I'm currently midway through a program to become a therapist. I've been in the mental health space for quite some time, and worked with students of many ages.

This is the wrong decision. Suicide is usually a consequence of hopelessness. In my experience, hope can be brought back to most people suffering from mental health issues.

It also sets a dangerous precedent. A way out, so to speak, for people with a temporary, overcomable problem.

(For the record, I am ok with medical assistance in dying when it comes to chronic severe pain and illness).

[–] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.de 15 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'm currently midway through a program to become a therapist. I've been in the mental health space for quite some time, and worked with students of many ages.

So you are not a therapist.

Bodily autonomy includes the right to die, if one choses to do so. Are you against bodily autonomy?

And what do you think would happen if she had been denied? Instead of a dignified death in a safe environment she might have resorted to options available to her, possibly endangering other people as well.

[–] Tangentism@lemmy.ml 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

The previous commentor sounds exactly like all those people who have harassed Zoraya with their bullshit "miracle cures".

It had always astounded me that we offer painless, merciful euthanasia to our pets and animals, both wild and domesticated, yet not to our fellow humans, who must suffer until the bitter end.

[–] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.de 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It's the remnants of the religious infestation that still slumbers in the collective consciousness of society that makes madness like that possible.

[–] figaro@lemdro.id 1 points 6 months ago

There definitely is not a miracle cure, and sending someone random messages is not the way. I definitely agree with you there. Medical Assistance in Death should be more widely available as well. The one point I think is important to clarify is that it shouldn't be used if there is reasonable expectation of some kind of improvement. In mental health, I think the vast majority of cases are improvable, at least beyond the point of suicide ideation.

I responded to another comment with some clarifications.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.de 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Do you really think that becoming a therapist is a good idea when you can't even read the article which lays out her hopeless situation?

Also this isn't a precedent.

Also why are you okay with assistance in dying when it comes to pain and illness but not mental illness? Because you can't see/diagnose the latter so easily?

[–] figaro@lemdro.id 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

This is definitely a nuanced discussion and every situation is different, so I'm not going to make any sweeping statements about the whole thing, but I generally see suicidality as a symptom of something else. If we can improve the "something else," the suicidality improves or even goes away in the vast majority of cases.

This is different from other Medical Assistance in Death situations because in the cases where it is implemented because of pain and illness, there is no reasonable hope of improving their outcomes. In the vast majority of mental health cases, there is a lot of hope, even if the patient does not see it (which is often. Most situations where a person expresses suicidal ideation and intention to family, friends, or therapists do not end in follow through. Having someone to talk to about those thoughts helps. Even validating their thoughts helps: "It makes sense that you feel like that, honestly." But ultimately, you want to help them get through to the next day. The vast majority of people who were in this circumstance are glad they did not follow through).

Again, the discussion is nuanced and I don't think Lemmy is the best place to facilitate this discussion, but that is more or less my take on it.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.de 5 points 6 months ago

Dude... Did you still not read the article?

And do you think that it was willy billy that the state approved her request?

[–] xxd@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I don't think your distinction makes sense.

You're saying most mental health/suicide cases have hope, and thants probably true! But the article wasn't "every suicidal person granted euthanasia approval", it was approved for one very extreme case of mental suffering with no indication of improving. That would be like saying "most cases of pain still have hope". Yes exactly, they do, but there are rare, chronic cases where euthanasia may be a valid option, right? And just as much as suicidality is just 'a symptom of something' else, isn't pain also just a symptom of something else?

And obviously we should help suicidal people to improve their mental health, but in her case she has been struggling since childhood with no indication of improvement. So how was this "the wrong decision" for her?

[–] xxd@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 6 months ago

Have you read the article?

Under Dutch law, to be eligible for an assisted death, a person must be experiencing “unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement”. They must be fully informed and competent to take such a decision.

After 10 years, there was “nothing left” in terms of treatment. “I knew I couldn’t cope with the way I live now.”

In the three and a half years this has taken, I’ve never hesitated about my decision.

How is this a temporary and overcomable problem? It seems clear that it is not temporary and no kind of treatment worked for her. As per the law, there must be unbearable suffering without prospect of improvement, and during the multiple stages of this process, apparently no one came to the conclusion that that wasn't the case for her. So how can you make that assessment?