It's not murder. Murder implies the involuntary action of one person taking another person's life. It is bad-not because death is bad, but because forced death is bad, and no one therefore has the right to take another person's life.

According to the short and seemingly biased article-I don't think this is murder. While suicide should not be considered as the 'solution' to mental illnesses-such trauma must be treated similarly to a chronic disease. Trauma and the mental illnesses associated should be considered a chronic disease-one that affects the individual for most of their lives. While I am saddened at this girl's death-I am in no place to blame her for her decision-she voluntarily chose to end her own life-as a majority of rape survivors do sooner or later. While many victims in similar situations do find a way to move forward in their lives, this is not always possible for everyone all the time.

I've never understood the anti-euthanasia push, to me it seems entirely common sense. There is a threshold of suffering that is possible for an individual, and worth it for said individual, to endure. While evolution equips us with much strength to endure such suffering (not too mention the stigma resultant of culture) people's lives will eventually, stop being worth living. If you do not die an accidental or sudden death (ie. hit by a bus) then there will come a time, inevitably, that your life depreciates to the point it is not worth living.

Murder is illegal killing by definition.
So obviously not; this is not murder.

Ask yourself whose life is it? And when you have that answer you should be able to figure out who should be in ultimate control of what happens to that life.
Although tragic, this case is a very welcome step.

whether we should allow even such reasonable instances for fear the empowered will continue to euthanize children. — Hanover

17 is not a child in Holland.

I would bet this is not a "murder."

Murder has a definition. It is the unlawful taking of a human life.

Was the death unlawful?

If not...it was not "murder."

Also, I hope this issue brings to light the severity of sexual abuse and rape. It is not something that people can just 'get over' or 'go to therapy for'. It's effects are often internalized, and it can take years until the event begins to be processed-often manifesting itself is terrible bouts of depression, anxiety, and eating/substance abuse disorders.

Sexual abuse and rape kills people. Even if the physical death doesn't take place until years or decades following the event-it still kills people.

Lots of the early supporters of euthanasia have since recanted after seeing a cascade of questionable cases in and around the Netherlands

It's a slippery slope argument that indicates that we should be cautious, but it doesn't indicate that we should forbid euthanasia entirely. Whether or not this 17 year old girl made a naive decision should not come to bear on the decisions of terminally ill patients to end their suffering.

Assuming the facts reported are accurate, do you not see this as murder? — Hanover

No. Not unless it's against someone's will.

I don't consider murder to be an illegal killing but and immoral killing which this definitely was.

I should probably also mention that this 17 year old dutch girl was not euthanized. She applied for euthanasia but was denied. In her own words (translation not confirmed):

"They think I'm too young to die. They believe I should complete my therapy first, and that my brain needs to be fully grown. That takes until you're 21. I'm devastated, because I can't wait that long."

She actually starved herself to death by refusing to eat or drink. They would have had to force a feeding tube down her throat to keep her alive. Instead they decided to provide pain relief.

This was actually suicide, and it has been misreported.

They could have sedated her and given her stomache peg and fed her that way.

They could have forced her to stay alive for a few years trying out all manner of neurological treatments and psychotherapies to make her life desirable to her.

But what would Hippocrates say?

From what I've read about her situation, she had already been emotionally scarred by being forced into various institutions. Having an operation as invasive as a stomach peg surgery would probably have made things worse.

She would have to be kept sedated or in restraints, and on suicide watch during these years of exhaustive experimentation on her psyche. And if in the end, it fails anyway, they will have done nothing but harm.

Andrew4Handel
1.2k
↪VagabondSpectre


They could have sedated her and given her stomache peg and fed her that way.

They could have forced her to stay alive for a few years trying out all manner of neurological treatments and psychotherapies to make her life desirable to her. — Andrew4Handel

Why?

Are you afraid of death?

You would actually FORCE someone to stay alive who does not want to stay alive?

THAT seems to me to be more questionable mentally...than the young woman's desire to die.

There are people with depression who agree to have very invasive treatments and sometimes they work

There are lots of suspicious aspect to this story anyway. Why couldn't her parents prevent her being abused?

I think killing people after abuse and failed interventions is deplorable. Especially at such a young age.

Personally. I struggle every day to cope with PTSD from childhood abuse. I had bad parents grew up in a religious cult and was bullied most of the time in school etc and have had depression and anxiety my entire adult life. There is a lot of extra help that the state could offer me other than euthanasia.

In this scenario I could bully someone or exploit and abuse them til they desired death and you would finish the job by helping them kill themselves.

Mind boggling and bizarre.

Are you afraid of death? — Frank Apisa

Like any rational person.

You would actually FORCE someone to stay alive who does not want to stay alive? — Frank Apisa

Life is based on force.No one asks to be born. Life isn't consensual. If you want to be consistent you should be an antinatalist.

Andrew4Handel
1.2k

Are you afraid of death? — Frank Apisa


Like any rational person. — Andrew4Handel

You are going to die.

Stop being afraid. It screws with your being able to think reasonably.

You would actually FORCE someone to stay alive who does not want to stay alive? — Frank Apisa


Life is based on force.No one asks to be born. Life isn't consensual. If you want to be consistent you should be an antinatalist. — Andrew

Life is not based on the kind of force you were talking about.

We are born...then we live our lives.

Here in New Jersey we would grab our crotch and say, "I gotcha "antinatalist" right heah!"

This was actually suicide, and it has been misreported. — VagabondSpectre

It was euthanasia, not suicide. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9221159/depressed-girl-17-dies-at-euthanasia-clinic-in-holland-after-suffering-unbearable-pain-since-childhood-rape/

She would have to be kept sedated or in restraints, and on suicide watch during these years of exhaustive experimentation on her psyche. And if in the end, it fails anyway, they will have done nothing but harm. — VagabondSpectre

Or not.

It's not like you get a do over if you choose euthanasia and we're wrong.

Whether or not this 17 year old girl made a naive decision should not come to bear on the decisions of terminally ill patients to end their suffering. — VagabondSpectre

I agree, but legislation can have unintended consequences. I do gain some comfort in knowing that there's a nation reckless enough to be the guinea pig so that the details can be sorted out before these ideas will be tried on my soil.

I do find this Dutch experiment vile. It's a step backward for compassionate end of life care and it treats human life as just another item.

Yes, I think it's murder. Or at least some form of manslaughter. It's not that they stood idly by while she took her own life. They assisted her with it, which means that they took part in the process.

She was a minor, and thus not old enough to be making literal life anf death decisions for herself.

She had a history and ongoing acute psychological issues including anorexia and ptsd, thus further not likely able to make competent decisions for herself.

The trauma only happened 3 years ago. That's an extraordinarily short amount of time to decide your life will NEVER be worth living again.

Additionally, I support euthanasia generally only in cases that have set, demonstrable, and calcuable outcomes. Like cancer victims who have less than a year to live and will only suffer in that time. Mental illness is too unpredictable and little understood to make anything close to that determination.

I don't think anyone involved should face legal repercussions, because it does seem like they thought they were doing the right thing. But the law needs to change dramatically and asap to protect further victims.

Don't believe everything you read. She was denied her request for euthanasia. (translated form the article):

"Six months ago, a 16-year-old girl from Arnhem approached the Levenseind ​​clinic in The Hague without her parents' knowledge. Her question: am I eligible for euthanasia or assistance with suicide? The answer was "no." ,, They think I'm too young to die. They think I should complete the trauma treatment and that my brain must first be fully grown. That lasts until you are 21. I'm devastated, because I can't wait that long anymore".

According to the various sources I've found, she decided to stop eating, and while she had been force-fed in a previous instance, this time her parents decided not to intervene and "let her go". Western media is simply misreporting it, and probably haven't issued many corrections yet (if ever) because it's perfect click-bait.

This was suicide without intervention, not euthanasia.

I agree, but legislation can have unintended consequences. I do gain some comfort in knowing that there's a nation reckless enough to be the guinea pig so that the details can be sorted out before these ideas will be tried on my soil.

I do find this Dutch experiment vile. It's a step backward for compassionate end of life care and it treats human life as just another item. — Hanover

It's definitely not reassuring to see an institution lend credibility to the idea that 17 year old children should be free to commit suicide if they're depressed. These, I think, are the statistically inevitable mistakes that would be made by any nation facilitating euthanasia; all it takes is a few negligent or ignorant morons.

Grim and unfortunate business all around...

According to the various sources I've found, she decided to stop eating, and while she had been force-fed in a previous instance, this time her parents decided not to intervene and "let her go". Western media is simply misreporting it, and probably haven't issued many corrections yet (if ever) because it's perfect click-bait. — VagabondSpectre

Interesting, as I've seen this been passed around that she was granted state-sanctioned euthanasia, but that did seem decidedly questionable given that she was 17.

Assuming the facts reported are accurate — Hanover

Given the source is Fox News, that is way too big an assumption for me!

Here is a reported from a news source that has some credibility:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/euthanasia-clinic-suicide-depression-rape-anorexia-netherlands-teenager-noa-pothoven-a8944356.html

The Independent article may or may not say essentially the same things as the Fox one - I didn't check - but it would be crazy to base any assessment of an important issue of social policy on a report from Fox News.

The first few results from a "Noa Pothoven" query on Google were headlined with the transitive verb "euthanised". The Independent (UK), and others, described her death as self-inflicted.

If someone is intent on killing themselves, there is a good chance they will succeed. In the case of a depressed and abused adolescent, one would hope for more parental and medical resistance to the idea (which the doctor who refused showed).

I can imagine cases where a person with an intractable and terminal illness (Huntington's disease, advanced and extremely painful cancer...) has a good case for wishing to be dead. There are ways that assistance can be given to facilitate a more comfortable death (including good hospice care) and I suspect people find out how to deploy such means.

I don't think assisted suicide should be legalised, routinised, or institutionalised. Excellent hospice care, and expert psychiatric care are better options. Otherwise, leave it to DIY.

Are you afraid of death? — Frank Apisa

"I'm not afraid of death; I just don't want to be there when it happens." (Woody Allen). As one progresses through 'old age' death doesn't necessarily become a welcome prospect. But fact is, guys my age are far, far closer to death now than when we were 30 (according to actuarial tables). I mean, death feels closer. A lot of guys my age have already been dead for 10 years!

Euthanising a 17-year old because of depression... I swear the world is going crazy. There's no way a teen can fully understand such a decision.

Rape is not that bad of a pain!

She shouldn't have been able to do that...

It's not like she was burning to death and a vivid memory is not that big of a burden.

What example does that set to all other rape cases?

Kill yourself!

Are you afraid of death? — Frank Apisa


"I'm not afraid of death; I just don't want to be there when it happens." (Woody Allen). As one progresses through 'old age' death doesn't necessarily become a welcome prospect. But fact is, guys my age are far, far closer to death now than when we were 30 (according to actuarial tables). I mean, death feels closer. A lot of guys my age have already been dead for 10 years! — Bitter Crank

In about 10 weeks, I'll be 83.

I am in great health and live a full, happy, content life. I know I am going to be dead soon.

My remark (the question) was snarky, but it was occasioned by the fact that I am put off by people who feel the way Andrew feels about suicide...and facilitation of suicide.

If someone wants to die...they should be able to die (by choice) with as much dignity as possible. Poet Richard Brautigan put it best in the note he left after putting a gun into his mouth and blowing out the top of his head: "Messy, isn't it."

The Independent article may or may not say essentially the same things as the Fox one - I didn't check - but it would be crazy to base any assessment of an important issue of social policy on a report from Fox News. — andrewk

It would be crazier to ignore the literally of hundreds of other cites simply because Fox reported the same thing too. Obviously Fox wasn't the first to report this, and they all use the term "euthanize."

I'll go a step further as well though. If the parents and doctors simply agreed to her wishes and allowed her to wither away without actively killing her ( which is what the euphemism "euthanasia" is), I'd find the matter still very much offensive. The distinction attempted, even if true, hardly makes this a whole lot better.

Assuming the facts reported are accurate... — Hanover

FYI: I just saw this tweet in my timeline on Twitter: <<<A whole page of hits for "Noa Pothoven" from major media outlets, every one repeating the false euthanasia claim except a "clarification" from the WaPo... What an utterly shameful feeding-frenzy.>>> He provides this link. This is the 'clarification' he refers to:

Clarification: An earlier version of this story reported that Pothoven’s death came via euthanasia. It is unclear whether doctors assisted her in death, though she earlier requested their help. — Washington Post

Rape is certainly "that bad of a pain". In many ways, rape is worse than murdered-attempted rape victims suffer on average more PTSD than attempted murder victims. Not only do you have to live with the fear and traumatic memories, but rape carries a stigma. You can't talk about it. No one wants to listen.

No it's not.

What's bad is if that person was marked physically or raped repetitively.

You'll receive more stigma for mental illness.

People saying "schizo" and spook word "nonsense" is likely to cause more stress than rape; and people say these things freely.

If it's about the stigma, no it's not bad enough for suicide. If it's about traumatic memories, yes, they are painful, but it doesn't warrant suicide.

Rape is not a severe pain unless repetitive (like from a parent to a child) and physically marking.

If I was raped and the next day I was completely clean and physically healthy, I could live with it. What you're suggesting is that the mental pain of rape is severe enough for assisted suicide.

Schzophr
24
↪Grre
No it's not.

What's bad is if that person was marked physically or raped repetitively.

You'll receive more stigma for mental illness.

People saying "schizo" and spook word "nonsense" is likely to cause more stress than rape; and people say these things freely.

If it's about the stigma, no it's not bad enough for suicide. If it's about traumatic memories, yes, they are painful, but it doesn't warrant suicide.

Rape is not a severe pain unless repetitive (like from a parent to a child) and physically marking.

If I was raped and the next day I was completely clean and physically healthy, I could live with it. What you're suggesting is that the mental pain of rape is severe enough for assisted suicide. — Schzophr

What the hell makes you think YOU get to decide for other people what is or is not "painful enough?"

Where do you get the nerve to suppose that?