• 💖 [Donate To Keep MyPTSD Online] 💖 Every contribution, no matter how small, fuels our mission and helps us continue to provide peer-to-peer services. Your generosity keeps us independent and available freely to the world. MyPTSD closes if we can't reach our annual goal.

News Doctor-Assisted Death For Those Living With Ptsd

Status
Not open for further replies.
This raises a number of things for me, but I'm left with the impression that at least the pain and suffering is validated by the fact that experts qualified to qualitatively measure suffering would argue that PTSD causes such intense suffering that death could be seen as a mercy.

I admit I have looked with actual jealous upon gravestones. I know it's a distortion of sorts, but it also tells me the extent of dismay with anything "chronic."

There is enough pain in living with some things that it takes a lot to insist that life still has meaning.

My lowest times are when I feel I cannot help anyone. My worst traumas involve not being 'able.'

Having choices and freedom is something at least. Having sympathy is always a comfort.
 
It seems for now, at least, according to announcements today, it is a no legally and they are going in opposition of the Supreme Court.

I do not think this is legally over and presume some will legally challenge this.

What do you guys think?
 
Here's another point to consider:

The world needs PTSD survivors. Yes, I contend it needs us.

Think about a world where people could be traumatized and then get help to end their lives as a solution to the deep wounds and costs of that trauma.

That's not good for society as a whole. It's sends the unintentional message that if someone can't handle the deep pain of trauma that society failed to stop from happening, well then here's a doctor who can help you end your life...

Many movements to end many traumatic things on this planet were started, if not lead, by people who had survived trauma and were forever changed by it. They stood up to make a difference, because they understood at the deepest levels the life long costs of trauma and abuse.

I know some of the founders of a chapter of a group called Bikers Against Child Abuse. This amazing group is making a profound difference for many kids. Many of the members are survivors of child abuse and enduring lifelong consequences from it themselves.

They are the ones with the motivation, the heart conviction, the understanding to go out and protect kids who are testifying against their abusers. They show up (if requested) outside the homes of the kids and show that child they are protected and peacefully stand guard at their homes at night. If he kid starts to get scared, they can look out the window and see a row of bikers guarding their hours. They line the streets outside of courthouses so that the kids see their support as they are driven to the courthouse.

It changes kids and adults in very deep ways.

Why do these bikers do this? Because many of them know the difference something like this would have made for themselves.

Laws are a way of a society saying here is what we value and what we don't value. Instead of trying to help people end their lives, as a society, we should be sending a difference message.

Is this subject of assisted suicidie for people with PTSD legally going away? Probably not any time soon for any country. It may get defeated this go-around but as the encomony tanks and health care costs go up, and as the choices to treat PTSD get more expensive, the more desperate people will get and the more that some may pursue this idea.

But the importance a society working to keep PTSD sufferers around and alive isn't going anywhere either.

Plus, I don't see the practical gain in making this legal.

I don't support suicidie - physician assisted or otherwise. But if people want to end their own lives their own ways, by themselves, then they have the legal right to do that already. I don't judge anyone who chooses that option on their own.

But by making it legal for doctors to help we would be sanctioning it as a society and saying "this is ok" and we can't afford the deep cost of sending that message. It's not just about adults who have been traumatized, but kids too. They need to grow up in a world where we will fight to protect them, not send the unintentional message that their life is not worth living if they are shaken to the core by trauma. We need to send the message that their life matters, period.

Ok, soapbox over.
 
Not saying I agree or not, but I think it will be difficult for those who 'held on' for this. (Ideally there would be a better solution of course).

Likely I suppose they will do a Charter Challenge (a challenge based on the Charter of Rights & Freedoms).

I suppose what gets me is the opposing view's suggestions of solutions which are not informed or feasible, such a increasing palliative & hospice care (no room in hospices here & palliative care usually not provided in palliative wards, by an ever-shrinking staff who are leaving the field due to poor pay, long hours, & little benefits.).

And much of the reference for 'support for the suicidal' involves families, etc, which we all know are rarely supportive. They actually said here, "it's ok, you can still kill yourself". Yet we all know it's not something anyone wants to expose on others, even strangers. And very violent. undignified way to go.

I do agree (Ideally) helping people feel like they're not a burden helps, & yes proper pain management can exist. Not everyone has anyone to help though.

As a person with SI, who cares for others, I've actually noticed people who support pro-life can sometimes be very cold (some, not all). I suppose they don't realize people around them- anyone - can be affected. I know (just for myself) I would never reveal how I feel/ what I battle to them.

There's a lot of misinformation out there, from people not aware of what end of life doesn't have to entail (without dr assisted death) but no one seems to speak up about it. I've never cared for anyone who wanted to 'go early', but I do also wonder if a sister of mine will. Under these standards she could.

JMHO of course, worth nothing much. :notworthy:
 
I think this new law is a good start and keep in mind the bill may change somewhat after debate; even if it doesn't, there is room for amendments down the line. I think it might have been a bit different if the Supreme Court had given the new government a longer extension. I would shorten the reflection period to 10 days (from 15) and make sure people with permanent (physical) disabilities that may not have a reasonably foreseeable death (ie they may live a long time) but endure unbearable suffering to do this too. As for the other groups currently excluded, I am okay with the government studying those possibilities a bit longer before putting it into the bill. I don't think this is in opposition to the Supreme Court though it's not initially as broad as the SC decision(s).
 
I think I've said this (?), but I'm so surprised, out here the overwhelming majority are for it, whereas on the forum way opposite view, by-&-large.

I've only had one friend who 'gets it' & put up with me, that still says no, don't do that (though he might have to say that/ Idk, I don't think so entirely though, & also acts like a human being).

Actually, it really sucks, they'd rather remove people than care or help, for those who would. :(

I do think it = zero value (of people). Or people in the way/ without value. Which we often feel about ourselves, & they kind of agree. A bother.
 
I think they are also including improvements for palliative care. But I can see why they are not allowing people with mental illness yet. Take someone who's bipolar, for example. They may be in state when they wanna die for a while but then later they may want to live. Or they may have family who are sick of takign care of them and might pressure them, while in such a state, to make that decision. These are all variables to consider. I don't think they are saying people with mental illness have no value. I think they are saying they have too much value to let them go when they may not always be in a good position to decide. Having said that, its' not set in stone that the groups currently excluded will remain so. I have been thinking about dying a lot and while the option would be nice to have, I actually like the approach they are taking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top