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

mickeyrat

cincybearcat said:

mickeyrat said:

cincybearcat said:

mickeyrat said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.

Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.

That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.

Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.

Hahahaha, I liked this...

"What is your arbitrary age limit??"

then

"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"

Seems you both have one.  I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound.  At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.

I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.

But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.

Of course yours isn't arbitrary.  Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary.  Don't worry I know how this works.

I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey.  I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.

Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.

I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?  

did she say a 16 brain was adult?

No and I didn’t say she did. I said I posted an article that talked about when science would say a humans brain has reached adulthood. And then asked her why she said 16 was old enough to decide to kill yourself. 

So - where did I say she said 16 was an adult?

you didnt, just wondered the relevance of being "adult", we see so called adults making dumbfuck decisions all the time, re:the precedent. and young people making very astute well thought decisions.

what does that really have to do with  the ability to weigh the pros and cons and make a reasonably informed decision?

I was just qualifying the article I found. That talked about brain maturation. They talked about “adult” in the context of brain maturation. Just typing what the article said.

so - you think a 16 year old is mature enough to make a decision to end his/her life? I mean - when a fatal illness is not involved...16? That seems really young to me. I’m sure their is the occasional 16 year old, but in reality most are no where near mature enough to make those kinds of decisions. 

well I wouldnt make a blanket statement to that effect. it would depend entirely on the individual, as with most things.

and my not quite 16 yr old sister made that decision on her own. died alone, aspirating vomit into her lungs ,overdosing on prescribed medication. I hope she was numb enough to it to have not suffered, she certainly wasnt able to move.

now the young woman referenced in the article starved herself to death because she was denied the help legally available to others in her country.

which is the crueler societal response.......

assist in end of life or force the seeking of other means? its happening either way.

cincybearcat

mickeyrat said:

cincybearcat said:

mickeyrat said:

cincybearcat said:

mickeyrat said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.

Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.

That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.

Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.

Hahahaha, I liked this...

"What is your arbitrary age limit??"

then

"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"

Seems you both have one.  I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound.  At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.

I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.

But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.

Of course yours isn't arbitrary.  Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary.  Don't worry I know how this works.

I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey.  I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.

Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.

I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?  

did she say a 16 brain was adult?

No and I didn’t say she did. I said I posted an article that talked about when science would say a humans brain has reached adulthood. And then asked her why she said 16 was old enough to decide to kill yourself. 

So - where did I say she said 16 was an adult?

you didnt, just wondered the relevance of being "adult", we see so called adults making dumbfuck decisions all the time, re:the precedent. and young people making very astute well thought decisions.

what does that really have to do with  the ability to weigh the pros and cons and make a reasonably informed decision?

I was just qualifying the article I found. That talked about brain maturation. They talked about “adult” in the context of brain maturation. Just typing what the article said.

so - you think a 16 year old is mature enough to make a decision to end his/her life? I mean - when a fatal illness is not involved...16? That seems really young to me. I’m sure their is the occasional 16 year old, but in reality most are no where near mature enough to make those kinds of decisions. 

well I wouldnt make a blanket statement to that effect. it would depend entirely on the individual, as with most things.

and my not quite 16 yr old sister made that decision on her own. died alone, aspirating vomit into her lungs ,overdosing on prescribed medication. I hope she was numb enough to it to have not suffered, she certainly wasnt able to move.

now the young woman referenced in the article starved herself to death because she was denied the help legally available to others in her country.

which is the crueler societal response.......

assist in end of life or force the seeking of other means? its happening either way.

Yeah we let a lot of people down in a lot of ways. I would hope it would be easier for people to get the help they need. I’m all for euthanasia for the elderly (quality of life and health issues) and anyone with a fatal disease. They certainly should have the right to go out on their own terms.

i fee terrible for you and your sister and this girl. I just think at that age, perhaps other help is better than helping them to die...and certainly better then letting them live in agony. I can’t stand that people do stuff like this to others and cause this type of pain. Unimaginable how hard that is for someone to deal with. 

oftenreading

I'm cautious about weighing in here, because this obviously hits so close to home for many, and I don't want to contribute to anyone's pain.

In general I'm a strong advocate for medical assistance in dying. I'm pleased that Canada passed the legislation it did, but I want it to be significantly expanded to include the possibility of advance directives, to allow those with degenerative neurological diseases that will eventually rob them of capacity to make their wishes know while capable and have them carried out at a later time. However, I do understand why the current system exists, because the issue of capacity is key.

Capacity to make any medical decision isn't black and white, and capacity does not equate to any particular age, though it is of course roughly correlated with age. Capacity is always specific to the decision being made, which means that for simple or low-risk decisions the bar is lower, but as the complexity rises and the implications of the decision become more serious, the bar rises. The decision to have medical assistance to end your life is, of course, one of the most complex decisions with the most significant ramifications, so the bar for measuring competency should be pretty high. It's not unusual for an adult to not have capacity to make specific medical decisions, either temporarily (while really ill) or permanently, because of cognitive or mental health issues.

We know a fair amount about how human brains develop, including quite a lot about how teenagers view the world and their place in it, and putting this together, I don't believe that the average 16 or 17 year old has the capacity to make a fully informed decision to have their life ended. Teens of that age have a great deal of difficulty foreseeing how things will change for them in the future; they live mostly in the now. Noa made a decision to end her life based on the idea that it would never improve and that her pain would continue at an unbearable level always, but that may very well not have been true, and many things could have improved as her brain matured and she (ideally) had access to more successful treatment. It's possible it wouldn't have improved, of course; now there's no chance. And of course teens and adults may still choose to end their lives, but that's not an argument to open up medical assistance in dying more widely, it's an argument to provide much more robust and evidence based mental health treatment.

Someone brought up why we would allow 17 year olds to go to war but not provide this service. I personally think it's disgusting to allow 17 year olds to join the military, or even worse, be drafted. I honestly don't think anyone should be allowed to join the military before age 21, but that's a different argument.

Renfield

oftenreading said:

I'm cautious about weighing in here, because this obviously hits so close to home for many, and I don't want to contribute to anyone's pain.

In general I'm a strong advocate for medical assistance in dying. I'm pleased that Canada passed the legislation it did, but I want it to be significantly expanded to include the possibility of advance directives, to allow those with degenerative neurological diseases that will eventually rob them of capacity to make their wishes know while capable and have them carried out at a later time. However, I do understand why the current system exists, because the issue of capacity is key.

Capacity to make any medical decision isn't black and white, and capacity does not equate to any particular age, though it is of course roughly correlated with age. Capacity is always specific to the decision being made, which means that for simple or low-risk decisions the bar is lower, but as the complexity rises and the implications of the decision become more serious, the bar rises. The decision to have medical assistance to end your life is, of course, one of the most complex decisions with the most significant ramifications, so the bar for measuring competency should be pretty high. It's not unusual for an adult to not have capacity to make specific medical decisions, either temporarily (while really ill) or permanently, because of cognitive or mental health issues.

We know a fair amount about how human brains develop, including quite a lot about how teenagers view the world and their place in it, and putting this together, I don't believe that the average 16 or 17 year old has the capacity to make a fully informed decision to have their life ended. Teens of that age have a great deal of difficulty foreseeing how things will change for them in the future; they live mostly in the now. Noa made a decision to end her life based on the idea that it would never improve and that her pain would continue at an unbearable level always, but that may very well not have been true, and many things could have improved as her brain matured and she (ideally) had access to more successful treatment. It's possible it wouldn't have improved, of course; now there's no chance. And of course teens and adults may still choose to end their lives, but that's not an argument to open up medical assistance in dying more widely, it's an argument to provide much more robust and evidence based mental health treatment.

Someone brought up why we would allow 17 year olds to go to war but not provide this service. I personally think it's disgusting to allow 17 year olds to join the military, or even worse, be drafted. I honestly don't think anyone should be allowed to join the military before age 21, but that's a different argument.

Thank you for mentioning Noa by name. I posted three times in this thread and mentioned Noa by her name in all 3. It’s been kinda of bothering me that no one else has called her by her name.

catefrances

Renfield

catefrances said:

Renfield said:

oftenreading said:

I'm cautious about weighing in here, because this obviously hits so close to home for many, and I don't want to contribute to anyone's pain.

In general I'm a strong advocate for medical assistance in dying. I'm pleased that Canada passed the legislation it did, but I want it to be significantly expanded to include the possibility of advance directives, to allow those with degenerative neurological diseases that will eventually rob them of capacity to make their wishes know while capable and have them carried out at a later time. However, I do understand why the current system exists, because the issue of capacity is key.

Capacity to make any medical decision isn't black and white, and capacity does not equate to any particular age, though it is of course roughly correlated with age. Capacity is always specific to the decision being made, which means that for simple or low-risk decisions the bar is lower, but as the complexity rises and the implications of the decision become more serious, the bar rises. The decision to have medical assistance to end your life is, of course, one of the most complex decisions with the most significant ramifications, so the bar for measuring competency should be pretty high. It's not unusual for an adult to not have capacity to make specific medical decisions, either temporarily (while really ill) or permanently, because of cognitive or mental health issues.

We know a fair amount about how human brains develop, including quite a lot about how teenagers view the world and their place in it, and putting this together, I don't believe that the average 16 or 17 year old has the capacity to make a fully informed decision to have their life ended. Teens of that age have a great deal of difficulty foreseeing how things will change for them in the future; they live mostly in the now. Noa made a decision to end her life based on the idea that it would never improve and that her pain would continue at an unbearable level always, but that may very well not have been true, and many things could have improved as her brain matured and she (ideally) had access to more successful treatment. It's possible it wouldn't have improved, of course; now there's no chance. And of course teens and adults may still choose to end their lives, but that's not an argument to open up medical assistance in dying more widely, it's an argument to provide much more robust and evidence based mental health treatment.

Someone brought up why we would allow 17 year olds to go to war but not provide this service. I personally think it's disgusting to allow 17 year olds to join the military, or even worse, be drafted. I honestly don't think anyone should be allowed to join the military before age 21, but that's a different argument.

Thank you for mentioning Noa by name. I posted three times in this thread and mentioned Noa by her name in all 3. It’s been kinda of bothering me that no one else has called her by her name.

i did. 

Yes, you did when you updated the thread this morning.

catefrances

Renfield said:

catefrances said:

Renfield said:

oftenreading said:

I'm cautious about weighing in here, because this obviously hits so close to home for many, and I don't want to contribute to anyone's pain.

In general I'm a strong advocate for medical assistance in dying. I'm pleased that Canada passed the legislation it did, but I want it to be significantly expanded to include the possibility of advance directives, to allow those with degenerative neurological diseases that will eventually rob them of capacity to make their wishes know while capable and have them carried out at a later time. However, I do understand why the current system exists, because the issue of capacity is key.

Capacity to make any medical decision isn't black and white, and capacity does not equate to any particular age, though it is of course roughly correlated with age. Capacity is always specific to the decision being made, which means that for simple or low-risk decisions the bar is lower, but as the complexity rises and the implications of the decision become more serious, the bar rises. The decision to have medical assistance to end your life is, of course, one of the most complex decisions with the most significant ramifications, so the bar for measuring competency should be pretty high. It's not unusual for an adult to not have capacity to make specific medical decisions, either temporarily (while really ill) or permanently, because of cognitive or mental health issues.

We know a fair amount about how human brains develop, including quite a lot about how teenagers view the world and their place in it, and putting this together, I don't believe that the average 16 or 17 year old has the capacity to make a fully informed decision to have their life ended. Teens of that age have a great deal of difficulty foreseeing how things will change for them in the future; they live mostly in the now. Noa made a decision to end her life based on the idea that it would never improve and that her pain would continue at an unbearable level always, but that may very well not have been true, and many things could have improved as her brain matured and she (ideally) had access to more successful treatment. It's possible it wouldn't have improved, of course; now there's no chance. And of course teens and adults may still choose to end their lives, but that's not an argument to open up medical assistance in dying more widely, it's an argument to provide much more robust and evidence based mental health treatment.

Someone brought up why we would allow 17 year olds to go to war but not provide this service. I personally think it's disgusting to allow 17 year olds to join the military, or even worse, be drafted. I honestly don't think anyone should be allowed to join the military before age 21, but that's a different argument.

Thank you for mentioning Noa by name. I posted three times in this thread and mentioned Noa by her name in all 3. It’s been kinda of bothering me that no one else has called her by her name.

i did. 

Yes, you did when you updated the thread this morning.

ugh too quick for me renfield.  

Renfield

catefrances said:

Renfield said:

catefrances said:

Renfield said:

oftenreading said:

I'm cautious about weighing in here, because this obviously hits so close to home for many, and I don't want to contribute to anyone's pain.

In general I'm a strong advocate for medical assistance in dying. I'm pleased that Canada passed the legislation it did, but I want it to be significantly expanded to include the possibility of advance directives, to allow those with degenerative neurological diseases that will eventually rob them of capacity to make their wishes know while capable and have them carried out at a later time. However, I do understand why the current system exists, because the issue of capacity is key.

Capacity to make any medical decision isn't black and white, and capacity does not equate to any particular age, though it is of course roughly correlated with age. Capacity is always specific to the decision being made, which means that for simple or low-risk decisions the bar is lower, but as the complexity rises and the implications of the decision become more serious, the bar rises. The decision to have medical assistance to end your life is, of course, one of the most complex decisions with the most significant ramifications, so the bar for measuring competency should be pretty high. It's not unusual for an adult to not have capacity to make specific medical decisions, either temporarily (while really ill) or permanently, because of cognitive or mental health issues.

We know a fair amount about how human brains develop, including quite a lot about how teenagers view the world and their place in it, and putting this together, I don't believe that the average 16 or 17 year old has the capacity to make a fully informed decision to have their life ended. Teens of that age have a great deal of difficulty foreseeing how things will change for them in the future; they live mostly in the now. Noa made a decision to end her life based on the idea that it would never improve and that her pain would continue at an unbearable level always, but that may very well not have been true, and many things could have improved as her brain matured and she (ideally) had access to more successful treatment. It's possible it wouldn't have improved, of course; now there's no chance. And of course teens and adults may still choose to end their lives, but that's not an argument to open up medical assistance in dying more widely, it's an argument to provide much more robust and evidence based mental health treatment.

Someone brought up why we would allow 17 year olds to go to war but not provide this service. I personally think it's disgusting to allow 17 year olds to join the military, or even worse, be drafted. I honestly don't think anyone should be allowed to join the military before age 21, but that's a different argument.

Thank you for mentioning Noa by name. I posted three times in this thread and mentioned Noa by her name in all 3. It’s been kinda of bothering me that no one else has called her by her name.

i did. 

Yes, you did when you updated the thread this morning.

ugh too quick for me renfield.  

Another edit?? Ha! All good here. ✌️:)
** I already had seen what you edited 🥴

catefrances

Renfield said:

catefrances said:

Renfield said:

catefrances said:

Renfield said:

oftenreading said:

I'm cautious about weighing in here, because this obviously hits so close to home for many, and I don't want to contribute to anyone's pain.

In general I'm a strong advocate for medical assistance in dying. I'm pleased that Canada passed the legislation it did, but I want it to be significantly expanded to include the possibility of advance directives, to allow those with degenerative neurological diseases that will eventually rob them of capacity to make their wishes know while capable and have them carried out at a later time. However, I do understand why the current system exists, because the issue of capacity is key.

Capacity to make any medical decision isn't black and white, and capacity does not equate to any particular age, though it is of course roughly correlated with age. Capacity is always specific to the decision being made, which means that for simple or low-risk decisions the bar is lower, but as the complexity rises and the implications of the decision become more serious, the bar rises. The decision to have medical assistance to end your life is, of course, one of the most complex decisions with the most significant ramifications, so the bar for measuring competency should be pretty high. It's not unusual for an adult to not have capacity to make specific medical decisions, either temporarily (while really ill) or permanently, because of cognitive or mental health issues.

We know a fair amount about how human brains develop, including quite a lot about how teenagers view the world and their place in it, and putting this together, I don't believe that the average 16 or 17 year old has the capacity to make a fully informed decision to have their life ended. Teens of that age have a great deal of difficulty foreseeing how things will change for them in the future; they live mostly in the now. Noa made a decision to end her life based on the idea that it would never improve and that her pain would continue at an unbearable level always, but that may very well not have been true, and many things could have improved as her brain matured and she (ideally) had access to more successful treatment. It's possible it wouldn't have improved, of course; now there's no chance. And of course teens and adults may still choose to end their lives, but that's not an argument to open up medical assistance in dying more widely, it's an argument to provide much more robust and evidence based mental health treatment.

Someone brought up why we would allow 17 year olds to go to war but not provide this service. I personally think it's disgusting to allow 17 year olds to join the military, or even worse, be drafted. I honestly don't think anyone should be allowed to join the military before age 21, but that's a different argument.

Thank you for mentioning Noa by name. I posted three times in this thread and mentioned Noa by her name in all 3. It’s been kinda of bothering me that no one else has called her by her name.

i did. 

Yes, you did when you updated the thread this morning.

ugh too quick for me renfield.  

Another edit?? Ha! All good here. ✌️:)

i like to be able to edit my head when i think my words might be unnecessarily adversarial. 

cincybearcat

oftenreading said:

I'm cautious about weighing in here, because this obviously hits so close to home for many, and I don't want to contribute to anyone's pain.

In general I'm a strong advocate for medical assistance in dying. I'm pleased that Canada passed the legislation it did, but I want it to be significantly expanded to include the possibility of advance directives, to allow those with degenerative neurological diseases that will eventually rob them of capacity to make their wishes know while capable and have them carried out at a later time. However, I do understand why the current system exists, because the issue of capacity is key.

Capacity to make any medical decision isn't black and white, and capacity does not equate to any particular age, though it is of course roughly correlated with age. Capacity is always specific to the decision being made, which means that for simple or low-risk decisions the bar is lower, but as the complexity rises and the implications of the decision become more serious, the bar rises. The decision to have medical assistance to end your life is, of course, one of the most complex decisions with the most significant ramifications, so the bar for measuring competency should be pretty high. It's not unusual for an adult to not have capacity to make specific medical decisions, either temporarily (while really ill) or permanently, because of cognitive or mental health issues.

We know a fair amount about how human brains develop, including quite a lot about how teenagers view the world and their place in it, and putting this together, I don't believe that the average 16 or 17 year old has the capacity to make a fully informed decision to have their life ended. Teens of that age have a great deal of difficulty foreseeing how things will change for them in the future; they live mostly in the now. Noa made a decision to end her life based on the idea that it would never improve and that her pain would continue at an unbearable level always, but that may very well not have been true, and many things could have improved as her brain matured and she (ideally) had access to more successful treatment. It's possible it wouldn't have improved, of course; now there's no chance. And of course teens and adults may still choose to end their lives, but that's not an argument to open up medical assistance in dying more widely, it's an argument to provide much more robust and evidence based mental health treatment.

Someone brought up why we would allow 17 year olds to go to war but not provide this service. I personally think it's disgusting to allow 17 year olds to join the military, or even worse, be drafted. I honestly don't think anyone should be allowed to join the military before age 21, but that's a different argument.

Terrific post. Very well said.  It’s a tough topic for sure, but I think you nailed this.

bootlegger10

It is a tough topic.   I have a coworker who has a dog with a not so good past I'm assuming.  Got it at the pound.  The dog has severe anxiety issues when the owner is not around.  Would hurt itself essentially trying to get out of cages if left alone.  The dog has to go to doggie day care everyday.   My thought is the humane thing would be to put the dog down as it has to be torture to the dog to be in that level of anxiety all the time (and it is just a dog). 

Okay... that was a story about a dog and obviously not about a human.  But, my point is that none of us can know what is going on in someone's head that could lead them to a decision to end their life.  I think a lot of time there is a biological issue whether caused naturally or through past drug use and medications.  So, I don't blame anyone for ending their life as I can't know what is going on and how tough it is to get through the day.   I don't think it is selfishness, cowardice or a lack of love for family members.   I'm not advocating that people shouldn't get help, but it pisses me off sometimes when people make judgments about those who have killed themselves.  Some people are happy go lucky, and some people every day is a chore.

HesCalledDyer

bootlegger10 said:

It is a tough topic.   I have a coworker who has a dog with a not so good past I'm assuming.  Got it at the pound.  The dog has severe anxiety issues when the owner is not around.  Would hurt itself essentially trying to get out of cages if left alone.  The dog has to go to doggie day care everyday.   My thought is the humane thing would be to put the dog down as it has to be torture to the dog to be in that level of anxiety all the time (and it is just a dog). 

Okay... that was a story about a dog and obviously not about a human.  But, my point is that none of us can know what is going on in someone's head that could lead them to a decision to end their life.  I think a lot of time there is a biological issue whether caused naturally or through past drug use and medications.  So, I don't blame anyone for ending their life as I can't know what is going on and how tough it is to get through the day.   I don't think it is selfishness, cowardice or a lack of love for family members.   I'm not advocating that people shouldn't get help, but it pisses me off sometimes when people make judgments about those who have killed themselves.  Some people are happy go lucky, and some people every day is a chore.

This is the reality of it.  I admit in my younger, less understanding days I was one of those people who said things like "man up, just deal with it, you have all this money/friends/family," etc.  Thankfully as I've gotten older I've learned to embrace empathy.  But what I really learned deep down was that I did not understand mental illness, depression, anxiety, etc because those were things that I never experienced first hand.  It's impossible for me - who is not afflicted with these ailments - to understand the daily struggle that people who are affected deal with.  I am thankful that I don't fight the same fight these folks do every second, minute, hour, day, week, month, year, an so on.  That's not to say I'm always a ray of fucking sunshine because we all have our bad days.  But I think of how shitty I feel on what I consider a "bad day" and then multiple that exponentially - that's the only way I can even fathom someone else's mental or behavioral pain.

I really don't think the discussion here should be whether or not euthanasia should be legal or whether or not this girl should/shouldn't have been denied the proper legal assistance (based on her age - seems to be the most feedback).  The real argument here (aside from the even more obvious one) should be fixing what is wrong at the core of society, laws, & government that we allow innocent people to be mentally tortured so far over previous trauma that it drives them to the point of seeking euthanasia or suicide.

OnWis97

bootlegger10 said:

It is a tough topic.   I have a coworker who has a dog with a not so good past I'm assuming.  Got it at the pound.  The dog has severe anxiety issues when the owner is not around.  Would hurt itself essentially trying to get out of cages if left alone.  The dog has to go to doggie day care everyday.   My thought is the humane thing would be to put the dog down as it has to be torture to the dog to be in that level of anxiety all the time (and it is just a dog). 

Okay... that was a story about a dog and obviously not about a human.  But, my point is that none of us can know what is going on in someone's head that could lead them to a decision to end their life.  I think a lot of time there is a biological issue whether caused naturally or through past drug use and medications.  So, I don't blame anyone for ending their life as I can't know what is going on and how tough it is to get through the day.   I don't think it is selfishness, cowardice or a lack of love for family members.   I'm not advocating that people shouldn't get help, but it pisses me off sometimes when people make judgments about those who have killed themselves.  Some people are happy go lucky, and some people every day is a chore.

My dad died of cancer and for the last week or so, I frequently thought that if he were a dog, he'd be put down in order to end the suffering.  There was no value to keeping him alive those last days except for the simple fact that we don't know how to draw a line.  In that way, we are sometimes better to our pets than ourselves.  For humans we "value life" in a way that sometimes favors quantity over quality.

All that said, while I generally favor letting people determine when they die, I admit to hesitation here.  I don't even want kids to be able to buy tobacco because I want them to be old enough to make the choice before getting addicted. Now we have a "child" (based on the arbitrary, frequently-used age of 18 in the US for adulthood).  What's the state's role.  Should the parents get the ultimate choice?  Should the state protect the child both from herself and her parents (if needed)?  If the state chooses to keep her alive against her will, what responsibility does it have to help make that life worth living?  I'm not in the mood to decide what I think...except that this is just sad in all ways.  Nobody wins.

mickeyrat

OnWis97 said:

bootlegger10 said:

It is a tough topic.   I have a coworker who has a dog with a not so good past I'm assuming.  Got it at the pound.  The dog has severe anxiety issues when the owner is not around.  Would hurt itself essentially trying to get out of cages if left alone.  The dog has to go to doggie day care everyday.   My thought is the humane thing would be to put the dog down as it has to be torture to the dog to be in that level of anxiety all the time (and it is just a dog). 

Okay... that was a story about a dog and obviously not about a human.  But, my point is that none of us can know what is going on in someone's head that could lead them to a decision to end their life.  I think a lot of time there is a biological issue whether caused naturally or through past drug use and medications.  So, I don't blame anyone for ending their life as I can't know what is going on and how tough it is to get through the day.   I don't think it is selfishness, cowardice or a lack of love for family members.   I'm not advocating that people shouldn't get help, but it pisses me off sometimes when people make judgments about those who have killed themselves.  Some people are happy go lucky, and some people every day is a chore.

My dad died of cancer and for the last week or so, I frequently thought that if he were a dog, he'd be put down in order to end the suffering.  There was no value to keeping him alive those last days except for the simple fact that we don't know how to draw a line.  In that way, we are sometimes better to our pets than ourselves.  For humans we "value life" in a way that sometimes favors quantity over quality.

All that said, while I generally favor letting people determine when they die, I admit to hesitation here.  I don't even want kids to be able to buy tobacco because I want them to be old enough to make the choice before getting addicted. Now we have a "child" (based on the arbitrary, frequently-used age of 18 in the US for adulthood).  What's the state's role.  Should the parents get the ultimate choice?  Should the state protect the child both from herself and her parents (if needed)?  If the state chooses to keep her alive against her will, what responsibility does it have to help make that life worth living?  I'm not in the mood to decide what I think...except that this is just sad in all ways.  Nobody wins.

FiL passed this afternoon. 5 days in Hospice.

passed about 5 min after a call ended with an estranged daughter. who knows how much he heard or was aware of. but damn if everyone on his living children didnt get a chance to tell him I love you and it wss ok to go.

this thread came to mind several times as I sat there.

Renfield

@mickeyrat
I’m sorry about your father-in-law.

They say that hearing is the last to go, so perhaps he did hear what she was saying on the phone.

Was she the last loved one left to connect with him?

Phenomenon or coincidence... many dying wait till all their loved ones have gathered to pass away, or when loved ones say that’s it’s OK to go. I don’t think it’s coincidence.

mickeyrat

Renfield said:

@mickeyrat
I’m sorry about your father-in-law.

They say that hearing is the last to go, so perhaps he did hear what she was saying on the phone.

Was she the last loved one left to connect with him?

Phenomenon or coincidence... many dying wait till all their loved ones have gathered to pass away, or when loved ones say that’s it’s OK to go. I don’t think it’s coincidence.

it was.