News Doctor-Assisted Death For Those Living With Ptsd

[Neverthesame]

And you are probably right, the homeless aren't caught in a continual cycle of severe trauma. They are hanging out in parks improving their chess playing skills and chatting about the new governments latest small business incentives. Listen, if that is the story you want to tell yourself then good on you. You do that.

No. I'm not so bloody daft as to believe that and I think you know it. Nor was I suggesting ignoring the existence of the homeless being some sort of fix.

OMG who would have thought that giving homeless people homes would solve anything? GENIUS!

Look. Here's my point, straight up.

What @scout86 said is a great example of a current already used social assistance. One obvious problem with it being a lack of quantity.
Same applies with shelters, soup kitchens, drug rehab centres and mental health services.
As inadequate as they may be, these are accepted means of addressing homelessness in the western world.
Notice that all of these measures involve either a handout or hand up?

What you're proposing is adding death to the acceptable means of dealing with the homeless.
What I'm trying to get across is that death is a pretty dangerous thing to rationalise as an acceptable solution when you said yourself, most people haven't got a clue how many homeless people are dying from their environment.

Without safeguards or accountability, how could this be better? How can we know this will be a last resort scenario and not be abused as a cheap and easy way to solve the homeless problem?
There won't even be bodies in the streets, they'll just disappear. How will anyone notice?

I'm sorry @joeylittle I'd like to have a chance to answer your question, so I will drop this here and now, or start a new thread. My next post will be on topic.

 

[flowerapple]

While I agree that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine if someone suffering from PTSD and depression and other mental illnesses is competent, I think we should consider the other stuff as well. Many of us, myself included, fall within the group which has not yet exhausted all their treatment options, and that is not the point of view we should be looking from.

We should be looking from the point of view of those who have reached that point where they are now option-less. And even so, patients have a right to decide not to do a certain treatment, whatever it may be. There are cancer patients who opt to forgo chemotherapy despite the chance it may lengthen their life because of side effects, etc., but that doesn't prevent them from seeking physician assisted suicide. So, it would be unfair and unreasonable to demand that a mentally ill patient seek all form of treatment before they can choose assisted suicide.

It, also, is reasonable to understand why someone changes their mind at the last minute, as even cancer patients seeking assisted death do that as well. That is why they have frequent visits a period of time between the doctor and patient so as to ensure they are still intending on doing it, and if at any point they wish to no longer go through with it, they are well within their right to do so. And even in the case of depressed people whose moods vary depending, there are some who despite their increase in mood on a day, the feeling is still that they are considering death.

In any case, it isn't about just killing yourself to end the suffering. It is about doing so in a dignified way. Anyone can commit suicide, whether you are in a country that says it is legal or illegal. If you are going to kill yourself, you can do so. Suicide rates are high, especially among those suffering from mental illness. The point of allowing physician-assisted suicide to those suffering from mental illness is so they can do so in a dignified way, not alone by themselves, in secret, with no loved ones around. Allowing it is, is to allow them to die with their loved ones surrounding it, it is to allow them to speak about it to their family members, whether or not they agree with the decision is not important in that situation, because it is about not having to keep it a secret. If they were to commit suicide in the presence of someone else, the observer would be charged, so it would be impossible to do it with the presence of loved ones.

I am not saying that I am for or against it, I'm just saying that many of us have spoken about the reasons why not to allow it, but we haven't really considered the reasons to allow it, and it's important to do so before you can make a decision. There are many complicating factors that would have to considered and dealt with if they were to legalize it for mentally ill patents, but that is not reason enough not to so something. You shouldn't not do something solely because it is going to be hard. That being said, it will also be a difficult thing to monitor and oversee to ensure it is justly carried out, and so it will be an ongoing effort to ensure the process is not abused.

 

[shimmerz]

You’re right. Death is a very serious thing to navigate. As is imposing extreme suffering on people who are not capable of manoeuvring them selves out of Said position.

Keeping in mind that euthanasia is a decision for self whereas murder is imposed by others on to someone, I’m having a difficult time understanding why I keep hearing about people being forced into euthanasia.

Please keep it simple if you respond and on point, but I’m wondering where the fear is coming from when we discussed in this thread how people are going to be coerced or rounded up like cattle to be euthanized.

That’s called murder. And that’s an entirely different thread isn’t it? What we’re talking about here as far as I know are people that I’ve come to the end of their proverbial rope and have given serious thought as to whether they are capable of continuing to struggle through given the resources they have been allowed .

What I’m suggesting is that information is gathered from these people as to what would actually make it easier for them to continue through. What supports they need, how social biases could be changed, how to put into place programs that will help them help them selves, wellness education, access to communities of people with like experiences, etc.

It’s not good enough nor is it humane to force people to stay alive and yet be writhing in pain every moment of every day whether that pain be psychological or physical or both.

In so far as the handouts or hand ups you mentioned are concerned, that could be seen as a fierce lead in to hotly debated topic.

Perhaps had veterans not been sent to war in the first place they wouldn’t need a hand up or hand out. Perhaps if the system for domestic violence victims actually served peoples needs properly rather than assuming, the list could go on anon, if these things were identified and addressed then perhaps so many people wouldn’t need those hand ups or hand outs.

That though, is a much larger problem and I believe will only be able to be gotten to by allowing people to speak about their need to end them selves so that we can determine what it is that we aren’t giving them that they need.

We need to stop ignoring peoples pain in this society. As adults it is our responsibility to talk about these very difficult things regardless of how much it hurts to do so

 

[flowerapple]

Please keep it simple if you respond and on point, but I’m wondering where the fear is coming from when we discussed in this thread how people are going to be coerced or rounded up like cattle to be euthanized.

I think the fear is a reasonable fear, because it has happened, and unfortunately it has happened a lot. The most notable case is the Nazis. I think it's reason behind it is that, if we allow it here in this case, despite the positive reasons behind, it only works to set make it more acceptable, and before you know it we want it euthanasia for another group or reason, and then it will lead to this slippery slope that will ultimately result in people just killing people because they see them as burdens, etc. Which is why when they were first going to allow it euthanasia in the beginning, people spoke out against it, because they say if you allow it here, then soon enough they will want it somewhere else, and then the fact that now there is a movement to allow it in the case of mental illness, people completely opposed to it argue that the mere consideration of allowing it for mental illness is proof that we are on this slippery slope heading to where we will just be killing people because we want to.

But that is why we would have to work out the logistics and put safeguards in place to restrict this from happening. Of course you may have a few instances where someone abuses they system and wrongly kills someone, and that would be murder. But you can't limit the many because of the potential actions of a few horrible people. That' why it would be necessary to put stuff in place to limit those wrongs, and put other stuff in place to ensure that if it does unfortunately happen, that the person if rightly punished by the law.

 

[Chris-duck]

What we’re talking about here as far as I know are people that I’ve come to the end of their proverbial rope and have given serious thought as to whether they are capable of continuing to struggle through given the resources they have been allowed .

Yeah. I agree this is what we are talking about. I'm just not sure how to judge someone with a mental illness as capable/incapable of making this decision, even if they have capacity. Like I think if euthanasia was legal for mental health reasons in my country I'd probably be dead. I'd probably have died about 10 years ago when I was homeless, no family, one friend (who would probably have backed me on the decision) and a GP who just kept telling me he couldn't do anything for me. If you'd asked me then I'd have told you pretty calmly that I was done, had thought it through and it was the *right* decision. Ten years on I can see that things have improved, still kinda shit. But I doubt id qualify for euthanasia these days. I'm not sure how we could judge that accurately, since we can't tell the future. It was really a coin flip if things woulda worsened or improved. Outta pure luck things improved but yeah..

I'm actually pro euthanasia if it's monitored and stuff, just I think it's too hard to monitor for mental health reasons. Cos hopelessness is a symptom in so many mental health issues.

 

[Tinyflame]

I think the fear is a reasonable fear, because it has happened, and unfortunately it has happened a lot. The most notable case is the Nazis.

With respect I will say, I think that is a very different scenario though. From people who lived through it as well as historians I've spoken with, Hitler promised jobs, used immigrants as a fear tool (they would take the jobs), and effectively (as with Communism) targeted 'dissenters'- the political caore, Roman Catholics, etc, who spoke out against it. (Most of my mother's family's parents were killed). He also targeted the Jewish people- known for their wealth- and took even the gold in their fillings. As well as targeted homosexuals, and the mentally incompetent.

I really struggle with the idea that so many people have, that being alive under any circumstance is preferable to death. That suffering is preferable to dying. Some people don't get better. They just don't. And why do we (well, some) think it's ok for them to go through every day wishing they could be free of the suffering instead of providing them the means to alleviate it?

Perhaps part of this ^^ is that all of our lives intertwine; one decision by one can change the course of happenings for many others. A fact that is apart from the focus of the suffering of each?

I tend to think that suicide, in pretty much every case, is a huge waste. Perhaps the benefit of the cessation of pain is worth it to the person who chooses to end their life. But I think it's a net loss to society as a whole.

I think again this is because we are interconnected. And who knows? There are things we don't understand. In Quantum Physics there is a term 'the disturbing observer', referencing particles acting differently when physically watched, than when observed by other means (yes- freaky). But the truth is, our lives, words and actions may have more consequences than we can even imagine. And everyone is worth a life- to have a quality of life- and worthy of help.

We need to stop ignoring peoples pain in this society. As adults it is our responsibility to talk about these very difficult things regardless of how much it hurts to do so

I agree. ^^ The biggest argument against assisted death is people actually caring, IMHO. Without it, out of sight out of mind. And yes, I think most people are competent. The sticky part is being competent, being in pain, and still being supported. And looking at the causes and precipitating factors of the distress- not just the end result of how one is left to feel/ cope.

 

[Tinyflame]

political caore,

Oops sorry rushing- meant 'Diplomatic Corp', and 'mother's parents' families' (thinking phonetically :rolleyes: )

 

[flowerapple]

With respect I will say, I think that is a very different scenario though. From people who lived through it as well as historians I've spoken with, Hitler promised jobs, used immigrants as a fear tool (they would take the jobs), and effectively (as with Communism) targeted 'dissenters'- the political caore, Roman Catholics, etc, who spoke out against it. (Most of my mother's family's parents were killed). He also targeted the Jewish people- known for their wealth- and took even the gold in their fillings. As well as targeted homosexuals, and the mentally incompetent.

I say the Nazis because they did kill the mentally ill and disabled because he saw them as a threat to his goal of creating his supreme race because they would make the line impure. He did target other people, but his first set of victims to be exterminated were the mentally and physically disabled.

 

[joeylittle]

Thanks for the responses. Very thoughtful stuff.

You would think so ^^, but with rarest exception most doctors I have dealt with will advocate for as early a death as can be 'arranged', which they have justified on the basis (their words), of severity of illness, (or) age, (or) "they've had a hard life' (that was the last one), or because of the person's mental issues.

I've often thought, how common the agreement must be, to take the risk of (boldly) coming right out with suggesting it when it wasn't even legal.

I want to find the statistics on this, specifically for the Levenseindekliniek in the Hague. I recall there being a very real shortage of doctors to even hear cases, not too long ago. I think your point about how easily people come out in favor of it is a little backwards, though. I'd argue it's easier to speak out in favor of something illegal, because there's no real choice available. As soon as there is a choice - for example, where euthanasia is legal - doctors who could be asked for such a thing would need to be much more aware of how they spoke about it - it's stopped being an idea, and has become an option. I think it makes people more divided, but also, more thoughtful.

Re. that girl: I wonder how much her anorexia played in, honestly. Both to the depression & ptsd, & to the decision to die / unable to see anything else. Because yeah, starvation messes perspective rather hard & rather fast.

I do think the anorexia must have played a huge, huge part.

I can see there would be a ripple effect of others learning to believe that PTSD is hopeless as they see others give up the fight (very publicly) by being approved for euthanasia.

Yeah - that's a good restating of my experience. And I'm not alone in that.

It's the same reason why most news pieces written about suicide come along now with info about how to get help. Statistically speaking, following news of a suicide, the suicidal person is more at risk - whether they knew the deceased or not. I'm in those statistics. More and more, news of a completed suicide becomes a reminder that it can be accomplished, when there's a particular combination of factors.

And, also - one of the more effective ways I manage my own suicidal ideation is to be mindful of how difficult suicide is to complete, and how - for survivors - the aftermath can be much worse than their present moment of suffering.

her brain hadn't finished growing yet. No one seems to have told her about the greater neuroplasticity of children & teenagers, or maybe in her pain she just didn't want to hear about it.

You know, they did. It was the main reason given for why her request was denied so absolutely. She's quoted as saying that they tried to explain how her brain would still be actively developing until she was 21 - and her response was to say that she absolutely could not continue to be alive for that long. 7 years was too far away for her.

Perhaps other lives could be saved with that information.

Yes - This is why she (Noa) wrote her book, actually - in order to shed light on the problems of the treatment system for children and teens. I think, in the Netherlands, her book is considered a best-seller. That's good - it means it might do what she was hoping it would, which is change the system.

I'm just saying that many of us have spoken about the reasons why not to allow it, but we haven't really considered the reasons to allow it, and it's important to do so before you can make a decision. There are many complicating factors that would have to considered and dealt with if they were to legalize it for mentally ill patents, but that is not reason enough not to so something.

It's a good point - but I know, for myself, I absolutely have considered all the reasons to allow it. I believe euthanasia should always be something that a person can consider. The right to end one's life with dignity is, I think, one of the most important human rights. I also believe it's quite likely that there are - right now - specific people in specific circumstances with specific types of mental illness, who should be allowed to consider euthanasia (instead of just having paperwork stating their wishes, should they become near-death).

Of course you may have a few instances where someone abuses they system and wrongly kills someone, and that would be murder. But you can't limit the many because of the potential actions of a few horrible people. That' why it would be necessary to put stuff in place to limit those wrongs

The regulations and practices in the Netherlands are quite thorough. I'm only pointing that out to say - people have given it a lot of thought, and I don't believe there's a nation (with any form of legalized euthanasia) that hasn't put a great, great deal of thought into what it means, what the process is, and the potential dangers over time. That's also why the statistics coming out of the netherlands (on this topic) are so very important, and are pretty thoroughly tracked.

 

[somerandomguy]

You know, they did. It was the main reason given for why her request was denied so absolutely. She's quoted as saying that they tried to explain how her brain would still be actively developing until she was 21 - and her response was to say that she absolutely could not continue to be alive for that long. 7 years was too far away for her

Then they didn't explain it well enough. It's not that she'd be cured when she got to age 21 (more like 25 actually). It's that she'd have a better, easier time healing than, say, me and my 48-year old brain.

Sounds like she had her mind made up. Sad.

 

[shimmerz]

True of course it is sad but I have to think that there was a very compelling reason for her to do so given the fact that her parents supported her in it. I can’t imagine what that reason was but of course that’s not my business. I would imagine the professionals involved would’ve been told.

 

[Tinyflame]

Yes considering the effects of starvation on the brain it's a wonder they could say she was able to give (ie withhold) consent?

I'd argue it's easier to speak out in favor of something illegal, because there's no real choice available. As soon as there is a choice - for example, where euthanasia is legal - doctors who could be asked for such a thing would need to be much more aware of how they spoke about it - it's stopped being an idea, and has become an option. I think it makes people more divided, but also, more thoughtful.

I see your point @joeylittle , but I've never heard a physician speak to or about it. It's always been within the context of being 'offered' it on the spot, within the hospital setting. On 3 occasions, it was by nurses, actually, fwiw (perhaps nothing). I no longer find it shocking, in fact, it's shocking when they don't, or go out of their way to fight for life.

It is legal here now if approved, conditions apply, and is known as Medical Assistance in Dying. I think the last I heard 7000 people did it last year. And because the doctor has to refer if they conscientiously abstain/ want no part in it, many doctors are fighting for just that- they want no part in it. And other people are reeling or furious because one hospital will not (partially funded), and therefore requires patient transfers, which they call cruel. You can have it done at home, theoretically, and there are people who volunteer as witnesses, because (not surprising to me) many have no family.

They had a commission over 2 years looking at 3 areas, one being for psychiatric illness, no consensus was found, really.

Personally, if I was going to a doctor, I'd want one that wanted me to overcome this. But that's just me.

Unrelated, I just heard of a longitudinal study that found that for people seemingly 'pre-wired' for anxiety +/or depression, that when asked to imagine various scenarios, their minds would follow more of the same types of memories, whereas the control group's thoughts did not. They could not turn it off; the control group relatively easily did (and these were all begun by hypothetical imagery, not real memories, such as: imagine a tarantula, or a police officer at the door, saying your spouse had been killed; 20 minutes later one person was still thinking of (several) deceased relatives). So maybe concentrating on how to improve the living, may be more helpful for some people, Idk.