, even if I didn't have the stomach to "force-feed" a suicidal family member or convince them to take an IV, I'd still verbally fight them on their decision up until the end. There is no way I could just say, 'Welp, s/he's made his/her decision, so that's that."

However, the fact that this wasn't actually a state-sanctioned euthanasia makes the story less insane to me. I do understand that not everyone on Earth has the same feelings or experiences I do, and this girl's family knew her a hell of a lot better than me. Nevertheless, I am permitted a reaction of incredulity, and there it is.

 

[ponderingturtle]

In the States, suicidal people are often committed for at least 72 hours to attempt psychological intervention once they get to such a point. I don't always like this practice - I do believe that the system gets clogged with (for example) drunk people making idle statements who have to be committed because it's policy. That just wastes everyone's time, and it makes people afraid to talk to police or doctors if even the slightest thing is wrong with them. Many people hold back information from their psychiatrists, in fact, because they are afraid dark thoughts will be interpreted as suicidal and they'll be tossed in the hospital for 3 days or more. I don't know about you, but I can't just disappear from my life for 3 days. That would make things worse; I've got **** to do.

So yeah, I don't always like the way we do things here, and I don't know what the right answer is. It could have possibly helped in this situation, though if they had a similar policy there. You don't know.

I find it a little weird that some people are bringing up this "force-feeding her" like it's waterboarding. A few years ago, I pointed out how disturbing it is to me when people (in fiction and in life) who "save" drug addicts they care about by confining them or tying them up until they detox are treated as heroes. But when it's a 17-year-old rape victim, trying to save her is monstrous and cruel? I just don't get it.

On a personal note, pt, I sometimes feel as though no matter what I say, you will find a way to condemn it.

I'm not trying to condem anything, I don't know what to do either. I think suicidal people should be stopped, because most suicidal actions are spur of the moment things which is why guns are dangerous to be around people with any suicidal thoughts.

But this isn't a short fast action that won't make sense in 24 hours but a prolonged issue. It makes it all so much more complicated.

 

[Butter!]

I'm not trying to condem anything, I don't know what to do either. I think suicidal people should be stopped, because most suicidal actions are spur of the moment things which is why guns are dangerous to be around people with any suicidal thoughts.

But this isn't a short fast action that won't make sense in 24 hours but a prolonged issue. It makes it all so much more complicated.

I agree, it is a mess.

I've struggled for years with my conflicting feelings about personal autonomy vs. saving suicidal people who may not be thinking clearly. I do think that at a certain point a person's life is their own, but outside of (what I feel are ) more clear-cut cases involving terminal illness, it's very difficult to say where exactly that point is.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Also, even if I didn't have the stomach to "force-feed" a suicidal family member or convince them to take an IV, I'd still verbally fight them on their decision up until the end. There is no way I could just say, 'Welp, s/he's made his/her decision, so that's that."

An IV would likely not give the nutrition needed, you would use an NG tube up the nose, this would of course require her hands to be restrained to avoid pulling it out.

 

[Butter!]

An IV would likely not give the nutrition needed, you would use an NG tube up the nose, this would of course require her hands to be restrained to avoid pulling it out.

Yeah, I mean, I would not want to have to make that call. That is extremely heavy stuff.

I think it would be traumatic to have anyone do that to you, but it would probably be less traumatic if it were done in a hospital versus your family trying to force food down your throat. I don't actually expect anyone to do that. I just wish (perhaps naively) that there could have been further professional intervention in this case. (Ideally, convincing her to eat - offering her some kind of hope. Again, I know - naive.)

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah, I mean, I would not want to have to make that call. That is extremely heavy stuff.

I think it would be traumatic to have anyone do that to you, but it would probably be less traumatic if it were done in a hospital versus your family trying to force food down your throat. I don't actually expect anyone to do that. I just wish (perhaps naively) that there could have been further professional intervention in this case.

Of course your family couldn't force food down your throat, you need special equipment to safely force feed people. Look up how they do it at Gitmo. Otherwise they are likely to choke on it and get the food in their lungs.

I wish lots of things were different, I just don't know what should be done in this situation. If she was in american custody sure we are good a force feeding those in detention be it Gitmo or ICE.

 

[cosmicaug]

In the States, suicidal people are often committed for at least 72 hours to attempt psychological intervention once they get to such a point. I don't always like this practice - I do believe that the system gets clogged with (for example) drunk people making idle statements who have to be committed because it's policy. That just wastes everyone's time, and it makes people afraid to talk to police or doctors if even the slightest thing is wrong with them. Many people hold back information from their psychiatrists, in fact, because they are afraid dark thoughts will be interpreted as suicidal and they'll be tossed in the hospital for 3 days or more. I don't know about you, but I can't just disappear from my life for 3 days. That would make things worse; I've got **** to do.

So yeah, I don't always like the way we do things here, and I don't know what the right answer is. It could have possibly helped in this situation, though if they had a similar policy there. You don't know.

As far as I can tell from the translated article that Eddie Dane linked to in a Reddit thread, she had already gone through this sort of thing several times (it even refers to the use of an induced comma in the force feeding effort —presumably as a way of dealing with someone struggling even when physically restrained?).

[...]

Under the Medical Treatment Contracts Act, a patient has the right to receive clear information from the physician about his medical condition, the prognosis and treatment options. Based on the information provided, the patient can either choose to grant or not grant care providers consent to provide treatment, nursing or care. A patient always has the right to decide against treatment, nursing and care, or against specific aspects thereof. Should the patient not grant consent, the care providers may not provide treatment, nursing or care.

Obviously, there's a way to get around that in case of mental illness: by getting a court order for involuntary treatment.

In fact, this girl had already undergone involuntary treatment on several occasions after several failed suicide attempts:

[...]

Noa has been admitted very often in recent years, to hospitals, institutions and specialist centers. Horrified, she recalls involuntary admissions to youth care institutions. She could only wear a tear-proof dress - an emergency measure to keep her from committing suicide. Being institutionalized had a traumatizing effect on her. "Never, never will I go into isolation again. It's degrading."

Coercive measures are humiliating, says Noa. She will never forget how she was taken to the Arnhem court, where judges decided on involuntary admission to a treatment center. The sight of the "people in gowns" stayed with her. "I almost feel like a criminal, even though I haven't so much as stolen a piece of candy in my life," she writes in her autobiography.

And last year:

[...]

Not too long ago she was admitted in critical condition to a hospital in Arnhem, severely underweight and at risk of having vital organs cease functioning. She was even put into an induced coma so she could be fed through a feeding tube.

Link

 

[Butter!]

Of course your family couldn't force food down your throat, you need special equipment to safely force feed people. Look up how they do it at Gitmo. Otherwise they are likely to choke on it and get the food in their lungs.

I wish lots of things were different, I just don't know what should be done in this situation. If she was in american custody sure we are good a force feeding those in detention be it Gitmo or ICE.

I know it's not something that could really be done at home. I was just sort of clarifying my statements. Earlier, I had an emotional outburst about "how could the parents just sit by and watch that, I can't imagine." In my last post, I was clarifying that I understand there isn't realistically much they can do if "the system" doesn't call for intervention.

Your parallels to Gitmo and ICE detentions, while not false, seem to be muddying my meaning a bit. People are frequently fed compulsorily in medical care as well, which was what I was musing about. What's more barbaric - forcing life or allowing death? This is a question for the philosophers.

 

[Darat]

It has brought up bad memories for me, too.





I just can't imagine anyone sitting by their child's bed, watching them slip away of starvation or thirst without taking every measure available in the galaxy to try to prevent it.

Perhaps think of it from another perspective: your child is suffering intolerable torment every single moment, all treatments have been tried and were unsuccessful, why wouldn't you want your child's suffering to end?