Its not euthanasia, its suicide.

[The Hammer]

She's not dying.

That's so what.

Ok? That's reason enough to live?

 

[McBell]

She's not the first person they've cleared for euthanasia physically healthy and in her twenties, either.

Source?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I've never heard of any incurable mental illness aside from mental retardation or some other issue involving a person's brain where their behavior is severely compromised.

Please do study it more. It won't even take an hour to learn a bit. The woman also had borderline personality disorder. That's incurable. As is schizophrenia, autism, OCD, ADHD, bipolar disorder (this group is a very high risk for suicide, especially Bipolar 1), often times depression and anxiety don't get cured (research is beginning to suggest there may be a genetic component to chronic depression) and there's tons more.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Source?

I read of some transindividual doing it several years ago.
It seems they're more accepting of the reality of how painful emotional pain is. Physical pain is often easier to handle and bear. Why must we tell someone they must be physically dying or in great suffering before their suffering becomes too much to bear? Sometimes it's the heart and brain hurt too much to function and there is no end to except for death.

 

[Debater Slayer]

We are discussing the OP; she has 3 conditions that many people live with. They can be managed effectively if one is willing to try. She can take steps to mitigate that suffering instead of her seeming to wallow in it. She's not exactly suffering shell shock and facing the trauma of watching all her friends die horribly; she's fine.

I sometimes wonder than 21st century people have a much lower tolerance for suffering.

As I've said before: this doesn't matter.

She is living her life. She is progressing. She is fine.

For **** sake, almost everyone in history had it harder than her, poor thing.

As I have said in previous posts, I find this situation to be highly troubling and warranting of many questions about the decisions of the involved authorities and professionals. At the same time, I think the approach of telling someone who has severe depression that they are actually fine or that others have (or have had) it worse is often one of the most harmful and least helpful things a person could say to a severely depressed person. There is a reason mental health professionals have extensively dissected those two statements in particular in many mental-health awareness campaigns.

She is not fine, as evidenced by her suffering and the fact that she has considered suicide in the first place. However, that she is not fine doesn't mean that it is acceptable or appropriate to tell her that she will never get better, in my opinion, especially while knowing that she is considering suicide.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Do people realize that they can say no to a med that a doctor is offering?

I do all the time.

Or even just take it for a few weeks and stop if it's not working or has side effects one does not like.

My point still stands. Doctors over-prescribing medications is a known and acknowledged crisis. Why would euthanasia become any different?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

As I have said in previous posts, I find this situation to be highly troubling and warranting of many questions about the decisions of the involved authorities and professionals. At the same time, I think the approach of telling someone who has severe depression that they are actually fine or that others have (or have had) it worse is often one of the most harmful and least helpful things a person could say to a severely depressed person. There is a reason mental health professionals have extensively dissected those two statements in particular in many mental-health awareness campaigns.

She is not fine, as evidenced by her suffering and the fact that she has considered suicide in the first place. However, that she is not fine doesn't mean that it is acceptable or appropriate to tell her that she will never get better, in my opinion, especially while knowing that she is considering suicide.

I agree that this isn't something you tell somebody who's suffering "Others have it worse", or "You're fine". But aside from telling the sufferer that, would you agree that mental pain tolerance may have become less over time?

And do you think that not restricting the requirements of euthanasia to people who are incapable of leading a functional lifestyle (e.g. dementia, cancer, paralysis, things of that nature) could lead to the requirements becoming less and less? If it boils down to mental suffering in every day life, it becomes impossible to draw a line. More people will be prone to a new kind of hope: an easy death over a laborious overcoming.

 

[Rival]

As I have said in previous posts, I find this situation to be highly troubling and warranting of many questions about the decisions of the involved authorities and professionals. At the same time, I think the approach of telling someone who has severe depression that they are actually fine or that others have (or have had) it worse is often one of the most harmful and least helpful things a person could say to a severely depressed person. There is a reason mental health professionals have extensively dissected those two statements in particular in many mental-health awareness campaigns.

She is not fine, as evidenced by her suffering and the fact that she has considered suicide in the first place. However, that she is not fine doesn't mean that it is acceptable or appropriate to tell her that she will never get better, in my opinion, especially while knowing that she is considering suicide.

In saying she's fine, I referenced her home situation, which is perfectly reasonable to be in, as I think most would agree.

My take on human nature and the idea of the 'self' (i.e., there isn't one) play into this. She's identifying with her inner instead of her outer world and individuating everything to her niche, inner world. This is the worst thing for mentally ill people to do and our society makes this worse by encouraging individualism to such a high degree. For example, if she felt stronger loyalty to those around her as in a communal state, her suicidal ideation would drop, as we see far fewer suicides in such communities, where the idea of the 'self' is transposed into the society at large. That's why I point to her 'fine' situation, from which she cannot be wholly distinct, and that she should have more loyalty to her boyfriend, her parents, her country etc. than she seems to have.

IOW her life seems to be all about her, a position against which I take strong umbrage.

I know this post will get hate and more individualistic 'her choice' nonsense, but I don't believe we have much in the way of choice over much.

 

[The Hammer]

My point still stands. Doctors over-prescribing medications is a known and acknowledged crisis. Why would euthanasia become any different?

Why would it be the same? I understand your concern, but I don't share them.

 

[The Hammer]

My point still stands. Doctors over-prescribing medications is a known and acknowledged crisis. Why would euthanasia become any different?

And again, people can say no. If they are accepting the drugs, it's on the patient as much as the prescriber.

 

[Secret Chief]

she should have more loyalty to her boyfriend, her parents, her country etc. than she seems to have.

With that level of insight you should work for the Samaritans.

 

[The Hammer]

she should have more loyalty to her boyfriend, her parents, her country etc. than she seems to have.

Those are terrible reasons to live. You shouldn't have to live for anyone or thing. Especially something as abstract as "country"

Loyal to her boyfriend? And family? While I understand loyalty is as worthy thing to have. It's nothing to live for.

 

[Rival]

Those are terrible reasons to live. You shouldn't have to live for anyone or thing. Especially something as abstract as "country"

Loyal to her boyfriend? And family? While I understand loyalty is as worthy thing to have. It's nothing to live for.

I believe it is the thing most worth living for. Ego death and serving others.

 

[The Hammer]

I believe it is the thing most worth living for. Ego death and serving others.

For you .

You're not everyone. Serving others is fine. But that doesn't require anything as abstract as loyalty.

 

[Debater Slayer]

In saying she's fine, I referenced her situation, which is perfectly reasonable to be in, as I think most would agree.

My take on human nature and the idea of the 'self' (i.e., there isn't one) play into this. She's identifying with her inner instead of her outer world and individuating everything to her niche, inner world. This is the worst thing for mentally ill people to do and our society makes this worse by encouraging individualism to such a high degree. For example, if she felt stronger loyalty to those around her as in a communal state, her suicidal ideation would drop, as we see far fewer suicides in such communities, where the idea of the 'self' is transposed into the society at large. That's why I point to her 'fine' situation, from which she cannot be wholly distinct, and that she should have more loyalty to her boyfriend, her parents, her country etc. than she seems to have.

IOW her life seems to be all about her, a position against which I take strong umbrage.

I know this post will get hate and more individualistic 'her choice' nonsense, but I don't believe we have much in the way of choice over much.

I don't think we can verify whether any of the above conclusions apply to her or how she sees the world and herself without deep, long-term familiarity with her and her situation, which neither of us has. We don't know what would drop her suicidal ideation, nor do I believe either of us is in a position to make assumptions about what would do so given our lack of familiarity with her and our lack of relevant professional qualifications.

There are many things we don't understand well about the human brain, and there are so many variations between one individual and another that the number of variables that could influence someone's mental issues—from biological differences and life circumstances to personal experiences and social situations—border on the uncountable. Some therapeutic approaches work well for many people but don't help others who are seemingly in similar situations, and vice versa. I don't see a one-size-fits-all solution to such problems, much less one whereby we could confidently assume how a mentally ill person saw themselves or the world without personally knowing them.

That she has considered suicide seems to me to be symptomatic of severe pain, first and foremost. Whether it is due to a lack of loyalty to her boyfriend, family, country, or anyone or anything else is not something I feel comfortable or qualified to speculate about.

 

[Rival]

For you .

You're not everyone. Serving others is fine. But that doesn't require anything as abstract as loyalty.

No, not for me.

I'm a communalist, it's for everyone.

You're individualising, as I said people would.

 

[Rival]

I don't think we can verify whether any of the above conclusions apply to her or how she sees the world and herself without deep, long-term familiarity with her and her situation, which neither of us has. We don't know what would drop her suicidal ideation, nor do I believe either of us is in a position to make assumptions about what would do so given our lack of familiarity with her and our lack of relevant professional qualifications.

There are many things we don't understand well about the human brain, and there are so many variations between one individual and another that the number of variables that could influence someone's mental issues—from biological differences and life circumstances to personal experiences and social situations—border on the uncountable. Some therapeutic approaches work well for many people but don't help others who are seemingly in similar situations, and vice versa. I don't see a one-size-fits-all solution to such problems, much less one whereby we could confidently assume how a mentally ill person saw themselves or the world without personally knowing them.

The issue is that little of this matters when one is part of a cog in the societal machine.

 

[The Hammer]

No, not for me.

I'm a communalist, it's for everyone.

You're individualising, as I said people would.

Yes for you, you don't get to decide anything for me,.or my wife, or my community ; regardless of your "communal" nature.

You're lumping as opposed to splitting categorically.

Some people seem to think differences don't exist, even when empirically proven. I now know where you stand.

 

[The Hammer]

The issue is that little of this matters when one is part of a cog in the societal machine.

**** the societal "machine".

Culture is a fake construct, that doesn't help anyone. If you were truly communal you'd be against anything that creates more division, like culture and country and religion..

 

[Debater Slayer]

The issue is that little of this matters when one is part of a cog in the societal machine.

I don't know whether she felt that she was part of a cog in a machine, but regardless of whether she did, I don't think it would be appropriate to tell someone that they would never get better, especially considering our currently significant gaps in understanding of the brain and mental illness. I don't think one needs to assume exactly how she felt in order to hold this position.