Its not euthanasia, its suicide.

[TagliatelliMonster]

I did exaggerate, but that's essentially what they're saying by assisting in her suicide.

No, it is not. The law is quite clear. It needs to be completely the decision of the patient AND this wish needs to persist over time.
So you can just forget about your first request being accepted immediately. There's a whole procedure there within which people (like doctors) WILL try to change your mind. They have to. By law.

She is telling them she wants to commit suicide, and they are agreeing to it.

After due process. Again: read up on the actual laws.

It would be good to know what their criteria is here, and how exactly they passed her for euthanasia.

The criteria are the same for everyone and they have been posted multiple times already.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Don't talk to me about brain disorders - I know a lot about them already.

So do I. More then I care for.

Also, I'm not lecturing you about them. Simply pointing out that it is a serious mistake to call people who suffer from such to be "physically healthy".
They are not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Doctors have a professional responsibility.
If it is their honest professional opinion that they don't see any improvement in the future, why should they lie and say the opposite?

I want my doctors to be honest with me. I can still not believe them and go get a second and third and fourth opinion.
I want them to tell me what they honestly think. Not what they think I want to hear.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

No, it is not. The law is quite clear. It needs to be completely the decision of the patient AND this wish needs to persist over time.
So you can just forget about your first request being accepted immediately. There's a whole procedure there within which people (like doctors) WILL try to change your mind. They have to. By law.

After due process. Again: read up on the actual laws.



The criteria are the same for everyone and they have been posted multiple times already.

​

1. The requirements of due care, referred to in Article 293 second paragraph Penal Code mean that the physician:

a. holds the conviction that the request by the patient was voluntary and well-considered,​

b. holds the conviction that the patient’s suffering was lasting and unbearable,​

c. has informed the patient about the situation he was in and about his prospects,​

d. and the patient hold the conviction that there was no other reasonable solution for the situation he was in,​

e. has consulted at least one other, independent physician who has seen the patient and has given his written opinion on the requirements of due care, referred to in parts a – d, and​

f. has terminated a life or assisted in a suicide with due care.​

​

2. If the patient aged sixteen years or older is no longer capable of expressing his will, but prior to reaching this condition was deemed to have a reasonable understanding of his interests and has made a written statement containing a request for termination of life, the physician may cant’ out this request. The requirements of due care, referred to in the first paragraph, apply mutatis mutandis.​

Dutch law on Termination of life on request and assisted suicide (complete text) – The World Federation of Right to Die Societies

wfrtds.org

Is this what you mean?

It sounds to me that a doctor considering the request as “well-considered” and that the patient’s suffering is “lasting and unbearable” are the only two requirements? Both of which are very subjective. And from what I read, there only has to be one other doctor that comes to these same conclusions? None of this is sounding sealed and fool proof to me.

You keep saying “doctor” as if they’re all knowing and all loving.

 

[Kathryn]

So do I. More then I care for.

Also, I'm not lecturing you about them. Simply pointing out that it is a serious mistake to call people who suffer from such to be "physically healthy".
They are not.

So you say.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

She is fine

Clearly she isn't or suicide or wouldn't be considered. And it's known insisting people who are clinically depressed, or other profound mental illnesses are fine is actually very counterproductive and harmful. You wouldn't say someone with a broken leg is fine because they obviously are not. It's no different than when someone is in terrible emotional pain.
And saying others have had it worse? That just tells people "I don't care." It's very dismissive amd does absolutely nothing to help prevent to prevent suicide because you have shut this person out upfront and declared from the start you are downplaying the individuals suffering. You're being someone else who doesn't care, who doesn't listen, someone else pushing such a person towards suicide.

 

[Rival]

Clearly she isn't or suicide or wouldn't be considered. And it's known insisting people who are clinically depressed, or other profound mental illnesses are fine is actually very counterproductive and harmful. You wouldn't say someone with a broken leg is fine because they obviously are not. It's no different than when someone is in terrible emotional pain.
And saying others have had it worse? That just tells people "I don't care." It's very dismissive amd does absolutely nothing to help prevent to prevent suicide because you have shut this person out upfront and declared from the start you are downplaying the individuals suffering. You're being someone else who doesn't care, who doesn't listen, someone else pushing such a person towards suicide.

But merely going on her subjective judgement from someone whose judgement is clearly impaired is not helpful either.

Sometimes telling people straight helps more than enabling them to pity themselves, i.e., doctors saying she's untreatable, which is obviously coming off to her as a death sentence whether she had the suicide idea or not. Telling someone they're fine and allowing themselves to put their suffering in a relative rather than a subjective space can and does help some sufferers to see their own bigger picture. Whereas saying 'You're ****ed we can't do anything you're beyond help,' just reinforces her self-pity and suicidal ideation.

I'm not trying to lack compassion, but such has helped me and many others I know who've been suicidal. Even allowing her to believe she's fine will help her on her way to acting as such and then rewiring her thought pattern.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sometimes telling people straight helps more than enabling them to pity themselves

Research doesn't support that.

more than enabling them to pity themselves, i.e., doctors saying she's untreatable, which is obviously coming off to her as a death sentence whether she had the suicide idea or not.

She may not be responding to meds. They don't work for everyone. Therapy doesn't work for everyone. Amd with borderline personality it's very possible she's struggled with suicidal ideation for a very long time. It's also possible she doesn't have much, if any, support because it takes a great deal of patients (or in my case having abuse normalized by my mom) to deal with Dr. Jeckyl or flips to Mr. Hyde at the drop of a dime (it's also very exhausting amd frustrating for them because they know they hurt people when they get like that).

Telling someone they're fine and allowing themselves to put their suffering in a relative rather than a subjective space can and does help some sufferers to see their own bigger picture.

As we aren't talking about physics then relative and subjective are basically the same thing (even in physicsthe relative position of someone still effects the individual's subjective interpretation of an event).
And if she's at this point I think reframing may have already been tried. She's even probably tried it herself even before talking to a therapist because putting our own suffering and position and comparing ourselves to someone we at least percieve as worse off than ourselves to feel better about our situation is something we tend to naturally do.

 

[LadyJane]

One can be of sound mind and capable of making medical decisions even when those decisions mean contemplating ending one's own life. Given particular sets of circumstances it's a rational decision. No need to infantilize the woman. The "I didn't do it so she shouldn't either" business is extremely short sighted. It's her body. It's her choice. And don't we all want that sort of personal autonomy?

 

[Rival]

One can be of sound mind and capable of making medical decisions even when those decisions mean contemplating ending one's own life. Given particular sets of circumstances it's a rational decision. No need to infantilize the woman. The "I didn't do it so she shouldn't either" business is extremely short sighted. It's her body. It's her choice. And don't we all want that sort of personal autonomy?

If you are thinking of ending your own life, you are by definition non compos mentis. Unless even that is being thrown out now in order to make it as though suicidal people are mentally sound. Why would a mentally sound person want to kill himself?

Personal autonomy is one thing, but suicide affects your whole community. You don't have a choice to do that; your autonomy stops where loyalty to your community begins.

I also do not agree with the 'her body her choice' dictum either, as your body is in communion with other bodies and there is value attached to that.

I notice these arguments often rely on individualism and very Western thinking. These arguments do not work for non-individualist societies; what Johnathan Haidt calls sociocentric morality based societies. That is, almost everywhere outside of the West. I am not an individualist thinker; you are going to need to reframe your arguments along the lines of 'her death would benefit society' - which sounds heinous, because it is.

 

[LadyJane]

Personal autonomy is one thing, but suicide affects your whole community. You don't have a choice to do that; your autonomy stops where loyalty to your community begins.

I also do not agree with the 'her body her choice' dictum either, as your body is in communion with other bodies and there is value attached to that.

I notice these arguments often rely on individualism and very Western thinking. These arguments do not work for non-individualist societies; what Johnathan Haidt calls sociocentric morality based societies. That is, almost everywhere outside of the West. I am not an individualist thinker; you are going to need to reframe your arguments along the lines of 'her death would benefit society' - which sounds heinous, because it is.

What is the radius for the community you imagine? Loyalty to whom? Family? Church? Country? Planet? What do you say to soldiers burdened terribly with suicidal ideation? Pull yerself up by yer bootstraps? They've done that to death already.

If we owe something to the global community it's to reserve judgement and understand that supporting individuals protects the greater good. A pursuit of happiness to one may mean the right to die. Your disdain of individualism stands out considering the extent to which your senses guide your posting. It’s highly individualistic.

There's more to imagine. If you ponder past the limits of your perception.

 

[Rival]

ve judgement and understand that supporting individuals protects the greater good. A pursuit of happiness to one may mean the right to die.

Then stop pursuing happiness, and start pursuing something more obviously beneficial. Your pursuits shouldn't lead you to kill yourself.

My posting is normal for conservatives, which are the global majority.

If you think committing suicide is beneficial, that's individualistic and almost everyone outside of these bizarre Western nations would agree it's highly immoral, selfish and hurtful to those around you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you think committing suicide is beneficial, that's individualistic and almost everyone outside of these bizarre Western nations would agree it's highly immoral, selfish and hurtful to those around you.

Actually such a view, that it's beneficial has been and still is VERY common in the East. From young to old, people around the world have killed themselves as a perceived beenfit.
A particular risk of suicide among the elederly is the view they have become useless and burden to their family. And some of them go through with it believing the family will be better off for it.
And the survivors often can jump off a bridge. Bullies, thise who ignored cries for help, abusive family, they are often many people who deserve no sympathy. This is the bullied teen who killed herself and all of a sudden everyone is claiming yo be her friend and pretending to care. It's too late at that point. They didn't care one damn bit when they tore him down, amd now that his suicide makes them very uncomfortable they have to pretend so the guilty conscious and surivivor's guilt doesn't eat them alive.
Truly, i believe Netflix removed the suicide from 13 Reasons was because too many people felt guilty. Those kids they "teased in fun amd games," thise they bullied and harassed, they got to see the destruction of their actions (everyone should have to watch that show or read the book).

your autonomy stops where loyalty to your community begins.

Such communitarianism tends to needlessly trample others because the community doesn't always know what it's talking about. It easily creates needless suffering.
And if the flip side it can be destructive. Like communal loyalty including efforts that sabatoged efforts to mitigate the impact of covid.
When it's a situation like me living inIndiana they had absolutely no right over me and no grounds to expect loyalty from me when the community at large was disrespectful to me. And lots of people are in that situation.
Blind loyalty is tyranny. Loyalty must be earned lest it's just too easy to abuse those from who loyalty is expected.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is this what you mean?

It sounds to me that a doctor considering the request as “well-considered” and that the patient’s suffering is “lasting and unbearable” are the only two requirements? Both of which are very subjective.

Both these requirements are detailed in the law. The "well-considered" part includes that the wish must persist over time, that alternatives must be discussed clearly and in detail, etc.

And from what I read, there only has to be one other doctor that comes to these same conclusions? None of this is sounding sealed and fool proof to me.

There are detailed rules concerning how the second opinion must be independent.
The reports from both (or more) doctors then also go to review committees where it is again reviewed to see if due care was complied with.

Note that if these committees decide that this was not the case, then all parties involved can actually be charged under the penal code.
These committee reviews are inescapable. I can assure you that no doctor is going to take this lightly and that the majority would rather not be involved in euthanasia cases at all out of fear of making a procedural mistake which can literally ruin both their private and professional lives.

Note also that no doctor is going to be "punished" one way or the other for NOT agreeing to a euthanasia case even if all requirements are met and where it is mega-obviously justified. So really, a doctor has nothing to gain from giving clearance and everything to lose by making a mistake.

The way this thread is representing euthanasia cases as being somehow "trivial" or "just a formality", is seriously incorrect.
I can assure you that no doc in his right mind is going to support a euthanasia case if he thinks there is even the slightest problem with the case.

You keep saying “doctor” as if they’re all knowing and all loving.

???

Doctors are just medical experts. Why wouldn't we turn to medical experts to evaluate medical cases?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you say.

No. So is reality.

Brains are physical organs. Someone with a sick brain is not someone who is physically healthy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But merely going on her subjective judgement from someone whose judgement is clearly impaired is not helpful either.

Sometimes telling people straight helps more than enabling them to pity themselves, i.e., doctors saying she's untreatable, which is obviously coming off to her as a death sentence whether she had the suicide idea or not. Telling someone they're fine and allowing themselves to put their suffering in a relative rather than a subjective space can and does help some sufferers to see their own bigger picture. Whereas saying 'You're ****ed we can't do anything you're beyond help,' just reinforces her self-pity and suicidal ideation.

I'm not trying to lack compassion, but such has helped me and many others I know who've been suicidal. Even allowing her to believe she's fine will help her on her way to acting as such and then rewiring her thought pattern.

You keep comparing yourself to her, pretending your problems where the same or comparable.

 

[Rival]

You keep comparing yourself to her, pretending your problems where the same or comparable.

Incase you didn't read it fully, I said myself as well as others.

Seriously, suicide is never an option. I don't care what mental illness you have.

That's it.

 

[Secret Chief]

Seriously, suicide is never an option.

Actually, it obviously is.

I don't care what mental illness you have.

Good job you don't work in mental health then.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Incase you didn't read it fully, I said myself as well as others.

It matters not to the point made.

Seriously, suicide is never an option. I don't care what mental illness you have.

That's it.

And that is your opinion. As such, you acknowledge that you don't even care about this particular case at all. You're just using this case to make your position about euthanasia in general known.

You are entitled to your opinion off course.
I have a different opinion. Clearly that also goes for medical experts.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

Many of these mental "diseases" that you are alluding to are just labels invented in the last century or two that are given to people who display behaviors that fall into some humanmade categories. They are not actually objectively real or measurable. Do you think that perhaps doctors are doing people a disservice by putting an arbitrary label on them, and saying that they cannot achieve the same things in life that others can because they have this imaginary "condition" that can't be cured?