I can't agree with this statement more. I have extensive experience working with people suffering from many of the symptoms described here. I have worked closely with patients suffering from...
"I simply disagree," says Frank Koerselman. "My whole career I worked with suicidal patients - none of them was terminal. Of course I had patients who committed suicide, but as a matter of fact these were always cases when you didn't expect it."
I can't agree with this statement more. I have extensive experience working with people suffering from many of the symptoms described here. I have worked closely with patients suffering from Borderline Personality Disorder for several years. When I worked in inpatient psych - a job I just left this week, actually - I worked with chronically suicidal people and stopped people in the act on a few occasions.
I, too, have had patients that I've interacted with go on to die, sometimes by suicide, sometimes by accidental overdose. I've also had patients with awfully similar sounding conditions go on to proper aftercare and have their symptoms decrease. I have worked with people with far more than 20 attempts in their file. I am very alarmed that there appears to be no mention of inpatient treatment for this person.
This makes me feel sick with grief. I don't think that psychiatric conditions like this should be candidates for euthanasia.
I believe that a person should be free to end their lives at any time and for any reason of their choosing, even if that reason makes no sense to others, but that they should explore their options...
This makes me feel sick with grief. I don't think that psychiatric conditions like this should be candidates for euthanasia.
I believe that a person should be free to end their lives at any time and for any reason of their choosing, even if that reason makes no sense to others, but that they should explore their options for help before doing so. But ultimately, it should be their choice, and not the governments.
Just as we cannot force life to exist, why do we force people who no longer want to live to go on living?
Even if we could help the person, accepting that help is totally their choice.
It should be just as much a valid choice to die, and in a timely manner, without unnecessary delays.
I'm with you here. It's hard to articulate my feelings on this idea without sounding like I'm Pro-Suicide, when it's more that I'm Pro-Choice. This isn't something I haven't had to grapple with —...
I'm with you here. It's hard to articulate my feelings on this idea without sounding like I'm Pro-Suicide, when it's more that I'm Pro-Choice.
This isn't something I haven't had to grapple with — at least two of my romantic partners have struggled with this, and I've interrupted one attempt entirely. I've lost people close to me. I know very intimately what it can do to the people left behind. Yet, I understand. Or at least, I can empathize in my own way. I've had my own struggle too.
Being alive at all is ridiculous. It's one thing to get called into existence without being asked first; it's another thing to then be expected to work out what the hell you're doing here at all, on top of that. If I revoke my consent to be a part of creation, nobody ought to have the power to force me (keywords) otherwise. If I am not sovereign over my own self, then I am not sovereign over anything.
For all the damage an exit can cause, it is also wrong for others to emotionally blackmail the individual in question. It's not wrong to talk about it, but it certainly isn't right to hold your feelings hostage. Consider your approach, if your loved one is going through this.
If you yourself are struggling to come to terms with the absurdity of your own existence, the futility of life, and the meaningless of it all, I highly suggest you read the works of Nietzsche or Camus. You may have fallen in to what Viktor Frankl calls the existential vacuum, and you may be surprised by how many people have, as well.
The existential vacuum is a widespread phenomenon of the twentieth century. This is understandable; it may be due to a twofold loss which man has had to undergo since he became a truly human being. At the beginning of human history, man lost some of the basic animal instincts in which an animal's behavior is embedded and by which it is secured. Such security, like paradise, is closed to man forever; man has to make choices. In addition to this, however, man has suffered another loss in his more recent development inasmuch as the traditions which buttressed his behavior are now rapidly diminishing. No instinct tells him what he has to do, and no tradition tells him what he ought to do; sometimes he does not even know what he wishes to do. Instead, he either wishes to do what other people do (conformism) or he does what other people tell him to do (totalitarianism).
I really can't share this belief, because if I did, I'd have killed myself back when I was suffering from depression. This might be unpopular, but having seen this issue up close from many angles,...
I really can't share this belief, because if I did, I'd have killed myself back when I was suffering from depression. This might be unpopular, but having seen this issue up close from many angles, I do not believe that people who are experiencing acute psychiatric symptoms are of sound enough mind to choose death. These are not terminal illnesses.
It's not that simple. If there were any treatments that worked, her suicidal ideations should have gone away. When you have exhausted all possible options, barring any significant medical advances...
These are not terminal illnesses.
It's not that simple.
Euthanasia is against the law in most countries, but in the Netherlands it is allowed if a doctor is satisfied a patient's suffering is "unbearable with no prospect of improvement" and if there is "no reasonable alternative in the patient's situation".
At the End of Life Clinic in The Hague more than half of those who come seeking euthanasia on psychiatric grounds are turned away because they have not tried all available treatments.
If there were any treatments that worked, her suicidal ideations should have gone away. When you have exhausted all possible options, barring any significant medical advances (that might take decades to come about), you know you will be suffering for the rest of your life. Suicide is a pretty attractive option at that point. It's great that you found something that works, but unfortunately for Aurelia, she did not.
people who are experiencing acute psychiatric symptoms are of sound enough mind to choose death.
If we do not allow them to choose when to die, what should we do with them? Some mental illnesses can make them a threat to the public under the right circumstances (for example, Stephen Paddock, the Mandalay Bay hotel shooter, had BPD and depression and refused medication, according to his doctor). Should the state keep these people in mental hospitals to ensure they take their medication until they die?
I think that if a person has tried all available treatments and is still suffering greatly, they should be able to make the decision to end their life in a peaceful, painless setting, rather than with the barrel of a gun or the destruction of their liver from overdosing on pain medications.
Honestly their insistence at ending their life even when being put through a lengthy legal process which is not guaranteed should be proof that they are determined to end their life anyways. Along...
I think that if a person has tried all available treatments and is still suffering greatly, they should be able to make the decision to end their life in a peaceful, painless setting, rather than with the barrel of a gun or the destruction of their liver from overdosing on pain medications.
Honestly their insistence at ending their life even when being put through a lengthy legal process which is not guaranteed should be proof that they are determined to end their life anyways. Along the way they're going to see plenty of specialists who are trying to determine if the mental illness is the root of the problem and if there's a good "cure" that hasn't been explored.
I'm 100% in agreement here. It's a fucked moral quandary that probably won't get every case right, but an only 10% acceptance rate and a low volume of applicants is a good sign that things are probably working about as well as they can be expected to work.
Bipolar Disorder may not be terminal, but you also won't be cured. Again, symptoms can be alleviated to some degree, but I don't think it's in my place to say if their life is worth living either...
Bipolar Disorder may not be terminal, but you also won't be cured. Again, symptoms can be alleviated to some degree, but I don't think it's in my place to say if their life is worth living either way.
I suffered from severe depression for years and actually attempted suicide three times. I'm glad I'm still alive, but I don't think it's fair to compare depression, no matter how severe - to the effects of for example BP.
I was speaking moreso about Borderline Personality Disorder, and I wasn't comparing them to Major Depressive Disorder. My remark in the above comment was in response to the previous commenter.
I was speaking moreso about Borderline Personality Disorder, and I wasn't comparing them to Major Depressive Disorder. My remark in the above comment was in response to the previous commenter.
Casteur says that he learned that Godelieva had struggled to find three doctors who would say that she had an incurable illness, as the law required. One psychiatrist wrote that her desire for euthanasia was “not mature,” because she had “ups and downs.” According to Casteur, a second concluded that she could still be helped; the psychiatrist observed that when Godelieva discussed her grandchildren she became emotional and expressed doubts about her decision to die. In addition to Thienpont, Distelmans consulted Godelieva’s former therapist, who wrote that, “after recent rejection by her latest partner and by her children, her psychiatric issues will not improve.” Two weeks before Godelieva’s death, Distelmans asked if he could call her children, but she refused. “It would not change her decision anyway,” Distelmans wrote.
As I said in the other thread, I was struck by the unwitting arrogance of the doctors who talked about being contaminated by their patients' despair and of giving their patients hope. Having been...
As I said in the other thread, I was struck by the unwitting arrogance of the doctors who talked about being contaminated by their patients' despair and of giving their patients hope.
Having been suicidally depressed, I've found that people who haven't ever been profoundly depressed have no notion of how heavy a burden their hope is to somebody who is depressed. To have somebody try to give me hope, to give me their reason to go on living when I cannot find my own, this is an unforgivable imposition.
The planet is overpopulated, and that problem will get worse before it gets better. If somebody is mentally ill, has lost all hope, can't find a reason to go on, and they want to die in a quiet, dignified manner then why not let them?
I find the autonomy principle extremely interesting in these cases. It seems so simple and straight forward in the books, but then don't you also have to accept the wishes of someone who wants to...
I find the autonomy principle extremely interesting in these cases. It seems so simple and straight forward in the books, but then don't you also have to accept the wishes of someone who wants to end their life?
Anyone in the medical field believes that autonomy is important, but most are not in favor of euthanasia which is mind boggling to me.
Just adding a thought here: How can we say that Mental illnesses that can't be cured, but only alleviated at best, which also have symptoms like being suicidal.. How can we say that their experience isn't 'true' enough to warrant euthanasia whereas a patient with terminal cancer or crippling epilepsy is?
Don't you find it interesting to debate? Again, in the books the concept is laid out very black and white, and the line should probably be drawn somewhere, but where is that and how would we...
Don't you find it interesting to debate? Again, in the books the concept is laid out very black and white, and the line should probably be drawn somewhere, but where is that and how would we decide? Can we for instance expect doctors to not involve their own world views in making decisions for individuals in these cases?
I don't think individual rights should be subject to debate or vote. As far as I'm concerned, any physician who privileges their own worldview above the best interests of the patient as understood...
Don't you find it interesting to debate?
I don't think individual rights should be subject to debate or vote.
Again, in the books the concept is laid out very black and white, and the line should probably be drawn somewhere, but where is that and how would we decide? Can we for instance expect doctors to not involve their own world views in making decisions for individuals in these cases?
As far as I'm concerned, any physician who privileges their own worldview above the best interests of the patient as understood by the patient themselves is guilty of malpractice. Such doctors only see what they want to see, discount any evidence or consideration that does not match their prejudices, and cannot be trusted to make the correct diagnosis.
You may see it like that, and I somewhat agree, but to take away a doctor license requires clear rules that must be proven to have been broken. So in reality individual rights have to be discussed...
You may see it like that, and I somewhat agree, but to take away a doctor license requires clear rules that must be proven to have been broken.
So in reality individual rights have to be discussed and 'voted' on to make sure we provide the best system possible for any individual
I've lived in the mire of depression for a very long time, and others' hopes, love and expectations are unquestionably a burden. They're also a reminder of social debt. A number of friends,...
I've lived in the mire of depression for a very long time, and others' hopes, love and expectations are unquestionably a burden. They're also a reminder of social debt. A number of friends, acquaintances and relatives have taken their own lives over the years, and there's no question that they damage morale and social fabric among those they leave behind. At least one person's death triggered subsequent suicide attempts in their circle of friends and loved ones, and the general spread of toxic, unrelenting grief, anger and incomprehension does no one any good.
I wouldn't advocate for state-sponsored "you must live for the good of society" legislation (religious duty to live is bad enough), but harm done to others is an ethical consideration that's pulled me back from the brink more than once.
It's also important that physicians and counselors realize just how terrible the available treatments are, and how much patients suffer each time another drug or therapy fails to provide relief. Hope is scarce to begin with when you're depressed, and caregivers need to create appropriate expectations and give encouragement carefully.
I don't know that euthanasia, a medical acknowledgement that nothing more can be done to relieve a patient's suffering, is ethically justified for a disease which is partially cognitive. Making assisted death available could worsen outcomes for others who are deciding whether or not to persist in treatment.
I can't agree with this statement more. I have extensive experience working with people suffering from many of the symptoms described here. I have worked closely with patients suffering from Borderline Personality Disorder for several years. When I worked in inpatient psych - a job I just left this week, actually - I worked with chronically suicidal people and stopped people in the act on a few occasions.
I, too, have had patients that I've interacted with go on to die, sometimes by suicide, sometimes by accidental overdose. I've also had patients with awfully similar sounding conditions go on to proper aftercare and have their symptoms decrease. I have worked with people with far more than 20 attempts in their file. I am very alarmed that there appears to be no mention of inpatient treatment for this person.
This makes me feel sick with grief. I don't think that psychiatric conditions like this should be candidates for euthanasia.
I believe that a person should be free to end their lives at any time and for any reason of their choosing, even if that reason makes no sense to others, but that they should explore their options for help before doing so. But ultimately, it should be their choice, and not the governments.
Just as we cannot force life to exist, why do we force people who no longer want to live to go on living?
Even if we could help the person, accepting that help is totally their choice.
It should be just as much a valid choice to die, and in a timely manner, without unnecessary delays.
I'm with you here. It's hard to articulate my feelings on this idea without sounding like I'm Pro-Suicide, when it's more that I'm Pro-Choice.
This isn't something I haven't had to grapple with — at least two of my romantic partners have struggled with this, and I've interrupted one attempt entirely. I've lost people close to me. I know very intimately what it can do to the people left behind. Yet, I understand. Or at least, I can empathize in my own way. I've had my own struggle too.
Being alive at all is ridiculous. It's one thing to get called into existence without being asked first; it's another thing to then be expected to work out what the hell you're doing here at all, on top of that. If I revoke my consent to be a part of creation, nobody ought to have the power to force me (keywords) otherwise. If I am not sovereign over my own self, then I am not sovereign over anything.
For all the damage an exit can cause, it is also wrong for others to emotionally blackmail the individual in question. It's not wrong to talk about it, but it certainly isn't right to hold your feelings hostage. Consider your approach, if your loved one is going through this.
If you yourself are struggling to come to terms with the absurdity of your own existence, the futility of life, and the meaningless of it all, I highly suggest you read the works of Nietzsche or Camus. You may have fallen in to what Viktor Frankl calls the existential vacuum, and you may be surprised by how many people have, as well.
I really can't share this belief, because if I did, I'd have killed myself back when I was suffering from depression. This might be unpopular, but having seen this issue up close from many angles, I do not believe that people who are experiencing acute psychiatric symptoms are of sound enough mind to choose death. These are not terminal illnesses.
It's not that simple.
If there were any treatments that worked, her suicidal ideations should have gone away. When you have exhausted all possible options, barring any significant medical advances (that might take decades to come about), you know you will be suffering for the rest of your life. Suicide is a pretty attractive option at that point. It's great that you found something that works, but unfortunately for Aurelia, she did not.
If we do not allow them to choose when to die, what should we do with them? Some mental illnesses can make them a threat to the public under the right circumstances (for example, Stephen Paddock, the Mandalay Bay hotel shooter, had BPD and depression and refused medication, according to his doctor). Should the state keep these people in mental hospitals to ensure they take their medication until they die?
I think that if a person has tried all available treatments and is still suffering greatly, they should be able to make the decision to end their life in a peaceful, painless setting, rather than with the barrel of a gun or the destruction of their liver from overdosing on pain medications.
Honestly their insistence at ending their life even when being put through a lengthy legal process which is not guaranteed should be proof that they are determined to end their life anyways. Along the way they're going to see plenty of specialists who are trying to determine if the mental illness is the root of the problem and if there's a good "cure" that hasn't been explored.
I'm 100% in agreement here. It's a fucked moral quandary that probably won't get every case right, but an only 10% acceptance rate and a low volume of applicants is a good sign that things are probably working about as well as they can be expected to work.
Bipolar Disorder may not be terminal, but you also won't be cured. Again, symptoms can be alleviated to some degree, but I don't think it's in my place to say if their life is worth living either way.
I suffered from severe depression for years and actually attempted suicide three times. I'm glad I'm still alive, but I don't think it's fair to compare depression, no matter how severe - to the effects of for example BP.
I was speaking moreso about Borderline Personality Disorder, and I wasn't comparing them to Major Depressive Disorder. My remark in the above comment was in response to the previous commenter.
Have fun with this one then (coming from Belgium)
As I said in the other thread, I was struck by the unwitting arrogance of the doctors who talked about being contaminated by their patients' despair and of giving their patients hope.
Having been suicidally depressed, I've found that people who haven't ever been profoundly depressed have no notion of how heavy a burden their hope is to somebody who is depressed. To have somebody try to give me hope, to give me their reason to go on living when I cannot find my own, this is an unforgivable imposition.
The planet is overpopulated, and that problem will get worse before it gets better. If somebody is mentally ill, has lost all hope, can't find a reason to go on, and they want to die in a quiet, dignified manner then why not let them?
I find the autonomy principle extremely interesting in these cases. It seems so simple and straight forward in the books, but then don't you also have to accept the wishes of someone who wants to end their life?
Anyone in the medical field believes that autonomy is important, but most are not in favor of euthanasia which is mind boggling to me.
Just adding a thought here: How can we say that Mental illnesses that can't be cured, but only alleviated at best, which also have symptoms like being suicidal.. How can we say that their experience isn't 'true' enough to warrant euthanasia whereas a patient with terminal cancer or crippling epilepsy is?
It's one thing to consider autonomy important, and quite another to consider autonomy paramount. That way lies anarchy. :)
Don't you find it interesting to debate? Again, in the books the concept is laid out very black and white, and the line should probably be drawn somewhere, but where is that and how would we decide? Can we for instance expect doctors to not involve their own world views in making decisions for individuals in these cases?
I don't think individual rights should be subject to debate or vote.
As far as I'm concerned, any physician who privileges their own worldview above the best interests of the patient as understood by the patient themselves is guilty of malpractice. Such doctors only see what they want to see, discount any evidence or consideration that does not match their prejudices, and cannot be trusted to make the correct diagnosis.
You may see it like that, and I somewhat agree, but to take away a doctor license requires clear rules that must be proven to have been broken.
So in reality individual rights have to be discussed and 'voted' on to make sure we provide the best system possible for any individual
I've lived in the mire of depression for a very long time, and others' hopes, love and expectations are unquestionably a burden. They're also a reminder of social debt. A number of friends, acquaintances and relatives have taken their own lives over the years, and there's no question that they damage morale and social fabric among those they leave behind. At least one person's death triggered subsequent suicide attempts in their circle of friends and loved ones, and the general spread of toxic, unrelenting grief, anger and incomprehension does no one any good.
I wouldn't advocate for state-sponsored "you must live for the good of society" legislation (religious duty to live is bad enough), but harm done to others is an ethical consideration that's pulled me back from the brink more than once.
It's also important that physicians and counselors realize just how terrible the available treatments are, and how much patients suffer each time another drug or therapy fails to provide relief. Hope is scarce to begin with when you're depressed, and caregivers need to create appropriate expectations and give encouragement carefully.
I don't know that euthanasia, a medical acknowledgement that nothing more can be done to relieve a patient's suffering, is ethically justified for a disease which is partially cognitive. Making assisted death available could worsen outcomes for others who are deciding whether or not to persist in treatment.