6 ms·

Dutch woman, 29, granted euthanasia approval on grounds of mental suffering

26 points by racional 2y ago

Bostonian 2y ago
The state cannot stop people from killing themselves, but I don't think it should assist young, non-terminally-ill people in ending their lives.
- zamalek 2y ago
  Mental illness can absolutely be a terminal condition, she has specified that she has had suicide ideation. A far more significant issue plaguing society is the perception that mental illness is not real illess, not the minuscule amount of people who want to freely control their own destiny.
  - rachofsunshine 2y ago
    I'll preface this by saying that: (a) I have suffered from severe mental health issues in the past and struggle with better-controlled ones to this day, (b) I was pretty explicitly suicidal for several years (I still have the note I wrote on my desktop as a reminder; it's something I keep close to my heart as a thing that is precious to me), (c) I very, VERY strongly believe in the idea of mental health as a health problem and not a moral one, largely because of my own experiences, and (d) I agree with you that the failure to recognize (c) is a far larger problem than even poorly-justified assisted-dying would be. ----- All that being said, though, I think there's legitimate reasons for concern here. I absolutely would have said my life was unendurable and that it could never improve, and I would have said that persistently for a long period of time (for around two years, so a substantial chunk of the approval period here). And the claim that my life wasn't going to improve was, in retrospect, a fairly reasonable belief - my life was in bad shape and even if I could talk to myself at the time I'm not sure how I'd ever justify the way it worked itself out. But it did work itself out. Things did turn around, in a way I could never have predicted. My life improved, and in the years since, I have overcome basically every personal issue I thought I never would. That's not to say my life is perfect, by any means, but it's better than - and I use this phrase in its full literal sense - I could have imagined at the time. I suffer(ed) from basically the same spectrum of conditions this woman does. I was roughly the same age. I had tried medical treatments that, while transformative in terms of the way I looked at mental health, had not offered sustained relief (and to this day have never found a medication that works effectively for me). I have no doubt her desire for relief is sincere, because I have no doubt that mine was too. She's quoted in the article as saying: > People think that when you’re mentally ill, you can’t think straight, which is insulting I can't speak for her. But I think if someone had told me this during the depths of my own worst battles with it, what that would have sounded like to me is "you're not really in this much pain". In that sense, I agree (and would have agreed at the time) that it would be insulting. But, again, while I can't speak for her, I was empirically not thinking straight, in the sense that my perceptions of the world and of myself were distorted. I was trapped in a system of mental processes that rounded "my life is really bad and I can't see any way it gets better" to "my life is unbearable and it is impossible that it ever gets better". I was, objectively, wrong in my predictions of the future and my judgements of myself, and that's not someone else talking, it's me, with the benefit of greater experience. I didn't have the options on the table that she does. But if I had, and things had continued for more years the way they were? I might have taken them. I'm not sure. I know I had a plan for how I would end my life painlessly. I never got to the point of quite executing it, but that was as much a statement about how hard it was for me to do anything at the time than it was a statement about how much pain I was in. And my life came within hours and a lucky roll of the dice of going further down into despair. When I think I might have made that choice, and I think I would have been incorrect to make it, it's hard for me to feel entirely comfortable with her choice as the correct one. Perhaps it's a choice she nevertheless should have the right to make (I think you can make pretty good arguments for that), but the choice you have the right to make, and the choice you should make, and the choice that deserves social endorsement, are different matters.
    - slau 2y ago
      One important thing to remember: Belgium requires the sign off of three medical doctors intimitaly familiar with the case, and they must assert that all courses of treatment have been exhausted, that the patient is incurable, and that the patient is suffering from "unbearable pain", and crucially: that the patient is sound enough of mind to make the request. Making the request itself is grounds for significant psychological involvement. Doctors are opening themselves up for lawsuits for manslaughter if the conditions are not met (see the Tine Nys case[1]). All this to say: it's not just a matter of making the request twice and wham bam thank you ma'am. [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51103687 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51103687
      - rachofsunshine 2y ago
        I recognize that, which is why my response is sympathetic concern and not outright opposition. I am sure that everyone involved here thinks they're doing the right thing, and that they're approaching it with the seriousness and gravity the topic deserves. And I think this is a topic on which reasonable compassionate people could disagree. I'm just not sure if the solution here is the correct one.
- ramon156 2y ago
  So what are they supposed to do?
- anonzzzies 2y ago
  Mental illness is sometimes worse than physical; I have known multiple people (who did commit suicide) who said they would prefer cancer or sit in a wheelchair then the hell they lived in. I guess it’s hard to image if you never had that or don’t know anyone who had.
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    You can induce this state with drugs. Then it will be easy to imagine and understand. If drugs can reproduce this state of mental anguish it is imaginable that someone's brain chemistry might be off in a way where they are in similar constant mental hell.
    - anonzzzies 2y ago
      Yep. A bad mushroom trip would be more than enough to create understanding.
- slau 2y ago
  As someone who lost one of their best friends to schizophrenia, I can guarantee you it that in his case it was a terminal illness. It was an ugly, dirty battle he slowly lost over the course of the 15 or so years he was diagnosed with it, and his family suffered every step of the way, and well beyond his final moment. Just because a suffering isn’t visible, or doesn’t prevent someone from walking or getting up from a couch doesn’t mean it’s not every little bit as painful as a physical affliction.
stef25 2y ago
This has happened several times here in Belgium as well, including for a victim of sexual assault. Apart from fries and chocolate this is what we're best at ... granting approval for euthanasia :/ EDIT I'm not at all against euthanasia, it's just a bit macabre that this is what Belgium excels at
- AnonHP 2y ago
  I didn’t understand why you put a sad face/frowny at the end of your last sentence. IMO, granting the freedom for people to choose to die (with checks and balances) is a good thing. I’m sure there will always be debates on whether the approval for one person was correct or wrong. The discomfort that most people have about other people dying cannot be easily alleviated.
  - Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago
    Believe it or not suicide is legal.
    - gabeio 2y ago
      > Believe it or not suicide is legal. Is it thought? If you don't succeed you basically are incarcerated by way of mental institutions (at least in the USA). Obviously they can't hold your un-alived body "accountable" but it sometimes does feel like suicide is illegal.
    - whatevaa 2y ago
      Depends on jurisdiction probably. Though if you succeeded, there isn't anyone to punish, cause you are... dead.
  - stef25 2y ago
    I don't disagree with you, it's good that we have these laws it's just a bit macabre
- whalesalad 2y ago
  We put way too much value on human life. If someone isn't interested in existing anymore that should be completely acceptible.
AnonHP 2y ago
Having ten years of therapy and then spending three and a half years to get approval for euthanasia…I can only empathize without knowing the depth of her suffering. Based on the description of her experience, some laws related to privacy of the individual choosing euthanasia may be helpful. Not surprised, but it did sound atrocious that many people around the world — who didn’t know her — believed and decided that they know better about what she ought to do.
constantcrying 2y ago
There is an enormous conflict here. On the one hand a certain degree of mental illness means that you are legally incapable of making choices, while, on the other hand you obviously need to be mentally well enough to make an informed medical decision of such gravity. How many people are so mentally ill that death is the only conceivable escape, but at the same time so mentally well that they can make an informed medical decision about the end of their life. Certainly I believe that number to be very low, potentially it might just be zero.
- CaptainOfCoit 2y ago
  > How many people are so mentally ill that death is the only conceivable escape, but at the same time so mentally well that they can make an informed medical decision about the end of their life. Certainly I believe that number to be very low, potentially it might just be zero. People suffering from non-suicidal mental illnesses could fit this description. For example, consider a patient who has undergone various therapies and medical examinations but remains irrationally terrified of fluids and can only receive them via injection. They'll be mentally sound enough to make an informed decision, and the patient concludes that life is not worth living.
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    Is that just a thought experiment? Almost all mental illnesses I am aware of seem to be experienced continuously, maybe with an ebb and flow in intensity. But even if such a person existed and the phobia wasn't persistent without a doubt the person would suffer from related anxieties. I don't believe that you could suffer from such a condition and be mentally well for any amount of time, although I certainly see your point that during certain periods the person might be able to make an informed decision.
- wdb 2y ago
  That's the whole problem with euthanasia in The Netherlands. Most would opt for it when they have mental illnesses like Alzheimers or dementia in general but most often they would too ill to be able to make required informed decision. I am glad it's offered because why would someone need to wait until they die? Especially, when the person can't be treated further like when having cancer.
ein0p 2y ago
Reminds me of “suicide booths” in Sheckley’s “Immortality Inc”. How long until we “grant” euthanasia approval for any reason at all, including no reason? I can imagine there’d be a ton of people willing to accrue enormous debts or commit crimes if they could then painlessly off themselves instead of facing the consequences.
- iamthirsty 2y ago
  > if they could then painlessly off themselves instead of facing the consequences. I think 'off-ing' one's self is a pretty large consequence in itself. You can painlessly do it today, by overdosing on opiates or many other drugs. I've been revived a few times, and I can tell you you don't even notice dying.
  - ein0p 2y ago
    Opiates aren’t easily available to most, and illegal. I’m talking about totally legal and totally painless method here, as in the novel. There’d be a lot of takers if friction is reduced. Heck, I bet every person’s life has low points where continuing seems pointless. I had a few moments like that myself when I was younger and expect to have more of them as I get older. I’m only really still alive because dying is a high friction process.
    - iamthirsty 2y ago
      > There’d be a lot of takers if friction is reduced. A legal process that involves the state and possible years of monitoring, age limits, etc is much more friction than the very quick ways one can do it on their own without the state's involvement.
- tetris11 2y ago
  People should be allowed to quietly go out of this world with dignity. What worries me is the image of an understaffed public hospital, with a single nurse walking from bed to bed softly asking the patients if they want permanent release.
xyst 2y ago
Medical science has had significant breakthroughs with physical diseases (ie, genetic therapy to help parents grant children with hearing). But still feels like mental health is stuck in the 1930s-1950s. - electroshock therapy (wtf) - throw a bunch of mood stabilizers, SSRIs (Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) and see what sticks - therapy/talking - lock em up in prison or psychiatric “hospital” - in some cases people resort to self medication with various mind altering substances (LSD, microdosing MDMA) and see what sticks At least we aren’t doing lobotomy procedures anymore. Medical science has failed her. Society has failed her.
- rachofsunshine 2y ago
  Speaking as a person who once suffered from extreme mental illness (see my other post in this thread), mental health treatment saved my life. Full stop. If not for the very, very persistent efforts of a psychiatrist and a therapist both, there's no way I would ever have been able to sort myself out. Mental health care is hard because people are complicated. It's been almost seven years since the woman who saved my life sat with me in her office for no less than four hours telling me that yes, I should really take these pills, and I am still sorting things out to some extent. SSRIs don't work for me. But one of them worked for a short time, and that short time was enough to completely change my understanding of myself. It changed me from thinking of myself as a terrible person who deserved all the considerable suffering I was enduring at the time, to thinking of myself as someone who was very very very sick and needed help to survive. If you've never been severely depressed, it's hard to explain what a revelation that is. I broke down sobbing for hours at the feeling of understanding for the first time that my suffering wasn't my fault. It was (in part) due to my actions, but my actions were due to my mental state, and my mental state was not something I had gotten to choose. So when I say that I strongly, strongly, with all my heart, recommend that you try them if you're depressed even though they only worked for me for a couple of days - well, that should tell you just how important that was to me. Therapy didn't fix me. But it did give me the tools to work on myself, in fits and starts, for what is now half my adult life. Having someone I spoke to every week, who understood the patterns of mental illness, helping me to see the feedback loops for what they were, was critical in understanding the nature of how I was sick. That didn't make those loops go away. But it did train me to listen to them less, and helped me know where to find them when I had the mental energy to work on them. Without mental health care, I would be dead. With mental health care, I've shed my constant fear of the smallest changes, I no longer scream at myself for the smallest mistakes, I've had healthy romantic relationships, I have a career most people would envy, I take care of my personal environment, I'm in the best physical health of my life and have shed 40% of my body weight to be not-obese for the first time since childhood, and I smile. I smile a lot. Has society failed many people? Yes. Environmental factors are relevant to mental health. In fact, it's part of why mental health is so dangerous: once your health deteriorates and you lose control and maintenance of your environment, you create a feedback loop that worsens mental illness. I am by no means arguing that we could not take care of people far better than we are. But I, at least, believe in the importance of mental health care as strongly as I believe in anything else on this Earth, because of what it did for me.
w0de0 2y ago
Is it not dystopian for the apparatus of state to be involved in suicide? Is killing not a gross violation of the Hippocratic Oath? Assisted dying seems an evil thing to me - all the more so because suicide is feasible without society’s involvement and encouragement. One worries that the state and doctors will at some point go from saying “you may” to saying “you should.”
- manuelmoreale 2y ago
  I hear you but what’s the alternative though? Provide a DIY guide on how to do it yourself in a painless way? And what about those people who just can’t because are paralyzed for example? There are a million different cases and someone has to have the power to help someone who has decided that they don’t want to live their lives that way anymore.
  - whatevaa 2y ago
    He'd rather people suffer so he could feel better about himself. Personally, I'm pro-euthanasia for selfish reasons too - I'd like to be able to end it cleanly, alternative ways are a mess. You can't fix everything. Drugs don't fix everything. Not everything can be treated. Seen too many people slowly detoriating, waiting to die for incurrable diseases. If I have a right to live, I should have a right to die, otherwise I'm a slave.
    - w0de0 2y ago
      No, I’m not an advocate of suffering. I’m a skeptic of the state’s role in its ultimate antidote. As a cadaver may not be incarcerated productively, I question if one’s right to death is - or can be - denied. Moreover, is not assisted dying treated as a privilege, rather than a right? Like a driver’s license, one must apply. It is alienable.
      - whatevaa 2y ago
        The application process is in place to create friction so that people wouldn't off themselves for silly reasons, also to try to address concerns like yours. Who else than state? Random people? You can always off yourself, but that is messy. Might as well have a process for that.

26 points by racional 2y ago

The state cannot stop people from killing themselves, but I don't think it should assist young, non-terminally-ill people in ending their lives.

zamalek 2y ago
Mental illness can absolutely be a terminal condition, she has specified that she has had suicide ideation. A far more significant issue plaguing society is the perception that mental illness is not real illess, not the minuscule amount of people who want to freely control their own destiny.
- rachofsunshine 2y ago
  I'll preface this by saying that: (a) I have suffered from severe mental health issues in the past and struggle with better-controlled ones to this day, (b) I was pretty explicitly suicidal for several years (I still have the note I wrote on my desktop as a reminder; it's something I keep close to my heart as a thing that is precious to me), (c) I very, VERY strongly believe in the idea of mental health as a health problem and not a moral one, largely because of my own experiences, and (d) I agree with you that the failure to recognize (c) is a far larger problem than even poorly-justified assisted-dying would be. ----- All that being said, though, I think there's legitimate reasons for concern here. I absolutely would have said my life was unendurable and that it could never improve, and I would have said that persistently for a long period of time (for around two years, so a substantial chunk of the approval period here). And the claim that my life wasn't going to improve was, in retrospect, a fairly reasonable belief - my life was in bad shape and even if I could talk to myself at the time I'm not sure how I'd ever justify the way it worked itself out. But it did work itself out. Things did turn around, in a way I could never have predicted. My life improved, and in the years since, I have overcome basically every personal issue I thought I never would. That's not to say my life is perfect, by any means, but it's better than - and I use this phrase in its full literal sense - I could have imagined at the time. I suffer(ed) from basically the same spectrum of conditions this woman does. I was roughly the same age. I had tried medical treatments that, while transformative in terms of the way I looked at mental health, had not offered sustained relief (and to this day have never found a medication that works effectively for me). I have no doubt her desire for relief is sincere, because I have no doubt that mine was too. She's quoted in the article as saying: > People think that when you’re mentally ill, you can’t think straight, which is insulting I can't speak for her. But I think if someone had told me this during the depths of my own worst battles with it, what that would have sounded like to me is "you're not really in this much pain". In that sense, I agree (and would have agreed at the time) that it would be insulting. But, again, while I can't speak for her, I was empirically not thinking straight, in the sense that my perceptions of the world and of myself were distorted. I was trapped in a system of mental processes that rounded "my life is really bad and I can't see any way it gets better" to "my life is unbearable and it is impossible that it ever gets better". I was, objectively, wrong in my predictions of the future and my judgements of myself, and that's not someone else talking, it's me, with the benefit of greater experience. I didn't have the options on the table that she does. But if I had, and things had continued for more years the way they were? I might have taken them. I'm not sure. I know I had a plan for how I would end my life painlessly. I never got to the point of quite executing it, but that was as much a statement about how hard it was for me to do anything at the time than it was a statement about how much pain I was in. And my life came within hours and a lucky roll of the dice of going further down into despair. When I think I might have made that choice, and I think I would have been incorrect to make it, it's hard for me to feel entirely comfortable with her choice as the correct one. Perhaps it's a choice she nevertheless should have the right to make (I think you can make pretty good arguments for that), but the choice you have the right to make, and the choice you should make, and the choice that deserves social endorsement, are different matters.
  - slau 2y ago
    One important thing to remember: Belgium requires the sign off of three medical doctors intimitaly familiar with the case, and they must assert that all courses of treatment have been exhausted, that the patient is incurable, and that the patient is suffering from "unbearable pain", and crucially: that the patient is sound enough of mind to make the request. Making the request itself is grounds for significant psychological involvement. Doctors are opening themselves up for lawsuits for manslaughter if the conditions are not met (see the Tine Nys case[1]). All this to say: it's not just a matter of making the request twice and wham bam thank you ma'am. [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51103687 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51103687
    - rachofsunshine 2y ago
      I recognize that, which is why my response is sympathetic concern and not outright opposition. I am sure that everyone involved here thinks they're doing the right thing, and that they're approaching it with the seriousness and gravity the topic deserves. And I think this is a topic on which reasonable compassionate people could disagree. I'm just not sure if the solution here is the correct one.
ramon156 2y ago
So what are they supposed to do?
anonzzzies 2y ago
Mental illness is sometimes worse than physical; I have known multiple people (who did commit suicide) who said they would prefer cancer or sit in a wheelchair then the hell they lived in. I guess it’s hard to image if you never had that or don’t know anyone who had.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  You can induce this state with drugs. Then it will be easy to imagine and understand. If drugs can reproduce this state of mental anguish it is imaginable that someone's brain chemistry might be off in a way where they are in similar constant mental hell.
  - anonzzzies 2y ago
    Yep. A bad mushroom trip would be more than enough to create understanding.
slau 2y ago
As someone who lost one of their best friends to schizophrenia, I can guarantee you it that in his case it was a terminal illness. It was an ugly, dirty battle he slowly lost over the course of the 15 or so years he was diagnosed with it, and his family suffered every step of the way, and well beyond his final moment. Just because a suffering isn’t visible, or doesn’t prevent someone from walking or getting up from a couch doesn’t mean it’s not every little bit as painful as a physical affliction.

stef25 2y ago

This has happened several times here in Belgium as well, including for a victim of sexual assault. Apart from fries and chocolate this is what we're best at ... granting approval for euthanasia :/ EDIT I'm not at all against euthanasia, it's just a bit macabre that this is what Belgium excels at

AnonHP 2y ago
I didn’t understand why you put a sad face/frowny at the end of your last sentence. IMO, granting the freedom for people to choose to die (with checks and balances) is a good thing. I’m sure there will always be debates on whether the approval for one person was correct or wrong. The discomfort that most people have about other people dying cannot be easily alleviated.
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago
  Believe it or not suicide is legal.
  - gabeio 2y ago
    > Believe it or not suicide is legal. Is it thought? If you don't succeed you basically are incarcerated by way of mental institutions (at least in the USA). Obviously they can't hold your un-alived body "accountable" but it sometimes does feel like suicide is illegal.
  - whatevaa 2y ago
    Depends on jurisdiction probably. Though if you succeeded, there isn't anyone to punish, cause you are... dead.
- stef25 2y ago
  I don't disagree with you, it's good that we have these laws it's just a bit macabre
whalesalad 2y ago
We put way too much value on human life. If someone isn't interested in existing anymore that should be completely acceptible.

AnonHP 2y ago

Having ten years of therapy and then spending three and a half years to get approval for euthanasia…I can only empathize without knowing the depth of her suffering. Based on the description of her experience, some laws related to privacy of the individual choosing euthanasia may be helpful. Not surprised, but it did sound atrocious that many people around the world — who didn’t know her — believed and decided that they know better about what she ought to do.

constantcrying 2y ago

There is an enormous conflict here. On the one hand a certain degree of mental illness means that you are legally incapable of making choices, while, on the other hand you obviously need to be mentally well enough to make an informed medical decision of such gravity. How many people are so mentally ill that death is the only conceivable escape, but at the same time so mentally well that they can make an informed medical decision about the end of their life. Certainly I believe that number to be very low, potentially it might just be zero.

CaptainOfCoit 2y ago
> How many people are so mentally ill that death is the only conceivable escape, but at the same time so mentally well that they can make an informed medical decision about the end of their life. Certainly I believe that number to be very low, potentially it might just be zero. People suffering from non-suicidal mental illnesses could fit this description. For example, consider a patient who has undergone various therapies and medical examinations but remains irrationally terrified of fluids and can only receive them via injection. They'll be mentally sound enough to make an informed decision, and the patient concludes that life is not worth living.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  Is that just a thought experiment? Almost all mental illnesses I am aware of seem to be experienced continuously, maybe with an ebb and flow in intensity. But even if such a person existed and the phobia wasn't persistent without a doubt the person would suffer from related anxieties. I don't believe that you could suffer from such a condition and be mentally well for any amount of time, although I certainly see your point that during certain periods the person might be able to make an informed decision.
wdb 2y ago
That's the whole problem with euthanasia in The Netherlands. Most would opt for it when they have mental illnesses like Alzheimers or dementia in general but most often they would too ill to be able to make required informed decision. I am glad it's offered because why would someone need to wait until they die? Especially, when the person can't be treated further like when having cancer.

ein0p 2y ago

Reminds me of “suicide booths” in Sheckley’s “Immortality Inc”. How long until we “grant” euthanasia approval for any reason at all, including no reason? I can imagine there’d be a ton of people willing to accrue enormous debts or commit crimes if they could then painlessly off themselves instead of facing the consequences.

iamthirsty 2y ago
> if they could then painlessly off themselves instead of facing the consequences. I think 'off-ing' one's self is a pretty large consequence in itself. You can painlessly do it today, by overdosing on opiates or many other drugs. I've been revived a few times, and I can tell you you don't even notice dying.
- ein0p 2y ago
  Opiates aren’t easily available to most, and illegal. I’m talking about totally legal and totally painless method here, as in the novel. There’d be a lot of takers if friction is reduced. Heck, I bet every person’s life has low points where continuing seems pointless. I had a few moments like that myself when I was younger and expect to have more of them as I get older. I’m only really still alive because dying is a high friction process.
  - iamthirsty 2y ago
    > There’d be a lot of takers if friction is reduced. A legal process that involves the state and possible years of monitoring, age limits, etc is much more friction than the very quick ways one can do it on their own without the state's involvement.
tetris11 2y ago
People should be allowed to quietly go out of this world with dignity. What worries me is the image of an understaffed public hospital, with a single nurse walking from bed to bed softly asking the patients if they want permanent release.

xyst 2y ago

Medical science has had significant breakthroughs with physical diseases (ie, genetic therapy to help parents grant children with hearing). But still feels like mental health is stuck in the 1930s-1950s. - electroshock therapy (wtf) - throw a bunch of mood stabilizers, SSRIs (Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) and see what sticks - therapy/talking - lock em up in prison or psychiatric “hospital” - in some cases people resort to self medication with various mind altering substances (LSD, microdosing MDMA) and see what sticks At least we aren’t doing lobotomy procedures anymore. Medical science has failed her. Society has failed her.

rachofsunshine 2y ago
Speaking as a person who once suffered from extreme mental illness (see my other post in this thread), mental health treatment saved my life. Full stop. If not for the very, very persistent efforts of a psychiatrist and a therapist both, there's no way I would ever have been able to sort myself out. Mental health care is hard because people are complicated. It's been almost seven years since the woman who saved my life sat with me in her office for no less than four hours telling me that yes, I should really take these pills, and I am still sorting things out to some extent. SSRIs don't work for me. But one of them worked for a short time, and that short time was enough to completely change my understanding of myself. It changed me from thinking of myself as a terrible person who deserved all the considerable suffering I was enduring at the time, to thinking of myself as someone who was very very very sick and needed help to survive. If you've never been severely depressed, it's hard to explain what a revelation that is. I broke down sobbing for hours at the feeling of understanding for the first time that my suffering wasn't my fault. It was (in part) due to my actions, but my actions were due to my mental state, and my mental state was not something I had gotten to choose. So when I say that I strongly, strongly, with all my heart, recommend that you try them if you're depressed even though they only worked for me for a couple of days - well, that should tell you just how important that was to me. Therapy didn't fix me. But it did give me the tools to work on myself, in fits and starts, for what is now half my adult life. Having someone I spoke to every week, who understood the patterns of mental illness, helping me to see the feedback loops for what they were, was critical in understanding the nature of how I was sick. That didn't make those loops go away. But it did train me to listen to them less, and helped me know where to find them when I had the mental energy to work on them. Without mental health care, I would be dead. With mental health care, I've shed my constant fear of the smallest changes, I no longer scream at myself for the smallest mistakes, I've had healthy romantic relationships, I have a career most people would envy, I take care of my personal environment, I'm in the best physical health of my life and have shed 40% of my body weight to be not-obese for the first time since childhood, and I smile. I smile a lot. Has society failed many people? Yes. Environmental factors are relevant to mental health. In fact, it's part of why mental health is so dangerous: once your health deteriorates and you lose control and maintenance of your environment, you create a feedback loop that worsens mental illness. I am by no means arguing that we could not take care of people far better than we are. But I, at least, believe in the importance of mental health care as strongly as I believe in anything else on this Earth, because of what it did for me.

w0de0 2y ago

Is it not dystopian for the apparatus of state to be involved in suicide? Is killing not a gross violation of the Hippocratic Oath? Assisted dying seems an evil thing to me - all the more so because suicide is feasible without society’s involvement and encouragement. One worries that the state and doctors will at some point go from saying “you may” to saying “you should.”

manuelmoreale 2y ago
I hear you but what’s the alternative though? Provide a DIY guide on how to do it yourself in a painless way? And what about those people who just can’t because are paralyzed for example? There are a million different cases and someone has to have the power to help someone who has decided that they don’t want to live their lives that way anymore.
- whatevaa 2y ago
  He'd rather people suffer so he could feel better about himself. Personally, I'm pro-euthanasia for selfish reasons too - I'd like to be able to end it cleanly, alternative ways are a mess. You can't fix everything. Drugs don't fix everything. Not everything can be treated. Seen too many people slowly detoriating, waiting to die for incurrable diseases. If I have a right to live, I should have a right to die, otherwise I'm a slave.
  - w0de0 2y ago
    No, I’m not an advocate of suffering. I’m a skeptic of the state’s role in its ultimate antidote. As a cadaver may not be incarcerated productively, I question if one’s right to death is - or can be - denied. Moreover, is not assisted dying treated as a privilege, rather than a right? Like a driver’s license, one must apply. It is alienable.
    - whatevaa 2y ago
      The application process is in place to create friction so that people wouldn't off themselves for silly reasons, also to try to address concerns like yours. Who else than state? Random people? You can always off yourself, but that is messy. Might as well have a process for that.