Sibersk Esto
Banned
If you want to die, go ahead. Its a cowards way out because you shift the burden to those around you.
I thought we had pamphlets or something talking about why this kind of statement is shitty and wrong
If you want to die, go ahead. Its a cowards way out because you shift the burden to those around you.
What a shitty selfish attitude.
If you want to die, go ahead. Its a cowards way out because you shift the burden to those around you.
Edit- unless your in terrible pain from an illness like cancer
But is she even in the right state of mind to make such a choice?
But is she even in the right state of mind to make such a choice?
Those seem like conflicting ideas. If anything, suicidal people are a burden on the non-suicidal.If you want to die, go ahead. Its a cowards way out because you shift the burden to those around you.
Edit- unless your in terrible pain from an illness like cancer
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.Eh, I disagree with just hoping it will get better. I don't think it wise to assume the doctors she visited has tried every possible avenue to get her to a better place. Also, I wouldn't call it semantics, there is a world of a difference of what a terminal disease can do to you versus mental states. If that's a semantic issue, than everything might as well be.
Killing yourself is a selfish action. I'm not going to sympathize with the idea of killing yourself
People who want to kill themselves don't really give a fuck about your sympathy, so I think there is no problem there.Killing yourself is a selfish action. I'm not going to sympathize with the idea of killing yourself
Killing yourself is a selfish action. I'm not going to sympathize with the idea of killing yourself
Now I don't even know anymore what my point was in your opinion.
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
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.
Those seem like conflicting ideas. If anything, suicidal people are a burden on the non-suicidal.
Depression doesn't mean someone is of an unsound mind.
If I was in constant emotional pain, with no sign of possible resolution, i'd be surprised if I didn't consider suicide.
Certainly, we don't ask terminally physically ill patients to get over it, or tell them they should hold out in the hope that there's a cure.
I don't see why we'd set a different standard for those with a mental issue.
Unless you're just arguing against euthanasia in general, in which case, I won't even bother engaging further (it's another discussion, for another thread).
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.You completely generalised and equated two different illness completely ignoring the specifics, intricacies and basically any useful facts in the most worthless comparison ever.
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.
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
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.
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.
Killing yourself is a selfish action. I'm not going to sympathize with the idea of killing yourself
Killing yourself is a selfish action.
Now you're again arguing about things I never made a statement on in the post you first quoted.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.
This thread still shows mental health issues aren't taken seriously enough by many.
Now you're again arguing about things I never made a statement on in the post you first quoted.
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.
1) Not everyone is your father
2) Your views on mental health related issues are terrible
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.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.
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.Also to your second paragraph, you wrote that it was a semantic issue. Bad enough is not terminal. They're different.
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.
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.
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.
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?
The doctors who are familiar with her case approved this.
What utter garbage.If you want to die, go ahead. Its a cowards way out because you shift the burden to those around you.
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.Yes but can't have such a comparison while ignoring that fact.
This thread still shows mental health issues aren't taken seriously enough by many.
This actually makes me really annoyed. I'm going to leave before I get myself banned.If you want to die, go ahead. Its a cowards way out because you shift the burden to those around you.
Edit- unless your in terrible pain from an illness like cancer
If you want to die, go ahead. Its a cowards way out because you shift the burden to those around you.
Edit- unless your in terrible pain from an illness like cancer
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.
Core conditions
Five core conditions are required. These conditions concur with the requirements set by Belgian law. First, the request for assisted suicide should have arisen independently of any external pressure. Patients who primarily have a mental disorder are at substantial risk of judging themselves to be a burden on their carers. The psychiatrist has to make sure that there is no external pressure towards the ending of life, either perceived subjectively or actual.
As a second condition, the request needs to be well considered. This means that the patient should be competent. However, the assessment of competence in a patient with a mental disorder is not straightforward, since the presence of mental disorder does not necessarily imply incompetence (Burgess & Hawton, 1998; Nederlandse Vereniging voor Psychiatrie, 1998; Kerkhof, 2000). Some examples are patients with recurrent depressive or psychotic episodes who are in symptom-free periods of recovery; patients suffering from isolated psychotic symptoms such as hallucinations, who have preserved enough awareness of the illness; and certain cases of chronic depression which are not characterised by low mood and nihilism but rather by psychomotor disabilities and sleep difficulties (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Psychiatrie, 1998). Moreover, incompetence of the patient does not necessarily have to result in a refusal of the request for assisted death. However, this sliding standard of competence poses the risk of further paternalistic, non-voluntary euthanasia, as personal values of the psychiatrist might contribute to the judgement.
Third, the longing for death should be persistent. This is specified as the repeated and unequivocal expression of the request, to the physician as well as to a third party, over a period of at least several months. However, the request does not need to be in writing, because this might lead to patients forming an emotional attachment to their suicidal intent (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Psychiatrie, 1998).
Fourth, the suffering must be perceived by the patient as unbearable. To evaluate this, the establishment of a profound and sustained therapeutic relationship between doctor and patient is essential (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Psychiatrie, 1998).
Finally, suffering has to be beyond human aid. This signifies that there is no realistic therapeutic option left; that is, there is no remaining treatment option that gives a prospect of improvement within a reasonable period of time and that imposes no unreasonable burden on the patient. Essentially, this implies that all applicable biological, psychotherapeutic and social interventions should have taken place, according to medical understanding and to the personal values, standards and life aims of the patient (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Psychiatrie, 1998; Schoevers et al, 1998).
If you want to die, go ahead. Its a cowards way out because you shift the burden to those around you.
Edit- unless your in terrible pain from an illness like cancer
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.
The doctors who are familiar with her case approved this.
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.
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.
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.
This actually makes me really annoyed. I'm going to leave before I get myself banned.