Its not euthanasia, its suicide.

[Yerda]

No, it's my issue with people comparing it to terminal illness, which is not what the OP is about.

That's fair enough.

 

[McBell]

Since your so admitted on professional opinions

I tend to take the opinion of those who have actually talked to her, examed her, looked over her medical records, etc. over the opinion of someone who is basing their opinion on a half page news report...

As far as I'm concerned, this is a massively tragic failure just not of herself , but a failure of professional medicine as well , which some professionals ought to know better involving non terminally ill people.

Apparently the Dutch do not adhere to your stringent requirements for euthanasia...

 

[Twilight Hue]

I tend to take the opinion of those who have actually talked to her, examed her, looked over her medical records, etc. over the opinion of someone who is basing their opinion on a half page news report...


Apparently the Dutch do not adhere to your stringent requirements for euthanasia...

It's not euthanasia. It's suicide.

 

[McBell]

It's not euthanasia. It's suicide.

It is euthanasia.

You do know that euthanasia is government sanctioned suicide, right?

I would have thought you would know that.
Huh

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is my personal view, if someone is certified by a government sanctioned medical authority as having a terminal illness with less than 12 months to live and in serious physical pain, then it is euthanasia for a government authorized doctor to send them on their way earlier.
However if the person is not in physical pain and does not have a terminal illness, and some Government department authorizes them to be sent on their way, then it would be government sanctioned suicide.

 

[libre]

I think one of its main issues is that by nature it only targets mentally ill people and people with physical disabilities. It seems borderline eugenicist to me to suggest that if these people can't find help or can't seem to fit into society one way or the other, they are free to do away with themselves. It will see a whole lot of these people killing themselves. In that way it seems worse than forced sterilisation or asylum imprisonment, because they are apparently making the decision themselves after being told there's nothing more to be done.

My perspective is that as the vast majority of people who assess MAID in my country do not go through with it, it indicates that the laws do encourage suicidal people to go through the medical system instead of committing suicide illegally, which as a result of the process saves lives.
I think it 'targets' mentally ill people and people with terminal conditions because those are the demographics pushing for the treatment that we can create criteria to dissuade them from suicide or improve their lives.

From this, I see it as a form of harm reduction and not a rooted in eugenic logic, I have met a suicidal person in Canada who actually applied to MAID instead of suicide which arguably saved her life, as the process was agonizingly long for her and eventually regret crept in.

I have been trying to dig up a Guardian article I saw in the weekly paper a month or so back but it's eluding me at the moment, will circle back when I find it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It is euthanasia.

You do know that euthanasia is government sanctioned suicide, right?

I would have thought you would know that.
Huh

It is not euthanasia. The condition is not terminal. It's clear cut suicide.

I thought you would know the difference. Huh.

 

[Yerda]

It is not euthanasia. The condition is not terminal. It's clear cut suicide.

I thought you would know the difference. Huh.

Does it have to be terminal?

Would living a life of unbearable suffering not be enough?

 

[McBell]

The condition is not terminal.

Source please.
And I mean your source that she does not have a terminal condition.
Hopefully you have something other than the half page article in the OP.


Your bold empty claims aside, what makes you think it has to be terminal to be euthanasia?
Seeing as there are many a different definition of euthanasia used by the various governments around the world.

 

[McBell]

Does it have to be terminal?

Legally, it depends on where you are as to the requirement of "terminal".
Not all countries have terminal as a requirement.

Would living a life of unbearable suffering not be enough?

Legally, Yes.
At least in some countries.

Below is some more information about it.

Euthanasia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And for the ones who dislike wikipedia:

Euthanasia - MU School of Medicine

Learn more about the ethical implications of euthanasia.

medicine.missouri.edu

 

[Twilight Hue]

Source please.
And I mean your source that she does not have a terminal condition.
Hopefully you have something other than the half page article in the OP.


Your bold empty claims aside, what makes you think it has to be terminal to be euthanasia?
Seeing as there are many a different definition of euthanasia used by the various governments around the world.

There is no source. Ever hear of a depressed person who is in good physical health in a hospice? I haven't.

I call it or what it is. Suicide.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

From the Mayo Clinic:

If you've been treated for depression but your symptoms haven't improved, you may have treatment-resistant depression. Taking an antidepressant or going to psychological counseling (psychotherapy) eases depression symptoms for most people. But with treatment-resistant depression, standard treatments aren't enough. They may not help much at all, or your symptoms may improve, only to keep coming back. [source]​

The fact that you and so many other people are so cold and jaded and apparently so willing to give up all hope on a person and not only permit this, but encourage it, is probably one of the main reasons that people want to end their lives in the first place.

 

[McBell]

There is no source.

So no reason to take you seriously.

Ever hear of a depressed person who is in good physical health in a hospice? I haven't.

Where do i sign up to get updates on everyone world wide on hospice?

I call it or what it is. Suicide.

Yes.
You have made your mantra clear to everyone.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So no reason to take you seriously.


Where do i sign up to get updates on everyone world wide on hospice?


Yes.
You have made your mantra clear to everyone.

I already provided a peer reviewed journal on the subject.

Not my problem involving your denials.

 

[McBell]

The fact that you and so many other people are so cold and jaded and apparently so willing to give up all hope on a person and not only permit this, but encourage it, is probably one of the main reasons that people want to end their lives in the first place.

The fact that you and so many other people are so cold and jaded and apparently so willing to force others to suffer till death is probably one of the main reasons that people want to end their lives in the first place.

I see why this game is so popular

 

[McBell]

There is no source. Ever hear of a depressed person who is in good physical health in a hospice? I haven't.

I call it or what it is. Suicide.

Your bold empty claims aside, what makes you think it has to be terminal to be euthanasia?
Seeing as there are many a different definition of euthanasia used by the various governments around the world.

Perhaps this time around you will address this part you blatantly ignored the first time around?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

The fact that you and so many other people are so cold and jaded and apparently so willing to force others to suffer till death is probably one of the main reasons that people want to end their lives in the first place.

I see why this game is so popular

No, I don't advocate for "forcing" anyone to suffer until death. If someone truly reaches a point of hopelessness that they decide to end it all, I believe it's their right to die by their own hand. The fact that this is being planned and allowed and PERFORMED by a "doctor" indicates a deeper problem with society, in that the society is actively encouraging someone to give up hope. Do you really believe this person has exhausted every possible treatment option? Every medication (psychedelics, etc.), every cognitive-behavioral therapy technique, EVERTYHING imaginable? No, of course not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The fact that you and so many other people are so cold and jaded and apparently so willing to give up all hope on a person and not only permit this, but encourage it, is probably one of the main reasons that people want to end their lives in the first place. [emphasis added - JS]

ad hominem reported

 

[McBell]

If someone truly reaches a point of hopelessness that they decide to end it all, I believe it's their right to die by their own hand.

Who gets to decide when that point has been reached?
In the case of the OP it appears that she AND at least two doctors AND the Dutch euthanasia council agree that she gets to decide.

The fact that this is being planned and allowed and PERFORMED by a "doctor" indicates a deeper problem with society, in that the society is actively encouraging someone to give up hope.

Source please.
And I hope you have more information on her specific case than the half page news article in the OP.

Do you really believe this person has exhausted every possible treatment option?

I do not know.
In fact, the only thing I, and every one else in this thread, know about this case is what was in the half page news article.
But apparently that is more than enough for all these internet doctor/lawyers to make all manner of bold empty claims.

Every medication (psychedelics, etc.), every cognitive-behavioral therapy technique, EVERTYHING imaginable? No, of course not.

Well, since death would definitely cure her, and that is the route she has decided upon.
AND that route has met all the legal requirements...

But then it really goes back to my very first question:

Who gets to decide when that point has been reached?​

Seems there are several people in this thread who think she gets no say in the matter.
At least, until she jumps through all their hoops.
Or is there ever a point where she gets to make decisions about her own life?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Who gets to decide when that point has been reached?
In the case of the OP it appears that she AND at least two doctors AND the Dutch euthanasia council agree that she gets to decide.



Seems there are several people in this thread who think she gets no say in the matter.
At least, until she jumps through all their hoops.
Or is there ever a point where she gets to make decisions about her own life?

I already said very clearly, she gets to decide this and make this decision. My position is very simple. If someone is actively talking about suicide in any way, I don't view it as a decision, I view it as a cry for help and believe society should do whatever it takes to prevent it from occurring.

If someone has become truly hopeless and truly made up their mind to end it all, that is their right, and in that case no one will know about it until it is too late.