Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

politico.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 131 posts

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#41

Post by microcolonel »

mooseburger wrote: post #37

This is the most aggressively anti-human thing I have ever seen, possibly even more than ISIS or cartel executions, because at least the perpetrators of those atrocities know that they are doing evil, even if they're unrepentant, which is more than can be said of the doctors in this situation. I have been suicidally depressed, institutionalized. I'm better now. I suppose if I actually attempted to kill myself, but fa…

> This is the most aggressively anti-human thing I have ever seen, possibly even more than ISIS or cartel executions, because at least the perpetrators of those atrocities know that they are doing evil, even if they're unrepentant, which is more than can be said of the doctors in this situation.

I think you'll find that ISIS executioners believe that they are doing the right thing.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#42

Post by ajross »

candiodari wrote: post #5

Not euthanasia, but how would you call it ? I mean sure, was she given a lethal injection in a clinic ? Well, no. Is this not euthanasia ? Why the hell not ? 1) the girl is in fact dead 2) because she wanted to die (after being locked up in youth services for years, including months in an isolation cell) 3) the "original event" is that she was ("probably") raped at school. Repeatedly. She has never divulged what actu…

> Is this not euthanasia ? Why the hell not ?

Because it's a suicide. We already have a word for what happens to people who die after refusing food.

In fact the only reason the word "euthanasia" is being considered at all is because before she died she ended up in an end of life clinic that also provided assisted death services to other patients.

This is exactly like accusing someone of having had an abortion because their miscarriage was diagnosed at Planned Parenthood. (A scenario, I point out, that now seems a whole lot more likely given the horrifying way this is being portrayed in the right wing press)

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#43

Post by zaroth »

candiodari wrote: post #24
DoreenMichele wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many people for whom life is a living hell with no hope of escape other than to end it. Insisting they live amounts to serving as their warden and torturer. If it isn't someone you are personally willing to take some responsibility for, as you did with your wife, then I think it is wrong to insist they live. I'm quite open about my long history of being suicidal and the various underlying reasons why. Peopl…

> If it isn't someone you are personally willing to take some responsibility for, as you did with your wife, then I think it is wrong to insist they live. Exactly. People, even kids, kill themselves because of "lack of perspective". Lack of a (reasonable) future. Lack of any reasonable hope for change. People aren't stupid and mental illnesses (the non-medical ones) don't actually prevent thinking. That means the fir…

Thank you for sharing this. I really don’t have any words beyond that at the moment. I hope that somehow Noa’s voice can lead to some reforms in this system.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#44

Post by zaroth »

baddox wrote: post #22
sneak wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of personal agency is being free enough to opt out of rationality. It isn’t the purview of second parties to assume what we may or may not want in the future. If I sign a DNR, it isn’t the place of anyone else to say “but he didn’t mean it like that”. Same for (what are assumed by observers to be temporary) suicidal ideations. This strikes at the very core of personal autonomy.

And yet, I suspect the law has some provisions for determining the validity of a DNR based on the condition of the person at the time of signing it, in the same way it does for a will and testament.

Resuscitation can be a fairly violent medical intervention. That to me paints a fairly stark difference between the autonomy to sign a DNR and something like euthanasia.

If someone is not able to sign a DNR it must be because they have no autonomy over their medical care at all at that point. Which of course happens regularly but needs precise controls and protocols, and of course is rife for abuse.

Generally the presence of an intervention versus choosing not to intervene provides a clear dividing line. In this case, the choice not to force feed someone who is refusing food is why this is not euthanasia.

I think for example if someone has a previously executed DNR, I would say a valid medical proxy would not be able to override it. I’m trying to recall an instance when I filled out such a form for my wife before a procedure, I seem to recall there even being a section on resuscitation and whether the appointee could make that call?

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#45

Post by FakeComments »

hestipod wrote: post #17
tomohawk wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You owe it to your family and friends to face your troubles and not take a cowards path. We're all in this together and we should try to stick together.

I have had to retype this comment many times to restrain myself...calling people who cannot endure "cowards" is shameful and I wish you could see how wrong it is. Yes we should try to stick together and that is a huge part of the problem, but not the fault of the people who cannot survive. They aren't just bailing because they are lazy or have nothing better to do or are not "sticking with society" in some strange ob…

It’s particularly egregious, since very often society didn’t “stick with them” in any meaningful sense.

It’s straight out gaslighting to call a victim a coward for escaping abuse.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#46

Post by stordoff »

dustfinger wrote: post #38

I know this is an important topic, but it is not on topic. see: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting.

The fact that this has prompted over 40 comments and good discussion would seem to suggest it is on-topic.

Furthermore:

> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#47

Post by drilldrive »

ajross wrote: post #42
candiodari wrote: post #5

Not euthanasia, but how would you call it ? I mean sure, was she given a lethal injection in a clinic ? Well, no. Is this not euthanasia ? Why the hell not ? 1) the girl is in fact dead 2) because she wanted to die (after being locked up in youth services for years, including months in an isolation cell) 3) the "original event" is that she was ("probably") raped at school. Repeatedly. She has never divulged what actu…

> Is this not euthanasia ? Why the hell not ? Because it's a suicide. We already have a word for what happens to people who die after refusing food. In fact the only reason the word "euthanasia" is being considered at all is because before she died she ended up in an end of life clinic that also provided assisted death services to other patients. This is exactly like accusing someone of having had an abortion because…

Hmm, a miscarriage is not an intentional act, whereas there is intention in this case. It is moreso analagous to someone at planned parenthood not authorizing an abortion but providing either direct or indirect assistance for the woman to perform the abortion herself.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#48

Post by sysbin »

candiodari wrote: post #24
DoreenMichele wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many people for whom life is a living hell with no hope of escape other than to end it. Insisting they live amounts to serving as their warden and torturer. If it isn't someone you are personally willing to take some responsibility for, as you did with your wife, then I think it is wrong to insist they live. I'm quite open about my long history of being suicidal and the various underlying reasons why. Peopl…

> If it isn't someone you are personally willing to take some responsibility for, as you did with your wife, then I think it is wrong to insist they live. Exactly. People, even kids, kill themselves because of "lack of perspective". Lack of a (reasonable) future. Lack of any reasonable hope for change. People aren't stupid and mental illnesses (the non-medical ones) don't actually prevent thinking. That means the fir…

I think it’s reasonable to be a person who was sexually assaulted and decided on euthanasia after that. Even if the option of removing the memory is perfectly available. Life is sacred to some people in different unique ways. No perfect solution is for everyone. Some might find dying the perfect solution. Basically to each their own.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#49

Post by voxic11 »

mooseburger wrote: post #37

This is the most aggressively anti-human thing I have ever seen, possibly even more than ISIS or cartel executions, because at least the perpetrators of those atrocities know that they are doing evil, even if they're unrepentant, which is more than can be said of the doctors in this situation. I have been suicidally depressed, institutionalized. I'm better now. I suppose if I actually attempted to kill myself, but fa…

Are you saying force-feeding people who don't want to be fed is ethical? I believe it's taught to be against medical ethics basically everywhere. This girl had been confined against her will already for 6 years. How many years of force-feeding would you have her endure as well? Go look up how force-feeding is done, I believe the summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture contained some descriptions.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#50

Post by bryanrasmussen »

hestipod wrote: post #32
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this mean that anyone who wants to kill themselves at any time should be allowed to do so? If they lack the ability to do so for some reason should they be assisted? Is that should a moral imperative?

I have never heard anyone rational, even in pro choice forums, say it should be a free for all. Put age limits on it since children have developing minds and lack the perspective to make such choices. Put awareness/rationality checks on it the same way we do any other medical procedure with informed consent. Unless the person is being purposefully isolated and kept from others, which is an edge case, I don't see a sc…

OK well I don't know if the commenter I responded to was rational but it sure sounded like they wanted something much closer to a free for all than what you're advocating.
Post reply on HN