4 ms·

I would encourage you to read this: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/10/13/jumpers https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/10/13/jumpers > “I instantly

by ElFitz 6y ago

I would encourage you to read this: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/10/13/jumpers https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/10/13/jumpers > “I instantly realized that everything in my life that I’d thought was unfixable was totally fixable—except for having just jumped.”

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
drops 6y ago
Is it normal to find the quoted sentence quite humorous?
- coldtea 6y ago
  It's intended to be humorous.
- ElFitz 6y ago
  Yes! It seems intended. And I thought it would convey my point in a striking and oddly lighthearted way better than my words ever could.
s5300 6y ago
Going off your quote - cool. Terminal illness and severe chronic illnesses are not "totally fixable" though. If somebody's problems are totally fixable... they're not the people needing to be saved by legal dignified euthanasia. I don't understand why this is so hard for some people to understand.
- rocqua 6y ago
  There is a difference between advocating for legalized euthanasia and advocating for a total and utter right to end one's own life at any point for any reason. OP seemed to argue for the latter, and who you are replying to argued against the latter. Now you seem to say that they should not argue against the former, which they were not arguing against.
  - ElFitz 6y ago
    Exactly! Thank you kind and understanding stranger!
- ben_w 6y ago
  I accept that many people have incurable illnesses which are either literally torturing them or slowly robbing them of everything they value. The reason I am (slightly) against euthanasia despite this, is because I expect easy availability — to be clear, a culture where it is not even controversial rather than merely available lawfully — to also be world where it is easy for people who don’t fit that category being pressured into talking that path. The reason I’m only slightly against is that I don’t feel confident in weighing the quantifiable decrease in suffering with the probability distribution of possible increases in needless death. That, plus I recognise my argument is “that looks like a slippery slope”, where the real problem may well be that human behaviour isn’t what my imagination is telling me it is.
  - thrwaway69 6y ago
    Euthanasia can be restricted. No need to make it illegal and places where it is legal have measures in place to stop this.
- ElFitz 6y ago
  Well, that's perfectly true. Litterature however seems to show most people who want to die actually just want to stop suffering. They simply don't see, or believe in, any other way than ending their lives. Case in point, someone I know briefly worked at a palliative care facility, in Paris. The professor in charge there once told her something he had noticed, over the years. Many people came in wanting to die. Probably most. We're talking people who had to literally carry their cancer tumor while taking a shower. Others weren't able to get up and walk at all. However, once the whole medical goal switched from curing them to actually and honestly alleviating their pain as much as possible and making them comfortable, not a single one of them was in any hurry to end up their lives anymore. Keeping in mind that these people still had their minds, or at least enough of it to appreciate being alive, I honestly think death, if it indeed shows to be the only solution for some, really isn't what most people in these situations actually want. There are many more things that can be done, that most people not in the field cannot begin to imagine, to stop the pain and make whatever remains of their lives worth living, for them. Euthanasia is cheaper. It's society's easy and inexpensive choice. I am not qualified to say wether it should be allowed or not. But as a political choice, I really hope we do our best for these people before resorting to it.
Johanx64 6y ago
I kind of doubt that people who have been struggling with depression for 10-20 years will share the sentiment. No doubt they will experience some sort of hardwired survival instict which kicks in as they are about to go, but that's about it.
- ElFitz 6y ago
  I have been struggling with depression for 10 years. Diagnosed and all. I was a wreck. A total wreck. Now, I still don't know if I'm out of it. I don't' know that I ever will be. It's terrifying. I see patterns I wish were long gone creeping back all the time. But I finally have lasting and enduring hope. And I've come to realize that all these times I wanted it all to end... I just wanted to stop suffering. At the time, death seemed to be the only way.
thrwaway69 6y ago
The problem is he jumped. He didn't have access to health professionals who will assess him before he could die. He wouldn't have jumped if he knew he could die in a more peaceful and controlled manner without shame. An euthanasia facility would have given him a second chance if it was properly maintained. They don't let you kill as you pass the door. They will make you wait, have you try things to help you before you could sign off the paper to die. I don't see why it should be illegal. it's like being against addiction control centres.
- ElFitz 6y ago
  Well then, considering https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23916076 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23916076, it'd seem we are on the same page!
at_a_remove 6y ago
I have often noticed that the "it gets better" crew, who dispense whatever little memes and then move on, have no skin in the game. The reality might be much different if there were some accounting at the end. "It appears that this person continued to suffer another twenty-three years and then died joylessly. As such, you must spend the next twenty-three years in a miserable and unpleasant box. Oh, and you have to also endure people telling you that it is only temporary. Ta." The unpleasant reality is that there are many situations which are untractable and the denial of their existence -- and the suffering inflicted -- largely serves to soothe those looking for a just world. We regularly call upon people to continue to be (and worse, be "up" about it) in circumstances where, were they occurring in some fuzzy animal, we would be moved to a grueling euthanasia with whatever rock came to hand.
- ElFitz 6y ago
  Some situations are indeed intractable. That's why, for the physical ones, we have things like palliative care. I don't know what can be for psychological issues. However, had you read the article, you would have noticed this short snippet: > Dr. Seiden’s study, “Where Are They Now?,” published in 1978, followed up on five hundred and fifteen people who were prevented from attempting suicide at the bridge between 1937 and 1971. After, on average, more than twenty-six years, ninety-four per cent of the would-be suicides were either still alive or had died of natural causes. “The findings confirm previous observations that suicidal behavior is crisis-oriented and acute in nature,” Seiden concluded; if you can get a suicidal person through his crisis—Seiden put the high-risk period at ninety days—chances are extremely good that he won’t kill himself later. The question then becomes "What about those remaining 6%?" Well, I don't know. Did they go through another, different crisis? Where they appropriately helped and supported following their first attempt? And if nothing could actually be done for them, then we end up with the traditional trolley cart dilemma. 94% lives worth living saved vs 6% miserables lives.
  - at_a_remove 6y ago
    Oh, I have seen that clip so many, many times. It's just about the first thing trotted out. I need not read that paragraph yet one more time, life is too long. It ignores things like, "What number of those ninety-four just continued to be miserable?" They didn't kill themselves, but it doesn't mean that they were not still suffering. It might well mean that they were bludgeoned with the "just think of how devastating it will be for your family" bit until they submitted to a life of quiet desperation. It's not a measure of life being worth living at all.

by ElFitz 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

drops 6y ago

Is it normal to find the quoted sentence quite humorous?

coldtea 6y ago
It's intended to be humorous.
ElFitz 6y ago
Yes! It seems intended. And I thought it would convey my point in a striking and oddly lighthearted way better than my words ever could.

s5300 6y ago

Going off your quote - cool. Terminal illness and severe chronic illnesses are not "totally fixable" though. If somebody's problems are totally fixable... they're not the people needing to be saved by legal dignified euthanasia. I don't understand why this is so hard for some people to understand.

rocqua 6y ago
There is a difference between advocating for legalized euthanasia and advocating for a total and utter right to end one's own life at any point for any reason. OP seemed to argue for the latter, and who you are replying to argued against the latter. Now you seem to say that they should not argue against the former, which they were not arguing against.
- ElFitz 6y ago
  Exactly! Thank you kind and understanding stranger!
ben_w 6y ago
I accept that many people have incurable illnesses which are either literally torturing them or slowly robbing them of everything they value. The reason I am (slightly) against euthanasia despite this, is because I expect easy availability — to be clear, a culture where it is not even controversial rather than merely available lawfully — to also be world where it is easy for people who don’t fit that category being pressured into talking that path. The reason I’m only slightly against is that I don’t feel confident in weighing the quantifiable decrease in suffering with the probability distribution of possible increases in needless death. That, plus I recognise my argument is “that looks like a slippery slope”, where the real problem may well be that human behaviour isn’t what my imagination is telling me it is.
- thrwaway69 6y ago
  Euthanasia can be restricted. No need to make it illegal and places where it is legal have measures in place to stop this.
ElFitz 6y ago
Well, that's perfectly true. Litterature however seems to show most people who want to die actually just want to stop suffering. They simply don't see, or believe in, any other way than ending their lives. Case in point, someone I know briefly worked at a palliative care facility, in Paris. The professor in charge there once told her something he had noticed, over the years. Many people came in wanting to die. Probably most. We're talking people who had to literally carry their cancer tumor while taking a shower. Others weren't able to get up and walk at all. However, once the whole medical goal switched from curing them to actually and honestly alleviating their pain as much as possible and making them comfortable, not a single one of them was in any hurry to end up their lives anymore. Keeping in mind that these people still had their minds, or at least enough of it to appreciate being alive, I honestly think death, if it indeed shows to be the only solution for some, really isn't what most people in these situations actually want. There are many more things that can be done, that most people not in the field cannot begin to imagine, to stop the pain and make whatever remains of their lives worth living, for them. Euthanasia is cheaper. It's society's easy and inexpensive choice. I am not qualified to say wether it should be allowed or not. But as a political choice, I really hope we do our best for these people before resorting to it.

Johanx64 6y ago

I kind of doubt that people who have been struggling with depression for 10-20 years will share the sentiment. No doubt they will experience some sort of hardwired survival instict which kicks in as they are about to go, but that's about it.

ElFitz 6y ago
I have been struggling with depression for 10 years. Diagnosed and all. I was a wreck. A total wreck. Now, I still don't know if I'm out of it. I don't' know that I ever will be. It's terrifying. I see patterns I wish were long gone creeping back all the time. But I finally have lasting and enduring hope. And I've come to realize that all these times I wanted it all to end... I just wanted to stop suffering. At the time, death seemed to be the only way.

thrwaway69 6y ago

The problem is he jumped. He didn't have access to health professionals who will assess him before he could die. He wouldn't have jumped if he knew he could die in a more peaceful and controlled manner without shame. An euthanasia facility would have given him a second chance if it was properly maintained. They don't let you kill as you pass the door. They will make you wait, have you try things to help you before you could sign off the paper to die. I don't see why it should be illegal. it's like being against addiction control centres.

ElFitz 6y ago
Well then, considering https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23916076 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23916076, it'd seem we are on the same page!

at_a_remove 6y ago

I have often noticed that the "it gets better" crew, who dispense whatever little memes and then move on, have no skin in the game. The reality might be much different if there were some accounting at the end. "It appears that this person continued to suffer another twenty-three years and then died joylessly. As such, you must spend the next twenty-three years in a miserable and unpleasant box. Oh, and you have to also endure people telling you that it is only temporary. Ta." The unpleasant reality is that there are many situations which are untractable and the denial of their existence -- and the suffering inflicted -- largely serves to soothe those looking for a just world. We regularly call upon people to continue to be (and worse, be "up" about it) in circumstances where, were they occurring in some fuzzy animal, we would be moved to a grueling euthanasia with whatever rock came to hand.

ElFitz 6y ago
Some situations are indeed intractable. That's why, for the physical ones, we have things like palliative care. I don't know what can be for psychological issues. However, had you read the article, you would have noticed this short snippet: > Dr. Seiden’s study, “Where Are They Now?,” published in 1978, followed up on five hundred and fifteen people who were prevented from attempting suicide at the bridge between 1937 and 1971. After, on average, more than twenty-six years, ninety-four per cent of the would-be suicides were either still alive or had died of natural causes. “The findings confirm previous observations that suicidal behavior is crisis-oriented and acute in nature,” Seiden concluded; if you can get a suicidal person through his crisis—Seiden put the high-risk period at ninety days—chances are extremely good that he won’t kill himself later. The question then becomes "What about those remaining 6%?" Well, I don't know. Did they go through another, different crisis? Where they appropriately helped and supported following their first attempt? And if nothing could actually be done for them, then we end up with the traditional trolley cart dilemma. 94% lives worth living saved vs 6% miserables lives.
- at_a_remove 6y ago
  Oh, I have seen that clip so many, many times. It's just about the first thing trotted out. I need not read that paragraph yet one more time, life is too long. It ignores things like, "What number of those ninety-four just continued to be miserable?" They didn't kill themselves, but it doesn't mean that they were not still suffering. It might well mean that they were bludgeoned with the "just think of how devastating it will be for your family" bit until they submitted to a life of quiet desperation. It's not a measure of life being worth living at all.