460
Dutch woman, 29, granted euthanasia approval on grounds of mental suffering
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
460 points (97.9% liked)
World News
32347 readers
603 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thats fine to have your opinion as long as youre not stopping someone else from doing what they want with their own life
I think the question is one of balance for me personally. Where do you draw the line?
Like, this person seems to have been in a pretty long queue and had a lot of time to evaluate, but is that denying her dignity? Should there be a waiting period, or is that denying someone healthcare?
I think we would all agree that we shouldn't allow an 18yo who just broke up with their first SO to decide to have a doctor help them unalive themselves, right?
Is the three and a half years of waiting and treatments that this woman has undergone too much? Not enough?
I'll admit that it feels bad to me to allow a 29yo to go down this particular path. People who are seeking death are rarely in the kind of headspace where I think they are able to meaningfully consent to that?
And this feels meaningfully different than the case of a 90yo who's body is slowly failing them. This is an otherwise healthy young person.
Idk, there are no easy answers here. Bodily autonomy is important, but so is helping people not engage in extremely self destructive behavior. If we didn't have that imperative, fire departments wouldn't try and stop people from jumping off bridges, right? Where is that line? I don't know, and I wouldn't want to have to make that call.
I share a lot of your questions about this, but the following parts made me uncomfortable agreeing with you:
She has the following to say about that: “People think that when you’re mentally ill, you can’t think straight, which is insulting.”
Mental illness is an illness, and can be chronic and progressive. They can cause someone to be unable to carry on living, maintaining a livelihood, afford their own medication, psychiatric visits and therapy that they would need to even want to live in the first place. That's not even to go into the absolute hell people in such situations can go through everyday.
We can debate on what constitutes “a well-thought-out decision that takes into consideration every available option” and I would actually say that one should give those options a try, but to deny that a mentally ill person can make their own EOL decisions makes me terribly uncomfortable.
In my opinion, sure, there should be a waiting period, to filter out those chronic episodes that lead to spur-of-the moment impulses, or decisions that are strongly linked to temporary conditions. This waiting period can be used to think things through, prove that they've tried means available to them, or even give them the chance to try the means they wouldn't have had access to otherwise (like specialized help, therapy that wouldn't have been available to them, etc). Now, I think what happens next is up to these medical professionals: do they deem one's condition to be intractable and no amount of medication and therapy and counseling can make a difference? If they deem the situation to be hopeless, and the patient agrees, then yeah, the patient can make their exit. Otherwise, the medication, therapy, counseling or whatever it is that they've been trying should continue. If funds are needed for this to continue, then so be it. Those people who want to be no exits can be counted upon to fund this, right? Those people denying exit should put their money where their mouths are.
If signing up to an EOL waiting list could be the way for people to consider their situation and try out things that might help them, then so be it.
Oh, sorry, I've been rambling. My point is, yeah, there should be a waiting period that would double as a chance for people to get the help they need (but don't have access to or maybe the motivation to). And more importantly, that anyone, and I mean anyone (okay, there'd be a triage system in place, but just allow everyone in, and sort them out once they're in) can sign up.
The way I imagine things would go is I can just walk into some office, inform the person in the counter that I want to have a passport to neverwhere, and they'd ask me to file some paperwork and after a few days, I'd be in a clinic where someone would perform a psychological check-up on me, and do some interviews. Then after a few more days, some doctor will be informing me of my diagnosis and options—or perhaps just flat out saying I'm completely mentally healthy and my petition is denied (if I'm lucky maybe given a list of people to contact to help with my problems). If I'm continuing the process, then I'd choose which option I want, go with the treatment or other, and like, hopefully continue until I can manage my situation with minimal help!
Do we really need people to sign up for a passport to the great beyond just to get the help they need? No, in an ideal world, there shouldn't even be a need for this. But in this kind of world we live in, I think allowing people to safely cross the streams with dignity and peace of mind (after giving it a good try, and concluding that it really can't be helped) is a small kindness society can give to the suffering.
EDIT: Some proofreading.
See, I feel like your whole post could be summarized as, "some people's mental illness makes them unable to work and earn money, so they're too poor to afford treatment, and therefore the morally correct thing is to just let those people kill themselves."
And while I don't think that's exactly what you meant, it's how it comes across. Almost all of your points are some variation of who's gonna pay for their treatment and take care of their physical needs.
And I would strongly argue that the answer is instead to have more robust social safety nets to cover those needs. Allowing people to kill themselves as the solution is hella dystopian.
But, I'm not saying that this is 100% always right. This is a hard issue with no clear answers, and I am absolutely not minimizing the pain of mental illness. My point is that mental illness is much less understood than physical illness, and I wouldn't trust any diagnosis that said the condition could never be resolved. In the same way that I would be loathe to euthanize someone with a physical illness that has an acceptable chance of being transient, I'm loath to do the same with most if not all cases of mental illness. Especially if the person is otherwise very young/healthy.
Indeed, that's not what exactly what I meant. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
My main point can be summarized in that second to the last paragraph, which I doubt has communicated things adequately.
To reiterate: it won't be initiated by the medical professionals. They're simply there to ensure that someone applying for this procedure are indeed "proceeding of their own accord and have made sure options have been considered". The waiting period is there to make sure that not only they've arrived at this decision after careful deliberation, but also to force them to consider and try out the options available to them. The process can be terminated at any point by the patient, and the final step will not proceed without their permission.
I accept this point. This is why I put the emphasis on the decision of the patient. And this is where I think our positions fundamentally differ. Promising treatments may or may not be there, may or may not be there in the immediate or far future, but it's on the patient to consider. The medical professionals are there to ensure that the patient has considered available options, and have exerted reasonable effort to improve their situation. Whether or not the patient has made "the correct decision" isn't the point—but rather whether or not the patient has made an informed and well-thought-out decision.
I share your opinion that in an ideal world, this shouldn't even be needed. That even though the option would be there for anyone to take, no one will take it in an ideal world. But we are not in such an ideal world. We can strengthen our social safety nets to help people suffering from the debilitating effects of mental illness (among other sources of suffering), and that will do a lot of good, but until we arrive at a society which no longer needs a dignified exit because no one ever wants to exit, I am of the opinion of giving them that option.
And you achieve what? A person to constantly suffer, for what? Your righteous high ground? You condemn that person to torture, you realise that right?
You're the person who would force a baby to be born and live a life of pain, suffering, and burden on those around them instead of abortion. You're not saving a life, you're destroying them.
Answer me this, why? Why are you against it?
This is more of an anti-natalist position than a pro-choice one. The right to bodily autonomy includes the right to reproduce, even if you think the parents are too poor. The two situations aren't comparable because one involves a person making a decision about a fetus, and the other involves the life of a full-fledged human being.
It also includes the right to end your own life. Are you against bodily autonomy?
If someone walks into a hospital and says they want to inject bleach into their veins to cure COVID, is that still covered under bodily autonomy?
She didn't want to cure Covid in a hospital, she wanted to end her suffering by ending her life in a dignified way.
So are you against bodily autonomy?
You didn't answer the question. Are you against bodily autonomy?
Well you didn't answer the question first :)
That's because it's unreasonable and made in bad faith.
I don't support any right as an absolute principle. Rights have to be balanced against each other with consideration of the material effects. What you're doing is applying a principle designed to cover one type of situation to a situation that is only superficially similar. A reductive tactic to avoid engaging with the complexity of the issue.
Lots of words to say "no" lmao
Not beating the bad faith allegations lmao
If it's such a simple issue, why couldn't you answer my question 🤔 could it be that you don't support bodily autonomy as an absolute principle either 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
I do, %100. So now what?
Lol and yours isn't in bad faith. Comparing an informed decision to end their life against someone wanting to inject bleach because they think it will help them when it would kill them. One is misinformed, the other is not.
It's not a comparison at all. People on here really don't seem to understand how hypotheticals work.
What I'm doing with that is merely establishing that the right to bodily autonomy is, like all rights, not absolute. There are cases where it has to be balanced against other rights or material considerations. At no point did I claim that it was analogous to assisted suicide. There is nothing remotely bad faith about establishing that point.
You brought up a random hypothetical that's not meant to be analogous but you used it in your argument.... You asked if it was body autonomy to want to inject bleech, ignoring the nuance of being informed or not. It was a bad faith example, and you continued to ignore nuance to force an answer you wanted.
Your hypothetical is about someone making an uninformed decision that could kill them. This story is about a person making an informed one. Yes, if someone wants to do something that could harm them, without turn realizing, we should educate them. But if the person is informed and wants to take their life, that's their right. And if a person wants to inject bleach, knowing full well what it will do, then that's their right, it's their life. Trying to parent every adult in the world is silly and insulting.
So you don't support bodily autonomy as an absolute principle. Or else you don't understand what the word "absolute" means.
I mean you can tell me what I support and what I don't understand all you want. I %100 agree with full body autonomy. I have a hunch you just see too black and white to understand the nuance I tried to highlight.
I'm the one trying to highlight nuance, you're the one trying to insist everything's black and white.
Yes, the "No you are." I'm in favor of %100 body autonomy, what nuance am I missing?
100% absolute body autonomy would mean consent doesn't have to be informed. That's the meaning of the word "absolute."
I agree, it doesn't have to be. But if you want assistance, that assistance can inform you before assisting. You can inject bleach at home, but a doctor doesn't have to do it for you. Your autonomy does not obligate others to act and it doesn't prevent them from giving you information.
So yeah, I'm %100 for it still. How exactly do I not understand?
Ok great, then people can commit suicide at home but that doesn't compel anyone to act to assist them. Looks like my stance is fully consistent with bodily autonomy and your objection is meaningless.
My objection, my objection to what? I think you're maybe taking the who "roleplay your username" a bit far. You don't even know what you're arguing at this point. You brought up a person wanting to get injected with bleach randomly like some gotcha when everyone here is in favor of autonomy. I agree people should be able to do it at home. Others shouldn't be compelled to help but they should be allowed to help if they want to. What exactly did I object against?
Your objection to my position, which is that you claim it's contrary to bodily autonomy.
Of course I'm against taking bodily autonomy as an absolute principle, because no rights are absolute. However, the way you've defined it, "absolute bodily autonomy" still allows you to be barred from doing something if a doctor decides you're not informed enough, or if it would mean compelling someone to assist you. That isn't what absolute means to me, but I'm willing to accept your definition. But by that definition, opposition to assisted suicide is comparable with "absolute bodily autonomy." So your claim that I don't support bodily autonomy is baseless.
I don't see what the confusion is. If absolute bodily autonomy can't compel people to act, then assisted suicide, which by definition involves another person's assistance, isn't covered by bodily autonomy.
Nobody is forcing anyone to abort a pregnancy? Those are simply options for parents to take if they want to.
So is this option to die with dignity when life is suffering.
Where is your attorney badge, for you clearly missed your appointment.
People have the right to have children, regardless of if the circumstances they'll be brought up in are up to your approval. To say they shouldn't have that right is not pro-choice, it's anti-natalist.
Yes and who denies them having children?
No one. Irrelevant.
But you were literally pointing that out? Or would you say that your entire point is irrelevant and should be dismissed?
No one is presently stopping people from having kids, but that doesn't mean that anti-natalism doesn't exist.
Mhm...
Looks OP antinatalism
Yup I sure do exist. But that doesn't mean I would enforce others to not have kids.
Well, there you have it. Your position is wrong and awful, and I'm opposed to it and have no problem saying so. That's that.
My position is awful because I decided for myself that I don't want kids? The fuck is wrong with you Mr Moral Apostle?
That's not what anti-natalism is.
Okay then I assumed wrong, my bad.