Don’t have reason. Just feels wrong.

I agree. — unenlightened

Well, not to troll you; but, it's that kind of attitude that leads to this outcome.

not to troll you; but, it's that kind of attitude that leads to this outcome. — Wallows

Yes. And the attitude of 'never give up' leads to endless suffering. Take your pick.

Yes. And the attitude of 'never give up' leads to endless suffering. Take your pick. — unenlightened

But, here we go with that psychological fatalism. The endless suffering is just a fiction. Don't you agree?

No I don't agree. Suffering is real.

Suffering is real. — unenlightened

Yes, it is; but, not in the way you portrayed it as possessing the quality of being "endless".

Well it ends with death, in the sense that it is completed, or it continues as long as death is postponed. Don't be pedantically literal.

Or perhaps one recovers, perhaps one can be cured. But this possibility turns out to be 'just a fiction' in some cases. In this case a fiction of many years telling, and eventually ending in fatalism and fatality.

That's great, but I hope you do realize that even their mental health care system is woefully inadequate. — NKBJ

This is a very pessimistic characterisation. My Skoda Octavia is not woefully inadequate simply because the ultimate car still has to be invented. It's entirely adequate but I won't win an F1 race with it. Most therapies that have been developed help, even if they don't cure every mental disease.

"Right to refuse treatment
You have the right to refuse medical treatment, including medication, unless ordered by a court. But you can be given care for personal hygiene or in an emergency without your agreement.

In exceptional situations, health care institutions can use force, isolation, medication or other types of restraints to prevent harm to you or someone else. The use of these methods must be minimal and must be noted in your medical record. " — Hanover

Yes, I read that and I recall we already went over the fact she wasn't legally incapacitated in which case the court cannot order any treatment. At least in the Netherlands.

Depends on your criteria.
An F1 car is absolutely useless compared to an Octavia if you want to get to work.

It's tricky to judge cases like this ethically, but I lean towards the pro-ethunasia side. — S

Why lean toward death?

We need more places like the Netherlands and less places like Alabama. — S

How do you know? You've never been to Alabama.

This is a very pessimistic characterisation. My Skoda Octavia is not woefully inadequate simply because the ultimate car still has to be invented. It's entirely adequate but I won't win an F1 race with it. Most therapies that have been developed help, even if they don't cure every mental disease. — Benkei

We're talking about human lives here. Not cars. Our standards are, and should be different for those two things.

Anorexia has a mortality rate of about 10%. That's one in ten. If I were to stick with your car analogy, how would you feel about the adequacy your Skoda if you had a one in ten chance of dying in it?

Whether or not a seventeen year old is cognizant enough to make the decision for themselves is the relevant issue. "We" do need to make decisions on behalf of children all the time.

My Skoda Octavia is not woefully inadequate simply because the ultimate car still has to be invented. — Benkei

Tesla's Model S,3,X come pretty close...

Then there's the Roadster coming up with rocket boosters included that will go as fast as humanly possible withstanding G force.

You can't make this shit up.

@Hanover

Yes, I read that and I recall we already went over the fact she wasn't legally incapacitated in which case the court cannot order any treatment. At least in the Netherlands. — Benkei

Someone "under the age of consent" has not yet been "capacitated". So, in the US a 17 year old could be compelled to receive a "72 hour hold" for observation. A person over the age of consent who appeared to be dangerous to self or others can also be ordered to accept a minimum of institutionalisation. @Hanover: True?

What good does a 72 hour hold do? It gives psych staff an opportunity to assess the person. Of course it is not curative. 72 hours is long enough for a person to calm down a bit, or clear some of whatever they're on to clear the system; maybe by the third day the world will look different to them.

I can see why someone might want help killing themselves. Some methods are quite effective; others are not. Females are more likely to choose drugs. I've read the Hemlock Society manual, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to complete their directions: "take all the pills you have and then drink a quart of whisky, gin, bourbon, or vodka--quickly. The alcohol will amplify the drugs." I can hardly swallow a tablespoon of straight alcohol, let alone a quart. Then there is the problem of nausea which can undo the effort one went to, and drugs can take enough time that one might be discovered, hauled off to ER, for a stomach pumping and antidotes. And then maybe one's brains will be much more scrambled than they were before.

To whom does one's life belong? Solely to one's self? I'm not sure that such is the case. There are usually "stake holders" in a person's life: Parents, children, siblings, friends, a community. Maybe one's stakeholders are one of the reasons one is looking for rope and a strong beam, but suicide is often a cruel blow to one's circle of family and friends (granted: not always).

Why lean toward death? — Hanover

Why inappropriately change the terminology? Euthanasia isn't death. If I were to accidentally fall to my death from a height, I wouldn't have been euthanised, would I? We're obviously talking about something more specific than death.

I lean towards pro-euthanasia because it's the right course of action in a lot of cases. The conceivable exceptions seem to be just that: conceivable. Yet there are a significant number of actual cases where the patient is entitled to euthanasia to end their suffering, but unfortunately the process is more difficult than it ought to be.

How do you know? You've never been to Alabama. — Hanover

Is that a serious objection? I know things about Alabama, and I know things about the Netherlands, and I'm capable of making such a judgement on that basis.

— NKBJ

Whatever does the job for you.

VagabondSpectre
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa
Whether or not a seventeen year old is cognizant enough to make the decision for themselves is the relevant issue. "We" do need to make decisions on behalf of children all the time. — VagabondSpectre

And, of course, YOU want to be able to decide if a person is "cognizant enough...just as I am sure you would want ME to be the judge if YOU are...right?

Obviously there are people here who would have preferred the young woman step in front of a moving train or tractor trailer to end her misery.

It is their right to feel that way.

I just disagree.

Obviously there are people here who would have preferred the young woman step in front of a moving train or tractor trailer to end her misery.

It is their right to feel that way.

I just disagree. — Frank Apisa

You purposefully misunderstand us. No surprise there.

There are simply those of us who wish this young lady were ALIVE and being TREATED and given the chance at HAPPINESS, instead of just giving up on her and letting her die a horrible, slow death because that's what's most convenient for people like you. Having to think hard and well about what is best for another human being in distress is hard work, and you apparently don't have the guts to do it. You'd rather abandon them in their time of need.

Having to think hard and well about what is best for another human being in distress is hard work, and you apparently don't have the guts to do it. You'd rather abandon them in their time of need. — NKBJ

This is unfair on two counts; firstly, it begs the whole question of whether one can or should 'think for' another in the case where your thoughts contradict theirs, and secondly it glosses over the fact that this not 'their time of need', but a situation that has gone on for years already. and that's ignoring the personal innuendo.

We do in the case of children, so the only question that remains is what other cases can be included. Someone who is underage and in psychological distress, posing an acute danger to themselves, falls into that category.

I do not see how a "time of need" has an expiration date.

I do not see how a "time of need" has an expiration date. — NKBJ

Perhaps you can see that childhood does though. Perhaps you might see, if you think about if "this young lady were ALIVE and being TREATED and given the chance at HAPPINESS" for a few years and she is still not happy, that your thinking might as well have an end. Perhaps you might allow that treatment might not work, that happiness might not be attainable, that being alive might not always be good.

That is a hard thing to do, because it brings one's own life into question, and not every life can stand up to such scrutiny.

Go back to my previous post and please check between which two things I made the analogy and then you may realise your reply missed the mark. The comparison was between cars and treatments, not cars and people. That said there's a fine analogy to make with cars and people and mechanics and therapists as well. Nobody would then suggest cars equal people, which is a weird position to attribute to me.

There are simply those of us who wish this young lady were ALIVE and being TREATED and given the chance at HAPPINESS, instead of just giving up on her and letting her die a horrible, slow death because that's what's most convenient for people like you. — NKBJ

This misrepresents the case, she had 3 years of various therapy and therefore had been and was being treated. You've already stated before mental healthcare is woefully inadequate so by that estimation her chances for happiness are close to zero. It would then be a slow and horrible life until her 21st when she would be entitled to euthanasia.

In fact, she should've had access to euthanasia to avoid the horrible slow death she had now.

Hey, you made the analogy, not me. Better own up to the implications thereof.

My comparison to the death rates still stands: you have a 1 in 10 chance of dying from anorexia, even with care, anywhere in the world. Would you say a car with the same odds is adequate? I would not. I would say we need to get our acts together and stop all this senseless dying and suffering. But hey, that's just me. I don't settle for a 10% death rate.

3 years is not a very long time when you're talking about the rest of your life. And recovery is a long process. It takes years.

How can I make this clear?
She dies, there is a 0% chance of recovery and a good life.
She lives, there is a chance (I would say very good, you may say very poor, so let's settle on 50%) that she will live a good life.

0 versus something. It's not rocket surgery what is the better option.

Key being "maybe" she won't recover. But maybe she will. Let's say it's 50/50. If she lives she has a shot at a good life, if she dies, she does not.

She lives, there is a chance (I would say very good, you may say very poor, so let's settle on 50%) that she will live a good life. — NKBJ

You think this is a negotiation? Then we're definitely not settling on 50-50 when you've already admitted treatment is woefully inadequate. The question might be what likelihood of no improvement would you require to allow for euthanasia?

Personally, I'd allow euthanasia when the likelihood of suicide, regardless of the level of suffering, is close to 100% as was the case here.

I think I'm trying to be polite and meet you half-way in a theoretical discussion... So I suppose you could call it a negotiation. But it really doesn't matter what percentage we settle on, and focusing on that is merely a red herring. The odds are > 0 and therefore my argument still stands.

Let's say it's 50/50. — NKBJ

Let's say I've been gently boiling you in oil for a few years - for your own good mind - and not enough to do more than make your life unbearable. And let's say, because you are a bit sceptical and I am optimistic, that a few more years of constant agony will give a 50 % chance of recovery. "My argument stands" doesn't really do very much here. Any price is worth paying to someone who doesn't have to pay the price.

Benkei
2k

She lives, there is a chance (I would say very good, you may say very poor, so let's settle on 50%) that she will live a good life. — NKBJ



You think this is a negotiation? Then we're definitely not settling on 50-50 when you've already admitted treatment is woefully inadequate. The question might be what likelihood of no improvement would you require to allow for euthanasia?

Personally, I'd allow euthanasia when the likelihood of suicide, regardless of the level of suffering, is close to 100% as was the case here. — Benkei

Absolutely.

But the "I know better buttinski's" want their decisions about someone else to take precedence over the wishes of the individual.