Languish.org

Fucked up

http://europe.newsweek.com/healthy-24-year-old-granted-right-die-belgium-329504

QuoteHealthy 24-year-old granted right to die in Belgium

By Eilish O'Gara  6/29/15 at 7:17 PM

Filed Under: Health   



Doctors in Belgium are granting a 24-year-old woman who is suffering from depression but is otherwise healthy the right to die as she qualifies for euthanasia under the Belgian law, even though she does not have a terminal or life-threatening illness.

The 24-year-old woman, known simply as Laura, has been given the go-ahead by health professionals in Belgium to receive a lethal injection after spending both her childhood and adult life suffering from "suicidal thoughts", she told local Belgian media.

Laura has been a patient of a psychiatric institution since the age of 21 and says she has previously tried to kill herself on several occasions. She told journalists: "Death feels to me not as a choice. If I had a choice, I would choose a bearable life, but I have done everything and that was unsuccessful." The date of Laura's death is yet to be decided.

Try Newsweek: subscription offers

Belgium passed a law to legalise euthanasia in 2002, the second country in the world to do so after the Netherlands. The law states that Belgian doctors can "help patients" to end their lives if they freely express a wish to die because they are suffering from intractable and unbearable pain.

Dr Marc Van Hoey, a general practitioner and president of the Right to Die Association in northern Belgium, is a vocal supporter of the legislation. Van Hoey told the Independent newspaper that he believes that sometimes euthanasia is the kindest option. "I've seen quite a lot of persons dying in - how do you say in proper English - agony?" Van Hoey said. "I never saw that when I gave someone euthanasia he or she asked for."

Over the past few years there has been a sharp increase in the number of euthanasia cases in Belgium. In 2013, there were 1,807 deaths recorded compared with 1,432 in 2012. More than half of last year's cases were patients aged 70 and over but there are increasing numbers of young people requesting to die legally, with the majority citing depression as their "intractable and unbearable pain."

However, not everyone is in favour of the law. Carine Brochier, a project manager with the Brussels-based European Institute of Bioethics, tells Newsweek that she believes too many people are dying as a result of Belgium's liberalised euthanasia laws.

She argues that many people who experience psychological suffering and treatable mental illnesses may be wrongly given the go ahead for euthanasia because "there is absolutely no way for healthcare professionals to measure another person's mental suffering to decide if they should receive euthanasia."

"Euthanasia is not the answer to all human suffering," Brochier continues. "We need to develop better palliative care for people," something she believes Belgium is not currently doing.

Earlier this year in February, the parliament in Belgium passed a bill also allowing euthanasia for terminally ill children without any age limit, by 86 votes to 44. The vote makes it the first country in the world to have legalised euthanasia without an age limit.

In the Netherlands, the first country to legalize euthanasia, sick children are allowed to request it, but only if they are 12 years or older.

As of June 2015, euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, Colombia and Luxembourg.

Why?  This is good news for that freedom you claim you love.  Meanwhile, it pleases me, for it cuts down on suffering, minimizes the chance that the genetic component of her woes might be propagated, and of course reduces the human population by one.  A journey of a thousand miles, etc.

I didn't realize that euthanasia is so common in Belgium.  Do they run ads on TV that end with "Ask your doctor if euthanasia is right for you"?

Mark my words, one day we will have someone sue the police when they prevent a person from jumping off a bridge.

Um, she wasn't healthy.

I support the idea of a human right to rationally choose the circumstances of their own death when terminally ill or in great pain.

But I don't see how that choice can be predicated on something other than a rational, informed, and taken with a fundamentally sound mind.

That would seem to absolutely preclude anyone from choosing euthenasia while being physically healthy. Mental illness, almost by definition, precludes a sound mind in general, and a desire to destroy yourself is almost (to me) definitionally indicative of a significant impairment in an ability to think reasonably and rationally.

Well, maybe the doctors are choosing the lesser of two evils.  If she really wants to kill herself, they may as well make sure it gets done right.  DIY suicides in countries without widespread firearm ownership are notoriously unreliable.

Quote from: DGuller on July 01, 2015, 11:17:52 PM
Well, maybe the doctors are choosing the lesser of two evils.  If she really wants to kill herself, they may as well make sure it gets done right.  DIY suicides in countries without widespread firearm ownership are notoriously unreliable.

Why?  Just burn charcoal in a room.  Make sure the windows are closed. 

Most people who attempt suicide don't actually want to kill themselves.

Don't studies show that the vast majority of people with failed suicide attempts don't make another attempt?

There is no answer that fits my views perfectly but the last one is closest (I would qualify it with two psychiatric opinions if the patient is conscious and not terminally ill).

I am pleased that Languish overwhelmingly voted for personal liberty.

Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2015, 10:53:30 PMThat would seem to absolutely preclude anyone from choosing euthenasia while being physically healthy. Mental illness, almost by definition, precludes a sound mind in general, and a desire to destroy yourself is almost (to me) definitionally indicative of a significant impairment in an ability to think reasonably and rationally.

I disagree with your assessment that someone who wants to kill themselves but is physically healthy must be mentally ill.

Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2015, 10:53:30 PM
I support the idea of a human right to rationally choose the circumstances of their own death when terminally ill or in great pain.

But I don't see how that choice can be predicated on something other than a rational, informed, and taken with a fundamentally sound mind.

That would seem to absolutely preclude anyone from choosing euthenasia while being physically healthy. Mental illness, almost by definition, precludes a sound mind in general, and a desire to destroy yourself is almost (to me) definitionally indicative of a significant impairment in an ability to think reasonably and rationally.

Really?

Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2015, 03:18:18 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2015, 10:53:30 PM
I support the idea of a human right to rationally choose the circumstances of their own death when terminally ill or in great pain.

But I don't see how that choice can be predicated on something other than a rational, informed, and taken with a fundamentally sound mind.

That would seem to absolutely preclude anyone from choosing euthenasia while being physically healthy. Mental illness, almost by definition, precludes a sound mind in general, and a desire to destroy yourself is almost (to me) definitionally indicative of a significant impairment in an ability to think reasonably and rationally.

Really?

I gotta say I was surprised as well.

Incidentally, I find the reasoning which differentiates between physical pain and psychological pain to be quite outdated. The key questions should be whether the pain is preventable, what the downsides of the therapy are and whether the patient is willing to go through with it. Living in severe incurable physical pain is really no different from living in severe incurable mental anguish.

Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2015, 03:22:59 AM
Incidentally, I find the reasoning which differentiates between physical pain and psychological pain to be quite outdated. The key questions should be whether the pain is preventable, what the downsides of the therapy are and whether the patient is willing to go through with it. Living in severe incurable physical pain is really no different from living in severe incurable mental anguish.

I feel like with something like mental illness the test might need to be more stringent. I've no idea if we can decided suicidal thoughts are incurable after 3 years.

This is one of those things I would just assume they keep in Europe. Doctors should not be in the business of killing people. The unintended consequences of such a thing are just too extreme, especially when we get a situation where Marty is saying every emo teen and twenty something can get a doctors note for TEH LIBERTY. Just what we want our limited medical resources going towards.

If they want to off themselves then we have plenty of easily legally obtained fire arms and classes to teach them how to use them. No need to pull the poor doctors into doing something that is not their job.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 01, 2015, 10:05:14 PM
Mark my words, one day we will have someone sue the police when they prevent a person from jumping off a bridge.

Yep. If you want to commit suicide have the courage to do it yourself and not seek to make everybody else responsible for it.

Valmy, would you be for it, though, if someone was not terminally ill and not in physical pain, but their condition made it impossible for them to commit suicide on their own without some severe pain (e.g. they are paralysed and the only way they could commit suicide unassisted was starving themselves to death)?

Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2015, 07:19:38 AM
This is one of those things I would just assume they keep in Europe. Doctors should not be in the business of killing people. The unintended consequences of such a thing are just too extreme, especially when we get a situation where Marty is saying every emo teen and twenty something can get a doctors note for TEH LIBERTY. Just what we want our limited medical resources going towards.

If they want to off themselves then we have plenty of easily legally obtained fire arms and classes to teach them how to use them. No need to pull the poor doctors into doing something that is not their job.

I agree with you but I think this is not the issue here - this is not about forcing a particular doctor to assist with suicide - more about not punishing doctors who do it out of their own volition.

I don't know how it works in Belgium, but here the doctor writes a fatal prescription and that is it; it's not like the doctor is injecting them with drugs or hitting them over the head with a shovel.  The person that wants to die still has to do the hard part themselves but it is less messy, guaranteed to work*, and can be done in the company of loved ones.

Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2015, 02:41:12 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2015, 10:53:30 PMThat would seem to absolutely preclude anyone from choosing euthenasia while being physically healthy. Mental illness, almost by definition, precludes a sound mind in general, and a desire to destroy yourself is almost (to me) definitionally indicative of a significant impairment in an ability to think reasonably and rationally.

I disagree with your assessment that someone who wants to kill themselves but is physically healthy must be mentally ill.

I am surprised that you would consider someone in such extreme mental anguish that they feel their only recourse is suicide to be mentally healthy.

Isn't that the very definition of a mental illness?

I know who I'd like to smother with a pillow.

*glances at Tim*

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 08:07:29 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2015, 02:41:12 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2015, 10:53:30 PMThat would seem to absolutely preclude anyone from choosing euthenasia while being physically healthy. Mental illness, almost by definition, precludes a sound mind in general, and a desire to destroy yourself is almost (to me) definitionally indicative of a significant impairment in an ability to think reasonably and rationally.

I disagree with your assessment that someone who wants to kill themselves but is physically healthy must be mentally ill.

I am surprised that you would consider someone in such extreme mental anguish that they feel their only recourse is suicide to be mentally healthy.

Isn't that the very definition of a mental illness?

Fine, let me rephrase - only the kind of mental illness that removes or significantly impedes cognitive capacity should preclude one from being eligible for assisted suicide.

I don't see the hubbub.  That kind of extreme depression tends to result in suicidal tendencies or attempts anyway.  Also, why should only people with a terminal physical condition have the right to end their own lives?

On the flip side of the coin, though, I could see an argument being made that the candidate should have to be of sound mental state to choose to terminate their own life, and this patient could be considered mentally unsound (dealing with depression myself, I'm very familiar with the fits of irrationality that go along with it).

If you want to die you should be allowed to die.
If you can do this in a way that doesn't cause trauma for train drivers, your buildings caretaker, etc... Then so much the better.

Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2015, 08:13:52 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 08:07:29 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2015, 02:41:12 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2015, 10:53:30 PMThat would seem to absolutely preclude anyone from choosing euthenasia while being physically healthy. Mental illness, almost by definition, precludes a sound mind in general, and a desire to destroy yourself is almost (to me) definitionally indicative of a significant impairment in an ability to think reasonably and rationally.

I disagree with your assessment that someone who wants to kill themselves but is physically healthy must be mentally ill.

I am surprised that you would consider someone in such extreme mental anguish that they feel their only recourse is suicide to be mentally healthy.

Isn't that the very definition of a mental illness?

Fine, let me rephrase - only the kind of mental illness that removes or significantly impedes cognitive capacity should preclude one from being eligible for assisted suicide.

Then we are agreed.

How do you tell if a mental illness has significantly impeded cognitive capacity?

Would making clearly irrational choices be considered evidence that cognitive capacity has been impeded?

Should there not be some kind of assessment made by a competent healthcare professional (in this case a psychiatrist) to determine if there is significant cognitive impairment as a result of their illness?

I suspect that most psychiatrists would consider "I want to kill myself even though there is nothing physically wrong with me" to be evidence that a person is not thinking with complete clarity and soundness of mind.

Mental illness and physical illness are NOT the same thing.

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 08:53:33 AM
I suspect that most psychiatrists would consider "I want to kill myself even though there is nothing physically wrong with me" to be evidence that a person is not thinking with complete clarity and soundness of mind.

Mental illness and physical illness are NOT the same thing.

But what if it isn't something curable. Like let's say bipolar disorder, crippling enough that said person needs to be in some sort of care for their entire lives (which was the case with my grandmother, though initially her care was handled by her husband).

While, certainly I wouldn't have wanted my grandmother to kill herself, if she felt that her life wasn't worth living because of her mental illness - is that anguish not enough? Must it be physical pain?

Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2015, 09:02:32 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 08:53:33 AM
I suspect that most psychiatrists would consider "I want to kill myself even though there is nothing physically wrong with me" to be evidence that a person is not thinking with complete clarity and soundness of mind.

Mental illness and physical illness are NOT the same thing.

But what if it isn't something curable. Like let's say bipolar disorder, crippling enough that said person needs to be in some sort of care for their entire lives (which was the case with my grandmother, though initially her care was handled by her husband).

While, certainly I wouldn't have wanted my grandmother to kill herself, if she felt that her life wasn't worth living because of her mental illness - is that anguish not enough? Must it be physical pain?

Those are good questions - I don't know the answer, but I would not assume it to be "Yeah, anyone who wants to kill themselves should be helped to do so regardless of a reasonable evaulation of their mental state".

I think I am ok with the idea that doctors be allowed to help people end their lives gracefully under a certain, narrow set of circumstances. I would rather we recognize that there will be sets of circumstances where people might want to end their lives that are justificable, yet still do not fall under the set of circumstances where we allow doctors to involve themselves, then expand the doctor assistance set much, if at all.

IMO, if the set of circumstances that lead to people wanting to kill themselves is 100 cases, previously we said there were zero cases where doctors should be involved. Now we pass some laws intended to address terminal, physical illness where someone is in gross pain, and we all agree that a death with dignity is appropriate. Lets say that is 3 out of those 100.

Now we are saying that maybe we should expand that to some cases where there is not such clear agreement? Say 10 out of 100? 20?

I don't think that going from 0 to 3 means we must go from 3 to 10 or 20 or even 4.

I think the set for doctors to involve themselves in the death of a human being should be limited to those clear cut, obvious cases where death is coming anyway, and the difference of suicide is simply to allow the person to die with some measure of dignity and comfort.

garbon's example is a good one. Another could be someone suffering from severe violent sexual obsession or pedophilia that would be incurable.

Generally, I think we should err on the side of freedom and dignity - and this includes freedom to choose how to end one's life, unless there is a very strong reason why this right should be denied (so unlike you, Berkut, I think the narrow set of circumstances should apply to situations where euthanasia is not available).

To me the attitude of "we will not prevent you from killing yourself in some disruptive and gruesome way but we will not help you do it with dignity and in a respectful manner either" smacks of hypocrisy.

But we do at least try to prevent people from killing themselves in some gruesome way.

Hell, the argument that people kill themselves in the US with guns at a ridiculously greater rate than anywhere else is one of the most common arguments against ready access to guns in the US. Study after study has shown that most people who attempt suicide don't actually want to kill themselves if they are prevented or fail.

There is nothing at all hypocritical about my stance.

Ironically, those who oppose assisted suicide in the cases that we all DO agree on (someone with a terminal, painful condition making their quality of life inhumane) did so on precisely this argument - that once we allow doctors to kill people in the "obvious" cases, people would start arguing that we must do so in not so obvious cases. And here we are - now you are a monster if you don't help someone kill themselves because their boyfriend dumped them?

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 08:53:33 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2015, 08:13:52 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 08:07:29 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2015, 02:41:12 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 01, 2015, 10:53:30 PMThat would seem to absolutely preclude anyone from choosing euthenasia while being physically healthy. Mental illness, almost by definition, precludes a sound mind in general, and a desire to destroy yourself is almost (to me) definitionally indicative of a significant impairment in an ability to think reasonably and rationally.

I disagree with your assessment that someone who wants to kill themselves but is physically healthy must be mentally ill.

I am surprised that you would consider someone in such extreme mental anguish that they feel their only recourse is suicide to be mentally healthy.

Isn't that the very definition of a mental illness?

Fine, let me rephrase - only the kind of mental illness that removes or significantly impedes cognitive capacity should preclude one from being eligible for assisted suicide.

Then we are agreed.

How do you tell if a mental illness has significantly impeded cognitive capacity?

Would making clearly irrational choices be considered evidence that cognitive capacity has been impeded?

Should there not be some kind of assessment made by a competent healthcare professional (in this case a psychiatrist) to determine if there is significant cognitive impairment as a result of their illness?

I suspect that most psychiatrists would consider "I want to kill myself even though there is nothing physically wrong with me" to be evidence that a person is not thinking with complete clarity and soundness of mind.

Mental illness and physical illness are NOT the same thing.

These kinds of assessments are done all the time. If a person is deemed to be unable to make decisions then that has all kinds of consequences (loss of driver's license, loss of security clearance etc etc etc). As long as a person isn't found unfit to make decisions then I don't see a problem.

Quote from: Monoriu on July 01, 2015, 11:25:48 PM

Quote from: DGuller on July 01, 2015, 11:17:52 PM
Well, maybe the doctors are choosing the lesser of two evils.  If she really wants to kill herself, they may as well make sure it gets done right.  DIY suicides in countries without widespread firearm ownership are notoriously unreliable.

Why?  Just burn charcoal in a room.  Make sure the windows are closed.

That's how Brad Delp did it. :(

I also suspect that most psychiatrist know that mental suffering can be as bad as physical suffering. The "walk it off" school of thought has been discredited I think.

Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2015, 09:48:52 AM
I also suspect that most psychiatrist know that mental suffering can be as bad as physical suffering. The "walk it off" school of thought has been discredited I think.

You tell that to our insurances when you try to get treatment financed. If you get a 25% payback from the insurance you're lucky.

Quote from: Syt on July 02, 2015, 09:55:37 AM

Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2015, 09:48:52 AM
I also suspect that most psychiatrist know that mental suffering can be as bad as physical suffering. The "walk it off" school of thought has been discredited I think.

You tell that to our insurances when you try to get treatment financed. If you get a 25% payback from the insurance you're lucky.

I don't follow.

Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2015, 09:57:39 AM

Quote from: Syt on July 02, 2015, 09:55:37 AM

Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2015, 09:48:52 AM
I also suspect that most psychiatrist know that mental suffering can be as bad as physical suffering. The "walk it off" school of thought has been discredited I think.

You tell that to our insurances when you try to get treatment financed. If you get a 25% payback from the insurance you're lucky.

I don't follow.

Well, in Germany and Austria, insurance companies in general consider mental illness (unless you need to be committed or suffer from a similarly severe condition) as a minor thing and cover not nearly as much as in physical treatments.

Quote from: Syt on July 02, 2015, 10:00:14 AM

Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2015, 09:57:39 AM

Quote from: Syt on July 02, 2015, 09:55:37 AM

Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2015, 09:48:52 AM
I also suspect that most psychiatrist know that mental suffering can be as bad as physical suffering. The "walk it off" school of thought has been discredited I think.

You tell that to our insurances when you try to get treatment financed. If you get a 25% payback from the insurance you're lucky.

I don't follow.

Well, in Germany and Austria, insurance companies in general consider mental illness (unless you need to be committed or suffer from a similarly severe condition) as a minor thing and cover not nearly as much as in physical treatments.

Sounds like a business decision to me.

Imo there are two problems in this case.  First, depression is a treatable condition.  It doesn't make sense to allow someone to kill themselves when the medical condition causing the suffering can be treated.  Second, one of the common symptoms of depression is suicidal ideation, as it was in this case.  If the wish to commit suicide is a symptom of the medical problem how can it ever be the case that the patient is making an informed decision to commit suicide by doctor?   

Quote from: Syt on July 02, 2015, 02:07:17 AM
Don't studies show that the vast majority of people with failed suicide attempts don't make another attempt?

I don't know, I would be surprised if that's true.  Now, I believe the vast majority of people who make a successful suicide attempt don't make additional attempts.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 02, 2015, 11:07:58 AM

Quote from: Syt on July 02, 2015, 02:07:17 AM
Don't studies show that the vast majority of people with failed suicide attempts don't make another attempt?

I don't know, I would be surprised if that's true.  Now, I believe the vast majority of people who make a successful suicide attempt don't make additional attempts.

Syt is correct.  Most people who make failed attempts never make a successful attempt although there may be numerous attempts by one person.  Most unsuccessful suicide attempts are a cry for help.  Also, the more difficult it is to commit suicide the less chance it will be attempted.  That is the rationale for constructing jumping barriers on bridges.

This case is troublesome for both reasons.

Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2015, 07:19:38 AM
This is one of those things I would just assume they keep in Europe. Doctors should not be in the business of killing people. The unintended consequences of such a thing are just too extreme, especially when we get a situation where Marty is saying every emo teen and twenty something can get a doctors note for TEH LIBERTY. Just what we want our limited medical resources going towards.

If they want to off themselves then we have plenty of easily legally obtained fire arms and classes to teach them how to use them. No need to pull the poor doctors into doing something that is not their job.

If suicide is considered a "treatment" for mental illnesses, then it's only a matter of time before it's encouraged.  I really wouldn't like to find out that the only treatment options paid for by my insurance involves a rope and a short fall.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 02, 2015, 11:13:58 AM

Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2015, 07:19:38 AM
This is one of those things I would just assume they keep in Europe. Doctors should not be in the business of killing people. The unintended consequences of such a thing are just too extreme, especially when we get a situation where Marty is saying every emo teen and twenty something can get a doctors note for TEH LIBERTY. Just what we want our limited medical resources going towards.

If they want to off themselves then we have plenty of easily legally obtained fire arms and classes to teach them how to use them. No need to pull the poor doctors into doing something that is not their job.

If suicide is considered a "treatment" for mental illnesses, then it's only a matter of time before it's encouraged.  I really wouldn't like to find out that the only treatment options paid for by my insurance involves a rope and a short fall.

:yeahright: I don't think that hanging is going to replace lethal injection any time soon.

It's not an execution, but a treatment option.  It's simply a budget priced one.

A 24 year old western european female probably has a life expectancy approaching 60 more years. It seems rather premature to think that by 2070 or so no treatment for her depression, extant or to be developed, will be successful.

The article says that life threatening conditions on their own qualify for euthenasia, but that seems rather self fufilling in any mental illness involving suicidal thoughts.

I don't think the solution is blackface.

I am amazed that 50% of the people here responded positively to this statement:

QuoteI believe people should be able to choose to euthanized for any reason.

Anyone? For any reason? Seriously?


So if some 18 year strolls into their doctors office and says "I want to kill myself because my cat died" the doctor should just write her up a prescription, have a nice day?


ANY REASON?

modern Euro = libertine.  Duh.

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 12:47:01 PM
I am amazed that 50% of the people here responded positively to this statement:

QuoteI believe people should be able to choose to euthanized for any reason.

Anyone? For any reason? Seriously?


So if some 18 year strolls into their doctors office and says "I want to kill myself because my cat died" the doctor should just write her up a prescription, have a nice day?


ANY REASON?

That's probably more a function of the poll options:
"No"
"No"
"No"
"Hell no"
"YAS FOR ANY REASON"

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 12:47:01 PM
Anyone? For any reason? Seriously?


So if some 18 year strolls into their doctors office and says "I want to kill myself because my cat died" the doctor should just write her up a prescription, have a nice day?


ANY REASON?

Sure.  We don't own that kids life.  Who are we to impose our wishes on what he does with it?

This is where Libertarians really shine.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2015, 11:03:05 AM
Imo there are two problems in this case.  First, depression is a treatable condition.  It doesn't make sense to allow someone to kill themselves when the medical condition causing the suffering can be treated.  Second, one of the common symptoms of depression is suicidal ideation, as it was in this case.  If the wish to commit suicide is a symptom of the medical problem how can it ever be the case that the patient is making an informed decision to commit suicide by doctor?   

I've never been clear why the latter point of distinction matters.

Why does it matter what the organic causes of a desire for suicide are? If they want to, they want to.  If your mental disease causes you sufficient pain you wish to die, it makes little sense to say that it's irrational.

Thay said, the first point is better-taken, and if we lived in a world where individual lives were valuable to the group, it would be a winning argument for severe restrictions on access to assisted suicide.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2015, 01:00:51 PM
This is where Libertarians really shine.  :rolleyes:

And Statists agree. :)  Promotion of suicide gives society a chance to rid itself of it's unsustainable numbers without war or genocide or property damage.

Besides, it's not like we're talking about something ineffable here. Nobody lives forever and life is not full of infinite possibility, so why live in pain or keep going against the odds?

Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2015, 01:06:26 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2015, 11:03:05 AM
Imo there are two problems in this case.  First, depression is a treatable condition.  It doesn't make sense to allow someone to kill themselves when the medical condition causing the suffering can be treated.  Second, one of the common symptoms of depression is suicidal ideation, as it was in this case.  If the wish to commit suicide is a symptom of the medical problem how can it ever be the case that the patient is making an informed decision to commit suicide by doctor?   

Why does it matter what the organic causes of a desire for suicide are? If they want to, they want to.  If your mental disease causes you sufficient pain you wish to die, it makes little sense to say that it's irrational.

Because if the judgment of the patient of what is "sufficient" is a symptom of the very thing they are being treated for then that judgment is necessarily suspect.

QuoteBesides, it's not like we're talking about something ineffable here. Nobody lives forever and life is not full of infinite possibility, so why live in pain or keep going against the odds?

Sounds like a good beginning for the script of Purge III

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2015, 01:13:37 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2015, 01:06:26 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2015, 11:03:05 AM
Imo there are two problems in this case.  First, depression is a treatable condition.  It doesn't make sense to allow someone to kill themselves when the medical condition causing the suffering can be treated.  Second, one of the common symptoms of depression is suicidal ideation, as it was in this case.  If the wish to commit suicide is a symptom of the medical problem how can it ever be the case that the patient is making an informed decision to commit suicide by doctor?   

Why does it matter what the organic causes of a desire for suicide are? If they want to, they want to.  If your mental disease causes you sufficient pain you wish to die, it makes little sense to say that it's irrational.

Because if the judgment of the patient of what is "sufficient" is a symptom of the very thing they are being treated for then that judgment is necessarily suspect.

So for how many years in a row should a person need to feel like dying before we'd consider it sufficient?

Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2015, 01:16:42 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2015, 01:13:37 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2015, 01:06:26 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2015, 11:03:05 AM
Imo there are two problems in this case.  First, depression is a treatable condition.  It doesn't make sense to allow someone to kill themselves when the medical condition causing the suffering can be treated.  Second, one of the common symptoms of depression is suicidal ideation, as it was in this case.  If the wish to commit suicide is a symptom of the medical problem how can it ever be the case that the patient is making an informed decision to commit suicide by doctor?   

Why does it matter what the organic causes of a desire for suicide are? If they want to, they want to.  If your mental disease causes you sufficient pain you wish to die, it makes little sense to say that it's irrational.

Because if the judgment of the patient of what is "sufficient" is a symptom of the very thing they are being treated for then that judgment is necessarily suspect.

So for how many years in a row should a person need to feel like dying before we'd consider it sufficient?

I think that is the point.  The argument in this thread has been that the individual should be able to make the judgment.  But, to pick up on Berk's point, if the individual is afflicted by something which clearly impairs that judgment as is the situation in this case, some other process needs to be in place for making that decision.  It cannot be as simple as, "heh this kid with suicidal ideation wants to commit suicide.  Well, the patient is always right!"

 

But ultimately, from that person's point of view, that's reality - whether the pain they feel is "real" or "just in their head", it doesn't matter - they feel it all the same. So, as I said earlier, the only condition should be whether the condition can be treated and whether the treatment is something the patient wishes to undergo.

I also never said that this should be something that can be decided on a whim, so please stop touting that straw man, CC and Berkut. The evaluation and "reflexion period" should be at least of the same degree (if not more robust) as with sex change for example. But ultimately if, after a period of counselling, evaluation and reflexion, the person still wants to do it, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to.

Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2015, 01:24:51 PM
But ultimately, from that person's point of view, that's reality - whether the pain they feel is "real" or "just in their head", it doesn't matter - they feel it all the same. So, as I said earlier, the only condition should be whether the condition can be treated and whether the treatment is something the patient wishes to undergo.

Why is the persons "point of view" important when their point of view is directly impacted and a creation of the very thing which is being treated.  Without the depression there would be no suicidal ideation.  Without the suicidal ideation there would be no wish to die. 

This is where a healthy and reasonable respect for personal liberty diverges into just basic fucking crazy.

Liberty is predicated on the concept that people are best able to decide for themselves what is in their own best interests, or at least that in general, this is true compared to the alternative of the state or society making those choices for them.

When the individual is making choices that are clearly NOT in their own best interests, it is very much the case that we step in in a variety of different ways. We do not let children play with matches, even if they really, really want to - that isn't "hypocrisy" because we are restricting their liberty, that is having the rational and sane understanding of the limits of a governing principle under the particulars of actual circumstances. In this case, the realization that children lack the complete capacity to understand what is actually in their own best interests better than their parents.

That exact same principle applies when someone asks to destroy themselves - by definition, that is a request that has a very, very low chance of actually being in that persons best interests, even if they genuinely beleive that it is - just like the child, the mentally ill are not capable of understanding the consequences of their actions, and it is perfectly reasonable to judge that those desires are not in that person's actual best interests.

Now, to top all that off, we are talking not about interfering in their ability to take their lives, which would be one thing, *but actively assisting them in doing so!*

The demand that you use the power of the state to help people destroy themselves as a test for True Libertarian makes me vomit. It makes me start to understand why some people hold the term "libertarian" in such contempt.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2015, 01:33:53 PM

Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2015, 01:24:51 PM
But ultimately, from that person's point of view, that's reality - whether the pain they feel is "real" or "just in their head", it doesn't matter - they feel it all the same. So, as I said earlier, the only condition should be whether the condition can be treated and whether the treatment is something the patient wishes to undergo.

Why is the persons "point of view" important when their point of view is directly impacted and a creation of the very thing which is being treated.  Without the depression there would be no suicidal ideation.  Without the suicidal ideation there would be no wish to die.

Might as well say, "Without that broken spine, there would be no wish to die."

This doesn't mean treatment shouldn't be undertaken first, but treatment sometimes doesn't take.

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 01:42:22 PM
just like the child, the mentally ill are not capable of understanding the consequences of their actions,

You appear to have a cartoonish understanding of mental illness.

Maybe the mentally ill, like the child, just need to grow up?

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 12:47:01 PM
I am amazed that 50% of the people here responded positively to this statement:

QuoteI believe people should be able to choose to euthanized for any reason.

Anyone? For any reason? Seriously?


So if some 18 year strolls into their doctors office and says "I want to kill myself because my cat died" the doctor should just write her up a prescription, have a nice day?


ANY REASON?

That seems to me a much safer call for help from the 18 y/o than a botched sucide attempt.

Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2015, 02:22:05 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 12:47:01 PM
I am amazed that 50% of the people here responded positively to this statement:

QuoteI believe people should be able to choose to euthanized for any reason.

Anyone? For any reason? Seriously?


So if some 18 year strolls into their doctors office and says "I want to kill myself because my cat died" the doctor should just write her up a prescription, have a nice day?


ANY REASON?

That seems to me a much safer call for help from the 18 y/o than a botched sucide attempt.

Not at all, if in fact the "correct" response is to give her a more certain means of killing herself.

The vast majority of suicide attempts, after all, don't result in someone dieing - hence, the "botched" attempts are by definition much less safe than a doctor giving you a sure fire tool to get it right.

Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2015, 02:19:28 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 01:42:22 PM
just like the child, the mentally ill are not capable of understanding the consequences of their actions,

You appear to have a cartoonish understanding of mental illness.

Nice edit job.

:unsure:

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 01:42:22 PM
This is where a healthy and reasonable respect for personal liberty diverges into just basic fucking crazy.

Liberty is predicated on the concept that people are best able to decide for themselves what is in their own best interests, or at least that in general, this is true compared to the alternative of the state or society making those choices for them.

When the individual is making choices that are clearly NOT in their own best interests, it is very much the case that we step in in a variety of different ways. We do not let children play with matches, even if they really, really want to - that isn't "hypocrisy" because we are restricting their liberty, that is having the rational and sane understanding of the limits of a governing principle under the particulars of actual circumstances. In this case, the realization that children lack the complete capacity to understand what is actually in their own best interests better than their parents.

That exact same principle applies when someone asks to destroy themselves - by definition, that is a request that has a very, very low chance of actually being in that persons best interests, even if they genuinely beleive that it is - just like the child, the mentally ill are not capable of understanding the consequences of their actions, and it is perfectly reasonable to judge that those desires are not in that person's actual best interests.

Now, to top all that off, we are talking not about interfering in their ability to take their lives, which would be one thing, *but actively assisting them in doing so!*

The demand that you use the power of the state to help people destroy themselves as a test for True Libertarian makes me vomit. It makes me start to understand why some people hold the term "libertarian" in such contempt.

You appear to have a cartoonish understanding of mental illness.

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 02:24:03 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2015, 02:22:05 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 12:47:01 PM
I am amazed that 50% of the people here responded positively to this statement:

QuoteI believe people should be able to choose to euthanized for any reason.

Anyone? For any reason? Seriously?


So if some 18 year strolls into their doctors office and says "I want to kill myself because my cat died" the doctor should just write her up a prescription, have a nice day?


ANY REASON?

That seems to me a much safer call for help from the 18 y/o than a botched sucide attempt.

Not at all, if in fact the "correct" response is to give her a more certain means of killing herself.

The vast majority of suicide attempts, after all, don't result in someone dieing - hence, the "botched" attempts are by definition much less safe than a doctor giving you a sure fire tool to get it right.

Yes?

Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2015, 01:55:55 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2015, 01:33:53 PM

Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2015, 01:24:51 PM
But ultimately, from that person's point of view, that's reality - whether the pain they feel is "real" or "just in their head", it doesn't matter - they feel it all the same. So, as I said earlier, the only condition should be whether the condition can be treated and whether the treatment is something the patient wishes to undergo.

Why is the persons "point of view" important when their point of view is directly impacted and a creation of the very thing which is being treated.  Without the depression there would be no suicidal ideation.  Without the suicidal ideation there would be no wish to die.

Might as well say, "Without that broken spine, there would be no wish to die."

You are missing the point entirely then.  The broken spine is the direct cause of a person's inability to walk.  The depression is the direct cause of this person's suicidal ideation.

you'll have to translate it yourselves.

the law:
http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=nl&la=N&cn=2002052837&table_name=wet

the point-by-point version, in human-speak rather than legalese (though the legalese is oddly comprehensible):
http://www.belgium.be/nl/gezondheid/gezondheidszorg/levenseinde/euthanasie/

Here in Canada the criminal prohibition against doctor assisted suicide has been stuck down by the SCC.  The government has not yet created new laws reflecting the decision and so the College of Physicians and Surgeons has created guidelines for its members regarding how to approach the issue.

You will see that the guidelines emphasize the importance of the patient being mentally competent to make the decision.

http://www.cpso.on.ca/policies-publications/policy/decision-making-for-the-end-of-life

As I understand it updated guidelines are being worked on now.

CC.  looked over that, and it appears that in regards to this topic, it is still not acceptable to assist someone in taking their life:

Quote3.4 Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
Euthanasia is a deliberate act undertaken by a person with the intention of ending the life of another person to relieve that person's suffering where that act is the cause of death.10 Euthanasia is prohibited under the Canadian Criminal Code.

Assisted suicide is the act of intentionally killing oneself with the assistance of another who provides the knowledge, means, or both.11 Under the Criminal Code, counselling, aiding or abetting suicide is an offence, and the consent of the deceased to his or her own death does not prevent criminal liability from attaching to the person who assisted in bringing about the death.

None of this is to suggest that physicians should refrain from the aggressive management of a patient's pain and symptoms, as appropriate.

Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2015, 02:19:28 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 01:42:22 PM
just like the child, the mentally ill are not capable of understanding the consequences of their actions,

You appear to have a cartoonish understanding of mental illness.

Yeah a very small percentage of mentally ill people are actually incapable of making an informed decision. The thing is depression doesnt give you "suicidal thoughts" - it makes your life so unbearable, you start contemplating suicide. How is it different, then, from suffering from physical pain so strong, your life is so unbearable, you start contemplating suicide?

Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2015, 03:14:34 PM
Yeah a very small percentage of mentally ill people are actually incapable of making an informed decision. The thing is depression doesnt give you "suicidal thoughts" - it makes your life so unbearable, you start contemplating suicide. How is it different, then, from suffering from physical pain so strong, your life is so unbearable, you start contemplating suicide?

I think I'm not going to take your word on the link between suicide and depression, Dr. Marti. :wacko:

Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2015, 03:14:34 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2015, 02:19:28 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 01:42:22 PM
just like the child, the mentally ill are not capable of understanding the consequences of their actions,

You appear to have a cartoonish understanding of mental illness.

Yeah a very small percentage of mentally ill people are actually incapable of making an informed decision.

Lovely. He creates a strawman, then you respond as if the strawman were the actual argument with yet another strawman. Classic

A very small percentage of mentally ill people are incapable, that is true. Of course, I never said otherwise.

Of course, a very small percentage of mentally ill people wish to kill themselves as well. Something you seem to have missed.

What percentage of mentally ill people WHO WANT TO KILL THEMSELVES are capable of making an informed decision?

That is the actual question I am raising.

Your answer is that we don't care - as long as they say that is what they want, we should not care at all. I think we should care, and in fact they should be evaluated by a competent medical professional to make certain that they are in fact capable of making that decision, and that the decision is based on actual medical facts rather than being driven by the very condition itself.

Just like if someone said "Hey, I want euthanasia because I have an incurable cancer" and a doctor knows in fact that it is NOT incurable, he should probably not just write the prescription. OH WELL IT IS WHAT THE PATIENT WANTS LOLZORS LIBERTY!

He might, in fact, choose to refuse such a prescription and instead..you know...tell them it can be treated.

Quote
The thing is depression doesnt give you "suicidal thoughts"

Now you are the one with a cartoonish understanding of depression. It most certainly does create suicidal thoughts.

Quote
- it makes your life so unbearable, you start contemplating suicide. How is it different, then, from suffering from physical pain so strong, your life is so unbearable, you start contemplating suicide?

Because it has in fact been shown that people suffering from depression contemplate suicide far out of proportion to their experienced pain.

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 03:04:33 PM
CC.  looked over that, and it appears that in regards to this topic, it is still not acceptable to assist someone in taking their life:

Quote3.4 Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
Euthanasia is a deliberate act undertaken by a person with the intention of ending the life of another person to relieve that person's suffering where that act is the cause of death.10 Euthanasia is prohibited under the Canadian Criminal Code.

Assisted suicide is the act of intentionally killing oneself with the assistance of another who provides the knowledge, means, or both.11 Under the Criminal Code, counselling, aiding or abetting suicide is an offence, and the consent of the deceased to his or her own death does not prevent criminal liability from attaching to the person who assisted in bringing about the death.

None of this is to suggest that physicians should refrain from the aggressive management of a patient's pain and symptoms, as appropriate.

Yeah, that is the part that is no longer applicable because of the SCC case.  Now doctors are only left with the informed consent guidance.  Everyone recognizes that is not sufficient but it at least emphasizes the point you were making.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2015, 03:33:36 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 03:04:33 PM
CC.  looked over that, and it appears that in regards to this topic, it is still not acceptable to assist someone in taking their life:

Quote3.4 Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
Euthanasia is a deliberate act undertaken by a person with the intention of ending the life of another person to relieve that person's suffering where that act is the cause of death.10 Euthanasia is prohibited under the Canadian Criminal Code.

Assisted suicide is the act of intentionally killing oneself with the assistance of another who provides the knowledge, means, or both.11 Under the Criminal Code, counselling, aiding or abetting suicide is an offence, and the consent of the deceased to his or her own death does not prevent criminal liability from attaching to the person who assisted in bringing about the death.

None of this is to suggest that physicians should refrain from the aggressive management of a patient's pain and symptoms, as appropriate.

Yeah, that is the part that is no longer applicable because of the SCC case.  Now doctors are only left with the informed consent guidance.  Everyone recognizes that is not sufficient but it at least emphasizes the point you were making.

Well, this is just another example of how Canadians only pay lip service to liberty then!

:barf:

Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2015, 03:14:34 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2015, 02:19:28 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 01:42:22 PM
just like the child, the mentally ill are not capable of understanding the consequences of their actions,

You appear to have a cartoonish understanding of mental illness.

Yeah a very small percentage of mentally ill people are actually incapable of making an informed decision. The thing is depression doesnt give you "suicidal thoughts" - it makes your life so unbearable, you start contemplating suicide. How is it different, then, from suffering from physical pain so strong, your life is so unbearable, you start contemplating suicide?

Please go back and re-read the facts of this case.  The reason given for allowing her to die is precisely because her depression was giving her suicidal thoughts.

I haven't voted in the poll yet. I have a question: in Sweden if you're brain dead you're legally dead, but I take it that's not the case in the US?

I'm the guy who voted against it in all cases. :)

Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2015, 03:53:36 PM
I haven't voted in the poll yet. I have a question: in Sweden if you're brain dead you're legally dead, but I take it that's not the case in the US?

We all hope the brain isn't dead.  :)

Warms the old heart it does. :)

Quote from: Razgovory on July 02, 2015, 04:47:17 PM
I'm the guy who voted against it in all cases. :)

So did I.  It's all bullshit anyway--there's no such thing as death with dignity.  You can face death with dignity, but death itself isn't dignified.

After reading this thread i want to be euthenized. Along with the rest of humanity.

Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2015, 03:53:36 PM
I haven't voted in the poll yet. I have a question: in Sweden if you're brain dead you're legally dead, but I take it that's not the case in the US?

If that was the case the GOP would be in deep trouble. *babading*  :bowler:

Quote from: Ed Anger on July 02, 2015, 08:09:13 AM
I know who I'd like to smother with a pillow.

*glances at Tim*

Get in line :angry:

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 01, 2015, 09:03:20 PM
Fucked up

http://europe.newsweek.com/healthy-24-year-old-granted-right-die-belgium-329504

QuoteHealthy 24-year-old granted right to die in Belgium

By Eilish O'Gara  6/29/15 at 7:17 PM

Filed Under: Health   



Doctors in Belgium are granting a 24-year-old woman who is suffering from depression but is otherwise healthy the right to die as she qualifies for euthanasia under the Belgian law, even though she does not have a terminal or life-threatening illness.

The 24-year-old woman, known simply as Laura, has been given the go-ahead by health professionals in Belgium to receive a lethal injection after spending both her childhood and adult life suffering from "suicidal thoughts", she told local Belgian media.

Laura has been a patient of a psychiatric institution since the age of 21 and says she has previously tried to kill herself on several occasions. She told journalists: "Death feels to me not as a choice. If I had a choice, I would choose a bearable life, but I have done everything and that was unsuccessful." The date of Laura's death is yet to be decided.

Try Newsweek: subscription offers

Belgium passed a law to legalise euthanasia in 2002, the second country in the world to do so after the Netherlands. The law states that Belgian doctors can "help patients" to end their lives if they freely express a wish to die because they are suffering from intractable and unbearable pain.

Dr Marc Van Hoey, a general practitioner and president of the Right to Die Association in northern Belgium, is a vocal supporter of the legislation. Van Hoey told the Independent newspaper that he believes that sometimes euthanasia is the kindest option. "I've seen quite a lot of persons dying in - how do you say in proper English - agony?" Van Hoey said. "I never saw that when I gave someone euthanasia he or she asked for."

Over the past few years there has been a sharp increase in the number of euthanasia cases in Belgium. In 2013, there were 1,807 deaths recorded compared with 1,432 in 2012. More than half of last year's cases were patients aged 70 and over but there are increasing numbers of young people requesting to die legally, with the majority citing depression as their "intractable and unbearable pain."

However, not everyone is in favour of the law. Carine Brochier, a project manager with the Brussels-based European Institute of Bioethics, tells Newsweek that she believes too many people are dying as a result of Belgium's liberalised euthanasia laws.

She argues that many people who experience psychological suffering and treatable mental illnesses may be wrongly given the go ahead for euthanasia because "there is absolutely no way for healthcare professionals to measure another person's mental suffering to decide if they should receive euthanasia."

"Euthanasia is not the answer to all human suffering," Brochier continues. "We need to develop better palliative care for people," something she believes Belgium is not currently doing.

Earlier this year in February, the parliament in Belgium passed a bill also allowing euthanasia for terminally ill children without any age limit, by 86 votes to 44. The vote makes it the first country in the world to have legalised euthanasia without an age limit.

In the Netherlands, the first country to legalize euthanasia, sick children are allowed to request it, but only if they are 12 years or older.

As of June 2015, euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, Colombia and Luxembourg.

This is fucking stupid.

You're thinking of sex with an average person.

I hope Belgium required that she at least exhaust all evidence based treatment regimens prior to permitting euthanasia. I'd be more okay with this if she was truly refractory to antidepressants, antipsychotics, and electroconvulsive therapy. If modern medicine has nothing to offer you and you're severly debilitated by depression maybe there can be a place for a right to die. The article does not tell us much about her psychiatric history.

Quote from: Fate on July 03, 2015, 10:47:28 PM
I hope Belgium required that she at least exhaust all evidence based treatment regimens prior to permitting euthanasia. I'd be more okay with this if she was truly refractory to antidepressants, antipsychotics, and electroconvulsive therapy. If modern medicine has nothing to offer you and you're severly debilitated by depression maybe there can be a place for a right to die. The article does not tell us much about her psychiatric history.

It's not like she went to the doctor one day and asked for a lethal prescription and the next day she's residing between six planks/in one urn.  <_<
It'll have taken a while between the initial request and the actual deed because the law required doctors to make sure that the patient is really really really certain of what the
request means (given that the doctors are responsible and may end up in court or worse in case of irregularities of any kind). At which point doctors may still decide to refuse the request (the law grants to people the right to request euthanasia, not the right to actually get it).

The article -obviously- doesn't divulge enough info (and I doubt the Original article in Het Nieuwsblad doesn't either) about het medical history. For obvious reasons.

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 12:47:01 PM
I am amazed that 50% of the people here responded positively to this statement:

QuoteI believe people should be able to choose to euthanized for any reason.

Anyone? For any reason? Seriously?


So if some 18 year strolls into their doctors office and says "I want to kill myself because my cat died" the doctor should just write her up a prescription, have a nice day?


ANY REASON?

I think so. People are free to do what they want with their body, including to terminate themselves, even if the reason is stupid.

She can just jump off a bridge instead of this attention whoring. Mission accomplished.

Quote from: Rex Francorum on July 04, 2015, 04:50:54 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 12:47:01 PM
I am amazed that 50% of the people here responded positively to this statement:

QuoteI believe people should be able to choose to euthanized for any reason.

Anyone? For any reason? Seriously?


So if some 18 year strolls into their doctors office and says "I want to kill myself because my cat died" the doctor should just write her up a prescription, have a nice day?


ANY REASON?

I think so. People are free to do what they want with their body, including to terminate themselves, even if the reason is stupid.

People are free to do what they want with their body (within limits), but you don't have the right to force a doctor to prescribe you a lethal dose of phenobarbital.

Going off on a tangent, it's amazing how in Europe, thousands can get lethally injected with no problems, but in US, it's cruel and unusual when we execute someone like that.

Quote from: DGuller on July 04, 2015, 08:48:46 AM
Going off on a tangent, it's amazing how in Europe, thousands can get lethally injected with no problems, but in US, it's cruel and unusual when we execute someone like that.

Yeah, Americans are strangely inept.

Quote from: Fate on July 04, 2015, 08:11:35 AM

Quote from: Rex Francorum on July 04, 2015, 04:50:54 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 12:47:01 PM
I am amazed that 50% of the people here responded positively to this statement:

QuoteI believe people should be able to choose to euthanized for any reason.

Anyone? For any reason? Seriously?


So if some 18 year strolls into their doctors office and says "I want to kill myself because my cat died" the doctor should just write her up a prescription, have a nice day?


ANY REASON?

I think so. People are free to do what they want with their body, including to terminate themselves, even if the reason is stupid.

People are free to do what they want with their body (within limits), but you don't have the right to force a doctor to prescribe you a lethal dose of phenobarbital.

doctor doesn't have to prescribe if he/she doesn't agree for any reason.

Quote from: Rex Francorum on July 04, 2015, 04:50:54 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 12:47:01 PM
I am amazed that 50% of the people here responded positively to this statement:

QuoteI believe people should be able to choose to euthanized for any reason.

Anyone? For any reason? Seriously?


So if some 18 year strolls into their doctors office and says "I want to kill myself because my cat died" the doctor should just write her up a prescription, have a nice day?


ANY REASON?

I think so. People are free to do what they want with their body, including to terminate themselves, even if the reason is stupid.

People are not free to do what they want with their own bodies.  They can't sell themselves into slavery, in most countries they can't prostitute themselves, and nearly all countries children are not allowed to be prostitutes.  You can't chop off your own arm and replace it with a cannon and get around gun restrictions.  Most countries have restriction on what you are legally able to ingest.  Etc, Etc, etc.

I am not sure where the free to do whatever they want means.  The number of laws restricting what a person can do to or with their body is lengthy.

Can I still listen to it?

Quote from: Fate on July 04, 2015, 08:11:35 AM
People are free to do what they want with their body (within limits), but you don't have the right to force a doctor to prescribe you a lethal dose of phenobarbital.

Yep.

Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 07:32:39 AM

Quote from: Fate on July 04, 2015, 08:11:35 AM
People are free to do what they want with their body (within limits), but you don't have the right to force a doctor to prescribe you a lethal dose of phenobarbital.

Yep.

Good thing then that the doctor isn't forced.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 06, 2015, 07:36:10 AM
Good thing then that the doctor isn't forced.

They are forced to make that call. They should never have that power nor obligation. Their job is to keep you alive. If you don't want to be alive don't go to a doctor.

Basically if you want to kill yourself we have many options available. Don't be a selfish asshole and make the rest of us come up with rules and regulations and take on the responsibility for you. I want no part of it and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and doctors having a part in it. The only time the rest of us need to be worried about this at all is if somebody is incapacitated with no hope of recovery and lacks the ability to make that call.

Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 07:41:51 AM
Basically if you want to kill yourself we have many options available. Don't be a selfish asshole and make the rest of us come up with rules and regulations and take on the responsibility for you. I want no part of it and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and doctors having a part in it. The only time the rest of us need to be worried about this at all is if somebody is incapacitated with no hope of recovery and lacks the ability to make that call.

I'm all for a leaner, meaner government, but even I don't think that looking to the government for regulation of procedures with health and safety implications makes you a selfish asshole.

Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2015, 07:58:11 AM

Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 07:41:51 AM
Basically if you want to kill yourself we have many options available. Don't be a selfish asshole and make the rest of us come up with rules and regulations and take on the responsibility for you. I want no part of it and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and doctors having a part in it. The only time the rest of us need to be worried about this at all is if somebody is incapacitated with no hope of recovery and lacks the ability to make that call.

I'm all for a leaner, meaner government, but even I don't think that looking to the government for regulation of procedures with health and safety implications makes you a selfish asshole.

Well wouldn't the gov't watching out for health and safety opt for that which ensures health and safety (aka not permitting its doctors to prescribe medications for the sole purpose of depriving a patient of health and safety)?

Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2015, 08:09:13 AM

Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2015, 07:58:11 AM

Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 07:41:51 AM
Basically if you want to kill yourself we have many options available. Don't be a selfish asshole and make the rest of us come up with rules and regulations and take on the responsibility for you. I want no part of it and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and doctors having a part in it. The only time the rest of us need to be worried about this at all is if somebody is incapacitated with no hope of recovery and lacks the ability to make that call.

I'm all for a leaner, meaner government, but even I don't think that looking to the government for regulation of procedures with health and safety implications makes you a selfish asshole.

Well wouldn't the gov't watching out for health and safety opt for that which ensures health and safety (aka not permitting its doctors to prescribe medications for the sole purpose of depriving a patient of health and safety)?

There are many more health and safety aspects than the death thing.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 04, 2015, 01:00:47 PM

Quote from: Fate on July 04, 2015, 08:11:35 AM

Quote from: Rex Francorum on July 04, 2015, 04:50:54 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 12:47:01 PM
I am amazed that 50% of the people here responded positively to this statement:

QuoteI believe people should be able to choose to euthanized for any reason.

Anyone? For any reason? Seriously?


So if some 18 year strolls into their doctors office and says "I want to kill myself because my cat died" the doctor should just write her up a prescription, have a nice day?


ANY REASON?

I think so. People are free to do what they want with their body, including to terminate themselves, even if the reason is stupid.

People are free to do what they want with their body (within limits), but you don't have the right to force a doctor to prescribe you a lethal dose of phenobarbital.

doctor doesn't have to prescribe if he/she doesn't agree for any reason.

Doctors must conduct themselves within their code of ethics and the law.  Doctors can't do what they want for any reason

Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 07:41:51 AM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 06, 2015, 07:36:10 AM
Good thing then that the doctor isn't forced.

They are forced to make that call. They should never have that power nor obligation. Their job is to keep you alive. If you don't want to be alive don't go to a doctor.

Basically if you want to kill yourself we have many options available. Don't be a selfish asshole and make the rest of us come up with rules and regulations and take on the responsibility for you. I want no part of it and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and doctors having a part in it. The only time the rest of us need to be worried about this at all is if somebody is incapacitated with no hope of recovery and lacks the ability to make that call.

If the doctor in question doesn't want to make that call the doctor says so and the patient needs to go elsewhere. It's also not the job of a doctor to keep a patient alive no matter the cost. In more than a few cases that's just inhumane.
And going to a doctor to exit-life-stage-left is imho the least selfish option. The selfish option is to be an asshole and throw yourself on in front of a car, train or jump in a canal resulting in a lot of misery for people who have the misfortune to be at the wrong place on the wrong time. And/Or for the family left behind that has to hear/find (depending on method of 'leaving') you in less than amusing situations (cause it's always a hoot to find out that a family member hung himself in your cellar/slit his wrists in your bath/got flattened by a vehicle of choice...).
And that's excluding the usually hefty bill from the state in case the dearly departed left in such a way that trains were halted, highways were closed or dredgings needed.
So no, don't be an asshole and go see a doctor. In best case a new perspective is found that results in staying alive, in worst case euthanasia happens but in a setting that allows for setting where goodbyes can be said (if desired), with something that approaches dignity instead of a corpse splattered on a windshield and total strangers needing psychological assistance because of trauma. After all, you're not the only one living on this world.

As for this:"The only time the rest of us need to be worried about this at all is if somebody is incapacitated with no hope of recovery and lacks the ability to make that call."
->if the person in question can no longer make the call it's too late -assuming said person neglected/was unable to specify what should happen in this situation. If euthanasia is done than it's -iirc- murder. Luckily for most, doctors have ways to make it not seem as such but it's not unheard of for family and doctors to get into a lot of problems with the courts.
Hence the law: better legal protection for the doctor while allowing to people to make that final choice (on 'short' or long notice).

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 08:16:39 AM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 04, 2015, 01:00:47 PM

Quote from: Fate on July 04, 2015, 08:11:35 AM

Quote from: Rex Francorum on July 04, 2015, 04:50:54 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 12:47:01 PM
I am amazed that 50% of the people here responded positively to this statement:

QuoteI believe people should be able to choose to euthanized for any reason.

Anyone? For any reason? Seriously?


So if some 18 year strolls into their doctors office and says "I want to kill myself because my cat died" the doctor should just write her up a prescription, have a nice day?


ANY REASON?

I think so. People are free to do what they want with their body, including to terminate themselves, even if the reason is stupid.

People are free to do what they want with their body (within limits), but you don't have the right to force a doctor to prescribe you a lethal dose of phenobarbital.

doctor doesn't have to prescribe if he/she doesn't agree for any reason.

Doctors must conduct themselves within their code of ethics and the law.  Doctors can't do what they want for any reason

This law specifies that a doctor who doesn't want to partake in euthanasia doesn' t have to.

I've already posted the law before. I'll do so again: the French version this time since you're Canadian.

http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=fr&la=F&cn=2002052837&table_name=loi

Art. 14. La demande et la déclaration anticipée de volonté telles que prévues aux articles 3 et 4 de la présente loi n'ont pas de valeur contraignante.
  Aucun médecin n'est tenu de pratiquer une euthanasie.
  Aucune autre personne n'est tenue de participer à une euthanasie.
  Si le médecin consulté refuse de pratiquer une euthanasie, il est tenu d'en informer en temps utile le patient ou la personne de confiance éventuelle, en en précisant les raisons. Dans le cas où son refus est justifié par une raison médicale, celle-ci est consignée dans le dossier médical du patient.
  Le médecin qui refuse de donner suite à une requête d'euthanasie est tenu, à la demande du patient ou de la personne de confiance, de communiquer le dossier médical du patient au médecin désigné par ce dernier ou par la personne de confiance.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 06, 2015, 08:48:23 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 08:16:39 AM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 04, 2015, 01:00:47 PM

Quote from: Fate on July 04, 2015, 08:11:35 AM

Quote from: Rex Francorum on July 04, 2015, 04:50:54 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 12:47:01 PM
I am amazed that 50% of the people here responded positively to this statement:

QuoteI believe people should be able to choose to euthanized for any reason.

Anyone? For any reason? Seriously?


So if some 18 year strolls into their doctors office and says "I want to kill myself because my cat died" the doctor should just write her up a prescription, have a nice day?


ANY REASON?

I think so. People are free to do what they want with their body, including to terminate themselves, even if the reason is stupid.

People are free to do what they want with their body (within limits), but you don't have the right to force a doctor to prescribe you a lethal dose of phenobarbital.

doctor doesn't have to prescribe if he/she doesn't agree for any reason.

Doctors must conduct themselves within their code of ethics and the law.  Doctors can't do what they want for any reason

This law specifies that a doctor who doesn't want to partake in euthanasia doesn' t have to.

I've already posted the law before. I'll do so again: the French version this time since you're Canadian.

http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=fr&la=F&cn=2002052837&table_name=loi

Art. 14. La demande et la déclaration anticipée de volonté telles que prévues aux articles 3 et 4 de la présente loi n'ont pas de valeur contraignante.
  Aucun médecin n'est tenu de pratiquer une euthanasie.
  Aucune autre personne n'est tenue de participer à une euthanasie.
  Si le médecin consulté refuse de pratiquer une euthanasie, il est tenu d'en informer en temps utile le patient ou la personne de confiance éventuelle, en en précisant les raisons. Dans le cas où son refus est justifié par une raison médicale, celle-ci est consignée dans le dossier médical du patient.
  Le médecin qui refuse de donner suite à une requête d'euthanasie est tenu, à la demande du patient ou de la personne de confiance, de communiquer le dossier médical du patient au médecin désigné par ce dernier ou par la personne de confiance.

I think you are missing a nuance here.  This legislation requires the doctor to note in the file if there are medical reasons to reject the request before handing it off to the next doctor.  Presumably this is so the next doctor does not miss the fact that there are medical reasons to refuse the request.  The legislation anticipates that there will be medical circumstances where a patient's request to die will be refused ie where the medical condition does not meet the legislated test for when euthanasia should be considered.

Bottom line.  Your point that people can do whatever they want with their bodies for any reason does not withstand close scrutiny.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 10:28:31 AM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 06, 2015, 08:48:23 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 08:16:39 AM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 04, 2015, 01:00:47 PM

Quote from: Fate on July 04, 2015, 08:11:35 AM

Quote from: Rex Francorum on July 04, 2015, 04:50:54 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2015, 12:47:01 PM
I am amazed that 50% of the people here responded positively to this statement:

QuoteI believe people should be able to choose to euthanized for any reason.

Anyone? For any reason? Seriously?


So if some 18 year strolls into their doctors office and says "I want to kill myself because my cat died" the doctor should just write her up a prescription, have a nice day?


ANY REASON?

I think so. People are free to do what they want with their body, including to terminate themselves, even if the reason is stupid.

People are free to do what they want with their body (within limits), but you don't have the right to force a doctor to prescribe you a lethal dose of phenobarbital.

doctor doesn't have to prescribe if he/she doesn't agree for any reason.

Doctors must conduct themselves within their code of ethics and the law.  Doctors can't do what they want for any reason

This law specifies that a doctor who doesn't want to partake in euthanasia doesn' t have to.

I've already posted the law before. I'll do so again: the French version this time since you're Canadian.

http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=fr&la=F&cn=2002052837&table_name=loi

Art. 14. La demande et la déclaration anticipée de volonté telles que prévues aux articles 3 et 4 de la présente loi n'ont pas de valeur contraignante.
  Aucun médecin n'est tenu de pratiquer une euthanasie.
  Aucune autre personne n'est tenue de participer à une euthanasie.
  Si le médecin consulté refuse de pratiquer une euthanasie, il est tenu d'en informer en temps utile le patient ou la personne de confiance éventuelle, en en précisant les raisons. Dans le cas où son refus est justifié par une raison médicale, celle-ci est consignée dans le dossier médical du patient.
  Le médecin qui refuse de donner suite à une requête d'euthanasie est tenu, à la demande du patient ou de la personne de confiance, de communiquer le dossier médical du patient au médecin désigné par ce dernier ou par la personne de confiance.

I think you are missing a nuance here.  This legislation requires the doctor to note in the file if there are medical reasons to reject the request before handing it off to the next doctor.  Presumably this is so the next doctor does not miss the fact that there are medical reasons to refuse the request.  The legislation anticipates that there will be medical circumstances where a patient's request to die will be refused ie where the medical condition does not meet the legislated test for when euthanasia should be considered.

Bottom line.  Your point that people can do whatever they want with their bodies for any reason does not withstand close scrutiny.

the bottom line is Fate's point.

I'm not missing a nuance here though: A doctor does not need to participate in a euthanasia if he doesn't want to. But if there's (also) a medical reason as to why, this reason needs to be added to the medical file (because it's medically relevant). The first two lines of the article are quite clear -as is the version in Dutch-: no doctor (or anyone else) is obligated to participate in such a procedure.

Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2015, 08:10:36 AM

Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2015, 08:09:13 AM

Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2015, 07:58:11 AM

Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 07:41:51 AM
Basically if you want to kill yourself we have many options available. Don't be a selfish asshole and make the rest of us come up with rules and regulations and take on the responsibility for you. I want no part of it and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and doctors having a part in it. The only time the rest of us need to be worried about this at all is if somebody is incapacitated with no hope of recovery and lacks the ability to make that call.

I'm all for a leaner, meaner government, but even I don't think that looking to the government for regulation of procedures with health and safety implications makes you a selfish asshole.

Well wouldn't the gov't watching out for health and safety opt for that which ensures health and safety (aka not permitting its doctors to prescribe medications for the sole purpose of depriving a patient of health and safety)?

There are many more health and safety aspects than the death thing.

Yes, and a lot of regulations about them.  Garbon's point is that we expect those regulations to ensure health and safety, not undermine it.  For example, very few people have a problem with the government having laws that require automobiles to have working brakes.  Conversely, almost everyone would have a problem with the government having laws that prohibit automobiles from having working brakes.

Quote from: dps on July 06, 2015, 12:55:32 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2015, 08:10:36 AM

Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2015, 08:09:13 AM

Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2015, 07:58:11 AM

Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2015, 07:41:51 AM
Basically if you want to kill yourself we have many options available. Don't be a selfish asshole and make the rest of us come up with rules and regulations and take on the responsibility for you. I want no part of it and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and doctors having a part in it. The only time the rest of us need to be worried about this at all is if somebody is incapacitated with no hope of recovery and lacks the ability to make that call.

I'm all for a leaner, meaner government, but even I don't think that looking to the government for regulation of procedures with health and safety implications makes you a selfish asshole.

Well wouldn't the gov't watching out for health and safety opt for that which ensures health and safety (aka not permitting its doctors to prescribe medications for the sole purpose of depriving a patient of health and safety)?

There are many more health and safety aspects than the death thing.

Yes, and a lot of regulations about them.  Garbon's point is that we expect those regulations to ensure health and safety, not undermine it.  For example, very few people have a problem with the government having laws that require automobiles to have working brakes.  Conversely, almost everyone would have a problem with the government having laws that prohibit automobiles from having working brakes.

I don't follow.

Ivan,

just to be clear.  Are you arguing that people should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies no matter what the reason might be or have I mixed you up with someone else?

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 12:59:43 PM
Ivan,

just to be clear.  Are you arguing that people should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies no matter what the reason might be or have I mixed you up with someone else?

not me iirc.
I'm in the camp that sees euthanasia as unfortunate but preferable to having to hang on when your quality of life is so low as to be non-existant and that ending it with the help of doctors and after making sure there's really no acceptable alternative left is preferable to jumping off a bridge, hanging yourself, etc with all the additional misery that follows such an event. While at the same time providing the doctors (and other medical personel, lets not forget them) with legal protection when such an event happens.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 06, 2015, 02:22:45 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 12:59:43 PM
Ivan,

just to be clear.  Are you arguing that people should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies no matter what the reason might be or have I mixed you up with someone else?

not me iirc.
I'm in the camp that sees euthanasia as unfortunate but preferable to having to hang on when your quality of life is so low as to be non-existant and that ending it with the help of doctors and after making sure there's really no acceptable alternative left is preferable to jumping off a bridge, hanging yourself, etc with all the additional misery that follows such an event. While at the same time providing the doctors (and other medical personel, lets not forget them) with legal protection when such an event happens.

I apologize then.  I did mix you up with someone else. We agree on this issue.  :)

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 02:36:50 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 06, 2015, 02:22:45 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2015, 12:59:43 PM
Ivan,

just to be clear.  Are you arguing that people should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies no matter what the reason might be or have I mixed you up with someone else?

not me iirc.
I'm in the camp that sees euthanasia as unfortunate but preferable to having to hang on when your quality of life is so low as to be non-existant and that ending it with the help of doctors and after making sure there's really no acceptable alternative left is preferable to jumping off a bridge, hanging yourself, etc with all the additional misery that follows such an event. While at the same time providing the doctors (and other medical personel, lets not forget them) with legal protection when such an event happens.

I apologize then.  I did mix you up with someone else. We agree on this issue.  :)

Rex Francorum was the one how made that statement.  You probably thought it was Ivan because he quoted it I one of his posts.