213
Dutch woman, 29, granted euthanasia approval on grounds of mental suffering
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
213 points (100.0% liked)
World News
1036 readers
20 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have no clue why you're trying to push my argument into a political direction.
Is abortion not a political issue? What do you mean by that?
It is a political issue because people want it to be one. My comment was about the way the arguments sound, not about what political side says what.
Well, I was trying to push it in a political direction because I don't like my beliefs being compared to anti-abortionists based on vibes and appearances. It's necessary to engage more critically with the issue to demonstrate that any apparent similarities are just superficial.
There is no objective division between political and non-political. This is a question about government policy on which people are divided, so to me it's inherently a political issue.
I don't know what to tell you. It seems to me like you're critical about assisted suicide but are pro choice when it comes to abortions.
In my opinion those two things are different sides of the same coin. Regardless of politics.
I don't believe that they are different sides of the same coin. I see very little in common between the two.
From my perspective, it would be like saying opposition to war or the death penalty is just like being opposed to abortion, because anti-choice people claim to value life.
Assisted suicide and abortions are tied to informed consent and aren't really something that can be done 'on a whim'. (Obviously abortions should be easier to get access to than assisted suicide)
Getting murdered nonconsenting (through war or the death penalty) is something completely different.
There are valid reasons to restrict certain actions or substances even if someone gives informed consent. While bodily autonomy is a right, it isn't absolute to the point of outweighing all other rights and all practical considerations (no right is absolute). For any given right, whether it's bodily autonomy, free speech, etc, there are valid reasons why limitations may be placed on it, and it isn't valid to lump all of those reasons together with bullshit reasons people might want to restrict it. It would be like saying that people who don't want it to be legal to shout "fire" in a theater are just like people who want to ban criticism of the government.
What's a valid reason in your opinion for banning assisted suicide?
I wrote out some of my reasons here.
In short, it's difficult to evaluate how much of a person's psychological pain is innate and inherent to them and how much of it is caused by broader social factors. Even if every treatment option is exhausted, therapists can't change society. I'm concerned that social changes for the sake of accommodation will get more difficult if assisted suicide becomes seen as an adequate solution.
Assisted suicide is fundamentally the same thing as non-assisted suicide, the only difference is that it makes less of mess. But the person is still gone and it's every bit as tragic. Changing norms about suicide wouldn't address the actual problems, it would only make the problems less visible and easier to ignore. If we're going to change something, we should instead work to improve the conditions people are living in. Suicide is not the answer.
So we just let people suffer until society changes itself? And even then there will be people where damage is already done.
I agree that those things are related. But with assisted suicide people get the option to properly say farewell, have a guarantee they won't suffer and don't risk mentally scarring first responders or otherwise involved people unnecessarily. They'll do it anyways, so why not make it less horrible for them?
I disagree with that. Will they do it anyway? There is evidence that putting up simple barriers to suicide (such as guardrails on a bridge) is effective at reducing suicide, while having a method of suicide readily available (such as a gun) can increase risks of suicide. Suicide is often an impulsive and irrational decision.
If some percentage of people would be deterred from suicide by the inconvenience of doing it themselves, and some percentage of that group would go on to recover enough to lead happy lives, wouldn't that at least potentially be a good enough reason to restrict it?
But to answer your previous question, yes. We do let people suffer until society changes. Because I believe that it is better to endure the suffering and injustice caused by society than to look for an easy escape that doesn't actually solve the problem, at least for anyone else. If I see suffering, is the proper solution to rip out my eyes? No. That's incredibly misdirected, but that's the logic of suicide. Rather than seeking to address the actual problem, it's directing violence towards one's own ability to sense and perceive the world around them. It is the ultimate form of "out of sight, out of mind," taking it so far that you eliminate your own mind for having the audacity to report to you about unpleasantness. Addressing the underlying cause is what's important, the pain is merely a symptom, which exists for the reason of telling us something's wrong.
There are exceptions to that generalization. It is possible that the real source of the problem is within one's body, that it's causing incurable and unbearable physical pain. In those cases, I think it's acceptable - but no further.
You're just moving the goalpost at this point.
I hope you never get severe depression or any physical illness that wants you to commit suicide. Because I doubt that you would last long, considering you clearly never delt with any of that before.
I have, actually, and that's why I feel as strongly about this as I do. If I didn't believe what I've said, I'd have most likely killed myself. I'm alive today for the hope that someday things could get better and for the knowledge that my death wouldn't fix anything.
The goalposts have not moved a single inch.
You moved the goalpost by going from "we should ban assisted suicide" to "we should make suicide harder (instead of actually doing something against the root causes)".
I'm glad that you "went trough the same and turned out fine", but most people that bring up that argument have not turned out fine.
My position from the start has been that assisted suicide, if it is to be allowed at all, should only be allowed for people with incurable physical pain. You can find multiple different comments of me saying that in this thread.
Wow. Thank you so much for telling me you think that suicide is the only answer to my problems. That's a very reasonable and normal thing to say to someone you've never met.
Showing your real colors. You people just want people with mental illness to kill themselves so we'll be out of your hair. Go fuck yourself, asshole.
Completely writing off whatever progress I've made while knowing precisely jack shit about my journey. What the fuck is wrong with you to think that's ok?
I think your argument that it's OK for people to suffer because they might get better some day is awful. What if they don't get better? What if it gets worse? Why is this anyones business except the affected persons?
The fact that you battled mental shit is just a display of survivorship bias and doesn't mean shit IMO.
Fuck off. The only reason I didn't block you was to give you a chance to realize you said something incredibly fucked up and apologize. Your attitude is a perfect example of why I'm opposed to this garbage and has only served to validate my position, which I now am more convinced of than ever. Blocked.
lol