• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Euthanasia

isissxn said:
Okay, fine, I was wrong.

Jeez, I never thought I'd feel like a dick for being against teen suicide.
Click to expand...


You shouldn't feel bad. I don't think anyone should ever be in favor of suicide. We should be in favor of better prevention of violence, better treatments for trauma, better long-term mental health care, etc.
 
Vixen said:
A glucose drip in the arm is hardly 'force feeding' in the older sense of brutally forcing tubes down to the stomach.
Click to expand...

Is that enough to constitute actual feeding her enough for her to gain the weight back and you still need the restraints to prevent removal of the glucose drip. So holding her down for the IV vs the NG tube isn't all that different.
 
isissxn said:
Boy, the idea of extending it to psychiatric distress really gives me a cold feeling inside. It may very well be irrational. But I don't know...
Click to expand...

And categorically setting it aside seems to also devalue the suffering of those experiencing it. It only applies to real suffering so chronic nerve pain might be a reason for euthanasia even for non terminal causes but chronic psychiatric pain doesn't cut it.
 
isissxn said:
Okay, fine, I was wrong.

Jeez, I never thought I'd feel like a dick for being against teen suicide.
Click to expand...

No one is for it, but there might well have been no happy outcomes in this case, and so you have to just try to find the least awful one. And maybe suicide is less awful than the alternatives.
 
ponderingturtle said:
No one is for it, but there might well have been no happy outcomes in this case, and so you have to just try to find the least awful one. And maybe suicide is less awful than the alternatives.
Click to expand...

^this

I'm dutch and I have witnessed the actual process for one of my family members.
I remember the care, compassion and enormous amounts of checks and balances he received before the actual euthanasia.
And this was for someone who had a brain tumor that was growing so fast that by the end he was having a stroke nearly every two weeks, with each stroke taking about 10% of his capabilities.
Even at the last moment he was still asked if he really wanted this.

So to assume a teenager would NOT have had the best health and mental care we can provide can is wrong.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
^this

I'm dutch and I have witnessed the actual process for one of my family members.
I remember the care, compassion and enormous amounts of checks and balances he received before the actual euthanasia.
And this was for someone who had a brain tumor that was growing so fast that by the end he was having a stroke nearly every two weeks, with each stroke taking about 10% of his capabilities.
Even at the last moment he was still asked if he really wanted this.

So to assume a teenager would NOT have had the best health and mental care we can provide can is wrong.
Click to expand...

Well except that this wasn't euthanasia but rather death from anorexia.
 
I have a serious disease that will probably kill me sometime before my 10 year USA Treasury notes come due. Several of the ways it can kill me can be quite drawn-out and painful. Therefore I get quite angry when others, snug and smug in their current lives, assemble lists of “acceptable” versus unacceptable justifications for euthanasia. Just how much suffering do these other people believe that I should go through during the end stages of my disease before I can legitimately seek euthanasia/physician assisted suicide? Would uremic poisoning be a valid reason? Or perhaps intense bone pain? What if the intense bone pain could be controlled 90% of the day by pain medication, but only by placing me in a mental fog such that I cannot communicate with my family? What if the intense bone pain could only be controlled 50% of the day, or never fully? Would it be okay if I was to die by the disease alone in a month or so, but not if the euthanasia would advance my death by a year?

These will be hard choices for me to make when and if I have to, but what business is it of others? Why does anyone else have a right to impose their own moral codes on me in this, the most fundamental decision anyone can make? Especially given that most of these moral codes are drafted in the security of reasonable health; I have no doubt that an individual’s moral codes on euthanasia may change quite a bit when they are covered in sweat and screaming in pain in the grip of a hopeless disease.

Certainly there are enormous complexities as to euthanasia and suicide. People “of sound mind” can and do change their minds. Emotional or mental disorders can be improved or cured; apparently rapidly progressively lethal physical diseases can go into remission. Pain can be reduced, although not always adequately.

I am not advocating medically assisted suicide on the basis of a single unsupported patient request (none of the current schemes allow this anyway – most are very cautious and require multiple requirements be documented). But I do urge enormous humbleness and deep caution whenever assembling a list of acceptable versus unacceptable criteria for euthanasia/medically assisted suicide. Yes, there are limits that society needs to impose. But always we must remember that we are imposing these moral exercises on many people who are in extremis. We must always be careful that we are not imposing our own religious views on others. Or minimizing the terrors of people facing real horrors and pains that we only hope we ourselves will never encounter. We are not in their situation, and they have more right to judge than we do.

Just to re-assure: it is extraordinarily unlikely I would ever choose suicide, physician assisted or not. But having that ultimate option available is very important to me psychologically and will make it easier for me to suffer the worse parts. Be very cautious in proposing to decide for me whether and when I can or cannot.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
I have a serious disease that will probably kill me sometime before my 10 year USA Treasury notes come due. Several of the ways it can kill me can be quite drawn-out and painful. Therefore I get quite angry when others, snug and smug in their current lives, assemble lists of “acceptable” versus unacceptable justifications for euthanasia. Just how much suffering do these other people believe that I should go through during the end stages of my disease before I can legitimately seek euthanasia/physician assisted suicide? Would uremic poisoning be a valid reason? Or perhaps intense bone pain? What if the intense bone pain could be controlled 90% of the day by pain medication, but only by placing me in a mental fog such that I cannot communicate with my family? What if the intense bone pain could only be controlled 50% of the day, or never fully? Would it be okay if I was to die by the disease alone in a month or so, but not if the euthanasia would advance my death by a year?

These will be hard choices for me to make when and if I have to, but what business is it of others? Why does anyone else have a right to impose their own moral codes on me in this, the most fundamental decision anyone can make? Especially given that most of these moral codes are drafted in the security of reasonable health; I have no doubt that an individual’s moral codes on euthanasia may change quite a bit when they are covered in sweat and screaming in pain in the grip of a hopeless disease.

Certainly there are enormous complexities as to euthanasia and suicide. People “of sound mind” can and do change their minds. Emotional or mental disorders can be improved or cured; apparently rapidly progressively lethal physical diseases can go into remission. Pain can be reduced, although not always adequately.

I am not advocating medically assisted suicide on the basis of a single unsupported patient request (none of the current schemes allow this anyway – most are very cautious and require multiple requirements be documented). But I do urge enormous humbleness and deep caution whenever assembling a list of acceptable versus unacceptable criteria for euthanasia/medically assisted suicide. Yes, there are limits that society needs to impose. But always we must remember that we are imposing these moral exercises on many people who are in extremis. We must always be careful that we are not imposing our own religious views on others. Or minimizing the terrors of people facing real horrors and pains that we only hope we ourselves will never encounter. We are not in their situation, and they have more right to judge than we do.

Just to re-assure: it is extraordinarily unlikely I would ever choose suicide, physician assisted or not. But having that ultimate option available is very important to me psychologically and will make it easier for me to suffer the worse parts. Be very cautious in proposing to decide for me whether and when I can or cannot.
Click to expand...

I fully agree you should be able to make your own choices about the end of your life, in light of your terminal illness.

But, I'm still opposed to laws allowing euthanasia because in real life it's impossible to prevent them from being abused. Punishing someone after the fact for euthanizing someone who did not want to go isn't good enough for me; I believe we need to do everything we can to prevent the damage from happening in the first place.

We already have enough problems here in the USA with people -including members of this very forum- dying because they cannot afford proper medical care. I think adding euthanasia to a list of options for anyone will remove any existing incentive to continue providing expensive care to those who are terminal, but willing to face whatever Mother Nature has in store.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
I know, but a number of posters are claiming that 'more care' should have been given. I'm positing that the girl was given the best care available, but in this case it just did not help.
Click to expand...


We'd all like to believe that she got the best care, but we don't actually know, and we don't actually know about the relationship between the girl and her parents. Choosing to starve herself to death is evidence of a severe psychiatric disorder, not a rational decision.

And her mom doesn't think she got the best care:
Her mother, Lisette, said she hoped that going public with the story would help find a solution, complaining that there is not a single closed institution in the Netherlands where Noa’s needs, both psychological and physical, would really be cared for. The young girl was repeatedly put on waiting lists. She was prepared to try anything, including electroshock treatment, which was ultimately refused according to one source.
Click to expand...
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/dutch-teenager-tragically-starves-herself-to-death

And there's this:
In fact, according to the official guidelines of the KNMG (the Royal Physicians’ Association of the Netherlands), “conscious refraining from food and drink” in order to hasten death (or in the case of Noa, to cause it speedily and outright) is “explicitly discouraged” under 60 years of age when the patient is not suffering from a “terminal illness.”
Click to expand...
[same link]

So her mom wasn't satisfied with her care, and the shrinks say she was too young to choose her course. And yet it happened.
 
Last edited:
deadrose said:
I can sort of understand the not trying to stop her any more. Sort of. Before my mother successfully killed herself (many years ago), she had tried so many times. She'd been considered mentally unstable enough to get a legal abortion in the early 60's, and had been hospitalized for "exhaustion" more than once.

By the time we reached our teens, her mental state was getting worse, and the attempts were more frequent. She refused all mental health care and self-medicated with alcohol and drugs that she diverted from my dad's medical practice.

You can't comprehend what it's like to live with that, unless you've experienced it. Every attempt at inviting a friend over requires carefully judging her mood. Every phone call when you're away from home puts your heart in your throat. You know that sooner or later, she's going to get the dosage right, or someone won't come by unexpectedly. Every day you live with the grinding misery that you can't help. You can't make them feel better, and either nothing else has made them feel better, or they've refused everything. You know that no matter how much you love them, and no matter how much you try, all they want to do is die.

And then, in my case, one day the phone rang. The dreadful anticipation was over.

You can't make someone want to live. Her parents had lived with years of seeing their beloved child want nothing but death. Nothing they tried had worked. They were at least lucky to be in a place where mental health care is decently covered instead of having annual and lifetime caps on what little care they allow. But none of it was enough to heal her.
Click to expand...

That is so heart-rending. Sorry to hear that.
 
I know if somebody wants to commit suicide, they will find a way to do it, I am just uneasy with my tax money being use in a way that might encourage suicide for non physical reasons.
 
Giordano said:
I have a serious disease that will probably kill me sometime before my 10 year USA Treasury notes come due. Several of the ways it can kill me can be quite drawn-out and painful. Therefore I get quite angry when others, snug and smug in their current lives, assemble lists of “acceptable” versus unacceptable justifications for euthanasia. Just how much suffering do these other people believe that I should go through during the end stages of my disease before I can legitimately seek euthanasia/physician assisted suicide? Would uremic poisoning be a valid reason? Or perhaps intense bone pain? What if the intense bone pain could be controlled 90% of the day by pain medication, but only by placing me in a mental fog such that I cannot communicate with my family? What if the intense bone pain could only be controlled 50% of the day, or never fully? Would it be okay if I was to die by the disease alone in a month or so, but not if the euthanasia would advance my death by a year?

These will be hard choices for me to make when and if I have to, but what business is it of others? Why does anyone else have a right to impose their own moral codes on me in this, the most fundamental decision anyone can make? Especially given that most of these moral codes are drafted in the security of reasonable health; I have no doubt that an individual’s moral codes on euthanasia may change quite a bit when they are covered in sweat and screaming in pain in the grip of a hopeless disease.

Certainly there are enormous complexities as to euthanasia and suicide. People “of sound mind” can and do change their minds. Emotional or mental disorders can be improved or cured; apparently rapidly progressively lethal physical diseases can go into remission. Pain can be reduced, although not always adequately.

I am not advocating medically assisted suicide on the basis of a single unsupported patient request (none of the current schemes allow this anyway – most are very cautious and require multiple requirements be documented). But I do urge enormous humbleness and deep caution whenever assembling a list of acceptable versus unacceptable criteria for euthanasia/medically assisted suicide. Yes, there are limits that society needs to impose. But always we must remember that we are imposing these moral exercises on many people who are in extremis. We must always be careful that we are not imposing our own religious views on others. Or minimizing the terrors of people facing real horrors and pains that we only hope we ourselves will never encounter. We are not in their situation, and they have more right to judge than we do.

Just to re-assure: it is extraordinarily unlikely I would ever choose suicide, physician assisted or not. But having that ultimate option available is very important to me psychologically and will make it easier for me to suffer the worse parts. Be very cautious in proposing to decide for me whether and when I can or cannot.
Click to expand...

A close relative of mine died recently from prostate cancer, which he'd originally had diagnosed over twelve years ago. Then he was informed his PSA was elevated after his regular checkup. He was called back for tests and despite hormone therapy it spread to his bones, and I think his brain as his speech became incomprehensible most of the time.

In his final weeks he had amazing healthcare, having refused to take any more cancer drugs, which he blamed for his symptoms. The quality of pain relief was incredible, not that he ever complained to me, he had complete control of how much of the pain medication he needed. The quality of life was obviously not good, lying in a hospital bed staring ahead and in a way when he died it was a merciful release for him, although he never spoke of dying, was terrified of it (would never step foot in a graveyard) and never admitted to being terminally ill. He died a dignified and peaceful death in pleasant surroundings and with a nurse present so he was not alone at that point.
 
DragonLady said:
I fully agree you should be able to make your own choices about the end of your life, in light of your terminal illness.

But, I'm still opposed to laws allowing euthanasia because in real life it's impossible to prevent them from being abused. Punishing someone after the fact for euthanizing someone who did not want to go isn't good enough for me; I believe we need to do everything we can to prevent the damage from happening in the first place.

We already have enough problems here in the USA with people -including members of this very forum- dying because they cannot afford proper medical care. I think adding euthanasia to a list of options for anyone will remove any existing incentive to continue providing expensive care to those who are terminal, but willing to face whatever Mother Nature has in store.
Click to expand...
Are you distinguishing "euthanasia" from "physician assisted suicide?" Because my ability to make my own choices about the end of my life would likely involve physician assistance (I would probably find myself in a medical setting where I cannot just take a shotgun to my head, and anyway I'd hate to screw it up with an amateur approach). I believe proper guidelines can be (often have been) put into place that prevent relatives, friends, or government pushing a person against their will into killing themselves. If we need better guidelines is a legitimate discussion but different from the idea of physician-assisted suicide itself.

BTY: Although I have a terminal illness, so do we do; the legitimacy of suicide/euthanasia is therefore not so easily partitioned on this basis. I only know something you probably do not: what I will likely die of, that I will have advance notice some months ahead of time, and that it is likely to occur before the release of Star Wars 15 (call it a godsend for that reason).
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
A close relative of mine died recently from prostate cancer, which he'd originally had diagnosed over twelve years ago. Then he was informed his PSA was elevated after his regular checkup. He was called back for tests and despite hormone therapy it spread to his bones, and I think his brain as his speech became incomprehensible most of the time.

In his final weeks he had amazing healthcare, having refused to take any more cancer drugs, which he blamed for his symptoms. The quality of pain relief was incredible, not that he ever complained to me, he had complete control of how much of the pain medication he needed. The quality of life was obviously not good, lying in a hospital bed staring ahead and in a way when he died it was a merciful release for him, although he never spoke of dying, was terrified of it (would never step foot in a graveyard) and never admitted to being terminally ill. He died a dignified and peaceful death in pleasant surroundings and with a nurse present so he was not alone at that point.
Click to expand...
Sure, this is the ideal but, unfortunately, can never be guaranteed. My own experiences suggest it is likely the minority situation in the USA, with most people obtaining some, but often quite sub-optimal end-of-life support. I experienced my own father going through intense pain and suffering despite his care at a top hospital and access to powerful pain-killers. Related to the location of his tumor. It depends on the nature of the disease (as well as access to the right hospice care, etc.). In fact in the USA the recent crack down on opioid use appears to have made legitimate pain control even more difficult. The drugs are fearfully tightly controlled and, worse still, physicians recognize that they are constantly under the eyes of law enforcement and can lose their careers, their reputations, or even be imprisoned, should the use of pain relievers in their practices be questioned. They have become very conservative in prescribing them (resulting in more distress for the patients), or simply have gotten out of this aspect of heath care entirely.

Would I ever invoke physician-assisted suicide if I was experiencing the type of situation you narrate? Of course not (although I would prefer to be at a sea-side resort or at home vs an institutional setting). But again, the option of physician-assisted suicide is important to me if such a "good death" proves impossible.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Is that enough to constitute actual feeding her enough for her to gain the weight back and you still need the restraints to prevent removal of the glucose drip. So holding her down for the IV vs the NG tube isn't all that different.
Click to expand...

Exactly. People with unwanted IVs are tied into their hospital beds, with their arms trussed up above them, pretty much 24 hours a day. They cannot read a book or even scratch their noses on their own. My point is again to urge people to think very carefully the situations in which we have any right to impose this on someone else, especially when we are saying that we, absolute strangers, know better what is good for this person than they do themselves.
 
English version of Noa Pothoven’s book, Winnen of Leren?

Does anyone know if there's an English version of Noa Pothoven’s book, Winnen of Leren? Print or ebook like Amazon's Kindle.

I recently emailed, and filled out an online form, for Boekscout, the publisher. I haven't heard from them yet, they might need time to respond. I wrote to them in English, and included a Dutch translation according to google translate. Hopefully I'll hear from them, but I wondered if anyone on the Forum knows if there's an English version of Noa's book?

Winnen of Leren link on boekscout.nl
 
Giordano said:
Exactly. People with unwanted IVs are tied into their hospital beds, with their arms trussed up above them, pretty much 24 hours a day. They cannot read a book or even scratch their noses on their own. My point is again to urge people to think very carefully the situations in which we have any right to impose this on someone else, especially when we are saying that we, absolute strangers, know better what is good for this person than they do themselves.
Click to expand...
Does that actually happen anywhere?
In my experience IVs tend to be on a portable stand that you can take with you, for instance if you need the toilet. Or need to go outside to have a fag etc.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom