17 year old dutch rape victim denied euthania starves self to death.

PJ_Soul

Jammalambo said:

What a shitty world this is.. if there was a bit of justice, her rapists should have been offered to her as an attempt trying to heal her soul, if possible at all.. like, they should have given her the opportunity to kill those pieces of shit, and see if that was of any help. Why she had to go, and those useless fuckers are still here?

I don't think most people feel better when they kill other human beings.

Jammalambo

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

What a shitty world this is.. if there was a bit of justice, her rapists should have been offered to her as an attempt trying to heal her soul, if possible at all.. like, they should have given her the opportunity to kill those pieces of shit, and see if that was of any help. Why she had to go, and those useless fuckers are still here?

I don't think most people feel better when they kill other human beings.

I know. I was trying to make a point, I'll try to be more clear: better have the rapists dead, than the victim of the rape. Did they even ask her about it? What if maybe killing them would have had her feeling even just a little better? Try all solutions in extreme cases like this. If you think about it, accepting that a person can freely decide to take their own life and help them with the process (expecially if so young and not because of debilitating physical issues) is just a death sentence, plain and simple. So why don't give the same death sentence to the monsters that are the cause of it all in the first place? I'm absolutely not trying to find a simple and magical solution (there's never one) but think about it. I'm not saying that she would have felt better, or even accepted to do it. Just that she should have had the choice to do it.

josevolution

mickeyrat said:

Renfield said:

mickeyrat said:

My sister, 31 yrs gone now. OD......

I’m so sorry about your sister. 

thank you. Amanda was about 6 to 7 weeks shy of turning 16.  wow shes been gone about twice as long as she was here.

having read some comments on adbook under this article I wanted to illustrate it happens anyway without direct medical assistance.

I would assume or hope that young lady had loved ones with her as she went.

So sorry to read about your sister, my daughter has battled Depression, and anxiety along with eating disorder , so I’ve been worried about her for the last 12 years she’s 22 and doing much better...

PJ_Soul

Jammalambo said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

What a shitty world this is.. if there was a bit of justice, her rapists should have been offered to her as an attempt trying to heal her soul, if possible at all.. like, they should have given her the opportunity to kill those pieces of shit, and see if that was of any help. Why she had to go, and those useless fuckers are still here?

I don't think most people feel better when they kill other human beings.

I know. I was trying to make a point, I'll try to be more clear: better have the rapists dead, than the victim of the rape. Did they even ask her about it? What if maybe killing them would have had her feeling even just a little better? Try all solutions in extreme cases like this. If you think about it, accepting that a person can freely decide to take their own life and help them with the process (expecially if so young and not because of debilitating physical issues) is just a death sentence, plain and simple. So why don't give the same death sentence to the monsters that are the cause of it all in the first place? I'm absolutely not trying to find a simple and magical solution (there's never one) but think about it. I'm not saying that she would have felt better, or even accepted to do it. Just that she should have had the choice to do it.

Obviously that is not how any developed nation's justice system works (thank goodness). Why would they have asked her about the impossible?

Jammalambo

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

What a shitty world this is.. if there was a bit of justice, her rapists should have been offered to her as an attempt trying to heal her soul, if possible at all.. like, they should have given her the opportunity to kill those pieces of shit, and see if that was of any help. Why she had to go, and those useless fuckers are still here?

I don't think most people feel better when they kill other human beings.

I know. I was trying to make a point, I'll try to be more clear: better have the rapists dead, than the victim of the rape. Did they even ask her about it? What if maybe killing them would have had her feeling even just a little better? Try all solutions in extreme cases like this. If you think about it, accepting that a person can freely decide to take their own life and help them with the process (expecially if so young and not because of debilitating physical issues) is just a death sentence, plain and simple. So why don't give the same death sentence to the monsters that are the cause of it all in the first place? I'm absolutely not trying to find a simple and magical solution (there's never one) but think about it. I'm not saying that she would have felt better, or even accepted to do it. Just that she should have had the choice to do it.

Obviously that is not how any developed nation's justice system works (thank goodness). Why would they have asked her about the impossible?

"if there was a bit of justice.." I started with this, not implying that's how things actually work, just that it's my concept of justice.

Let me ask you one question: are you against death sentence in general? (your "that is not how any developed nation's justice system works (thank goodness)" sentence makes me guess you are)

So, helping a depressed rape victim to die (death sentence) is ok, but killing a rapist (another death sentence) is not ok? I know that's not how things work. Just trying not to be a hypocrite (talking about myself, not about you or anyone else of course)

jeffbr

Jammalambo said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

What a shitty world this is.. if there was a bit of justice, her rapists should have been offered to her as an attempt trying to heal her soul, if possible at all.. like, they should have given her the opportunity to kill those pieces of shit, and see if that was of any help. Why she had to go, and those useless fuckers are still here?

I don't think most people feel better when they kill other human beings.

I know. I was trying to make a point, I'll try to be more clear: better have the rapists dead, than the victim of the rape. Did they even ask her about it? What if maybe killing them would have had her feeling even just a little better? Try all solutions in extreme cases like this. If you think about it, accepting that a person can freely decide to take their own life and help them with the process (expecially if so young and not because of debilitating physical issues) is just a death sentence, plain and simple. So why don't give the same death sentence to the monsters that are the cause of it all in the first place? I'm absolutely not trying to find a simple and magical solution (there's never one) but think about it. I'm not saying that she would have felt better, or even accepted to do it. Just that she should have had the choice to do it.

Obviously that is not how any developed nation's justice system works (thank goodness). Why would they have asked her about the impossible?

"if there was a bit of justice.." I started with this, not implying that's how things actually work, just that it's my concept of justice.

Let me ask you one question: are you against death sentence in general? (your "that is not how any developed nation's justice system works (thank goodness)" sentence makes me guess you are)

So, helping a depressed rape victim to die (death sentence) is ok, but killing a rapist (another death sentence) is not ok? I know that's not how things work. Just trying not to be a hypocrite (talking about myself, not about you or anyone else of course)

Well, one is a consensual death, the other isn't so I don't see her position as hypocritical. But I also sympathize with your hypothetical. I know if I was the father of the poor girl, I would relish the opportunity to put that shitstain out of my daughter's misery. But I'm vengeful like that whe it comes to family.

Jammalambo

jeffbr said:

Jammalambo said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

What a shitty world this is.. if there was a bit of justice, her rapists should have been offered to her as an attempt trying to heal her soul, if possible at all.. like, they should have given her the opportunity to kill those pieces of shit, and see if that was of any help. Why she had to go, and those useless fuckers are still here?

I don't think most people feel better when they kill other human beings.

I know. I was trying to make a point, I'll try to be more clear: better have the rapists dead, than the victim of the rape. Did they even ask her about it? What if maybe killing them would have had her feeling even just a little better? Try all solutions in extreme cases like this. If you think about it, accepting that a person can freely decide to take their own life and help them with the process (expecially if so young and not because of debilitating physical issues) is just a death sentence, plain and simple. So why don't give the same death sentence to the monsters that are the cause of it all in the first place? I'm absolutely not trying to find a simple and magical solution (there's never one) but think about it. I'm not saying that she would have felt better, or even accepted to do it. Just that she should have had the choice to do it.

Obviously that is not how any developed nation's justice system works (thank goodness). Why would they have asked her about the impossible?

"if there was a bit of justice.." I started with this, not implying that's how things actually work, just that it's my concept of justice.

Let me ask you one question: are you against death sentence in general? (your "that is not how any developed nation's justice system works (thank goodness)" sentence makes me guess you are)

So, helping a depressed rape victim to die (death sentence) is ok, but killing a rapist (another death sentence) is not ok? I know that's not how things work. Just trying not to be a hypocrite (talking about myself, not about you or anyone else of course)

Well, one is a consensual death, the other isn't so I don't see her position as hypocritical. But I also sympathize with your hypothetical. I know if I was the father of the poor girl, I would relish the opportunity to put that shitstain out of my daughter's misery. But I'm vengeful like that whe it comes to family.

Like I said, I was the one trying not to be a hypocrite, not saying anyone here is one.

When I was younger, I was against death sentence. Now, I just think some people really deserve to die. Rapists and pedophiles are amongst those people. I don't give two flying fucks if they don't think they should die. It's just that I've been thinking about this story all day, and I find it so depressing that a victim has been helped to die, and the ones who should be dead are still alive.

PJ_Soul

Jammalambo said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

What a shitty world this is.. if there was a bit of justice, her rapists should have been offered to her as an attempt trying to heal her soul, if possible at all.. like, they should have given her the opportunity to kill those pieces of shit, and see if that was of any help. Why she had to go, and those useless fuckers are still here?

I don't think most people feel better when they kill other human beings.

I know. I was trying to make a point, I'll try to be more clear: better have the rapists dead, than the victim of the rape. Did they even ask her about it? What if maybe killing them would have had her feeling even just a little better? Try all solutions in extreme cases like this. If you think about it, accepting that a person can freely decide to take their own life and help them with the process (expecially if so young and not because of debilitating physical issues) is just a death sentence, plain and simple. So why don't give the same death sentence to the monsters that are the cause of it all in the first place? I'm absolutely not trying to find a simple and magical solution (there's never one) but think about it. I'm not saying that she would have felt better, or even accepted to do it. Just that she should have had the choice to do it.

Obviously that is not how any developed nation's justice system works (thank goodness). Why would they have asked her about the impossible?

"if there was a bit of justice.." I started with this, not implying that's how things actually work, just that it's my concept of justice.

Let me ask you one question: are you against death sentence in general? (your "that is not how any developed nation's justice system works (thank goodness)" sentence makes me guess you are)

So, helping a depressed rape victim to die (death sentence) is ok, but killing a rapist (another death sentence) is not ok? I know that's not how things work. Just trying not to be a hypocrite (talking about myself, not about you or anyone else of course)

I am vehemently against the death penalty, yes. And I am vehemently for euthanasia rights. Euthanasia is NOTHING like the death penalty, except in one way: the state not having the right to dictate life and death to its citizens, ever, and especially not within a very fallible justice system. NO state should ever be able to have that kind of power over anyone else. So it shouldn't be able to tell someone they can't die when they want to, any more than it should be able to take someone's life. This also works towards the pro-choice stance, which I'm obviously also vehemently for. The state should NEVER EVER be able to tell anyone what to do with their own body. These kinds of things are simply not what I consider to be the state's purview, because it is damned dangerous to allow the government to have such power over individuals.

Jammalambo

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

What a shitty world this is.. if there was a bit of justice, her rapists should have been offered to her as an attempt trying to heal her soul, if possible at all.. like, they should have given her the opportunity to kill those pieces of shit, and see if that was of any help. Why she had to go, and those useless fuckers are still here?

I don't think most people feel better when they kill other human beings.

I know. I was trying to make a point, I'll try to be more clear: better have the rapists dead, than the victim of the rape. Did they even ask her about it? What if maybe killing them would have had her feeling even just a little better? Try all solutions in extreme cases like this. If you think about it, accepting that a person can freely decide to take their own life and help them with the process (expecially if so young and not because of debilitating physical issues) is just a death sentence, plain and simple. So why don't give the same death sentence to the monsters that are the cause of it all in the first place? I'm absolutely not trying to find a simple and magical solution (there's never one) but think about it. I'm not saying that she would have felt better, or even accepted to do it. Just that she should have had the choice to do it.

Obviously that is not how any developed nation's justice system works (thank goodness). Why would they have asked her about the impossible?

"if there was a bit of justice.." I started with this, not implying that's how things actually work, just that it's my concept of justice.

Let me ask you one question: are you against death sentence in general? (your "that is not how any developed nation's justice system works (thank goodness)" sentence makes me guess you are)

So, helping a depressed rape victim to die (death sentence) is ok, but killing a rapist (another death sentence) is not ok? I know that's not how things work. Just trying not to be a hypocrite (talking about myself, not about you or anyone else of course)

I am vehemently against the death penalty, yes. And I am vehemently for euthanasia rights. Euthanasia is NOTHING like the death penalty, except in one way: the state not having the right to dictate life and death to its citizens, ever. NO state should ever be able to have that kind of power over anyone else. So it shouldn't be able to tell someone they can't die when they want to, any more than it should be able to take someone's life. This also works towards the pro-choice stance, which I'm obviously also vehemently for. The state should NEVER EVER be able to tell anyone what to do with their own body.

I am for euthanasia rights, too. But this is an extreme case, and to me, there's a huge difference between a case like this and somebody with a painful illness that makes life unbearable (an illness not criminally caused by anyone).

I'm from Italy, there's not death sentences here, and even euthanasia is forbidden. In some states of the US there's death sentences, right? Who's given death sentences? People who murders other people. Well, in this case, we have rapists that have caused the death of a poor young girl (she was raped at 11 years old at a home party, and at 14 by two neighbors). They deserve to die, and If that happened in the US, maybe there could have been the possibility to charge them with death sentence.

PJ_Soul

Jammalambo said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

What a shitty world this is.. if there was a bit of justice, her rapists should have been offered to her as an attempt trying to heal her soul, if possible at all.. like, they should have given her the opportunity to kill those pieces of shit, and see if that was of any help. Why she had to go, and those useless fuckers are still here?

I don't think most people feel better when they kill other human beings.

I know. I was trying to make a point, I'll try to be more clear: better have the rapists dead, than the victim of the rape. Did they even ask her about it? What if maybe killing them would have had her feeling even just a little better? Try all solutions in extreme cases like this. If you think about it, accepting that a person can freely decide to take their own life and help them with the process (expecially if so young and not because of debilitating physical issues) is just a death sentence, plain and simple. So why don't give the same death sentence to the monsters that are the cause of it all in the first place? I'm absolutely not trying to find a simple and magical solution (there's never one) but think about it. I'm not saying that she would have felt better, or even accepted to do it. Just that she should have had the choice to do it.

Obviously that is not how any developed nation's justice system works (thank goodness). Why would they have asked her about the impossible?

"if there was a bit of justice.." I started with this, not implying that's how things actually work, just that it's my concept of justice.

Let me ask you one question: are you against death sentence in general? (your "that is not how any developed nation's justice system works (thank goodness)" sentence makes me guess you are)

So, helping a depressed rape victim to die (death sentence) is ok, but killing a rapist (another death sentence) is not ok? I know that's not how things work. Just trying not to be a hypocrite (talking about myself, not about you or anyone else of course)

I am vehemently against the death penalty, yes. And I am vehemently for euthanasia rights. Euthanasia is NOTHING like the death penalty, except in one way: the state not having the right to dictate life and death to its citizens, ever. NO state should ever be able to have that kind of power over anyone else. So it shouldn't be able to tell someone they can't die when they want to, any more than it should be able to take someone's life. This also works towards the pro-choice stance, which I'm obviously also vehemently for. The state should NEVER EVER be able to tell anyone what to do with their own body.

I am for euthanasia rights, too. But this is an extreme case, and to me, there's a huge difference between a case like this and somebody with a painful illness that makes life unbearable (an illness not criminally caused by anyone).

I'm from Italy, there's not death sentences here, and even euthanasia is forbidden. In some states of the US there's death sentences, right? Who's given death sentences? People who murders other people. Well, in this case, we have rapists that have caused the death of a poor young girl (she was raped at 11 years old at a home party, and at 14 by two neighbors). They deserve to die, and If that happened in the US, maybe there could have been the possibility to charge them with death sentence.

People who are right-minded have the right to choose to die. Period. It is not for you or anyone else, including the government, to decide when it is warranted and when it is not IMO.

I am 100% against the DP in all cases for the reason I already stated. Whether or not someone deserves to die is, again, irrelevant IMO. It's about the power of the state, not the quality of the criminal and their crime. Saying someone deserves to die is literally pure vengeance. Hey, if you want to go out and be a vigilante and murder some rapist, go nuts and suffer the consequences. But the government should never be in the business of vengeance. Also, fwiw, many victims of terrible crimes do not feel any better at all when the criminals who caused their suffering are murdered by the state. In some cases it actually makes them feel worse, not better. So don't assume that a victim will always be better off by having their attacker killed.

Finally, you're just talking about a completely unrealistic hypothetical here, when there is a real girl involved. I don't really see the point in suggesting it.

Renfield

Jammalambo said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

What a shitty world this is.. if there was a bit of justice, her rapists should have been offered to her as an attempt trying to heal her soul, if possible at all.. like, they should have given her the opportunity to kill those pieces of shit, and see if that was of any help. Why she had to go, and those useless fuckers are still here?

I don't think most people feel better when they kill other human beings.

I know. I was trying to make a point, I'll try to be more clear: better have the rapists dead, than the victim of the rape. Did they even ask her about it? What if maybe killing them would have had her feeling even just a little better? Try all solutions in extreme cases like this. If you think about it, accepting that a person can freely decide to take their own life and help them with the process (expecially if so young and not because of debilitating physical issues) is just a death sentence, plain and simple. So why don't give the same death sentence to the monsters that are the cause of it all in the first place? I'm absolutely not trying to find a simple and magical solution (there's never one) but think about it. I'm not saying that she would have felt better, or even accepted to do it. Just that she should have had the choice to do it.

I don’t sense that if given the opportunity Noa would have chosen to kill her rapists. Nor do I believe that would have saved her had it been the case. The damage was done, she was no longer a whole person, she was a tortured broken soul.

 Noa ‘chose’ to die and I use the word chose very carefully here due to the cause and effect of what happened to her, it was not a choice in the purist sense.

Based on the quoted words of hers that have been written, she was a wise 17-year-old young woman. 

I’ve been following the story today and it appears she was not legally euthanized at a clinic, she died at home.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/05/an-anguished-dutch-teenager-who-was-raped-child-is-euthanized-her-request/?utm_term=.827e05954c05

Jammalambo

I don't think you understood what I was trying to point out, but I think maybe I was not clear enough, and also we have two different opinions about it. To me, in general, allowing a very young person to die (who could potentially recover from their suffering) is not allowing them to be free with their bodies. It's essentially giving up on that person. And to me, that's the equivalent, more or less, of a death penalty.

mickeyrat

Jammalambo said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

What a shitty world this is.. if there was a bit of justice, her rapists should have been offered to her as an attempt trying to heal her soul, if possible at all.. like, they should have given her the opportunity to kill those pieces of shit, and see if that was of any help. Why she had to go, and those useless fuckers are still here?

I don't think most people feel better when they kill other human beings.

I know. I was trying to make a point, I'll try to be more clear: better have the rapists dead, than the victim of the rape. Did they even ask her about it? What if maybe killing them would have had her feeling even just a little better? Try all solutions in extreme cases like this. If you think about it, accepting that a person can freely decide to take their own life and help them with the process (expecially if so young and not because of debilitating physical issues) is just a death sentence, plain and simple. So why don't give the same death sentence to the monsters that are the cause of it all in the first place? I'm absolutely not trying to find a simple and magical solution (there's never one) but think about it. I'm not saying that she would have felt better, or even accepted to do it. Just that she should have had the choice to do it.

Obviously that is not how any developed nation's justice system works (thank goodness). Why would they have asked her about the impossible?

"if there was a bit of justice.." I started with this, not implying that's how things actually work, just that it's my concept of justice.

Let me ask you one question: are you against death sentence in general? (your "that is not how any developed nation's justice system works (thank goodness)" sentence makes me guess you are)

So, helping a depressed rape victim to die (death sentence) is ok, but killing a rapist (another death sentence) is not ok? I know that's not how things work. Just trying not to be a hypocrite (talking about myself, not about you or anyone else of course)

I am vehemently against the death penalty, yes. And I am vehemently for euthanasia rights. Euthanasia is NOTHING like the death penalty, except in one way: the state not having the right to dictate life and death to its citizens, ever. NO state should ever be able to have that kind of power over anyone else. So it shouldn't be able to tell someone they can't die when they want to, any more than it should be able to take someone's life. This also works towards the pro-choice stance, which I'm obviously also vehemently for. The state should NEVER EVER be able to tell anyone what to do with their own body.

I am for euthanasia rights, too. But this is an extreme case, and to me, there's a huge difference between a case like this and somebody with a painful illness that makes life unbearable (an illness not criminally caused by anyone).

I'm from Italy, there's not death sentences here, and even euthanasia is forbidden. In some states of the US there's death sentences, right? Who's given death sentences? People who murders other people. Well, in this case, we have rapists that have caused the death of a poor young girl (she was raped at 11 years old at a home party, and at 14 by two neighbors). They deserve to die, and If that happened in the US, maybe there could have been the possibility to charge them with death sentence.

unless it was particularly egregious, rape in and of itself isnt a capital offense.

mickeyrat

Jammalambo said:

I don't think you understood what I was trying to point out, but I think maybe I was not clear enough, and also we have two different opinions about it. To me, in general, allowing a very young person to die (who could potentially recover from their suffering) is not allowing them to be free with their bodies. It's essentially giving up on that person. And to me, that's the equivalent, more or less, of a death penalty.

I think I understand. You are in the camp that seems to think its right to continue to force someone to carry and live with unbearable mental and emotional pain.

seems cruel to me.

Jammalambo

mickeyrat said:

Jammalambo said:

I don't think you understood what I was trying to point out, but I think maybe I was not clear enough, and also we have two different opinions about it. To me, in general, allowing a very young person to die (who could potentially recover from their suffering) is not allowing them to be free with their bodies. It's essentially giving up on that person. And to me, that's the equivalent, more or less, of a death penalty.

I think I understand. You are in the camp that seems to think its right to continue to force someone to carry and live with unbearable mental and emotional pain.

seems cruel to me.

Trying to help someone is cruel and mental pain is something that can never be cured. Message received.

PJ_Soul

Jammalambo said:

I don't think you understood what I was trying to point out, but I think maybe I was not clear enough, and also we have two different opinions about it. To me, in general, allowing a very young person to die (who could potentially recover from their suffering) is not allowing them to be free with their bodies. It's essentially giving up on that person. And to me, that's the equivalent, more or less, of a death penalty.

I think that is just the same as telling this woman, "you don't know yourself as well as I do." I think that is an insult to her. Like I said, I think anyone over the age of 16 should be able to make that choice, because I believe that is old enough to know (when they are of sound mind - they are evaluated to see if they are suffering manic depression or anything like that, which would lead one to think their desire to die is likely only temporary. This woman is not in that category). I don't think it's anyone's business if that person could potentially feel better sometime down the road. The point is, she is done with the road NOW. You don't know her suffering. She obviously feels that she cannot suffer any longer, and that doing so isn't worth waiting to see if things get better. I think that should be HER choice only. That IS 100% allowing them to be free with their bodies. Telling her that she MUST continue to suffer so that other people feel better is like torturing her. I don't understand how you can see it any other way. That is not giving up on that person. That is RESPECTING that person, and also being humane, to let them end their unbearable suffering. We care enough to do it for animals, but won't even give a person the respect to choose to do it for themselves? I think that is wrong. And seriously, I just don't you saying it's the equivalent to the death penalty. That is like saying suicide and murder are the same. It makes no sense.

mickeyrat

Jammalambo said:

mickeyrat said:

Jammalambo said:

I don't think you understood what I was trying to point out, but I think maybe I was not clear enough, and also we have two different opinions about it. To me, in general, allowing a very young person to die (who could potentially recover from their suffering) is not allowing them to be free with their bodies. It's essentially giving up on that person. And to me, that's the equivalent, more or less, of a death penalty.

I think I understand. You are in the camp that seems to think its right to continue to force someone to carry and live with unbearable mental and emotional pain.

seems cruel to me.

Trying to help someone is cruel and mental pain is something that can never be cured. Message received.

I said neither thing. its not about what you or I would do for ourselves, but imposing that on another.

after 31 years I STILL have no clue what I could have done to help my sister.  Under your thoughts on it, while we tried anything and everything over an indetermined amount of time, with no guarantee of success, she would continue be be haunted by an experience I could never begin to understand.

I dont agree with her choice, but I respect her decision.

Jammalambo

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

I don't think you understood what I was trying to point out, but I think maybe I was not clear enough, and also we have two different opinions about it. To me, in general, allowing a very young person to die (who could potentially recover from their suffering) is not allowing them to be free with their bodies. It's essentially giving up on that person. And to me, that's the equivalent, more or less, of a death penalty.

I think that is just the same as telling this woman, "you don't know yourself as well as I do." I think that is an insult to her. Like I said, I think anyone over the age of 16 (of sound mind) should be able to make that choice, because I believe that is old enough to know. I don't think it's anyone's business if that person could potentially feel better sometime down the road. The point is, she is done with the road NOW. You don't know her suffering. She obviously feels that she cannot suffer any longer, and that doing so isn't worth waiting to see if things get better. I think that should be HER choice only. That IS 100% allowing them to be free with their bodies. Telling her that she MUST continue to suffer so that other people feel better is like torturing her. I don't understand how you can see it any other way. That is not giving up on that person. That is RESPECTING that person, and also being humane, to let them end their unbearable suffering. We care enough to do it for animals, but won't even give a person the respect to choose to do it for themselves? I think that is wrong. And seriously, I just don't you saying it's the equivalent to the death penalty. That is like saying suicide and murder are the same. It makes no sense.

Animals? What are you talking about? I've never heard of an animal being killed because of mental pain.

I already said I'm all for euthanasia rights. But this specific case is different though, and I'm really not sure it was the right thing to do. Yes, I'm saying they probably should have FORCED, if necessary, that girl to stay alive some more years. Just for her, not for letting anyone else feel better about it. But you all seem to be so sure and determined to let a person die (again, who could potentially recover). Ok. I'm just not sure as you are that was the right thing to do. Sorry if I have a different mind.

mcgruff10

Jammalambo said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

I don't think you understood what I was trying to point out, but I think maybe I was not clear enough, and also we have two different opinions about it. To me, in general, allowing a very young person to die (who could potentially recover from their suffering) is not allowing them to be free with their bodies. It's essentially giving up on that person. And to me, that's the equivalent, more or less, of a death penalty.

I think that is just the same as telling this woman, "you don't know yourself as well as I do." I think that is an insult to her. Like I said, I think anyone over the age of 16 (of sound mind) should be able to make that choice, because I believe that is old enough to know. I don't think it's anyone's business if that person could potentially feel better sometime down the road. The point is, she is done with the road NOW. You don't know her suffering. She obviously feels that she cannot suffer any longer, and that doing so isn't worth waiting to see if things get better. I think that should be HER choice only. That IS 100% allowing them to be free with their bodies. Telling her that she MUST continue to suffer so that other people feel better is like torturing her. I don't understand how you can see it any other way. That is not giving up on that person. That is RESPECTING that person, and also being humane, to let them end their unbearable suffering. We care enough to do it for animals, but won't even give a person the respect to choose to do it for themselves? I think that is wrong. And seriously, I just don't you saying it's the equivalent to the death penalty. That is like saying suicide and murder are the same. It makes no sense.

Animals? What are you talking about? I've never heard of an animal being killed because of mental pain.

I already said I'm all for euthanasia rights. But this specific case is different though, and I'm really not sure it was the right thing to do. Yes, I'm saying they probably should have FORCED, if necessary, that girl to stay alive some more years. Just for her, not for letting anyone else feel better about it. But you all seem to be so sure and determined to let a person die (again, who could potentially recover). Ok. I'm just not sure as you are that was the right thing to do. Sorry if I have a different mind.

I totally agree with you.  I'm all for euthanasia rights but this case is a little extreme, i'm interested to see what precedent this sets.  

PJ_Soul

Mental pain and physical pain are really not that different at all. This must be what you are not not realizing. In fact, mental pain is often far worse.

Btw, I rather misunderstood the story. I actually thought she won her right to die peacefully (and chose to do so at home). But no, seems like the courts thought the same way as you, and the result of that is that she died horribly, by starving herself to death. How awful for her and her family. If only the court had recognized that they were actually causing her further suffering by not respecting her right to her own self. So sad, and it makes me angry.