News Doctor-Assisted Death For Those Living With Ptsd

[Fadeaway]

I have given this a lot of thought. I absolutely think it should be a human right. I think giving people some control over their own death can be empowering.

I am absolutely OK with terminally Ill people choosing the right to die. Especially if it is going to be an agonizing death.

In the case of severe and permanent disfigurement and painful skin grafts associated with burns covering more than a certain percentage of the body, I personally would want to be given a choice in that situation.

If I was elderly and in a nursing home waiting to die, I personally would like to have some control over that.

If where I was mentally back in February turned out to be permanent, hell yeah I would want the right to die.

Why are we so set, as a society, on telling people that are living a tortured and unbearable existence that our belief that they should live is more important than their belief they should be allowed a humane death.

Having some perceived control over ones death would also help with the fear of death. If the choice was available to you, would you rather die suffering or in a controled manner under the supervision of medical professionals?

There are circumstances where I would not want my suffering prolonged. I want the right to have control over my death. My life, my death. I don't have any desire to die anytime soon, but I can think of a lot of situations where I personally would want to be given a choice, and I would like to make the choice now for circumstances where I would be unable to make a choice in the future.

We can not presume to know the level of another's suffering. Having control over my right to life and death is very important to me.

 

[shimmerz]

we want it euthanasia for another group or reason

Sorry, just realized this was already mentioned but to reiterate; Nazi Germany was not one little bit about euthanasia. Nobody asked for that type of death, although for certain this would be a scenario where the victims would, if it had been available perhaps asked for an easier death than they were forced into.

Euthanasia is a sincere request from oneself to end one's own life based on excessive amounts of suffering with no reasonable end to the suffering in sight. It is not imposed at all upon people or groups of people or communities. I feel like the words murder and killing are words to provide contrast to the theme in this post but should not be used in place of euthanasia. Otherwise it seems to me that the words are being used inappropriately.

So again, I ask, what is the fear here of people being rounded up and killed? I feel like it is being used a ton in this posting but I can't see the relevance. No joke. I really want to understand what I may be missing because this is a topic I am passionate about and it is serious. I don't want to miss real issues about it that I may have overlooked.

 

[Ronin]

but I can't see the relevance.

Because it is logical to assume once something is a policy, it can also be (easier & legally covered) misused act. Regulation Vs Legal cover, either side, could be the same coin.

Because we are on an abuse forum, where assume the worst is a based in experience reality.

Because many of us, hello, lived through current conflicts, or are from persecuted ethnic groups, or are otherwise involved in human rights of *large groups*, which get tangled & not easy.

Because we are international forums, where we are weighting the issue not in the context of one case (illustrative / to current discussion, since the subsection of the forum is on *current* events), but many.

Not irrelevant, nor far stretch.
Intersectional. International. & Not assuming clean things are so, in reality.

 

[FauxLiz]

I have been keeping up with this thread and haven't given input before but I have to ask the question: How different is it to legally permit euthanasia vs Do Not Resusitate/No Extraordinary Measures. In my mind and this is just my opinion the two are very similar. So why is it that no one is saying that permitting people to legally request that intervention in their death not take place and permitting people to make an informed decision regarding when and how they die?

 

[flowerapple]

So again, I ask, what is the fear here of people being rounded up and killed? I feel like it is being used a ton in this posting but I can't see the relevance. No joke. I really want to understand what I may be missing because this is a topic I am passionate about and it is serious. I don't want to miss real issues about it that I may have overlooked.

The fear is that once we although we might be considering euthanasia here, in good faith, that we will inevitably lead to a point where we are no longer killing to help others, but to help ourselves. We start considering all the reasons for euthanasia for mentally ill patients, all of which come back to the patient's wellbeing. But soon enough, we will then say "oh, well it's already legal, and this person doesn't seem to be getting better, and we need the space, and they are wasting resources to care for them, so let's just kill that person." And then that will lead to, "oh well we killed 'euthanized' that one person there, and it did alleviate the resources problem, so why don't we do it to the others too." And then that would lead to, "oh well why don't we just take pre-emptive measures, and just kill the mentally ill before they become use up the resources that could be better used somewhere else." And then before you know it, if you get diagnosed with mental illness, then it means you got the death sentence, because the government/society sees it as wasteful to spend money on it, so they will just ultimately kill you, because you would become a burden to the welfare of the country. So the fear is that once we allow it, we will end up on this slippery slope that will ultimately lead to rounding up mentally ill persons to be killed to better the country — which would be what Hitler and the Nazis did because he saw the mentally and physically disabled as not only as a threat to the pure Aryan race, but saw allocating resources to care for them as a waste of valuable resources, and basically an unnecessary burden for the state.

 

[Tinyflame]

I think one thing as you said @shimmerz is that people without voices have neither the voice to help themself- or to defend themself.

@FauxLiz I think differently about a a DNAR/ DNR order now: the fact is, you've died (naturally), hence whichever critical organs have packed it in, under most circumstances, resuscitation, if successful, buys normally very limited time under worse deterioration.

Only once did we (originally) not have a DNAR order, and in the end the attending dr did not resuscitate (legally shouldn't be the case). To her credit (we had never met her), she took a gamble by telling us the truth, that there was blood in the throat and resuscitation would have brought very short term relief and much greater pain (I believe that was truthful). So, of course we thanked her for not doing so.

But basically, you've already died (of natural body shutdown).

(However, out here there are 4 I believe types of DNAR orders, and only 1 allows for the use of antibiotics etc. That is, if you break a bone or get an infection- with the other 3 they will do nothing. I believe that is inhumane. Ill people get infections, even totally unrelated to their illness or specifically their immune system (ie even the 'well' people are hit equally hard), and if an antibiotic or cast if necessary alleviates pain and struggle I think not giving it is awful. It's not curative of course but does improve on quality of life that is left, if it does alleviate pain or struggle.)

 

[flowerapple]

How different is it to legally permit euthanasia vs Do Not Resusitate/No Extraordinary Measures. In my mind and this is just my opinion the two are very similar.

Euthanasia would be when a patient is unbearable pain and suffering that cannot be alleviated by modern medicine and/or other traditional methods. That despite using what is available today, as it is, there is no way to alleviate their condition (there might be a few but the patient chose to forgo those treatments). The patient, as a result, despite having more time to live, whether it be weeks or years or in the case of many mental illnesses a normal lifespan, has chosen that they want to die. So basically euthanasia would be the unnatural ending of a life prematurely.

Do Not Resuscitate/No Extraordinary Measures would be you are right now on the brink of death or have just died, and if we were to take certain actions, we can bring you back to life. So if we were to do nothing, you will be dead, and if we were to do something we can be alive. So that would be the unnatural prolonging of a life.

That's how I understand it at least.

 

[shimmerz]

once something is a policy, it can also be (easier & legally covered) misused act. Regulation Vs Legal cover, either side, could be the same coin.

You see though, that is what is currently happening. You said so yourself. with the above statement that once something is policy..... and we already HAVE a policy. One that states that people must put up with years of suffering which is causing families to discard their family members because it is too much. I myself have been the victim of this. I have seen many others as well.

The fact of the matter is that there has always and will always be abusers among us. We make policies and laws to protect others from abusers (or so they say). Collectively I believe it is important to work towards compassion for others. As medical technology is getting stronger, it is leaving people in highly compromised positions where their body is incapacitated or their mind is compromised to such a degree that they cannot live safely in this society. Somethings got to give. Because right now people are being discarded to die alone or to languish. I feel like anything is an improvement to that.

Regardless of the policies put into place there will need to be proper management and safeties put into place. As with everything. The only difference I am suggesting here is that people are given agency over themselves and given a voice - which is something else that was spoken about here --

is that people without voices have neither the voice to help themself- or to defend themself.

People already don't have a voice. They have no control over their suffering as society tells them what they need to put up with. It is at a doctor's discretion when they can be released but nobody talks about that because doctors aren't supposed to do that. So they do it with everyone knowing but nobody 'talking' about it. Really? Can't we just treat this issue like we are all adults?

I am really just advocating for a society that honours self agency for individuals and who advocate and promote compassion for themselves and others. What we need is for society to believe in humanitarianism again. That is going to take making solid steps forward to acknowledge unnecessary suffering and all people their choices without minimizing their pain.

And I am still not convinced nor compelled to believe that taking a step forward on this issue is like wishing Nazi Germany back into existence. That seems like fear mongering and sky is falling behaviour.

 

[scout86]

What we need is for society to believe in humanitarianism again.

Was there a time when that was the case? The question seems a bit off topic, but I can't help but ask.

We're still talking about euthanasia as a "treatment" for PTSD, not euthanasia in general? I'm curious about your own situation. You've been through some rough times. Times when you felt like death was preferable to going on the way things were? (I'm asking.) How do you feel about life now? I have to confess, I keep thinking about friends who had PTSD and died as a result. I'd like to think there were better options. I know people now who suffer pretty intensely. I'd like to think there's light somehow at the end of their tunnels and that it's not an oncoming train.

taking a step forward on this issue is like wishing Nazi Germany back into existence.

I don't think it's wishing it back into existence, but I can see it as a slippery slope.

Euthanasia is complicated, for sure. Personally, I can see it as an option for conditions that produce unrelenting suffering till death, when the person chooses a faster death of their own free will. And I'll definitely acknowledge that mental suffering is real suffering. With PTSD...I have a little trouble accepting that it's hopeless. Maybe that's just me, not wanting it to be hopeless.

 

[Ronin]

And I'll definitely acknowledge that mental suffering is real suffering. With PTSD...I have a little trouble accepting that it's hopeless.

This.

Social issues (previous months of discussions in this thread), nor PTSD, are just not that kind of Need a way out conditions in my book... No matter how bad they got.

Edited to add: We've come that far in understanding PTSD being something that happens after certain conditions terms like CPTSD are now normal jargon of abused English speaking teenagers. Meaning even they are aware it is a condition they can seek treatment for & talk about. If that is not a hope in education & doing something with issues, I don't know what is.

 

[Neverthesame]

This applies to both the article and side topic:

My opinion on suicide is that it is not a choice. Instead, it's a reaction to end unbearable suffering. The really important word there is "unbearable". I don't feel anyone who can think back later from an improved living situation, "you know, I wish I'd had the option of a guaranteed painless method of death back when I was in a really hard time of my life." was really suffering unbearably. Why? Because they're still here, they bore it, it's over, they don't feel the need to die any longer.

Before anyone says I don't get it, I do. Been there, tried that, have the scars to prove it. Somewhere between then and now, life improved enough for me to bring the suffering down from unbearable to bearable. Some of this was my doing, some was circumstance.
I think this applies to anyone who's still here, again that's my opinion. I feel "unbearable" is just that. A desperate need to make it stop, no matter the risk or possible consequences. This includes risk of permanent damage due to botching the job. If the suffering outweighs possible unfortunate outcomes such as:

• Permanent paralysis from surviving the fall.
• Severe cognitive deficit from lack of oxygen to the brain for an extended period of time.
• Extensive disfigurement from poor aim.
• Destruction of the digestive tract from ingestion of caustic chemicals.
• Extensive burns, skin grafts, huge recurrent infection, agony, and a life of frightening children with one's appearance.
• You might sentence some poor police officer(s) to your PTSD from being the unwitting method of your intended death (successful or not it's a crit-A for them).

There's more of course, but there's a sample of possible unpleasant outcomes of survival or other's forced participation.
Some people are aware of how life altering these can be, some not. All have accepted the knowledge that if successful, it's permanent, it's over, there's no going back. No more loved ones, no more smelling roses, no more anything, only death.
Death on it's own is a pretty scary endeavour into the unknown, depending on your beliefs you may have some hopeful anticipation of a paradise of some sort, or if you're a Catholic like me, an eternity of burning in the fiery pits of hell, or nothing whatsoever. No one really knows, but whatever it might be, it is perceived as enough of an escape from the current misery being experienced to be worth going early.

I'm personally glad I failed, also relieved I am not permanently damaged from my attempt. Had I been in a doctors office being euthanised, this would not be the case. I wouldn't have to worry about it being botched, true. I wouldn't have failed either, someone would have seen to that.
This brings me to the "unbearable" part.
Had I the option those years ago of a simple, painless and certain death. I would have applied certainly, who wouldn't?
Had I been told no? I'd have done it anyway. It wouldn't have stopped me. Unbearable is just that, unbearable. Cannot tolerate. No choice but to try. The pain needs to stop No Matter the Cost. Short term physical pain is irrelevant to end the suffering.

Dying with dignity:
This is probably going to piss a few people off and I'm sorry to anyone it does, but I think that's complete rubbish when applied to suicide for mental health cases. The point of dying is to alleviate the suffering from a cruel world that causes you nothing but pain and suffering so bad you are going to leave it and everyone on it that may care for you behind, but you want to leave pretty corpse? Or give a damn whether or not anyone else is standing around is okay with watching you die?
I question the level of "unbearable" being endured by anyone worried about anything other than ending the pain NOW. Case in point, the young lady in the article. She was told "No". She didn't let it stop her, instead she died a horrible death by starvation, which is a slow and painful death, not terribly dignified either.
She'd clearly hoped to get a quicker easier end, but did it the hard way anyway because clearly ending her suffering was her goal. It's sad such a young life went so wrong and ended so short. From that article I didn't get the sense she was looking for dignity, only relief.

Again, this is my opinion, you're all entitled to a different one.

 

[Tinyflame]

Agree with @Neverthesame 100%.

What makes the unbearable bearable? That's to me the question. How or what pops holes in the bottom of the cup of such suffering and bleeds it out before it overflows and death is the only preferable option? Forget preferable- necessitated. And I think things like shame, guilt, grief, loss, etc, contribute to the unbearableness of it too.

(As an aside Neverthesame , I like to think if people can have compassion, God certainly does even more so. There was a saint who said to a boy who's father committed suicide and worried he'd go to Hell, "Between the bridge and the water was God's hand". I don't think suicide often has to do with lack of love, or being hateful, which are more likely criteria for that I'd think, except maybe self-hatred.)

JMHO.