Euthanasia
A 17 year Dutch girl was euthanized at her request with her mother's approval because she could not cope with the sexual abuse she experienced 3 years prior. https://www.foxnews.com/world/dutch-rape-victim-euthanasia
Doctor assisted suicide seemed reasonable to me in theory, where a terminally ill patient simply could not endure any more suffering and wished to hasten the end while they had some dignity left.
This real life example causes me to question whether we should allow even such reasonable instances for fear the empowered will continue to euthanize children.
Assuming the facts reported are accurate, do you not see this as murder?
Doctor assisted suicide seemed reasonable to me in theory, where a terminally ill patient simply could not endure any more suffering and wished to hasten the end while they had some dignity left.
This real life example causes me to question whether we should allow even such reasonable instances for fear the empowered will continue to euthanize children.
Assuming the facts reported are accurate, do you not see this as murder?
Comments (179)
According to the short and seemingly biased article-I don't think this is murder. While suicide should not be considered as the 'solution' to mental illnesses-such trauma must be treated similarly to a chronic disease. Trauma and the mental illnesses associated should be considered a chronic disease-one that affects the individual for most of their lives. While I am saddened at this girl's death-I am in no place to blame her for her decision-she voluntarily chose to end her own life-as a majority of rape survivors do sooner or later. While many victims in similar situations do find a way to move forward in their lives, this is not always possible for everyone all the time.
I've never understood the anti-euthanasia push, to me it seems entirely common sense. There is a threshold of suffering that is possible for an individual, and worth it for said individual, to endure. While evolution equips us with much strength to endure such suffering (not too mention the stigma resultant of culture) people's lives will eventually, stop being worth living. If you do not die an accidental or sudden death (ie. hit by a bus) then there will come a time, inevitably, that your life depreciates to the point it is not worth living.
Murder is illegal killing by definition.
So obviously not; this is not murder.
Ask yourself whose life is it? And when you have that answer you should be able to figure out who should be in ultimate control of what happens to that life.
Although tragic, this case is a very welcome step.
Quoting Hanover
17 is not a child in Holland.
Murder has a definition. It is the unlawful taking of a human life.
Was the death unlawful?
If not...it was not "murder."
Sexual abuse and rape kills people. Even if the physical death doesn't take place until years or decades following the event-it still kills people.
Lots of the early supporters of euthanasia have since recanted after seeing a cascade of questionable cases in and around the Netherlands
It's a slippery slope argument that indicates that we should be cautious, but it doesn't indicate that we should forbid euthanasia entirely. Whether or not this 17 year old girl made a naive decision should not come to bear on the decisions of terminally ill patients to end their suffering.
No. Not unless it's against someone's will.
"They think I'm too young to die. They believe I should complete my therapy first, and that my brain needs to be fully grown. That takes until you're 21. I'm devastated, because I can't wait that long."
She actually starved herself to death by refusing to eat or drink. They would have had to force a feeding tube down her throat to keep her alive. Instead they decided to provide pain relief.
This was actually suicide, and it has been misreported.
They could have sedated her and given her stomache peg and fed her that way.
They could have forced her to stay alive for a few years trying out all manner of neurological treatments and psychotherapies to make her life desirable to her.
From what I've read about her situation, she had already been emotionally scarred by being forced into various institutions. Having an operation as invasive as a stomach peg surgery would probably have made things worse.
She would have to be kept sedated or in restraints, and on suicide watch during these years of exhaustive experimentation on her psyche. And if in the end, it fails anyway, they will have done nothing but harm.
Why?
Are you afraid of death?
You would actually FORCE someone to stay alive who does not want to stay alive?
THAT seems to me to be more questionable mentally...than the young woman's desire to die.
There are people with depression who agree to have very invasive treatments and sometimes they work
There are lots of suspicious aspect to this story anyway. Why couldn't her parents prevent her being abused?
I think killing people after abuse and failed interventions is deplorable. Especially at such a young age.
Personally. I struggle every day to cope with PTSD from childhood abuse. I had bad parents grew up in a religious cult and was bullied most of the time in school etc and have had depression and anxiety my entire adult life. There is a lot of extra help that the state could offer me other than euthanasia.
In this scenario I could bully someone or exploit and abuse them til they desired death and you would finish the job by helping them kill themselves.
Mind boggling and bizarre.
Like any rational person.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Life is based on force.No one asks to be born. Life isn't consensual. If you want to be consistent you should be an antinatalist.
You are going to die.
Stop being afraid. It screws with your being able to think reasonably.
Life is not based on the kind of force you were talking about.
We are born...then we live our lives.
Here in New Jersey we would grab our crotch and say, "I gotcha "antinatalist" right heah!"
It was euthanasia, not suicide. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9221159/depressed-girl-17-dies-at-euthanasia-clinic-in-holland-after-suffering-unbearable-pain-since-childhood-rape/
Or not.
It's not like you get a do over if you choose euthanasia and we're wrong.
I agree, but legislation can have unintended consequences. I do gain some comfort in knowing that there's a nation reckless enough to be the guinea pig so that the details can be sorted out before these ideas will be tried on my soil.
I do find this Dutch experiment vile. It's a step backward for compassionate end of life care and it treats human life as just another item.
Yes, I think it's murder. Or at least some form of manslaughter. It's not that they stood idly by while she took her own life. They assisted her with it, which means that they took part in the process.
She was a minor, and thus not old enough to be making literal life anf death decisions for herself.
She had a history and ongoing acute psychological issues including anorexia and ptsd, thus further not likely able to make competent decisions for herself.
The trauma only happened 3 years ago. That's an extraordinarily short amount of time to decide your life will NEVER be worth living again.
Additionally, I support euthanasia generally only in cases that have set, demonstrable, and calcuable outcomes. Like cancer victims who have less than a year to live and will only suffer in that time. Mental illness is too unpredictable and little understood to make anything close to that determination.
I don't think anyone involved should face legal repercussions, because it does seem like they thought they were doing the right thing. But the law needs to change dramatically and asap to protect further victims.
"Six months ago, a 16-year-old girl from Arnhem approached the Levenseind ??clinic in The Hague without her parents' knowledge. Her question: am I eligible for euthanasia or assistance with suicide? The answer was "no." ,, They think I'm too young to die. They think I should complete the trauma treatment and that my brain must first be fully grown. That lasts until you are 21. I'm devastated, because I can't wait that long anymore".
According to the various sources I've found, she decided to stop eating, and while she had been force-fed in a previous instance, this time her parents decided not to intervene and "let her go". Western media is simply misreporting it, and probably haven't issued many corrections yet (if ever) because it's perfect click-bait.
This was suicide without intervention, not euthanasia.
Quoting Hanover
It's definitely not reassuring to see an institution lend credibility to the idea that 17 year old children should be free to commit suicide if they're depressed. These, I think, are the statistically inevitable mistakes that would be made by any nation facilitating euthanasia; all it takes is a few negligent or ignorant morons.
Grim and unfortunate business all around...
Interesting, as I've seen this been passed around that she was granted state-sanctioned euthanasia, but that did seem decidedly questionable given that she was 17.
Given the source is Fox News, that is way too big an assumption for me!
Here is a reported from a news source that has some credibility:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/euthanasia-clinic-suicide-depression-rape-anorexia-netherlands-teenager-noa-pothoven-a8944356.html
The Independent article may or may not say essentially the same things as the Fox one - I didn't check - but it would be crazy to base any assessment of an important issue of social policy on a report from Fox News.
If someone is intent on killing themselves, there is a good chance they will succeed. In the case of a depressed and abused adolescent, one would hope for more parental and medical resistance to the idea (which the doctor who refused showed).
I can imagine cases where a person with an intractable and terminal illness (Huntington's disease, advanced and extremely painful cancer...) has a good case for wishing to be dead. There are ways that assistance can be given to facilitate a more comfortable death (including good hospice care) and I suspect people find out how to deploy such means.
I don't think assisted suicide should be legalised, routinised, or institutionalised. Excellent hospice care, and expert psychiatric care are better options. Otherwise, leave it to DIY.
Quoting Frank Apisa
"I'm not afraid of death; I just don't want to be there when it happens." (Woody Allen). As one progresses through 'old age' death doesn't necessarily become a welcome prospect. But fact is, guys my age are far, far closer to death now than when we were 30 (according to actuarial tables). I mean, death feels closer. A lot of guys my age have already been dead for 10 years!
She shouldn't have been able to do that...
It's not like she was burning to death and a vivid memory is not that big of a burden.
What example does that set to all other rape cases?
Kill yourself!
In about 10 weeks, I'll be 83.
I am in great health and live a full, happy, content life. I know I am going to be dead soon.
My remark (the question) was snarky, but it was occasioned by the fact that I am put off by people who feel the way Andrew feels about suicide...and facilitation of suicide.
If someone wants to die...they should be able to die (by choice) with as much dignity as possible. Poet Richard Brautigan put it best in the note he left after putting a gun into his mouth and blowing out the top of his head: "Messy, isn't it."
It would be crazier to ignore the literally of hundreds of other cites simply because Fox reported the same thing too. Obviously Fox wasn't the first to report this, and they all use the term "euthanize."
I'll go a step further as well though. If the parents and doctors simply agreed to her wishes and allowed her to wither away without actively killing her ( which is what the euphemism "euthanasia" is), I'd find the matter still very much offensive. The distinction attempted, even if true, hardly makes this a whole lot better.
FYI: I just saw this tweet in my timeline on Twitter: <<false euthanasia claim except a "clarification" from the WaPo... What an utterly shameful feeding-frenzy.>>> He provides this link. This is the 'clarification' he refers to:
Rape is certainly "that bad of a pain". In many ways, rape is worse than murdered-attempted rape victims suffer on average more PTSD than attempted murder victims. Not only do you have to live with the fear and traumatic memories, but rape carries a stigma. You can't talk about it. No one wants to listen.
What's bad is if that person was marked physically or raped repetitively.
You'll receive more stigma for mental illness.
People saying "schizo" and spook word "nonsense" is likely to cause more stress than rape; and people say these things freely.
If it's about the stigma, no it's not bad enough for suicide. If it's about traumatic memories, yes, they are painful, but it doesn't warrant suicide.
Rape is not a severe pain unless repetitive (like from a parent to a child) and physically marking.
If I was raped and the next day I was completely clean and physically healthy, I could live with it. What you're suggesting is that the mental pain of rape is severe enough for assisted suicide.
What the hell makes you think YOU get to decide for other people what is or is not "painful enough?"
Where do you get the nerve to suppose that?
People's pain tolerances vary but let's say I dropped a feather on your head, does it warrant assisted suicide?
YOU do not get to decide what is or is not painful for anyone but yourself. Schzophr.
Can you finally get that?
Suppose, as you supposed, you were raped...and I or someone else decided for you that the pain of that even was too much to bear and that you should commit suicide.
What would you think of that?
Lemme help you with this, because you may not be able to deal with it rationally: Nobody but YOU should be making decisions about that kind of thing for you.
Your argument that it was not painful enough for her to want to die...is nonsense. It is not your decision to make.
I guess there will always be people like you...people who think they set the standards for what is good or bad, moral or immoral, right or wrong.
Best to deal with the likes of you by laughing at you. So...thanks. I needed a laugh right now. My game today was adequate, but not more than that. I sank my fair share of putts...and hit almost every fairway...but after the 18th hole, I was giving money...not collecting.
Are you sure you don't live too easily?
Are you sure some people aren't just weak?
Not referencing victim in the OP here but the rape case likely didn't warrant suicide, a doctor's weakness for allowing it.
I'm suggesting (as per my original post) than any form of severe mental pain can warrant assisted
suicide, not just PTSD from rape. But I am also noting that rape especially, carries severe mental trauma-much more than any other violent crime. This needs to be noted when addressing the problem of rape, including its severe under-reported(ness), and often lenient sentences in cases of domestic violence/sexual harassment.
To echo what said, what gives you the right to determine an absolute threshold for pain tolerance, especially that resultant of rape...have you ever been raped? If you had, you would know that rape doesn't just go away, even if you are "clean and healthy"-it perverts your life and choices and decisions, it forever scars you in very subtle but powerful ways. Even for those who do manage to move on, and many do, not everyone can, it depends on the situation and the support systems people have in place.
The only thing separating yourself from suicide after being raped is a hot shower?
Are you saying the shock of rape is so bad it can warrant suicide?
If you think stigma attached to the event is causing trouble then perhaps people are more the problem.
The big problem is that people who are quick to see this as [government something] run amok are very good at spotting [government somethings] run amok and not very good at thinking about how to actually help people suffering like this in some meaningful way, preventative, or palliative. 'I may be resistant to pc/sjw discussions of 'rape culture' but I'll defend to my death your right to not be able to decide how to deal with the consequences of it if your way of dealing with it seems to favor the ideology of the wrong political side.' The emphasis, note, isn't that she was raped; it was that she was allowed to kill herself. Stories about rape, while sad, aren't worth starting a conversation about. Those conversations are always a little histrionic anyway. It's when people start killing themselves over it, that the real danger becomes apparent.
Some people post threads about trauma and how to deal with it. Others only care about trauma when it results in the greatest trauma of all - liberal government overreach. Who cares more about the experience of the person at the center of this?
Demonstrably untrue. I've had sex with multiple people I don't like & I have never been raped.
How to generically deal with trauma isn't a philosophical question.
I'll be only 73 this fall, but I'll forget when your birthday is coming up, so happy birthday now.
Youth is often revealed in posts, but old age doesn't seem to be. I'd have not even suspected you of being an octogenarian. Glad you're healthy and feeling good. Elderly healthy brains can deploy as much supple mind as younger people -- maybe more so. At least, IF they are a mind too. Some people get rigid in old age, but I think a brief history of their cases will reveal that they were getting rigid for a long time. As we have been, so we will be.
Getting good mental health care is essential; it might be a psychiatrist; it might be a parent; it might be a therapist; it might be peers, etc. And conversely, the same people can provide unhelpful care. One of the supposed benefits of a strong religious tradition is that it gives a traumatised person more beneficial contexts in which to place their suffering. (Of course, bad religion makes sexual trauma worse.). A strong secular ethical tradition can do the same thing too (positively and negatively).
It sounds like some of the agents that should have been on hand and helpful were either missing or were not helpful. Suicidal wishes (or euthanasia) should not be acceptable responses to trauma.
Bingo.
But always with the notion in mind that IF a person chooses suicide...and does not deviate from that...there should be a way for willing professionals to give aid in making the suicide as unmessy as possible. We can allow suicide with dignity...and still respect all the considerations you mentioned in your reply, BC.
If the proper help was missing, surely it's more fruitful to focus on that, rather than the fact she was allowed to kill herself. How do we help? But the focus has not been on that.
Since nobody has suggested we do that, I can't see the relevance of this comment.
Quoting Hanover No they don't. In fact the Independent's report is quite explicit about the uncertainty over whether the suicide was assisted.
It's hard to imagine she wouldn't. Or that she actually didn't have changing moods and ideas and plans throughout those three years.
As I stated before: mental illness is too unpredictable, not well understood, and variable to be the basis for something like euthanasia or condoned suicide.
What we DO know is that teens experience many psychological issues that do pass, in part because of the major overhaul of the neurons and synapses that happens in the brain and is not completed until around the age of 25.
I'm, quite honestly, sickened that people could just stand idly by while a young, thoughtful lady killed herself.
What are you suggesting they should have done, that they did not already do? Force-fed her?
Ok
Yes, obviously. They have feeding tubes and IVs that they use for anorexics.
I took your post to question my motives, as if I truly don't care about the traumatized, but I'm just more interested in promoting my brand of conservatism. My point is that I'm interested in the philosophical component of this issue and that's why the focus is on the ethical issue, not on my expressions of sympathy for the young girl and her family. While the latter is humane and appropriate in other contexts, it's not part of this discussion.
Anyway, all of this is an aside and ad hom.
The problem rests in trying to distinguish her wishes from her current illness. Her 17 year old mental state could well be temporary, but her decision while now weighed down with trauma will be permanent. I would impose whatever necessary to keep her alive at this point at least. If this were a 40 year old with decades of pain, a better case might be made to allow her to die.
But now you are not talking about euthanasia at all, but about forcible treatment against one's will on the grounds presumably of mental incompetence.
Which is a bit off topic.
Yup...a bit off topic.
And a whole bunch of audacity, pretentiousness, pomposity, and sticking his nose where it does not belong.
My position is had she been euthanized or had she been allowed to die without active assistance, I'd be opposed because I believe the illness should be terminal before such decisions are permitted. That would mean there'd be a duty to intervene in some cases.
Generally laws apply to other people too, which allows us to stick our noses into the affairs of other's. What you allow your daughter to do and what she decides to do might be my business, as what I do might be hers.
When did the script flip where I became the proponent of government intervention and everyone else became libertarians?
(shakes head.)
Bullshit.
Anyway...I do not have a daughter...or a son for that matter. Early on I decided I would not be a good parent and opted not to father any progeny.
If I did have kids, though, I would treat them as I do others who are not my kids...I would allow them to make decisions on issues like this on their own and keep my goddam nose out of what is NOT MY BUSINESS.
Beats me. I loathe Libertarianism...and barely tolerate libertarianism.
I just happen to think on issues like wanting to live or die..on assisted suicide...or wanting to abort or not abort...the decisions are difficult enough without others intervening unless invited.
It occurs to me though that I have been over the top in response to your wanting to intervene without invitation. I apologize...although if you persist, I probably will do it more.
Well I hope at least you can see that these are two different issues. Generally, the right to refuse treatment is fairly fundamental, such that treatment without consent is assault in most circumstances.
Yeah, well life's complicated and I get to weigh in.Quoting Frank ApisaNo worries. Do as you must.
Yes, with the primary exception being when the person suffers from mental illness.
The rape analogy is neither accidental, nor imaginary.
Anyone favoring "forceful intervention" in matter like this...should be force fed themselves...through their asses.
It seems almost inconceivable to me that people actually feel they have that much say over what others do on issues like this.
Is there a situation where we should let someone take there own life?
What would be the range of permissible circumstances?
How must age factor in, using extreme/edge cases like this one as a sanity check?
The answers are (1)Yes, (2) it's complicated, (3) it's really complicated.
On the one hand, accepting her suicide makes me feel like we're viewing life as a commodity that can just be written-off when it is no longer pleasing to the consumer. On the other hand, I don't know the full set of details in this specific case. I did read that she suffered prolonged periods of institutionalization (for depression, suicidal behavior, and a string of medical issues, such as organ failure (possibly related to her refusing to eat)). Maybe her life really was a living hell, and maybe she really was broken beyond any reasonable hope of repair or recovery. If we could predict the future then we might be confident that "letting her go" is the most compassionate thing we can do, or we might actually know better and make the decision for her (much in the way a parent makes decisions for their children despite their naive protests).
But we cannot know the future, so we can only go with our best guess in each individual case, and mistakes are inevitable.
You present this like it's common sense and well thought out, but really it's just you refusing to engage. We don't abort 8 month old fetuses and we don't allow 10 year olds to walk down to the euthanasia clinic and eat hemlock. If you don't want to figure out why we draw our boundaries where we do but instead triumphantly proclaim "fuck off," have at it. You seem to be entertaining yourself.
If the choice is force feeding or death, clearly force-feeding is the better alternative. The rape analogy is a total mischaracterization because rape is about hurting someone for one's own gratification. Force-feeding is perhaps aggressive and painful, but it is solely for the benefit of the receiver.
But I suppose you would just let thousands of anorexics die, despite the fact that many recover and are thankful to have been given another chance at life.
I very strongly disagree with this, and it seems many others on here do too, so at least you should concede that the 'clearly' in your claim is inappropriate.
Well, that's not much of an argument, so I guess you just have nothing else to add.
Clearly, you are just at a loss. Better luck next time.
I'm sorry my argument went beyond you. But I'll spell it out for you, again, if that's what you require.
Force-feeding is possibly a minor, temporary harm that results in life, the possibility of recovery, hope, joy, and everything else good life has to offer. Some suffering, yes, but also the good stuff.
Death is the ultimate harm. The end. Lights out. No chance for nothing anymore. No choices anymore. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
Perhaps the question about the relative severity of such harms is so fundamental that it cannot be reasoned out. One takes as axiomatic either the one or the other view.
All that talk about insisting on making arguments, and then you refuse to do it yourself and just throw assertions around that you can't back up. Oh well. I repeat what I said above: you're at a loss.
If you believe that your value that death is the worst possible harm can be deduced from other, lower-level values then show your reasoning and we can discuss it.
It's probably been pointed out already but she committed suicide and this wasn't euthanisia. She starved herself and the Dutch code of ethics for doctors prohibits them to give treatment where this treatment is refused by the patient. (Just so that the moron who suggested to force feed her knows.)
You've called it an experiment and I think also vile. It isn't. The process is actually too strict with hopelessly depressed people like Noa Pothoven and others having to resort to suicide by jumping off buildings, in front of trains, hanging themselves and all that stuff that traumatise those left behind or those confronted with the act or its results in real life.
Euthanisia is part of palliative care. It's grounded in the principle to minimise suffering for patients. In most cases it's done either because people are quickly deteriorating with a disease that will kill them, avoiding needless suffering since the end can't be avoided or because they suffer to such an extent that even painkillers can't block the pain and there's no possibility for improvement. Euthanisia for mental suffering is very rare: they can be counted on one hand in any given year.
Thanks for trying to reason with the person who hasn't been raped but already knows he can live with it the next day as long as he's physically alright. I say "he" because only a man can be this obnoxiously stupid.
The factor in deciding whether euthanisia is appropriate isn't whether it's terminal but the level of suffering and whether that situation can improve or not.
She was 17 and her parents would still have a say in whether the doctors should force treatment on her. They didn't.
It's all well and good to think you would make a different decision as a parent but you simply do not know what it would be like. It's questionable that you'd still agree if you would be in that situation. By all accounts her parents tried everything to treat her depression and eating disorder, which lasted 6 years since she was raped when she was 11. The 3 years refers to the second rape when she was 14.
Think I would say unconsciousness and infancy are more primary.
Quoting NKBJ
The analogy is appropriate to the feelings of the person the receiving end, rather than the feelings of the performer of the act. Interesting that you seem to regard the feelings and motivation of the rapist or medic more significant that those of the victim/patient. But from their pov both are violations of the body by forcible penetration of an intimate orifice against one's will, and in such a case, forced feeding would almost certainly be experienced as a third rape.
No. It isn't murder. It isn't illegal. It is what it is: legal euthanasia. It's tricky to judge cases like this ethically, but I lean towards the pro-ethunasia side. The Netherlands are admirably progressive. I've just got back from there, and I enjoyed the cafés in Amsterdam. We need more places like the Netherlands and less places like Alabama. The world would be a better place as a result.
Quoting Benkei
Oh. If so, then allow me to correct myself. It is what it is: suicide.
My guess ( and I could be wrong) is that you over simplify the prohibition against forced medical care in The Netherlands, as I assume there is a way to obtain a court order to impose care on those suffering psychological issues. If the rule is that the severely depressed must be permitted to live out the consequences of their self-neglect in all cases, the Dutch rule needs to be reconsidered.Quoting Benkei
The accounts I've read have all been discounted as inaccurate, without any classification of what actually happened. So sure, if we recast this as everything possible could be done was done, she was never going to get better no matter what, the doctors hands were tied in terms of doing more, the parents were diligent and caring, and there was no mechanism for anything else, then you've just reinterpreted this as a tragedy that would have occurred anywhere.
Quoting Benkei
Hypothetically, would you have supported euthanasia in this case?
WE should be very, very, very, very careful about even trying any of this that you suggested using "we."
Decisions in these areas are for "I" to make...NOT we.
Quoting andrewk
Right on the button, Andrew.
But NKBJ will not be able to acknowledge it.
And "death" is a decision that each individual should be able to make for him/herself...without the intrusion of people like you.
YOU...the ultimate decider of what is right or wrong for others.
What a laugh.
Excellent post, Benkei.
Right on the button.
Good thinking and reasoning.
Thanks for speaking up on the issue.
Like what?
MDMA assisted psychotherapy, prescription antidepressants, more therapy. So on so forth.
HER final decision.
SHE also gets to make the decisions on what "alternatives" must be considered.
YOU do not get to "feel" what alternatives must be considered.
IF that person is in full control of their mental capacities, the case is more convincing. However, not when we're talking about a child and a mentally ill person who is likely unable to think clearly. In that case we have the overriding duty to save that person from themselves.
You are unable, I think, to acknowledge, that a person can be unable to think clearly. Perhaps you are in favor of letting children choose to use heroin as well? Or I suppose you would advocate for getting rid of all care facilities for those with mental disabilities?
You, very simply, are not being empathetic to the various states of mind that can befall a person and are superimposing your current ability to make autonomous decisions on others.
You conveniently neglect the main difference I pointed out: rape is only to harm the victim. Force-feeding is to save them. It couldn't be a more wholly different scenario.
But perhaps you think oral vaccines are rape too.
I already showed it. It's your turn. I guess you got nothing.
DEATH IS A DECISION THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE FOR HIM/HERSELF...WITHOUT THE INTRUSION OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU...WHO THINK THEY CAN DECIDE WHETHER AN INDIVIDUAL CAN MAKE THAT DECISION.
Butt the hell out of other people's business on issues like this.
You do NOT have an "overriding duty to save that person from themselves"...although you do seem to have an overriding duty to massage your ego.
Anyway...to show you that we can agree at times...I am here to acknowledge your are doing a hell of a job with that latter item.
You are an intrusive individual who apparently wants to substitute your decision for the decisions of the people who actually have the right to make them.
Get off your high horse, before you fall an damage your massive ego.
No I didn't. I noted that it related to the feelings and motivation of the actor, and not the feelings of the recipient of their action. I even commented in particular that your focus was directed away from the victim's feelings. You conveniently neglected this.
Quoting NKBJ
Forcing something down one's throat, or up one's arse, or into one's vagina, or even directly into one's bloodstream, against one's will are somewhat similar. I think you might be able to acknowledge that much.
For someone who has been raped twice, having another forced penetration of another orifice is liable to be traumatic to the extent of putting in her mind, the medics on a par with the rapists; I do not think oral vaccines are rape, but I do think forcible administration is an assault unjustified in most circumstances where the individual is capable of giving or withholding consent.
Yeah, so under that psychological assessment, then doesn't this lead to the conclusion that she was non compos mentis?
Your ad hominems don't impress me, Frank. But it's clear you're too upset to continue this conversation productively. Perhaps we can continue when you've gained some perspective.
I can acknowledge that it may be a triggering eveng for a previous rape victim. I do not think that makes it tantamount to rape itself, though.
I do wish you'd acknowledge the very basic, and most important difference that rape is ultimately just a harm whereas forced feeding is ultimately a life-saving measure, and therefore to the benefit of the patient, even if it causes some harm in the process. Just like surgery is not the same as being stabbed by a mugger.
It does not relate to the feelings of the actor, as much as the consequences for the receiver. The consequences in either case couldn't be more different.
Does that count as euthanasia?
Only if you can show that she was incapable of making rational decisions and therefore legally incapacitated, in which case the decision would fall to her parents. Being depressed does not make you incapacitated though. In any case, het parents supported her to refuse treatment.
I strongly disagree that the rule needs to be changed. Doctors do not get to decide what treatment patients should get unless they are incapacitated. And as far as I'm aware, the US is no different where people refuse blood transfusions or donor organs that would save their lives on, for instance, religious grounds.
Quoting Hanover
Any easy call given the fact she ended up starving herself: yes, if only to avoid the suffering of starvation and dehydration itself. A shit life that ended shitty as well, could've at least avoided the shitty end.
Not knowing how it ended, I don't know whether I would've supported it in this specific instance since I'm not a psychiatrists and have little understanding of depressions and how much suffering that can entail.
I do know her story isn't unique. Even for adults suffering from depression euthanasia is often not open to them and results in a significant number of grisly suicides. I would like it to be better available for people who mentally suffer unbearably without any chance of improvement but I have no idea how realistic that is without it becoming to freely available.
But to the questions that were posed by the incorrect story:
1. Would you allowed her to be euthanized given her several year history of serious depression?
2. Would you have forced care upon her on the basis she posed a threat to herself (this seems more problematic to@Benkei and @unenlightened than me. ).
Before we entertain options for assisted suicide for the mentally ill, shouldn't we invest more time, energy, and resources in providing care and treatment for those people to recover? As it stands, we just have an abysmal mental health care system.
No.
Quoting Hanover
I don't know, but according to the World Medical Association:
I can understand wanting to save someone's life (against their wishes), but what if you have to do horrible things to them to do it? Maybe when they're very young, but at 17?
If you're a danger to yourself, you can have care forced upon you: https://www.educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/forced-hospitalization-three-typesQuoting Benkei
As a general matter, life's not shit. That might be where we have a fundamental disagreement. I'm not suggesting there's not an extreme case of just an incredibly horrible life, but Noa's case isn't one of them.
As it is, the Dutch health care system is one of the best in the world and absolutely free for children up to 18 years old.
All kinds of interventions for enteral or parenteral feeding against the will of the mentally competent hunger striker are “to be considered as “forced feeding”. Forced feeding is never ethically acceptable. Even if intended to benefit, feeding accompanied by threats, coercion, force or use of physical restraints is a form of inhuman and degrading treatment.[/quote]
This relates to politically motivated hunger strikes.
As paragraph 10 states:
"10. Physicians must assess the mental capacity of individuals seeking to engage in a hunger strike. This involves verifying that an individual intending to fast is free of any mental conditions that would undermine the person’s ability to make informed health care decisions. Individuals with seriously impaired mental capacity may not be able to appreciate the consequences of their actions should they engage in a hunger strike. Those with treatable mental health problems should be directed towards appropriate care for their mental conditions and receive appropriate treatment. Those with untreatable conditions, including severe learning disability or advanced dementia should receive treatment and support to enable them to make such decisions as lie within their competence."
Questions of competence and mental health must be made related to the person in the hunger strike in order for these rules to apply.
I thought you were a lawyer; forced hospitalisation is not forced treatment. In any case, het condition was not acute so the necessary requirement for her to be an immediate threat to herself wouldn't even stand so forced hospitalisation wouldn't even be possible.
Quoting Hanover
I think here I'll respect the primacy of experience. You might not find it extreme enough, but it was to her and that's the measure. Her suffering; not your arm chair estimation of what constitutes unbearable suffering.
Her parents did complain about the year it took to provide her treatment:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48541233
From the same article:
"Right to refuse treatment
You have the right to refuse medical treatment, including medication, unless ordered by a court. But you can be given care for personal hygiene or in an emergency without your agreement.
In exceptional situations, health care institutions can use force, isolation, medication or other types of restraints to prevent harm to you or someone else. The use of these methods must be minimal and must be noted in your medical record. "Quoting Benkei
It seemed pretty immediate and acute, considering she died soon thereafter. If I'm the judge, I order treatment. Best case scenario I save a life. Worst, I add a few more weeks or months and know I did all I could do.
No. I can see it, you can see it, even @NKBJ can see it. So if someone feels something such that anybody can well understand how they would feel it, that is evidence that they are perfectly compos mentis.
But personally, I would not presume to make any diagnosis or decision in such a tragic and difficult case on the basis of even quite a good newspaper report.
I think in a situation of crisis, one would tend to intervene, but the length of time in this case seems to indicate that many things have been tried and have failed. So it is not a question of intervening or not, so much as a question of stopping intervening when many interventions have failed utterly.
That's great, but I hope you do realize that even their mental health care system is woefully inadequate. We just don't have a very good understanding of how the brain functions, and thus what happens when it malfunctions, and thus how best to fix it. And that's the same globally.
Why? @Benkei says otherwise.
Maybe if we were talking about an adult with a fully formed brain.
Noa suffered from various kinds of mental disturbances during her teen years. The brain is undergoing a massive overhaul of the very structure of its synapses during this time up until the age of 25. It's absolutely impossible to say with any certainty that she wouldn't have recovered, if her brain had been given the time to form fully. She was robbed of the chance at recovery.
For a shockingly large number of people, mental illness flares up at this time, trauma-induced or not. Some never recover, but most do. We can't allow all depressed teens to commit suicide, just because they cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel.
To go off on the extreme. She seems to have pigeonholed herself into that decision. And, when you have a suicidal patient that disregards all potential for recovery then what? It's a no win situation.
Quoting Wallows
I agree.
Well, not to troll you; but, it's that kind of attitude that leads to this outcome.
Yes. And the attitude of 'never give up' leads to endless suffering. Take your pick.
But, here we go with that psychological fatalism. The endless suffering is just a fiction. Don't you agree?
Yes, it is; but, not in the way you portrayed it as possessing the quality of being "endless".
Or perhaps one recovers, perhaps one can be cured. But this possibility turns out to be 'just a fiction' in some cases. In this case a fiction of many years telling, and eventually ending in fatalism and fatality.
This is a very pessimistic characterisation. My Skoda Octavia is not woefully inadequate simply because the ultimate car still has to be invented. It's entirely adequate but I won't win an F1 race with it. Most therapies that have been developed help, even if they don't cure every mental disease.
Yes, I read that and I recall we already went over the fact she wasn't legally incapacitated in which case the court cannot order any treatment. At least in the Netherlands.
An F1 car is absolutely useless compared to an Octavia if you want to get to work.
Why lean toward death?Quoting S
How do you know? You've never been to Alabama.
We're talking about human lives here. Not cars. Our standards are, and should be different for those two things.
Anorexia has a mortality rate of about 10%. That's one in ten. If I were to stick with your car analogy, how would you feel about the adequacy your Skoda if you had a one in ten chance of dying in it?
Tesla's Model S,3,X come pretty close...
Then there's the Roadster coming up with rocket boosters included that will go as fast as humanly possible withstanding G force.
You can't make this shit up.
Someone "under the age of consent" has not yet been "capacitated". So, in the US a 17 year old could be compelled to receive a "72 hour hold" for observation. A person over the age of consent who appeared to be dangerous to self or others can also be ordered to accept a minimum of institutionalisation. @Hanover: True?
What good does a 72 hour hold do? It gives psych staff an opportunity to assess the person. Of course it is not curative. 72 hours is long enough for a person to calm down a bit, or clear some of whatever they're on to clear the system; maybe by the third day the world will look different to them.
I can see why someone might want help killing themselves. Some methods are quite effective; others are not. Females are more likely to choose drugs. I've read the Hemlock Society manual, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to complete their directions: "take all the pills you have and then drink a quart of whisky, gin, bourbon, or vodka--quickly. The alcohol will amplify the drugs." I can hardly swallow a tablespoon of straight alcohol, let alone a quart. Then there is the problem of nausea which can undo the effort one went to, and drugs can take enough time that one might be discovered, hauled off to ER, for a stomach pumping and antidotes. And then maybe one's brains will be much more scrambled than they were before.
To whom does one's life belong? Solely to one's self? I'm not sure that such is the case. There are usually "stake holders" in a person's life: Parents, children, siblings, friends, a community. Maybe one's stakeholders are one of the reasons one is looking for rope and a strong beam, but suicide is often a cruel blow to one's circle of family and friends (granted: not always).
Why inappropriately change the terminology? Euthanasia isn't death. If I were to accidentally fall to my death from a height, I wouldn't have been euthanised, would I? We're obviously talking about something more specific than death.
I lean towards pro-euthanasia because it's the right course of action in a lot of cases. The conceivable exceptions seem to be just that: conceivable. Yet there are a significant number of actual cases where the patient is entitled to euthanasia to end their suffering, but unfortunately the process is more difficult than it ought to be.
Quoting Hanover
Is that a serious objection? I know things about Alabama, and I know things about the Netherlands, and I'm capable of making such a judgement on that basis.
Whatever does the job for you.
And, of course, YOU want to be able to decide if a person is "cognizant enough...just as I am sure you would want ME to be the judge if YOU are...right?
It is their right to feel that way.
I just disagree.
You purposefully misunderstand us. No surprise there.
There are simply those of us who wish this young lady were ALIVE and being TREATED and given the chance at HAPPINESS, instead of just giving up on her and letting her die a horrible, slow death because that's what's most convenient for people like you. Having to think hard and well about what is best for another human being in distress is hard work, and you apparently don't have the guts to do it. You'd rather abandon them in their time of need.
This is unfair on two counts; firstly, it begs the whole question of whether one can or should 'think for' another in the case where your thoughts contradict theirs, and secondly it glosses over the fact that this not 'their time of need', but a situation that has gone on for years already. and that's ignoring the personal innuendo.
We do in the case of children, so the only question that remains is what other cases can be included. Someone who is underage and in psychological distress, posing an acute danger to themselves, falls into that category.
I do not see how a "time of need" has an expiration date.
Perhaps you can see that childhood does though. Perhaps you might see, if you think about if "this young lady were ALIVE and being TREATED and given the chance at HAPPINESS" for a few years and she is still not happy, that your thinking might as well have an end. Perhaps you might allow that treatment might not work, that happiness might not be attainable, that being alive might not always be good.
That is a hard thing to do, because it brings one's own life into question, and not every life can stand up to such scrutiny.
Quoting NKBJ
This misrepresents the case, she had 3 years of various therapy and therefore had been and was being treated. You've already stated before mental healthcare is woefully inadequate so by that estimation her chances for happiness are close to zero. It would then be a slow and horrible life until her 21st when she would be entitled to euthanasia.
In fact, she should've had access to euthanasia to avoid the horrible slow death she had now.
Hey, you made the analogy, not me. Better own up to the implications thereof.
My comparison to the death rates still stands: you have a 1 in 10 chance of dying from anorexia, even with care, anywhere in the world. Would you say a car with the same odds is adequate? I would not. I would say we need to get our acts together and stop all this senseless dying and suffering. But hey, that's just me. I don't settle for a 10% death rate.
3 years is not a very long time when you're talking about the rest of your life. And recovery is a long process. It takes years.
How can I make this clear?
She dies, there is a 0% chance of recovery and a good life.
She lives, there is a chance (I would say very good, you may say very poor, so let's settle on 50%) that she will live a good life.
0 versus something. It's not rocket surgery what is the better option.
Key being "maybe" she won't recover. But maybe she will. Let's say it's 50/50. If she lives she has a shot at a good life, if she dies, she does not.
You think this is a negotiation? Then we're definitely not settling on 50-50 when you've already admitted treatment is woefully inadequate. The question might be what likelihood of no improvement would you require to allow for euthanasia?
Personally, I'd allow euthanasia when the likelihood of suicide, regardless of the level of suffering, is close to 100% as was the case here.
I think I'm trying to be polite and meet you half-way in a theoretical discussion... So I suppose you could call it a negotiation. But it really doesn't matter what percentage we settle on, and focusing on that is merely a red herring. The odds are > 0 and therefore my argument still stands.
Let's say I've been gently boiling you in oil for a few years - for your own good mind - and not enough to do more than make your life unbearable. And let's say, because you are a bit sceptical and I am optimistic, that a few more years of constant agony will give a 50 % chance of recovery. "My argument stands" doesn't really do very much here. Any price is worth paying to someone who doesn't have to pay the price.
Absolutely.
But the "I know better buttinski's" want their decisions about someone else to take precedence over the wishes of the individual.
Yup.
That is the reason why NKBJ has decided she/he gets to make decisions for others in situations like this.
I just do not understand the "LIFE no matter how miserable rather than death" mentality.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/23/acid-attack-partner-intended-really-serious-harm-court-told
Not a nice story I'm afraid, but one might be of a mind to consider a rape to constitute a similarly irreparable scarring of the person - to one who sees themselves in a particular way. Sometimes the very suggestion of 'getting over it' is a devaluing of the lost integrity of personhood, adding further insult to what is taken to be a lethal humiliation.
How would you think if this was about cancer patients? Would you allow a patient to die without interfering in their cancer because the treatment is "only" a 50/50 chance and chemo sucks?
Of course. It happens all the time, and it's for the patient to decide and nobody else. Patients refuse treatment for various reasons, religious, or whatever. It would be monstrous if doctors could just treat people whenever they thought it was worthwhile.
I suppose you mean even in cases when the patient is underage and probably not the best judge of her own interests.
Oh well. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. We're going in circles and I'm not sure I see a way out of it.
Shirley, I would never!
It's not for "me" or "us"; in this case it's for her legal guardians to determine, and also perhaps for trained and regulated health and mental health professionals.
When the patient is under age, it is normally the parent-or-guardian's decision, as being in the best position to represent the child's interests. Very rarely, if their decision is extreme, it becomes a matter for the courts if the medics see fit to dispute. In the case of cancer treatments, this is quite unlikely, because serious treatments are nearly always risky, potentially harmful not foolproof and so it would be rare for a refusal of treatment to be so unreasonable as to warrant a court case. More often, it is the other way about, that doctors wish to discontinue treatment, and parents want them to continue.
Medical ethics are not amenable to this one size fits all absolutist mentality. Life is complicated and issues require nuanced thinking.
Quoting NKBJ
The way out is to see that rigid thinking will not answer. It is to see that the patient's experience must always be considered and weighed; it is not just a matter of facts and probabilities, but of human individuality.
On something as personal as this...it is for HER to decide...not any regulated anything.
Her parents apparently conceded that she was unhappy to the point where she wanted to end her life...and in fact, did. Although that had to be done in a gruesome way, because people interfered with her ability to do it with dignity.
I see your line of thinking as just as rigid as you see mine. Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree as it does not seem to me we will reach a consensus any time soon.
What if she was 12 instead of 17? (not a rhetorical question)
I'm not taking issue with the principle that individuals should have the right to make decisions for themselves, I'm raising the possibility that some people (such as a naive child) might not actually be intelligent/aware/cognizant enough to make the best decision.
I'm not denying that this particular 17 year old was cognizant enough to make her own choice (it's a complicated case that would require investigation to firmly judge), instead I'm going straight to the crux of the issue that the thread is based on: extreme youth makes suicide more controversial because we expect youth to correlate with naivete (and future potential). The older we make the woman in our example, the less intuitively controversial it becomes.
As I said in the post to which you originally responded, it's a complicated issue and we would have to look at the details of each specific case; there's no correct answer that must hold true for all cases.
Then you are not paying attention. My response varies between children and adults, it varies between forcible treatment and euthanasia, it varies between critical and chronic conditions and it varies according to mental competence. And my posts have been directed mainly at drawing these distinctions and relating them to the balance to be drawn between the autonomy of the patient (and parent if applicable) and the authority of the doctor.
Whereas you seem to universalise across these distinctions and ignore the patient's view entirely.
The stubbornness you're showing in refusing to even just move on from the conversation is part of the rigidity I've seen throughout your posts.
I won't go into the rigidity of your so-called nuanced position.
Actually, we are not that far apart, VS.
But as I said in an earlier post...on issues like this, my side of the issue cannot concede ground at the beginning of debate...or we end up with a mid-point that favors the extreme other side.
That is best illustrated in the "abortion" issue.
If the side I favor starts by saying "Well a woman should certainly have the right to terminate a pregnancy that is less than 8 weeks along"...and the debate is with someone insisting that a fertilized cell is already a human being...our side would be screwing ourselves in the debate.
So...the argument from our side MUST start with "a woman with a pregnancy occurring in her own body should have the right to terminate that pregnancy at any time for any reason."
We can make adjustments at some point...but not right now...and not while discussing the subject case.
That sounds right.
If your post is supposed to be a standalone exercise in standalone ethical questions, then I'm out of line. I'll leave you to the standalone question. Have at the philosophical components.
There's no consensus because you're simply wrong.
Starting here, at a point of agreement, are you willing to concede that had Noa's parents or had a judge intervened on her behalf and she still lived today, still as painfully as the day her life ended, that you'd be in agreement with the intervention?
That is to say, this is just a terribly complex case, with equal justifications for either decision, and there's no use in second guessing. It's like what we do in most complex life, work, family, career, etc. decisions. We do our best. I lean heavily for her intervention as you know, but might it really be neither of us knows what's best here and rules limiting our intervention into other's affairs becomes murky when dealing with someone with psychological issues.
I would be; in the circumstance as is, of relying on media hysteria, my inclination would be to trust the judgement of those closer to the scene as my inclination is in the case anyway. Quoting Hanover
This! Not everyone does, every time, but mostly...
Quoting Hanover
I would too as a first instinct. I retreat from there based on what I understand to be a situation that has seen interventions for years and years. They did their best, and failed, and failed, and failed. Sometimes the only best left is to admit that your best is just not good enough. Cures are the best, but sometimes there is no cure, and palliative care is all that is left.
I think it is hard for a male to understand the identity issues around sexual violation for a woman, but it was fairly commonplace traditionally for a violated woman to restore herself by suicide, rather as a Japanese man might restore his honour by harakiri. It doesn't fit modern western culture, but that doesn't make it insane. There have always been fates worse than death.
Ah, well then. If you make your case like that, I guess it must be true. S/
Clearly you've run out of productive things to say. Oh well. Next time mayhaps.
Quoting tim wood
:rofl:
That's a zombie thread tim wood, not a vampire. Jesus Christ!
The first thing to do in the face of a morally complex case is to make the assumptions (if possible common ones) explicit. I would say that the first moral assumption of a free society is that every person has the right to decide freely and rationally about his actions as long as he does not inflict on others a greater evil than he is trying to avoid for himself.
According to this principle, euthanasia should be authorized in any country that presumes to respect the freedom of its citizens.
The rest will be casuistry.
NOTE: It seems to me that a society that causes the death of people based on the indemonstrable benefits that these deaths can produce for all citizens and that forbids these citizens to end their own life when it is evidently unbearable for them is a morally ill society.
No, I'm not just thinking about death penalty. Look for other examples. There are.
I have garlic and a boned shoulder...
Except children, apparently.
It is assumed that children have no use of reason. The age of reason, you know.
What poses a sharp problem: In what age begins the age of reason? Everybody knows many teen that have very more reason that their fathers, syndrome Down people smarter that "normal" people, and gaga old men absolutely stupid...
I suppose a rule about this is not easy. So we cut by eye.
I think that would be more expensive than morphine. Plus if it's a patient who can move around, she'd likely try to take the mask off when confusion sets in. Someone would have to put it back on. Then she'd start fighting. Not good.
I see it as manslaughter, perpetrated by the person who abused her.
This implies, if nothing else, that taking one's own life has something to do with our brains. Brains are logical devices i.e. whatever else they may do, their primary function is logic - rational thinking to be precise. This suggests, to me at least, that there's something rational about suicide i.e. there are good reasons to take one's own life. You can't have the most intelligent member of a group being mistaken about this. Ergo, without going into the details of when suicide is permissible, we can safely say that suicide, sometimes, is a perfectly rational choice. If that's the case, is it possible that euthanasia is one of those times?