It's not even worth speaking, but just a gesture.

My position is had she been euthanized or had she been allowed to die without active assistance, I'd be opposed — Hanover

Well I hope at least you can see that these are two different issues. Generally, the right to refuse treatment is fairly fundamental, such that treatment without consent is assault in most circumstances.

I just happen to think on issues like wanting to live or die..on assisted suicide...or wanting to abort or not abort...the decisions are difficult enough without others intervening unless invited — Frank Apisa

Yeah, well life's complicated and I get to weigh in.

It occurs to me though that I have been over the top in response to your wanting to intervene without invitation. I apologize...although if you persist, I probably will do it more. — Frank Apisa

No worries. Do as you must.

Generally, the right to refuse treatment is fairly fundamental, such that treatment without consent is assault in most circumstances. — unenlightened

Yes, with the primary exception being when the person suffers from mental illness.

For anybody favouring the forceful intervention route, I suggest you watch the scene in the recent movie Suffragette where a hunger-striking suffragette is force-fed in prison.

The rape analogy is neither accidental, nor imaginary.

andrewk
2.1k
For anybody favouring the forceful intervention route, I suggest you watch the scene in the recent movie Suffragette where a hunger-striking suffragette is force-fed in prison.

The rape analogy is neither accidental, nor imaginary. — andrewk

Anyone favoring "forceful intervention" in matter like this...should be force fed themselves...through their asses.

It seems almost inconceivable to me that people actually feel they have that much say over what others do on issues like this.

Comprehending what's right in these kinds of edge cases necessitates looking closely at the specific details. It's messy, but making a firm judgment requires a great deal of nuance. For all we know at the outset, force-feeding her could amount to a good deed in the long run as @Hanover suggests, or it could be tantamount to rape as @andrewk points out.

Is there a situation where we should let someone take there own life?

What would be the range of permissible circumstances?

How must age factor in, using extreme/edge cases like this one as a sanity check?

The answers are (1)Yes, (2) it's complicated, (3) it's really complicated.

On the one hand, accepting her suicide makes me feel like we're viewing life as a commodity that can just be written-off when it is no longer pleasing to the consumer. On the other hand, I don't know the full set of details in this specific case. I did read that she suffered prolonged periods of institutionalization (for depression, suicidal behavior, and a string of medical issues, such as organ failure (possibly related to her refusing to eat)). Maybe her life really was a living hell, and maybe she really was broken beyond any reasonable hope of repair or recovery. If we could predict the future then we might be confident that "letting her go" is the most compassionate thing we can do, or we might actually know better and make the decision for her (much in the way a parent makes decisions for their children despite their naive protests).

But we cannot know the future, so we can only go with our best guess in each individual case, and mistakes are inevitable.

But on issues like this, you should be told to fuck off. I think it should be done forcefully, because you don't sound like someone who gets the "it is none of your business" picture easily. — Frank Apisa

You present this like it's common sense and well thought out, but really it's just you refusing to engage. We don't abort 8 month old fetuses and we don't allow 10 year olds to walk down to the euthanasia clinic and eat hemlock. If you don't want to figure out why we draw our boundaries where we do but instead triumphantly proclaim "fuck off," have at it. You seem to be entertaining yourself.

For anybody favouring the forceful intervention route, I suggest you watch the scene in the recent movie Suffragette where a hunger-striking suffragette is force-fed in prison.

The rape analogy is neither accidental, nor imaginary. — andrewk

If the choice is force feeding or death, clearly force-feeding is the better alternative. The rape analogy is a total mischaracterization because rape is about hurting someone for one's own gratification. Force-feeding is perhaps aggressive and painful, but it is solely for the benefit of the receiver.

But I suppose you would just let thousands of anorexics die, despite the fact that many recover and are thankful to have been given another chance at life.

If the choice is force feeding or death, clearly force-feeding is the better alternative. — NKBJ

I very strongly disagree with this, and it seems many others on here do too, so at least you should concede that the 'clearly' in your claim is inappropriate.

All I can say to this is that I very strongly disagree with this, and it seems many others on here do too, so at least you should concede that the 'clearly' in your claim is inappropriate. — andrewk

Well, that's not much of an argument, so I guess you just have nothing else to add.

There is nothing to argue against. You have only made a claim, and your only support for it is the word 'clearly'.

There is nothing to argue against. You have only made a claim, and your only support for it is the word 'clearly'. — andrewk

Clearly, you are just at a loss. Better luck next time.

Are you actually going to put forward an argument to support your claim that we should force feed people, or are you going to content yourself with one-line jibes?

Are you actually going to put forward an argument to support your claim that we should force feed people, or are you going to content yourself with one-line jibes? — andrewk

I'm sorry my argument went beyond you. But I'll spell it out for you, again, if that's what you require.

Force-feeding is possibly a minor, temporary harm that results in life, the possibility of recovery, hope, joy, and everything else good life has to offer. Some suffering, yes, but also the good stuff.

Death is the ultimate harm. The end. Lights out. No chance for nothing anymore. No choices anymore. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

It looks like where we differ is about whether death is the ultimate harm. I do not believe it is. I think enforced suffering and trauma can be worse than death, and very likely would be for this particular victim. That is a value judgement.

Perhaps the question about the relative severity of such harms is so fundamental that it cannot be reasoned out. One takes as axiomatic either the one or the other view.

Perhaps the question about the relative severity of such harms is so fundamental that it cannot be reasoned out. — andrewk

All that talk about insisting on making arguments, and then you refuse to do it yourself and just throw assertions around that you can't back up. Oh well. I repeat what I said above: you're at a loss.

Are you under the impression that there is no such thing as base values - that every value can be deduced from some lower-level value? If that process never grounds in base values, you can never make an argument for any of your values.

If you believe that your value that death is the worst possible harm can be deduced from other, lower-level values then show your reasoning and we can discuss it.

A 17 year Dutch girl was euthanized at her request with her mother's approval because she could not cope with the sexual abuse she experienced 3 years prior. https://www.foxnews.com/world/dutch-rape-victim-euthanasia — Hanover

It's probably been pointed out already but she committed suicide and this wasn't euthanisia. She starved herself and the Dutch code of ethics for doctors prohibits them to give treatment where this treatment is refused by the patient. (Just so that the moron who suggested to force feed her knows.)

You've called it an experiment and I think also vile. It isn't. The process is actually too strict with hopelessly depressed people like Noa Pothoven and others having to resort to suicide by jumping off buildings, in front of trains, hanging themselves and all that stuff that traumatise those left behind or those confronted with the act or its results in real life.

Euthanisia is part of palliative care. It's grounded in the principle to minimise suffering for patients. In most cases it's done either because people are quickly deteriorating with a disease that will kill them, avoiding needless suffering since the end can't be avoided or because they suffer to such an extent that even painkillers can't block the pain and there's no possibility for improvement. Euthanisia for mental suffering is very rare: they can be counted on one hand in any given year.

I guess there will always be people like you...people who think they set the standards for what is good or bad, moral or immoral, right or wrong.

Best to deal with the likes of you by laughing at you. So...thanks. I needed a laugh right now. My game today was adequate, but not more than that. I sank my fair share of putts...and hit almost every fairway...but after the 18th hole, I was giving money...not collecting. — Frank Apisa

Thanks for trying to reason with the person who hasn't been raped but already knows he can live with it the next day as long as he's physically alright. I say "he" because only a man can be this obnoxiously stupid.

My position is had she been euthanized or had she been allowed to die without active assistance, I'd be opposed because I believe the illness should be terminal before such decisions are permitted. That would mean there'd be a duty to intervene in some cases. — Hanover

The factor in deciding whether euthanisia is appropriate isn't whether it's terminal but the level of suffering and whether that situation can improve or not.

She was 17 and her parents would still have a say in whether the doctors should force treatment on her. They didn't.

It's all well and good to think you would make a different decision as a parent but you simply do not know what it would be like. It's questionable that you'd still agree if you would be in that situation. By all accounts her parents tried everything to treat her depression and eating disorder, which lasted 6 years since she was raped when she was 11. The 3 years refers to the second rape when she was 14.

Yes, with the primary exception being when the person suffers from mental illness. — Hanover

Think I would say unconsciousness and infancy are more primary.

The rape analogy is a total mischaracterization because rape is about hurting someone for one's own gratification. Force-feeding is perhaps aggressive and painful, but it is solely for the benefit of the receiver. — NKBJ

The analogy is appropriate to the feelings of the person the receiving end, rather than the feelings of the performer of the act. Interesting that you seem to regard the feelings and motivation of the rapist or medic more significant that those of the victim/patient. But from their pov both are violations of the body by forcible penetration of an intimate orifice against one's will, and in such a case, forced feeding would almost certainly be experienced as a third rape.

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

No. It isn't murder. It isn't illegal. It is what it is: legal euthanasia. It's tricky to judge cases like this ethically, but I lean towards the pro-ethunasia side. The Netherlands are admirably progressive. I've just got back from there, and I enjoyed the cafés in Amsterdam. We need more places like the Netherlands and less places like Alabama. The world would be a better place as a result.

It's probably been pointed out already but she committed suicide and this wasn't euthanisia. She starved herself and the Dutch code of ethics for doctors prohibits them to give treatment where this treatment is refused by the patient. — Benkei

Oh. If so, then allow me to correct myself. It is what it is: suicide.

It's probably been pointed out already but she committed suicide and this wasn't euthanisia. She starved herself and the Dutch code of ethics for doctors prohibits them to give treatment where this treatment is refused by the patient. (Just so that the moron who suggested to force feed her knows.) — Benkei

My guess ( and I could be wrong) is that you over simplify the prohibition against forced medical care in The Netherlands, as I assume there is a way to obtain a court order to impose care on those suffering psychological issues. If the rule is that the severely depressed must be permitted to live out the consequences of their self-neglect in all cases, the Dutch rule needs to be reconsidered.

It's all well and good to think you would make a different decision as a parent but you simply do not know what it would be like. It's questionable that you'd still agree if you would be in that situation. By all accounts her parents tried everything to treat her depression and eating disorder, which lasted 6 years since she was raped when she was 11. The 3 years refers to the second rape when she was 14. — Benkei

The accounts I've read have all been discounted as inaccurate, without any classification of what actually happened. So sure, if we recast this as everything possible could be done was done, she was never going to get better no matter what, the doctors hands were tied in terms of doing more, the parents were diligent and caring, and there was no mechanism for anything else, then you've just reinterpreted this as a tragedy that would have occurred anywhere.

Euthanisia for mental suffering is very rare: they can be counted on one hand in any given year. — Benkei

Hypothetically, would you have supported euthanasia in this case?

VagabondSpectre
1.6k
Comprehending what's right in these kinds of edge cases necessitates looking closely at the specific details. It's messy, but making a firm judgment requires a great deal of nuance. For all we know at the outset, force-feeding her could amount to a good deed in the long run as Hanover suggests, or it could be tantamount to rape as @andrewk points out.

Is there a situation where we should let someone take there own life?

What would be the range of permissible circumstances?

How must age factor in, using extreme/edge cases like this one as a sanity check?

The answers are (1)Yes, (2) it's complicated, (3) it's really complicated.

On the one hand, accepting her suicide makes me feel like we're viewing life as a commodity that can just be written-off when it is no longer pleasing to the consumer. On the other hand, I don't know the full set of details in this specific case. I did read that she suffered prolonged periods of institutionalization (for depression, suicidal behavior, and a string of medical issues, such as organ failure (possibly related to her refusing to eat)). Maybe her life really was a living hell, and maybe she really was broken beyond any reasonable hope of repair or recovery. If we could predict the future then we might be confident that "letting her go" is the most compassionate thing we can do, or we might actually know better and make the decision for her (much in the way a parent makes decisions for their children despite their naive protests).

But we cannot know the future, so we can only go with our best guess in each individual case, and mistakes are inevitable. — VagabondSpectre

WE should be very, very, very, very careful about even trying any of this that you suggested using "we."

Decisions in these areas are for "I" to make...NOT we.

andrewk
2.1k

If the choice is force feeding or death, clearly force-feeding is the better alternative. — NKBJ

I very strongly disagree with this, and it seems many others on here do too, so at least you should concede that the 'clearly' in your claim is inappropriate. — andrewk

Right on the button, Andrew.

But NKBJ will not be able to acknowledge it.

NKBJ
1k

Are you actually going to put forward an argument to support your claim that we should force feed people, or are you going to content yourself with one-line jibes? — andrewk


I'm sorry my argument went beyond you. But I'll spell it out for you, again, if that's what you require.

Force-feeding is possibly a minor, temporary harm that results in life, the possibility of recovery, hope, joy, and everything else good life has to offer. Some suffering, yes, but also the good stuff.

Death is the ultimate harm. The end. Lights out. No chance for nothing anymore. No choices anymore. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200. — NKBJ

And "death" is a decision that each individual should be able to make for him/herself...without the intrusion of people like you.

YOU...the ultimate decider of what is right or wrong for others.

What a laugh.

Benkei
1.9k

A 17 year Dutch girl was euthanized at her request with her mother's approval because she could not cope with the sexual abuse she experienced 3 years prior. https://www.foxnews.com/world/dutch-rape-victim-euthanasia — Hanover


It's probably been pointed out already but she committed suicide and this wasn't euthanisia. She starved herself and the Dutch code of ethics for doctors prohibits them to give treatment where this treatment is refused by the patient. (Just so that the moron who suggested to force feed her knows.)

You've called it an experiment and I think also vile. It isn't. The process is actually too strict with hopelessly depressed people like Noa Pothoven and others having to resort to suicide by jumping off buildings, in front of trains, hanging themselves and all that stuff that traumatise those left behind or those confronted with the act or its results in real life.

Euthanisia is part of palliative care. It's grounded in the principle to minimise suffering for patients. In most cases it's done either because people are quickly deteriorating with a disease that will kill them, avoiding needless suffering since the end can't be avoided or because they suffer to such an extent that even painkillers can't block the pain and there's no possibility for improvement. Euthanisia for mental suffering is very rare: they can be counted on one hand in any given year. — Benkei

Excellent post, Benkei.

Right on the button.

unenlightened
3.6k

Yes, with the primary exception being when the person suffers from mental illness. — Hanover


Think I would say unconsciousness and infancy are more primary.

The rape analogy is a total mischaracterization because rape is about hurting someone for one's own gratification. Force-feeding is perhaps aggressive and painful, but it is solely for the benefit of the receiver. — NKBJ


The analogy is appropriate to the feelings of the person the receiving end, rather than the feelings of the performer of the act. Interesting that you seem to regard the feelings and motivation of the rapist or medic more significant that those of the victim/patient. But from their pov both are violations of the body by forcible penetration of an intimate orifice against one's will, and in such a case, forced feeding would almost certainly be experienced as a third rape. — unenlightened

Good thinking and reasoning.

Thanks for speaking up on the issue.

I don't feel as though all the alternatives were exhausted before her final decision.

Like what?

MDMA assisted psychotherapy, prescription antidepressants, more therapy. So on so forth.