Its not euthanasia, its suicide.

[Rival]

like culture and country and religion..

These create society.

 

[Rival]

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.

I'm not talking about her thoughts.

 

[Rival]

es for you, you don't get to decide anything for me,.or my wife, or my community

Actually we do.

Society has a hold on you culturally, religiously and otherwise.

 

[The Hammer]

These create society.

Exactly. And division. Which is why I said you should believe these are things to be done away with.

 

[Rival]

Exactly. And division. Which is why I said you should believe these are things to be done away with.

There won't be division if there's no self. It's a radical Christianity that says everyone ought be like Christ and rather go to the cross to die for his friends and his God.

Society is a social good.

 

[The Hammer]

Actually we do.

Society has a hold on you culturally, religiously and otherwise.

So you think you do. Which is sad. But I am free to do things absolutely against the "culture". Which means it's still useless.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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?

May have? Yes. Whether it actually has is not something I can verify, though.

It could also depend on which country we were talking about, since cultural and socioeconomic differences could heavily influence mental health issues in a given country.

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?

Yes, and if I were the doctor expected to carry out the "euthanasia" in the case in question here, I would outright refuse to do so.

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.

I agree that this could become a problem if voluntary euthanasia became normalized for mental health issues in general.

 

[The Hammer]

There won't be division if there's no self. It's a radical Christianity that says everyone ought be like Christ and rather go to the cross to die for his friends and his God.

Society is a social good.

If there is no self there is no-things. Society included. When everything is the same, there is nothing. Homogenization is death. Sociery or otherwise. I don't worship death.

Edited for spelling mistakes

 

[Rival]

So you think you do. Which is sad. But I am free to do things absolutely against the "culture". Which means it's still useless.

You think you are, but your culture has a stronger psychological hold on you than you think.

Even when people think they're rebelling, they tend to rebel within their culture.

 

[Rival]

If there is no self there is no-things. Society included. When everything is the same, there is nothing. Homogenization is death. Sociery or otherwise. I don't worship death.

Edited for spelling mistakes

The society is the self, the being of one will with God and society is the communal self.

There is no I, no ego.

 

[The Hammer]

You think you are, but your culture has a stronger psychological hold on you than you think.

Even when people think they're rebelling, they tend to rebel within their culture.

Right. Which makes it a separate culture regardless. There will always be an other. No matter how much society becomes homogenized. You're just creating new problems.

 

[The Hammer]

There is no I

And I, am sorry to hear that. You were a fun person once.

Edited: @Rival
Without an I. This conversation wouldn't occur. No matter how much your ego dies. It comes back. It's a necessary part of life and living.

Even the Buddhists and Hindus don't deny it's place. The point is to control ones ego.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

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

Many reasons. One could be to ween out the "costly" population using up resources for one thing, we can't deny big corporations have agendas, and it's no different in the medical field. Another is simply because it's inertia.

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

That's true. But it can be hard to say no when you are relying on the doctor's advice. When the doctors said she was "Treatment resistant" she probably was 100% convinced and it would've been hard to be convinced, especially when she's already vulnerable with depression.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm not talking about her thoughts.

I understood this part to be about her thoughts regarding how she sees herself and the world:

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.

What were you talking about if not her thoughts, then?

 

[Rival]

What were you talking about if not her thoughts, then?

My take on the situation.

The very fact she is making a decision about her and not others.

 

[Secret Chief]

No, not for me.

BS. You speak for yourself only; not for me, nor for anybody else.

You're communalising, as I said people would.

 

[The Hammer]

That's true. But it can be hard to say no when you are relying on the doctor's advice. When the doctors said she was "Treatment resistant" she probably was 100% convinced and it would've been hard to be convinced, especially when she's already vulnerable with depression.

I'm treatment resistant. Most C-PTSD and it's ensuing mental orchestra of conditions is. I'd love the option for euthanasia if I got to a point where I couldn't handle things anymore.

But here's the deal, now instead of arranging things with family. It's gotta be sudden an unexpected, traumatizing all.

 

[The Hammer]

BS. You speak for yourself only; not for me, nor for anybody else.

You're communalising, as I said people would.

I tried to point that out. *Whoosh*

 

[Secret Chief]

I'd love the option for euthanasia if I got to a point where I couldn't handle things anymore.

Look, this isn't about your thoughts, it's about me telling you to stop wallowing and learning to love your country.

 

[Debater Slayer]

My take on the situation.

The very fact she is making a decision about her and not others.

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying your point.

I don't think we'll agree here, though, because I definitely don't feel qualified or willing to judge her given the severe pain she must be experiencing. Instead, I'm far more concerned about the doctors who have, if the article is accurate, told her that there's absolutely no hope for improvement in the future.