Sibersk Esto
Banned
I thought we had pamphlets or something talking about why this kind of statement is shitty and wrong
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Belgian woman, 24, granted right to die by euthanasia over suicidal thoughts
- Thread starter neojubei
- Start date
- Status
I thought we had pamphlets or something talking about why this kind of statement is shitty and wrong
Eighty Deuce
Banned
Killing yourself is a selfish action. I'm not going to sympathize with the idea of killing yourself
Shouldnt you be for this then? Non assisted suicides are sudden and even more messy and traumatic.
excelsiorlef
Member
So I ask again if you think she's not in a state of mind to make decisions, what is your solution? Lock her up?
maquiladora
Member
The doctors who are familiar with her case approved this.
Strangelove77
Member
Those seem like conflicting ideas. If anything, suicidal people are a burden on the non-suicidal.
I thought that was the purpose of the 1.5-years long process. I mean, at some point you do have to concede that there's no treatment, right? Not everything is treatable just because it's mental illnesses instead of physical ones.
Also, yes, of course the "end results" of terminal illnesses tend to be worse, but that doesn't mean the "end result" of a mental illness can't be bad enough already.
ThankYouDaletech
Banned
Someone's life is so terrible that they decide to end it and your just all "Aw jeeze now I gotta think about that and feel slightly bad for a moment, what an asshole." You're part of the reason mental illness may as well be a death sentence for some.
People who want to kill themselves don't really give a fuck about your sympathy, so I think there is no problem there.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
How is it selfish to not want to suffer?
Principate
Saint Titanfall
You completely generalised and equated two different illness completely ignoring the specifics, intricacies and basically any useful facts in the most worthless comparison ever.
You could do the same thing with mental health and food, people die from food poisoning. eating food now a death sentence.
My brain hurts, why would you even make such a comparison just why.
Cizeta-Moroder
Banned
What's bad about that scenario? Safe and affordable suicide is the mark of a true advanced civilization.
How long before this becomes reality?
Should be for terminal patients only. This opens a whole can of worms
Because the thing most people know that euthanasia has been used for it to escape the later stages of ternimal illnesses like many cancer situations. Its the only point of comparison people have so it keeps getting brought up.
Eighty Deuce
Banned
My father tried to kill himself when my parents divorced, he was a coward. On the other hand I work with people who are terminal, they should be allowed to die in peace
Principate
Saint Titanfall
In certain counties if you have suicidal thoughts then yes it does, those "rights" are taken away from you similar to how those rights are taken away from a minor.
The only thing I wanted to make a point on was that there being treatable variants of an illness isn't an argument for or against a singular instance of it being treatable or not.
Without knowing the quality of her care from the doctors and knowing their treatments, I err to the side of pessimism when it comes down to the treatments they provided her. Not a dig at the doctors or anyone in particular, but I find that there are a lot of variables that can come up that i find warrants skepticism.
I think the difference between this and other types of physical diseases warrant doctors the ability to not concede. The brain is complex and there are a ton of stuff being studied by professionals around the world. I would assume the doctors did standard testing for that 1.5 years, but that can leave out a large body of knowledge with which to work with.
Also to your second paragraph, you wrote that it was a semantic issue. Bad enough is not terminal. They're different.
1) Not everyone is your father
2) Your views on mental health related issues are terrible
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Then use that specific point of comparison don't imply all forms of cancer is terminal which is why I was arguing against that silly statement.
If she's been in mental anguish for 15 years and it's not improving, then let her rest.
Imagine having a voice in your head screaming at you for 15 years. Having gone through therapy. And treatment. And counselling. And yet it remains. I don't think it's selfish at all to want end it all in that case.
People coming into this thread with the typical 'slippery slope' comments, as always, kinda skip over the context and background of the story and pretend she's just woke up one morning wanting to die and that it's been approved without professional medical and legal panels no questions asked.
Imagine having a voice in your head screaming at you for 15 years. Having gone through therapy. And treatment. And counselling. And yet it remains. I don't think it's selfish at all to want end it all in that case.
People coming into this thread with the typical 'slippery slope' comments, as always, kinda skip over the context and background of the story and pretend she's just woke up one morning wanting to die and that it's been approved without professional medical and legal panels no questions asked.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
The difference here being the without doing anything cancer will kill you, suicidal tendencies by themselves won't kill you and unless someone allows her to commit suicide which hasn't happened for the past 24, the scientific process goes on and the potential for a cure is still possible.
terrisus
Member
At first glance this strikes me as a bit extreme.
On the other hand, I'm strongly in favor of people being able to choose when/how/under what situations and circumstances they choose to end their life, and I don't really like the idea of limiting or restricting that in any way.
So as long as she went through a proper process and appropriate people assessed that this was her decision, I'm fine with it.
And, frankly, the alternative may well have been her overdosing on sleeping pills or using a gun - both of which are riskier and more problematic for pretty much everyone involved (investigation and such for those left. Risk of failure for her).
On the other hand, I'm strongly in favor of people being able to choose when/how/under what situations and circumstances they choose to end their life, and I don't really like the idea of limiting or restricting that in any way.
So as long as she went through a proper process and appropriate people assessed that this was her decision, I'm fine with it.
And, frankly, the alternative may well have been her overdosing on sleeping pills or using a gun - both of which are riskier and more problematic for pretty much everyone involved (investigation and such for those left. Risk of failure for her).
Spreading stupidity is a selfish action.
Misterinenja
Member
In some cultures it's seen as honorable so your statement is worthless.
Now you're again arguing about things I never made a statement on in the post you first quoted.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Eh look at the laws for many western countries regarding mental illness. Suicidal patients losing the right to consent is not some new callous things, same with dementia patients and a whole host of mental illness. Most of those arguments simply represent a different side to that.
Yes but can't have such a comparison while ignoring that fact.
So she has to live in pain until they either find a cure or she dies of old age? That isn't going to happen, she has come to the point were she can suffer no more. Isn't it better that her family can say good bye and her die in a peaceful way rather then one morning finding her dead?
Eighty Deuce
Banned
If people want to die I'm not going to stop them, you have that right. I'm not going to sympathize with their choice.
Well she certainly tried things before entering the euthanasia programme, especially if she had issues for 15 years. I think at that point you just have to concede, especially if you don't know much about the illness in particular. I mean, if she wants to she can of course act as a guinea pig considering experimental treatments, but I certainly would leave that to her.
That's what I mean with a semantic issue: sure, it's not the same, but at the end there's a human being suffering without any methods known to you to help.
This doesn't make your comment any better, you still are saying terrible things. Plus you are missing the intricacies of mental health, in many cases it isn't their choice. They are sick.
ThankYouDaletech
Banned
Sorry you're emotionally crippled.
Laws are always 100% right aren't they? The fact is for years mental illness has been seen as a taboo, something that shouldn't be talked about or people know very little about. Far more needs to be done to help people with mental health issues.
Lamel
Banned
No...I was going to say keep seeking professional help but...
...if the doctors are suggesting this then there is probably some basis for their suggestion. Seems a little odd to me, but obviously none of us are in the authoritative position to know all the details.
Red Liquorice
Member
What utter garbage.
But that wasn't a comparison, and certainly not of the things you mentioned. It was an analogy, solely on the point I described before. That's how analogies work. Not everything of both instances has to be same for this.
excelsiorlef
Member
Yep.
I believe that we should have the right to choose when and how we die. So I don't have a problem with this.
Obviously it's not ideal. But it's not my decision to make.
Obviously it's not ideal. But it's not my decision to make.
This actually makes me really annoyed. I'm going to leave before I get myself banned.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Why the exemption for cancer sufferers?
Why does physical pain and suffering supersede psychological pain and suffering in your idiotic and ridiculous table of who you feel is and isn't a coward?
I dunno. In those cases, it's because the patients are judged by doctors as unable to clearly make their own decision.
But in her particular situation, she has the backing of medical professionals as well. If you agree to the concession of consent for patients deemed "unable" to make their own decisions, then you must still accept this outcome because the authorities on her case are in alignment with her own desires.
Most of the arguments here are emotional objections to euthanization.
Is being this ignorant to other people's struggle fun?
I don't wish sickness on people but I kind of wish you could experience what depression feels like.
Not only physical suffering causes pain you know.
EDIT since I haven't posted in this before:
I don't condone this. Depression is hard but can be treated. I can see the reasoning behind this - if euthanasia is good for physical pain, it's also applicable to emotional pain. As someone who has struggled with this, though... It just makes me sad on a personal level.
Im not saying she hasn't tried or worked on anything, I'm sure they tried standard tests and methods for depression (whatever those may be), but I don't know if it's wise to assume those standard methods are the best or most practical for treating her.
terrisus
Member
excelsiorlef
Member
Principate
Saint Titanfall
That comes down to the law itself and these laws aren't universal, much like how the age of consent for children is not universal. it would require me to research Belgium's laws regarding this to determine if it's one way or the other.
terrisus
Member
Yeah, some people's views on stuff are disturbing at best, and frightening at worst.
- Status