Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Keith Maitland on December 11, 2015, 12:55:48 AM
-
Belgian experts call for euthanasia on psychological grounds to be removed from the law. The group of psychiatrists, psychologists and others is calling for euthanasia on the grounds of psychological suffering alone to be removed from the Belgian legislation.
They write, “The current law assumes wrongly that there are objective clinical criteria with regard to psychological suffering that could justify euthanasia. It is for this reason that euthanasia on the grounds of psychological suffering alone cannot be regulated by law.”
RTWT here:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1512/S00164/calll-for-euthanasia-on-psychological-grounds-to-be-banned.htm
-
Belgian experts call for euthanasia on psychological grounds to be removed from the law. The group of psychiatrists, psychologists and others is calling for euthanasia on the grounds of psychological suffering alone to be removed from the Belgian legislation.
I don't normally agree with what you say, Keith, but here I may have to make an exception. I have often wondered whether any procedure should be thus permitted if it is only for psychological grounds. I suppose this relates to a couple of friends I've had over the years who clearly had mental illnesses, but refused to accept that they did, therefore refused treatment and who both died unnecessarily - both from a medical pov and an age pov.
In effect, they had 'self-euthanased'.
-
I don't normally agree with what you say, Keith, but here I may have to make an exception. I have often wondered whether any procedure should be thus permitted if it is only for psychological grounds.
Where would that leave people with terminal cancer, MND, etc.?
I suppose this relates to a couple of friends I've had over the years who clearly had mental illnesses, but refused to accept that they did, therefore refused treatment and who both died unnecessarily - both from a medical pov and an age pov.
But was it unnecessary from their point of view?
-
Where would that leave people with terminal cancer, MND, etc.?
In case you hadn't noticed, terminal cancer is a physiological issue as well as a psychological one. As is MND.
But was it unnecessary from their point of view?
I believe it was.
-
Providing a person is in their right mind they should be permitted to end their life if it is a burden to them.
-
I believe it was.
That's your opinion again though - what was theirs?
-
Floo,
Providing a person is in their right mind they should be permitted to end their life if it is a burden to them.
Speaking of depression, there is apparently no clinical evidence correlating depression with the desire to hasten death. What evidence we have is anecdotal, but, as Ron Lindsay says in his book Future Bioethics, at least one study of depressives found that there was “no significant effect of depression on decision making.” In other words, depressed persons may be able to distinguish fantasy from reality, and this might suggest that chronically depressed persons might reasonably choose, after long, terrible experiences of trying to cope unsuccessfully with depression, that life was no longer worth living. In such a case, if there is a desire to bring life to an end, this might overlap with a reasonable choice to bring this about.
-
I.E. you can still be "in your right mind", not suffer any physical medical condition and choose to die without reason other than life does not seem worth the effort?
-
I.E. you can still be "in your right mind", not suffer any physical medical condition and choose to die without reason other than life does not seem worth the effort?
That is a personal choice, whether others agree with it or not.
-
Providing a person is in their right mind they should be permitted to end their life if it is a burden to them.
People with mental health issues are not always in their right minds though floo. Sometimes they get better too and are glad to be alive!
It's horrible to know someone is suffering mentally but they need tlc (not always drugs which can have very bad effects), and nurturing.
-
People with mental health issues are not always in their right minds though floo. Sometimes they get better too and are glad to be alive!
It's horrible to know someone is suffering mentally but they need tlc (not always drugs which can have very bad effects), and nurturing.
It's not always so simple.
-
Udayana,
I.E. you can still be "in your right mind", not suffer any physical medical condition and choose to die without reason other than life does not seem worth the effort?
There is no non-religious reason why suicide is wrong.
The only serious non-Judeo-Christian argument I am aware of for this is J. David Velleman's, which he presented in his paper "A Right of Self-Termination?" His argument boils down to this:
1. Why do we respect the wishes of others? Because they matter.
2. I can't argue based on "mattering" that I should be allowed to cease to exist, because this contradicts the idea that I matter.
I think this argument fails, because ending something's existence does not at all imply that the thing does not matter. My favorite example of this is Robert Rauschenberg's erased de Kooning drawing; one can hardly argue that the de Kooning drawing's value and worth was denied by its being erased.
We are all potentially burdened by coming into existence. We made no decision to come into existence. We should be allowed to say "no, thank you" to this unasked-for gift.
-
I.E. you can still be "in your right mind", not suffer any physical medical condition and choose to die without reason other than life does not seem worth the effort?
In which case you would be in a position to do it yourself.
-
Udayana,
There is no non-religious reason why suicide is wrong.
Surely that would depend on your overall theory of ethics? While I have noticed that there is a strain in your writing that takes an objectivist position, you haven't ever openly justified it and you would need to do so here if you are going down this route.
Rather I would suggest on a non objectivist view of my morality there is an infinite possibilities of justifying suicide as wrong, or indeed as right dependent on the axioms you base that morality on. Indeed if one extends that to being situational ethics, then it is possible for the same person to determine differently because of differing circumstances. It should also be noted that many of those who believe in objectivist ethics are also situationalists rather than absolutists.
If we take the classic and most simplistic view of Utilitarianism, then suicide could be either wrong or right based on the impact to everyone. That you might not believe in Utilitarianism does not change that and illustrates the problems with the position you have taken.
I know that due to issues of time in making comments, and the practice of language, that we all make statements that sound more absolute, and therefore in relation to morals more absolutist, then we really believe but your starting position in the above post needs a great deal more work on stopping it being a simplistic assertion such as Alan Burns makes.
-
In which case you would be in a position to do it yourself.
Indeed, as we all, practically, are.
-
To quote Dorothy Parker
'Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp
Guns aren’t lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live'
-
Udayana,
There is no non-religious reason why suicide is wrong.
The only serious non-Judeo-Christian argument I am aware of for this is J. David Velleman's, which he presented in his paper "A Right of Self-Termination?" His argument boils down to this:
1. Why do we respect the wishes of others? Because they matter.
2. I can't argue based on "mattering" that I should be allowed to cease to exist, because this contradicts the idea that I matter.
I think this argument fails, because ending something's existence does not at all imply that the thing does not matter. My favorite example of this is Robert Rauschenberg's erased de Kooning drawing; one can hardly argue that the de Kooning drawing's value and worth was denied by its being erased.
We are all potentially burdened by coming into existence. We made no decision to come into existence. We should be allowed to say "no, thank you" to this unasked-for gift.
I have not found a way by just using logic, without religious type assumptions, to being able to determine if something matters or not, let alone what to do about it then.
Rauschenberg's erased de Kooning drawing is, of-course, brilliant. But So is M.C. Eschers's Drawing Hands.
-
Nearly Sane,
Surely that would depend on your overall theory of ethics? While I have noticed that there is a strain in your writing that takes an objectivist position, you haven't ever openly justified it and you would need to do so here if you are going down this route.
The question is, is it ethical to prohibit suicide, and the answer, is no, it isn't.
Mental health workers, whenever they do so, usurp the inalienable prerogative of the individual to dispose of an existence which, even in its best moments, is a pointless, Sisyphean chore, a glorified endurance test.
Strindberg was right when he said the only people comfortable in this world are swines. In the modern age this is especially true. How anyone can have anything other than a jaundiced view of the world, man, and human relations is beyond my powers of comprehension.
I mean, this may not please psychiatrists, the great pathologizers of the all too sane cynicism of some of us (which they call paranoia, which there is always at least a grain of truth in, and is often the product of a clearer vision and a greater sensitivity to the injustice most people are so deeply mired and complicit in that it is no wonder they dismiss us as paranoid), but human beings are really overrated, a product no doubt of the fact that it is only man himself that is able to evaluate the species.
When we want to deny people rights (especially fundamental ones like freedom) we'd better have damn good reasons for doing so, so in a fair ethical discussion the burden of argument so to speak lies with those denying rights, not those affirming them. Freedom should only be limited by absolute necessity, i.e my freedom ends where yours begins and vice versa. If it cannot be shown that suicide is a breach of the rights of others then it clearly isn't wrong, which isn't to say that it's necessarily smart or rational.
Given the fact that slavery has long been abolished what are we arguing about here really? In a free, open society every person is the sole owner of his or her life and body so therefore it follows they can do whatever they damn well please with it, provided they do not endanger others or cause a public disturbance. The myth of mental illness (quite mysterious diseases/disorders which do not have traceable biological features so seem to exist mainly in the subjective, socio-cultural realm - with possible exceptions such as schizophrenia) has too long been used to degrade people and rob them off their natural rights and I happen to think this is a bloody outrage.
The lack of rationality of an action (in this case suicide) should not be a criterium for goverment intervention otherwise they'll be able to control the whole of society and a scenario à la 1984 or Brave New World isn't far off. That's if committing suicide under extreme mental duress is even irrational: surely if one suffers mentally or emotionally for years on end and there's no real cure or effective relief (Plath and Woolf come to mind) it's hard not to see these poor people's quality of life is below zero and it's pretty damn rational to want to end all that meaningless suffering. If I were a cynic I might be inclined to belief the de facto suicide prohibition is more to the benefit of the mental health and pharmacological industry than to those they're supposed to help and heal (hard to do that if you don't even know the cause of the problem). As Sasz justly asked: qui bono?
In short: if someone close to me had to suffer so horrendously and the medical establishment failed them so miserably I'd completely understand and even applaud their decision to end their life. That's the real tragedy here, isn't it? If suicide is indeed closely associated with mental suffering and it is the job of psychiatrists and psychologists to treat this suffering and still the suicide-rate is through the roof then clearly they're not very good at their job so they denounce suicide (on highly spurious grounds) in order to avoid being denounced by it just like the clergy in Hume's time argued against it based on nothing but weak sophisms which he easily refuted.
If psychiatrists and their ilk are so keen on rationality perhaps they can explain to us why they still haven't found any biological cause for these mental conditions or why they still don't know how their medications and talk therapies are supposed to work and why they so often don't work at all. The answer to the suicide problem is not more prevention (blaming the victim, if ever so subtely) but better, scientifically valid care which up to date is sadly lacking. Make sure you can actually cure people of their mental illnesses and they'll flock to you for treatment (as they do to other medical specialties) and I'm confident (almost) no-one would not rather be relieved from their problem than die by their own hand which is a grim enterprise even in the best of circumstances and the great majority of suicides clearly do not die under the best of circumstances. Which in itself is an outrage: not only do we not respect people's right to self-determination but we in effect force them to carry out their act in secrecy (as if it were a crime, which de jure it isn't) with highly imperfect means (resulting in grave, horrible consequences such as disfigurement, brain damage, handicaps and the like), reinforcing the stigma attached to suicide and thus adding to the burden of those left behind.
As to the subject of death: clearly it doesn't concern us (we cannot experience death since this implies a consciousness so the very thing which death destroys) and it is only an evil if there is an immortal soul AND there is some kind of deity who thinks killing oneself to escape suffering is somehow a breach of modesty meriting more punishment. Both elements seem incredibly improbable to me.
-
I'm not sure how much gets invested in research into mental health, but if it's anything like the budget allocated for caring for the mentally ill, it'll be woefully inadequate. I guess that the problem here is that we don't have sufficient criteria to say who is likely to recover and who isn't, which leaves both the medical profession and the legal process somewhat at sea.
I fully understand why the medical profession watches the suicidal and keeps them from harming themselves. I have spent quite a lot of time talking to people who have attempted suicide, and some have explained it as not wanting to die, but just wanting the mental pain to stop, and being at a loss as to how else to go about it. With care they've recovered, and now not just have normal lives, but good lives. The problem for people facing this kind of acute mental health issue is that there isn't adequate care available before they reach the point at which suicide appears to be the only viable option, compounded by the stigma around MH that prevents many from seeking help in the first place.
But for some it isn't like that - it's not a crisis moment, but a daily struggle. I got used to sharing meals with people with wrists and arms scarred from multiple suicide attempts, and who knew that at some point they would try again, one way or another. These were some of the most courageous people I have ever met, keeping going in horrendous pain, looking for light, wanting to keep going mainly because of the people who loved and cared for them. In these cases I've come to the view that assisted dying is a compassionate option.
And these are just my limited observations not as any kind of expert, but as someone who has been mentally ill myself. The bigger picture is far more complex, I know.
-
Too long to quote and actually nothing to add; simply two exceptional posts by Keith and Rhiannon.
-
Keith. If you want to engage, can I suggest as a basic starting point, you read what someone has written and start from there, as the entirety of your very well written, hugely self indulgent post has nothing to to with what I wrote other than taking it as a ski lift to go off on another assertatron flight.
This flaky 'it's right because I quote Strindberg' pish is as ever with you, another set of vacuous wanking that should have been kept to your teenage diaries. My post was asking how you might move to the objective statement that you are making, and what did I get, a well toned diatribe, ignoring the question. And stamping your tiny feet about another set of assertions
Yesterday, I was talking to a friend about the effect his uncle's suicide when my friend was 12 had on him, and it wasn't about blame, it wasn't about whether it was right, it was a genuine cry for understanding, a cry for what if anything the 12 year old could have done. And, yes, there may be people whose deaths and suicides effect no one going forward but they are damn few, and thinking you are one of them is, simply on a numbers basis, indulgent crap.
Do we do the best for those suffering from depression and mental illness? No. Is that a reason to spunk your adolescent witterings as if they have a scintilla of objectivity? Arse!
-
I know we don't fully understand mental illness, but I'm not convinced that there is always a choice for those who take their own lives, nor any treatment for some severe forms that can make life tolerable. We have to get out of this mindset that blames both victim and loved ones, including self-recrimination; we don't do it for other forms of illness.
-
... because a lot of people still haven't quite entirely shaken off old ideas that mental/emotional conditions have a voluntary aspect to them - that they can be overcome just by being positive enough or by trying hard enough. As you say, anybody saying the same of bowel cancer for example would get a smack in the teeth (and would deserve it).
-
And since no one is saying that, why are we talking about it?
-
Since no one mentioned Keith's teenage diaries until you brought it up in your previous borderline hysterical screed, what's the relevance of that, precisely?
-
Nobody questions whether they could have done more to save someone with bowel cancer. And there does seem to be an allusion in your earlier post to suicides not caring about their impact on others, NS, although I apologise if that's not what you meant. But from what I can gather from talking to people who feel this way they know it will hurt others but the pain they are experiencing overrides that. Some may see that as weak and selfish, but to me that is simply intolerable suffering.
-
Since no one mentioned Keith's teenage diaries until you brought it up in your previous borderline hysterical screed, what's the relevance of that, precisely?
It read like a furtherance of an answer to something I haven't seen.
-
Nobody questions whether they could have done more to save someone with bowel cancer. And there does seem to be an allusion in your earlier post to suicides not caring about their impact on others, NS, although I apologise if that's not what you meant. But from what I can gather from talking to people who feel this way they know it will hurt others but the pain they are experiencing overrides that. Some may see that as weak and selfish, but to me that is simply intolerable suffering.
When one of my friends died at 28 from skin cancer, I and pretty well everyone I knew exactly questioned if there was something else that could have been done by us.
But that aside this isn't about blame as my 'borderline hysterical screed' specifically stated. It's about whether there is an effect. Further if we just conclude that suicide as an act is excluded from evaluation because it is as a result of the mentality of the actor then that applies to all actions.
-
Providing a person is in their right mind they should be permitted to end their life if it is a burden to them.
I agree, but if they have no physical symptoms, there is nothing to stop them from "self euthanising" (as Hope puts it).
-
There is no non-religious reason why suicide is wrong.
That rather depends on your moral precepts, I suppose. There are reasons why it might be considered wrong to commit suicide - the impact on those around you, the possibility that you might have dependents. Those, of course, have to be balanced against things like personal autonomy and the impact of continuing an undesired, painful or unfulfilling life. As with most things, it's a balance of influences, and different people's take on it will be different.
O.
-
The question is, is it ethical to prohibit suicide, and the answer, is no, it isn't.
As a blanket prohibition I'd agree, but on a case by case I think there are situations where it's not only permissible but actually preferable.
Mental health workers, whenever they do so, usurp the inalienable prerogative of the individual to dispose of an existence which, even in its best moments, is a pointless, Sisyphean chore, a glorified endurance test.
Firstly, they can only usurp the individual's right to autonomy if the person is fit to make the judgement - whilst we are far from perfect at determining what constitutes mental impairment and what doesn't, we're at least aware that the concept is valid.
Secondly your depiction that life, even at its best moments, is a 'pointless Sisyphean chore' might be your take on life, but it's not mine and it's not that of a host of others. Just as we all have the right to make our choices, we have the right to determine what life 'means' for ourselves.
Strindberg was right when he said the only people comfortable in this world are swines.
None taken.
In the modern age this is especially true. How anyone can have anything other than a jaundiced view of the world, man, and human relations is beyond my powers of comprehension.
There are any number of things that are good and rewarding despite not being perfect - indeed, in some ways perhaps because they are not perfect. I value the relationships I have with people, in part, because they are hard, because they take work, because I'm not a natural fit with other people: succeeding there is an achievement, it's something to be proud of. The fact that it's beyond your comprehension is a) sad and b) not binding on the rest of us.
I mean, this may not please psychiatrists, the great pathologizers of the all too sane cynicism of some of us (which they call paranoia, which there is always at least a grain of truth in, and is often the product of a clearer vision and a greater sensitivity to the injustice most people are so deeply mired and complicit in that it is no wonder they dismiss us as paranoid), but human beings are really overrated, a product no doubt of the fact that it is only man himself that is able to evaluate the species.
Are they? People are capable of more than they collectively achieve, yes, but then I don't expect people to be perfect. If life, civilisation and people are failing to live up to your expectations why would you presume it's life, civilisation and people at fault and not your expectations?
When we want to deny people rights (especially fundamental ones like freedom) we'd better have damn good reasons for doing so, so in a fair ethical discussion the burden of argument so to speak lies with those denying rights, not those affirming them.
I'd agree with that, personally.
Freedom should only be limited by absolute necessity, i.e my freedom ends where yours begins and vice versa. If it cannot be shown that suicide is a breach of the rights of others then it clearly isn't wrong, which isn't to say that it's necessarily smart or rational.
Except that a) it can be shown that it infringes on other people's rights, to an extent, and that breach needs to be balanced against personal autonomy and b) it could be seen as a breach of the individual's right if it's a decision taken whilst not in their right mind. Obviously, as I've suggested, our grasp of what is or isn't a 'right' mind is in its infancy, and some people feel they're erring on the side of caution by preserving a life that will still have options later.
Given the fact that slavery has long been abolished what are we arguing about here really?
I think we're arguing, at least in part, that you're cheapening your argument by describing limitations on suicide as some sort of moral equivalent of slavery.
In a free, open society every person is the sole owner of his or her life and body so therefore it follows they can do whatever they damn well please with it, provided they do not endanger others or cause a public disturbance.
In a free and open society, though, no-one exists in isolation. Our actions have an impact on the people around us to a greater or lesser extent.
The myth of mental illness (quite mysterious diseases/disorders which do not have traceable biological features so seem to exist mainly in the subjective, socio-cultural realm - with possible exceptions such as schizophrenia) has too long been used to degrade people and rob them off their natural rights and I happen to think this is a bloody outrage.
I get where you're coming from. I don't think that the people who work in this field are typically 'inventing' conditions to justify their own existence (with the possible exception of the large pharmaceutical companies). They're acting with the best intentions of their 'patients', but the medicalisation of difference is a growing problem - I speak from personal experience on this. That does not obviate the reality that there are genuine mental illnesses out there that rob people of a 'normal' mentality and a conventionally informed choice; however, that doesn't intrinsically rob them of the right to self-determination.
You mentioned schizophrenia, and there are instances of people where we do not have a treatment that can help them; in such instances the potential 'cured' persona that we would consider capable of making an informed choice is a myth, it doesn't exist. Does that give us the right to disregard the wishes of the individual that IS there, the schizophrenic suffering the ravages of their own problems? That's a difficult call to make even if you know the specifics of their situation, to make a general blanket call is impossible. I think you have to take each of those cases on its merits, and we lack a legal framework at the moment that has the confidence in medical practitioners or the subtlety of the judiciary in the face of public perception of mental illness to open that box.
The lack of rationality of an action (in this case suicide) should not be a criterium for goverment intervention otherwise they'll be able to control the whole of society and a scenario à la 1984 or Brave New World isn't far off.
I think a duty of care from the government for those that - at least in principal - might not be able to make informed, rational choices is entirely justified. They express that duty of care through the guidance and laws around health provision. Any government, in principle, has the capacity to become 1984 or the Brave New World, being cautious about the laws around suicide isn't the tipping point on that.
That's if committing suicide under extreme mental duress is even irrational: surely if one suffers mentally or emotionally for years on end and there's no real cure or effective relief (Plath and Woolf come to mind) it's hard not to see these poor people's quality of life is below zero and it's pretty damn rational to want to end all that meaningless suffering.
I'd agree, and in that situation I'd personally advocate for someone's right to choose for themself, but we don't currently have that subtle a system, or that capable a system of psychiatric diagnosis, treatment or care.
If I were a cynic I might be inclined to belief the de facto suicide prohibition is more to the benefit of the mental health and pharmacological industry than to those they're supposed to help and heal (hard to do that if you don't even know the cause of the problem).
By and large I don't think that pharmaceutical industry is interested in problems it can't cure - it's more interested in getting people to consider variations in behaviour that they can influence as medical issues.
If psychiatrists and their ilk are so keen on rationality perhaps they can explain to us why they still haven't found any biological cause for these mental conditions or why they still don't know how their medications and talk therapies are supposed to work and why they so often don't work at all.
That's easy - the human brain is the single most complicated piece of equipment we have invented or discovered, by orders of magnitude, and our exploration of it is in its infancy.
The answer to the suicide problem is not more prevention (blaming the victim, if ever so subtely) but better, scientifically valid care which up to date is sadly lacking.
The answer to the issue of suicide, in part, is to stop looking for AN answer, and to recognise that it's a complex issue with multiple improvements to be made - acceptance of individual autonomy is one of them, I feel, but it's not the only one.
Make sure you can actually cure people of their mental illnesses and they'll flock to you for treatment (as they do to other medical specialties) and I'm confident (almost) no-one would not rather be relieved from their problem than die by their own hand which is a grim enterprise even in the best of circumstances and the great majority of suicides clearly do not die under the best of circumstances.
You seem to have this binary idea of mental illness, but brains don't work like that. All emotional activity happens on a range, and someone is only mentally ill when the extremity the reach starts to cause problems - and that varies from individual to individual. Some people are untrusting and suspicious, and that's fine, whereas others are untrusting and suspicious and that's diagnosed as paranoia not because of the degree to which they feel it, but because of the way that interacts with other elements of their personality and is expressed. It's exactly that complexity that makes medical - by which I'm presuming from the phrasing that you mean drug treatments - so difficult. More effective in many cases are therapeutic treatment regimes, but those are subtle and expensive with low profit margins and little brand opportunity.
O.
-
There is enough prejudice around mental illness as it is, without allowing the mentally vunerable to be steered towards being put down.
>:(
Yes, on the whole and except for very exceptional circumstances it should be banned.
IMO.
-
Keith wants facilities for adults without mental or other illnesses. Adults (over 18?) would presumably have to show that they were not ill or influenced by others and then be able to go along and be put to death painlessly and cleanly, to the extent that that is possible.
Of-course this assumes that there is a class of people who are not mentally vulnerable but are able to come to the conclusion that life is undesirable, on a purely rational basis.
Though, I have to ask, if it is rational for one person, why wouldn't it be rational for everyone?
All the stuff about rights and psychology are actually beside the point unless you want to take into account other people's feelings.
-
There is enough prejudice around mental illness as it is, without allowing the mentally vunerable to be steered towards being put down.
There is a lot of prejudice - some of it exists in the idea that mental illness automatically means that you are unduly impressionable or inherently irrational.
Often our mental illness classifications are depictions of perfectly viable frames of mind that just aren't easily accommodated in mainstream society.
Yes, on the whole and except for very exceptional circumstances it should be banned.
In general, or just for those diagnosed with a mental illness?
O.
-
Very often people are irrational and unable to cope, and sometimes they are very impressionable. We can all be vunerable, like when someone close to us has died.
That's equally true of people who aren't 'mentally ill', and it's not necessarily true of people that are.
Every mentally ill person I have ever known has been vunerable, can't think of any that weren't.
There are, though, a huge swathe of people who are 'mentally ill' whom you possibly don't realise have a diagnosis - the fact of their mental illness, which is presumably under control if you have no idea of it, should not necessarily impact on any assessment of whether they are rational or not, yet too often it does.
It's up to people to support them until they can regain their footing, some of that is to resist what they want at that particular moment in time.
Some of the time. Sometimes, though, thoughts of it all being more than they want to deal with or more than it's worth aren't related to their diagnosis, but are the perfectly rational response to the situation they're in. What if, for instance, you're an autistic: your condition affects how you relate to people, but it doesn't impair your understanding of yourself or your emotional state. If, under those circumstances, you feel your life is not worth going on with, because it's just a constant grinding slog to nowhere... does your autism 'cause' that situation? Given that it can't be cured or remedied, does your autism invalidate that experience or your choice?
If someone wants to jump off a bridge because they are delusional I think people would be failing them if they didn't stop them. ( not necessarily suicidal, they might think they can fly)
And I'd agree, but in the array of mental illnesses, and the number of people diagnosed with them, delusions of that nature are an incredibly small number.
The problem is too, some people would be only to happy to talk vunerable people into euthanasia just because it is also a way of saving money. Not everyone empathises with mental illness and disability, which is often why you often find disabled people fighting euthanasia.
One of the issues I've had with this entire thread - from the article cited in the original post - is this continual blurring of the lines between suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia. Euthanasia is someone else making the decision for you, and I can't think of a situation in which that's justified.
Next it will be, when you get old and unable to work need care etc should you choose to end your life because you are a drain on the state and your family.
I don't think it's justified to foster the idea of 'should', I agree. However, from where I sit now (and that may change with time and age, I appreciate) I can't imagine being comfortable being a burden on my family, I can't imagine watching my wife have to go through changing from being a life-companion to being a nurse, I can't imagine having to watch my wife change from being a lover to being a patient. I don't think it's unreasonable to have the option to not have to put either of us through that - I'd talk it over with her, obviously, but that option is denied me, and just raising at as a topic of discussion with her puts her at risk of prosecution.
We are going to have a lot of old people soon, relatively speaking.
We already do.
I have no doubt some people think killing us off will save some taxpayers money which could be spent elsewhere.
And that's wrong. I wonder how many of those old people feel cold and hollow at what their lives have become and wish they had a comfortable way out. Is it not, in its way, equally disenfranchising to presume they're so mentally incompetent because of age that they'd be easily swayed? The evidence from places where these options are available is that there is no significant evidence of outside pressure on the elderly.
Of course it won't be put like that, it will come dressed up in a more palatable way. We are already expected to work until we are in our seventies before we can get our pension, that's another way of killing people off.
Pension age was set at sixty to sixty-five when people's life expectancy was barely seventy. It's risen to sixty-eight now, and the life expectancy is around eighty. Medical and health advances mean that we're staying fit longer and living longer - raising the pension age isn't unreasonable.
Not everyone is going to be able to work that long, nurses etc.
When health and nutrition were less advanced than they are now that was the case as well, why is it suddenly a problem now?
IMO only terminally ill people and those near the end of their natural life should be offered something to bring death closer if they wish.
Why? Why does a long painful life have to be endured, but a shorter painless one can be shortened? Why is the imminence of death somehow justifying, but suffering isn't? How can we even judge when the end of a natural life is due anyway?
O.
-
It's too open to abuse, IMO.
The terrorist laws sounded reasonable until they started being used by councils to spy on innocent people who had nothing to do with terrorism.
People use things for their own ends.
The original intention gets lost.
-
Actually Rose, what happens is that because people feel uncomfortable about euthanasia it's seen as ok for people to continue to suffer unnecessarily. That's abusive.
-
Actually Rose, what happens is that because people feel uncomfortable about euthanasia it's seen as ok for people to continue to suffer unnecessarily. That's abusive.
If someone is terminally ill and in a lot of pain surely they should be permitted to end their life sooner rather than later, with help if need be. It is inhumane to expect a person to go on to the bitter end if they have no wish to do so.
-
I agree, but if they have no physical symptoms, there is nothing to stop them from "self euthanising" (as Hope puts it).
Which is painful, unreliable, often undignified and has to be faced alone.
-
But if they have no physical or mental illness or symptoms, why are any of those a problem?
-
But if they have no physical or mental illness or symptoms, why are any of those a problem?
Presumably because people don't like pain, many don't want to die alone and in secret, don't want to leave a corpse which could be very badly disfigured to be found by someone who could well be intensely disturbed by it (ever seen a hanging body or the aftermath of a shotgun suicide?), and don't want to take the risk of employing a method which may not kill them and may leave them still alive but in an even worse position than before.
Methods of ending someone's life swiftly, quietly and peacefully aren't difficult and are no great secret. It's not like the recipe for Coca Cola; the medical side of it is known probably by every GP, even nurse, in the land.
-
A few seconds of pain are worse than than continuing to live? -> How bad can life really be then?
Not wanting to die alone and in secret? - Why? They would be dead and know nothing about it - would it be worse than continuing to live?
.. and so on .. if life is, rationally, not worth living (remember the subject here is not in any pain or depression or other mental issue) then neither is anyone else's ... why would they care if anyone should be upset by their death with or without leaving a disfigured body to clear up?
If left disfigured/injured/left in pain there is a good case for assisted suicide.
-
A few seconds of pain are worse than than continuing to live? -> How bad can life really be then?
It may not be a few seconds, though. By this 'logic' it wouldn't matter if people died through being doused in petrol and set alight, as they're going to be dead soon enough anyway.
Not wanting to die alone and in secret? - Why?
Dying alone bothers a great many people - many regard it as a terrible thing and would like the option to have the nearest and dearest present.
They would be dead and know nothing about it - would it be worse than continuing to live?
You're confusing the process of dying, which is something that the living and only the living can do, with the state of being dead - not the same thing at all. Many who are not afraid of death have quite rational and justified fears (sometimes based on direct personal experience with others) about the process of dying.
.. and so on .. if life is, rationally, not worth living (remember the subject here is not in any pain or depression or other mental issue) then neither is anyone else's
This is one of the more egregious non sequiturs I've seen on here. (Unlike Vlad, I know how to use the term properly). Whether life is or isn't worth living is a judgement made on an individual basis by the owner of said life. Nobody decides on behalf of another - that's why murder is regarded as the most serious of all crimes, since it involves person A deciding that B's life should be brought to an end when B doesn't share this opinion. If B does share this opinion it isn't murder.
... why would they care if anyone should be upset by their death with or without leaving a disfigured body to clear up?
Being considerate, perchance?
-
...
This is one of the more egregious non sequiturs I've seen on here. (Unlike Vlad, I know how to use the term properly). Whether life is or isn't worth living is a judgement made on an individual basis by the owner of said life. Nobody decides on behalf of another - that's why murder is regarded as the most serious of all crimes, since it involves person A deciding that B's life should be brought to an end when B doesn't share this opinion. If B does share this opinion it isn't murder.
...
OK. So - if the person choosing death understands that their decision is not based on absolute truths, and is dependent on a subjective or possibly irrational view of their own life, they can hardly object to other people refusing to provide them the facilities they want, on the basis of their own subjective and/or irrational or religious views, and instead offering them other ways to try and resolve their issues.
I think the kind of options Keith is arguing for should be available, but conditional on proof of un-treatable physical or mental suffering. If someone feels they have come to the end of their useful life in other circumstances, then they can overcome the (imo minor) obstacles discussed above by fasting in the Jain tradition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallekhana
-
A few seconds of pain are worse than than continuing to live? -> How bad can life really be then?
No, a few seconds of pain are worse than dying without pain.
Not wanting to die alone and in secret? - Why? They would be dead and know nothing about it - would it be worse than continuing to live?
I don't fear death, but I do fear the process of dying. Why should people have to try unreliable, painful methods in isolation, rather than being open about what's going to happen, why should they be denied the opportunity to make their goodbyes and save those they care about the trauma of unanswered questions?
.. and so on .. if life is, rationally, not worth living (remember the subject here is not in any pain or depression or other mental issue) then neither is anyone else's ... why would they care if anyone should be upset by their death with or without leaving a disfigured body to clear up?
Because my judgments about my life don't define other people's judgments of their own lives. Because feeling that, on balance, life isn't worth it over all doesn't mean that there's nothing of any worth in it at all.
If left disfigured/injured/left in pain there is a good case for assisted suicide.
And how is living an unfulfilling life not a mental 'disfigurement'?
O.
-
If life is "unfulfilling" then how can death be any better?
-
If life is "unfulfilling" then how can death be any better?
You aren't aware of the tedium. You aren't surrounded by other people having a better time of it than you are. You aren't frustrated by the lack of any engagement.
There are any number of possibilities, I'm not in that position, but any of them will suffice.
O.
-
hmm, but you can do something to mitigate each of those things.
Personally, I'm really looking forward to death, but if someone not suffering due to physical or mental illness or similar constraint thinks it is irrational to continue living, they have made one or more errors somewhere in their thinking.
Nevertheless, they are free to choose their path, just not to demand support from the rest of us. Our aversion to the pain and uncertainties involved in death is an artifact of evolution. Just as someone may fear the pain
of dying, others may fear the pain involved in killing them.
-
hmm, but you can do something to mitigate each of those things.
I think, if they could, they would. That's straying close to the trite response to depressio of 'well, just buck yourself up'.
Personally, I'm really looking forward to death, but if someone not suffering due to physical or mental illness or similar constraint thinks it is irrational to continue living, they have made one or more errors somewhere in their thinking.
Why? Why is their experience of their invalid because it doesn't mesh with your experience of yours (or, indeed, with my experience of mine)?
Nevertheless, they are free to choose their path, just not to demand support from the rest of us.
Why not? Any number of us demand support from the state to support elements of our life, why should that be treated differently?
Our aversion to the pain and uncertainties involved in death is an artifact of evolution. Just as someone may fear the pain of dying, others may fear the pain involved in killing them.
Absolutely - which justifies the idea that there is a valid reason to want to take a painless, controlled, measured approach to suicide rather than have it be dismissed as an idea, and forced to adopt crude, painful and potentially unsuccessful measures to achieve it.
O.
-
As I suggested earlier, there is a perfectly painless, controlled, measured method of terminating your own life, all you need is the determination to proceed with it.
-
As I suggested earlier, there is a perfectly painless, controlled, measured method of terminating your own life, all you need is the determination to proceed with it.
Sorry, I must have missed that - I'm not aware of an easily available, painless, reliable method of killing yourself.
O.
-
If Udayana is referring to self-starvation as before, then it's a slow and anything but painless death.
-
It is slow, but painless as you become accustomed to it. And you can opt out if you change your mind, at least until the major organs have shut down.
-
It is slow, but painless as you become accustomed to it.
Even if this is true, if you try it and you get found out you'll be sectioned and fed against your will, one way or another. That's without the impact self-starvation has on loved ones...I've known too many affected by anorexia to think that this is in any way kind.
-
It is slow, but painless as you become accustomed to it.
Testimony of those who have starved says otherwise.
In any case, when the means of an instantaneous and painless death are available, why should people be denied them?
-
Even if this is true, if you try it and you get found out you'll be sectioned and fed against your will, one way or another. That's without the impact self-starvation has on loved ones...I've known too many affected by anorexia to think that this is in any way kind.
So they would rather their relative had just died rather than suffer from anorexia?
Sorry .. in any case those are obviously cases where there is an underlying psychological problem - not a case where some has chosen death as a rational conclusion.
-
So they would rather their relative had just died rather than suffer from anorexia?
Died easily and painlessly (death from starvation isn't) is I think the point.
-
I would wish a member of my family to die if they wished it, rather than suffer unrelieved physical/psychological problems. I would hope, if that were the case, I would have the courage to help them out if there was no other way they could achieve that end.
-
Floo, I am trying to discuss cases where there is no unrelieved (or un-treatable) physical/psychological problem. As constantly recommended by Keith, though I have not heard of a good example case.
-
So they would rather their relative had just died rather than suffer from anorexia?
That wasn't what I said - 'affected by anorexia' includes both victims and their families and I've known both. Watching a loved one self-starve as a means of control or catharsis is horrific. Having a feeding tube that you don't want is horrific and if you are sectioned and starving yourself then that is what you get. It's unrelenting. And anorexics generally aren't suicidal, but sometimes die anyway.
And for those who are suicidal we have quick, pain-free, kinder options, and yet you think this would be a better bet.
-
Floo, I am trying to discuss cases where there is no unrelieved (or un-treatable) physical/psychological problem. As constantly recommended by Keith, though I have not heard of a good example case.
What if someone is old, not yet ailing but hoping to avoid the situation, and feels they've run their course? They don't want to get to the point where incapacity robs them of enjoyment, they want to go out whilst they still remember everything, where people's memory of them is untainted by frailty and the effects of time?
O.
-
Floo, I am trying to discuss cases where there is no unrelieved (or un-treatable) physical/psychological problem. As constantly recommended by Keith, though I have not heard of a good example case.
Do we even know enough to say what is or isn't an unrelievable/untreatable psychological problem?
-
What if someone is old, not yet ailing but hoping to avoid the situation, and feels they've run their course? They don't want to get to the point where incapacity robs them of enjoyment, they want to go out whilst they still remember everything, where people's memory of them is untainted by frailty and the effects of time?
O.
Vanity?
-
Do we even know enough to say what is or isn't an unrelievable/untreatable psychological problem?
No, we don't - another can of worms!
-
No, we don't - another can of worms!
So when you say that someone with no untreatable problem is seeking assisted dying, you could be wrong.
-
Vanity?
Or fear. Or compassion.
-
Vanity?
Does that invalidate how they feel?
Does the fact that you'd consider that vanity mean that they're right to self-determination is abrogated, or that their understanding of what their life means to them is wrong?
O.
-
So when you say that someone with no untreatable problem is seeking assisted dying, you could be wrong.
Yes, that's actually what kicked off this thread.
"Belgian experts call for euthanasia on psychological grounds to be removed from the law"
A group of Belgian psychiatrists and psychologists wants the permission for euthanasia removed from people with psychological suffering (rather than other medical problems) on the basis that their conditions can be treated or may not otherwise be permanent.
I think the situation in Belgium, where euthanasia is legal in a variety of circumstances, has been affected by the number of teenagers or young adults requesting euthanasia on the basis of psychological suffering but no clearly untreatable illness.
-
Or fear. Or compassion.
Well, there was this case only recently:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34991931
I suppose the question is: Should doctors have helped her commit suicide at an earlier stage - before she attempted it badly herself?
All kudos to her for her confidence in her own decision to refuse treatment and sticking to it. However I think with good care she could have been persuaded to change her mind and see life and decline more benevolently.
-
Yes, that's actually what kicked off this thread.
"Belgian experts call for euthanasia on psychological grounds to be removed from the law"
A group of Belgian psychiatrists and psychologists wants the permission for euthanasia removed from people with psychological suffering (rather than other medical problems) on the basis that their conditions can be treated or may not otherwise be permanent.
I think the situation in Belgium, where euthanasia is legal in a variety of circumstances, has been affected by the number of teenagers or young adults requesting euthanasia on the basis of psychological suffering but no clearly untreatable illness.
But that doesn't mean that they don't have an untreatable illness.
-
Floo, I am trying to discuss cases where there is no unrelieved (or un-treatable) physical/psychological problem. As constantly recommended by Keith, though I have not heard of a good example case.
Not every psychological or physical problem can be treated and relieved. My late father was a case in point. He was suffering from terminal prostate cancer in 2005, and the pain relief was not relieving his gross discomfort even though the dosage of morphine was high. In the end we insisted that he was given a much higher dose even though we knew that would kill him in hours, which it did. We were so glad for him when his suffering ended.
-
Does that invalidate how they feel?
Does the fact that you'd consider that vanity mean that they're right to self-determination is abrogated, or that their understanding of what their life means to them is wrong?
O.
But it is not self-determination is it? It is passing over control and responsibility to the rest of us. So we then have every right to decide whether it is OK or not.
-
But it is not self-determination is it? It is passing over control and responsibility to the rest of us. So we then have every right to decide whether it is OK or not.
No, they aren't passing responsibility on to anyone, they want to be able to access the drugs - that doesn't make anyone else responsible, they still have to take them.
O.
-
But that doesn't mean that they don't have an untreatable illness.
Isn't that what the Belgians are arguing about?
-
Not every psychological or physical problem can be treated and relieved. My late father was a case in point. He was suffering from terminal prostate cancer in 2005, and the pain relief was not relieving his gross discomfort even though the dosage of morphine was high. In the end we insisted that he was given a much higher dose even though we knew that would kill him in hours, which it did. We were so glad for him when his suffering ended.
Yes, I generally agree that for un-treatable cases, physical or mental, where there is unrelieved suffering that society should help in dying. There will always be some debate over which cases are treatable/un-treatable, which suffering is unbearable, which not.
-
No, they aren't passing responsibility on to anyone, they want to be able to access the drugs - that doesn't make anyone else responsible, they still have to take them.
O.
Doesn't someone have to provide them in some form of controlled environment? While they, and society, are not responsible for the act itself, they are responsible for the facilitation?
-
No, they aren't passing responsibility on to anyone, they want to be able to access the drugs - that doesn't make anyone else responsible, they still have to take them.
O.
That still involves the "rest of us". Someone has to manufacture and prescribe these drugs or otherwise make them available.
-
We're stuck in a catch 22 here. If someone is suffering from an untreatable mental illness, we will define them as not responsible enough to be helped in taking their own life. If they are responsible enough that we think their desire to die is not because of an untreatable mental illness, then they aren't suffering enough to be helped in taking their own life.
It's hardly surprising when in many ways our categorisation of mental illness despite the work done over the last fifty years, is really not much more than at the level of weird but not dangerous, sad but not bad, bit dodgy, and nutjob.
Putting anything that vague into legislation is a nightmare, never mind that there isn't clear agreement on how people should be treated even when they are suffering incredible physical pain, and we determine that they are of sound mind and want to be able to be helped to die when they are unable to do so themselves. I suspect in part because some people even then see it as indicative of not being of sound mind.
Added to that the fear that some people might be manipulated into a painless societally acceptable suicide, if there is no criteria to be used other than they appear to want to, is a legitimate one, and one hard to guard against.
-
Yes, I generally agree that for un-treatable cases, physical or mental, where there is unrelieved suffering that society should help in dying. There will always be some debate over which cases are treatable/un-treatable, which suffering is unbearable, which not.
It is the person suffering who has the final say as to what is bearable and what is not, imo.
-
That still involves the "rest of us". Someone has to manufacture and prescribe these drugs or otherwise make them available.
These aren't special death-dealing drugs designed only to kill people though - they're barbiturates, used to induce muscle relaxation and sleep.
The drugs used for execution by lethal injection in some US states are becoming increasingly hard to come by, but that's because the manufacturers won't supply them to prisons based on a moral objection to capital punishment, not because they're made only to kill people.
-
Supposing assisted dying was legalised in the UK, which required that people were specifically trained to carry out the procedure, would anyone on this forum be willing to train as an assisted dying practitioner?
-
Supposing assisted dying was legalised in the UK, which required that people were specifically trained to carry out the procedure, would anyone on this forum be willing to train as an assisted dying practitioner?
Yes. I regard suffering as A Bad Thing and think that anything which can be done to avoid it is A Good Thing. I would regard such a function as a compassionate vocation designed to that end.
-
These aren't special death-dealing drugs designed only to kill people though - they're barbiturates, used to induce muscle relaxation and sleep.
The drugs used for execution by lethal injection in some US states are becoming increasingly hard to come by, but that's because the manufacturers won't supply them to prisons based on a moral objection to capital punishment, not because they're made only to kill people.
Indeed. Probably not very hard to obtain illegally.
On a different tack ... how could it be your right to kill yourself (with state aid) but not to obtain all drugs, over the counter, for your own unregulated use?
-
Yes. I regard suffering as A Bad Thing and think that anything which can be done to avoid it is A Good Thing. I would regard such a function as a compassionate vocation designed to that end.
I would certainly be willing to be trained for such a purpose, and would do it on a voluntary basis and not for payment.
-
That still involves the "rest of us". Someone has to manufacture and prescribe these drugs or otherwise make them available.
If we consider people's right to self-determination to be a valid idea, then providing people options is equally an individual right. Whilst you might not want to take part, you aren't just advocating stopping someone because you don't want to take part, but you're advocating stopping those of us that are in favour of making these available from doing that, as well.
And still, why - no-one would be forcing you to take part, it's making the option available to other people. We, as a society, still permit people to smoke even though we know that it will kill some of them in gruesome, horrible ways - should we ban smoking? Drinking alcohol, which is the most damaging drug out there on the market at the moment, licit or otherwise.
O.
-
Except we obviously don't go down the whole consistent line on self determination. You can argue we should but I can't go out and buy heroin approved by the law.
I can't get a gun either, nor do we necessarily allow people that we think of as not being.of sound mind to do everything that we might allow others.
-
If we consider people's right to self-determination to be a valid idea, then providing people options is equally an individual right. Whilst you might not want to take part, you aren't just advocating stopping someone because you don't want to take part, but you're advocating stopping those of us that are in favour of making these available from doing that, as well.
And still, why - no-one would be forcing you to take part, it's making the option available to other people. We, as a society, still permit people to smoke even though we know that it will kill some of them in gruesome, horrible ways - should we ban smoking? Drinking alcohol, which is the most damaging drug out there on the market at the moment, licit or otherwise.
O.
Yes, I just reflected on that same train of thought above. Not really sure how easy access to methods of killing yourself, slowly or not, affects the principle of whether society should support termination of lives for reasons not generally considered reasonable.