Dutch woman, 29, granted euthanasia approval on grounds of mental suffering
Zoraya ter Beek, who has chronic depression, anxiety, trauma and unspecified personality disorder, expected to end her life soon
You're viewing a single thread.
I can't understand why so many people are against someone dying with dignity. This is a form of harm reduction for not just the patient, but also their loved ones, and society in general.
Nobody wants to see their loved ones suffer endlessly or needlessly, and this is also a whole lot less traumatic than people committing suicide. Nobody wants the last memory of their loved ones to be the scene of their (potentially messy) suicide.
And that's not to mention the trauma inflicted on bystanders for some of the more public suicide methods (not to mention that jumping to your death or intentionally walking into/driving into traffic has a decent chance of physically injuring or killing said bystanders).
If this process is undertaken with care and compassion, it's far less likely to be traumatizing to all involved. And it prevents "spur of the moment" decisions, like many successful suicides are.
You don’t want people jumping in front of a train, but what do you think would happen if this concept were fully embraced by the American for-profit insurance industry? I’m imagining taking my mom to a doctor’s appointment for an expensive treatment and finding tasteful brochures for dying with dignity helpfully placed around the office.
I'm absolutely worried this will get taken advantage of in the US' hellscape that is their healthcare system, but that doesn't mean the concept is without merit.
It's like arguing that cars should not be available for purchase because someone might use one irresponsibly, while forgetting their utility outside of abuse.
In a healthcare system that optimizes outcome instead of profit, having the option to allow someone to choose to end their suffering should not be considered a bad thing.
You haven't seen all the hospice brochures? You don't even have to imagine - it's like the P.C. version of assisted suicide for old people.
Nobody wants to see their loved ones suffer endlessly or needlessly, and this is also a whole lot less traumatic than people committing suicide.
This is people committing suicide, though.
That's both debatable on a semantic level (is it really suicide if it's assisted?) and not how I intended the use of the term.
What I tried to say is that this option is less traumatic than non-assisted options for ending your existence and comes with less risk of injury to bystanders to boot.
How is it debatable? If you're claiming it's not suicide because it's assisted, then by that logic it's murder.
It's one thing to support the policy, it's another thing to misrepresent what the policy is. Suicide is still suicide. Is it less disruptive to society? Absolutely. Is it a good policy? Debatably. But it is still suicide? Indisputably. Support it if you will but don't go around saying that it's "less traumatic than suicide" as if it isn't a form of suicide.
We have a great term for the realm between murder and suicide - assistance in dying.
It bridges the gap between the definition of murder (where one party unalives the other party against their consent) and suicide (where one party unalives themselves with intent) by having the person looking to be unalived explicitly expires their intent and consent for the other party to assist them.
I feel as if you're trying to create a false equivalency to undermine the validity of this option.
And as to whether this is less traumatic than suicide - you have got to be kidding or you've never had to deal with the reality of someone committing suicide versus someone choosing assistance in dying.
One generally involves a lot of shock and someone finding a dead body in some state, the other is generally a peaceful affair where loved ones say their goodbyes before the person peacefully falls asleep for the last time.
They are nowhere near the same thing for the survivors and you claiming otherwise is an insult to both. And if you can't see the difference between these two options I'm frankly done debating this with you.
See, the difference is that I'm not looking at how clean or messy the suicide is, I'm looking at the fact that a suicide occurred. I would have much more respect for you and your position if you were willing to look it in the eye and call it what it is, instead of hiding behind these nonsense euphemisms.
At no point did I make any claims regarding the trauma involved, except to say, "Is it less disruptive to society? Absolutely." The exact opposite of the position you ascribed to me, in other words.
But trauma and shock are merely side effects of suicide. Symptoms that exist to reflect the awfulness of the event. If a person kills themselves on a deserted island, no one is traumatized or shocked by it, but it is still, factually, a suicide.
I don't see why you're reacting so strongly to a simple clarification in terminology. Or rather, I'm beginning to see why, but I wish I didn't.
That's not entirely honest - you're also trying to argue that having this option is not a good or valid option (you called "debatable") and are trying to steer the conversation by creating a false equivalency between assistance in dying and suicide, which are not the same thing.
I fully agree with your example - someone unaliving themselves on a deserted island committed suicide. Never said they didn't.
What I said, and what you're conveniently omitting, is that suicide is an act by an individual, there is no other party to the unaliving. This is not the case in assistance in dying, and there's very good legal reason why we consider these distinct from eachother, and from murder (to your earlier point).
Even if we forget the traumatic angle I brought up earlier, surely you must see the difference between an act that involves one party and an act that involves two parties with express intent and consent.
What you're trying to do is the same as arguing masturbation and sex are the same thing because they end with the same result (orgasm).
What the fuck is "unaliving". Are you saying that unironically? If so, it's staggeringly Orwellian.
It's literal newspeak, invented so that messages about people's deaths (esp. suicides) can sneak through the censors of video social media (TikTok and YouTube mainly)
No, it's common parlance that attempts to avoid previous words associated with stigma.
Okay, it's fucking ridiculous. And literal Newspeak.
That’s not entirely honest - you’re also trying to argue that having this option is not a good or valid option (you called “debatable”)
Saying it's "debatable" is not the same thing as asserting it's not a good or valid option. It just means that whether it's good or valid hasn't been conclusively established.
Assisted suicide is a form or suicide that is assisted. The thing that makes it different between it and regular suicide is that someone else is assisting. You've chosen the example of masturbation vs sex because it's one of the few analogies that would work for you. Tandem skiing is skiing. Assisted murder is murder. Skydiving with an instructor is skydiving.
The onus is on you to present why the addition of an assistant meaningfully changes the nature of the act.
surely you must see the difference between an act that involves one party and an act that involves two parties with express intent and consent.
I see no such thing. Solo suicide involves intent, and there is no need for consent because there isn't a second person involved. How on earth would the addition of a second person make it meaningfully different? Are you refusing to say the reason because you think it's obvious, or because it doesn't exist?
You're looking for a reason but refuse to accept one when provided. The reason assistance in dying is not suicide is blatantly obvious; the definition of suicide is an act in which one person takes their own life. End of sentence. Adding another person makes it a different act, and whether you like it or not, at least the legal system agrees on this.
I'm done debating this. Have a good day.
Lol, ok then so you consider it to be murder, good to know.
I'm not the one you talked to but isn't it better to receive assistance in dying so that the experience is less traumatic for friends or relatives of the dead? For example, they don't have to see their loved one inject themselves or whatnot.
Plus, it comes with the benefit of not having to transport the body if it was a suicide at home, not having to stress about the lethal cocktail and if it contained the right amounts of drugs or whatever.
It doesn't say much, but I would prefer it a whole lot that a person that I am close to chooses the assisted suicide. And I would much rather be strapped to someone when skydiving.
(Sorry, english is not my main language)
Whether it's better or not is another question. The thing I'm saying is that, whether it's better or not, it is still a form of suicide. You can say, "it's suicide and that's ok," and that's one thing, but my problem is when someone says, "it's not suicide at all." Because that's just false, it is suicide.
The thing with suicide is that there's always at least a second person. If you do it the assisted way, you do it with people trained and willing to do it to help you. If you do it the old fashioned way, you traumatize the person that ends up finding you in whichever place you decided to do it. And then there's an ambulance or some other service that comes to pick up the body, etc.
Assisted suicide is better for everyone involved. There's no question about it. As others have said. There's no reason why we see euthanasia as humane but not assisted suicide. It's the same. Even more humane because the human can consent, the pet can't.
Those are all arguments for why assisted suicide is preferable to non-assisted suicide. They are not arguments for why assisted suicide isn't suicide.
If someone wants to say, "I think people who want to commit suicide should have a legal pathway to commit suicide," they're entitled to their views. But if they say, "I think that assisted suicide isn't a form of suicide" then they're lying, both to themselves and others, and I think it's interesting to pursue why they feel the need to do.
"Less traumatic than violent, ad-hoc suicide" perhaps?
There's no such thing as "non-violent" suicide. Maybe, "less traumatic than non-assisted suicide" or "regular suicide," or "suicide that isn't state approved," or any number of other phrasings so long as a spade is still called a spade.
And it prevents "spur of the moment" decisions, like many successful suicides are.
It may prevent some, but at least some of the ones experiencing acute issues will still go for the immediate option. The bureaucracy of it will add a layer that I suspect will deter some. If it takes months or years, people are just going to find their own way.
I'm not suggesting that we just help any person right off the street. I think the government has duty of care once they are involved. I'm just saying the reality is that many will still choose not to take this alternative path.
