Live data from Hacker News

The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

politico.eu

81–90 of 131 posts

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#81

I'm confused that there are no comments here yet about the actual topic at hand: international media willfully flat out lying about what happened. Basically, fake news in mainstream media. Sure, the Daily Mail isn't particularly a quality newspaper, but a lie about an entire country's medical practices is quite a bit different than a lie about some aristocrat's love life. And even then, aren't eg BBC Radio or the Ind…

This. When I first saw stuff about this popping up on various sites (including meme-sites, where it was posted with some kind of anti-immigrant agenda), I thought that it sounded to wierd to be true and decided to look it up. A few internet searches later confirmed it was, indeed, fake news being spread by mainstream media.

Calling this a serious problem is an understatement. It's an outright disaster, and it only adds to the already growing public distrust of the media.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#82

This story kinda reminded me about Mark Rife: > “Last Thursday, a guy I went to college with, Mark Rife, committed suicide. As I understand the story, three years ago his wife Sarah died due to complications from a fall off a 75 foot waterfall. She fell; he dove in after her. Against all odds, they thought she had recovered. Life had returned to some degree of normal; but then six months later, she died in her sleep.…

If he was a pastor, he probably believed in an afterlife, hoping to be together with Sarah again?

I also remember the story of a guy killing his family after a divorce, hoping to be together with his children again in the afterlife.

Lies can kill...

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#83

“The so-called ‘psychotically depressed’ person who tries to kill herself doesn’t do so out of quote ‘hopelessness’ or any abstract conviction that life’s assets and debits do not square. And surely not because death seems suddenly appealing. The person in whom Its invisible agony reaches a certain unendurable level will kill herself the same way a trapped person will eventually jump from the window of a burning high…

Kind of ruined that quote with the propertarianist hot take

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#84
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. It's especially crazy making because my writing sometimes spends time on the front page of HN, but I'm still talked at like a leech who is trying to "panhandle the internet," a thing someone (on a different forum, not here) literally accused me of for trying to monetize my websites while homeless. Like if you are poor enough, working for a living is not allowable and your work can't have value and you are…

There is a way to make money from writing beyond publishing and hoping that readers will pay for your work after the fact. Most sustainable writing has never worked on that model. Traditionally, writers were paid by publishers and it was the publishers job to extract payment from readers. Today, writers try to be both writers and publishers, and they find it extremely difficult. That's no surprise; professional publi…

There is an alternative model for paying for things that can't be provided through market forces. Readers of Hacker News don't particularly like it, and you tend to get down-voted for suggesting it, but whatever.

Things like scientific research, roads, health care (in many developed countries outside the US), education, the BBC in the UK and ABC in Australia. Yes, the government funds it.

We can tie this in with a desire to do something about underemployment, by job-guarantee type government programs. On the minimum wage perhaps, but that's better than some people get now.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#85
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. It's especially crazy making because my writing sometimes spends time on the front page of HN, but I'm still talked at like a leech who is trying to "panhandle the internet," a thing someone (on a different forum, not here) literally accused me of for trying to monetize my websites while homeless. Like if you are poor enough, working for a living is not allowable and your work can't have value and you are…

There is a way to make money from writing beyond publishing and hoping that readers will pay for your work after the fact. Most sustainable writing has never worked on that model. Traditionally, writers were paid by publishers and it was the publishers job to extract payment from readers. Today, writers try to be both writers and publishers, and they find it extremely difficult. That's no surprise; professional publi…

I also do freelance writing for pay. That is currently the majority of my earned income.

And the internet would like me know I'm immoral and ruining the internet for doing that kind of work. See this recent comment by me in reply to those accusations:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20035958

Twenty years ago when I was homeschooling, I could find all kinds of high quality free goodies online to support that. It wasn't long before all the good stuff began disappearing. One woman who provided Italic resources removed all her free stuff from the web and became a consultant.

These days, a lot of what's online is low quality and cannot be trusted because it exists to sell you something. Blogging done to draw traffic to a business site and explain to you why their product or service is superior is inherently not unbiased. Journalist us supposed to be objective and serve the good of the people.

I know a lot about topics like homelessness, raising twice exceptional children and managing serious health issues with diet and lifestyle. Homeless people, parents with 2e kids and people with serious medical conditions cannot afford to pay me for my knowledge.

We currently have serious social issues. I'm quite confident I know things that would provide a path forward.

But I need to eat. I can't do it all for free. Me writing product descriptions so I can eat does not put any if that information out there.

These are all inherently hard problems to solve in their own right. Monetization of these spaces is also inherently hard.

And it's information that is on track to die with me while our social problems deepen because it isn't monetizable.

The hell of it is, I don't need that much to live on.

I appear to be the only woman to have ever spent time on the leader board of HN. Men here routinely tell each other "You have a lot of karma on HN. You must be very competent." No one says that about me. When I point out the discrepancy, I get attacked and dismissed as some twit obsessed with pointless, meaningless internet points. When I talk about my frustration with HN failing to be a networking opportunity for me because of my gender, I get mocked and told it doesn't work that way, never mind the overwhelming evidence that it absolutely does work that way for men who desire to use it that way.

I'm not stupid. I do freelance writing.

Looking to make sure I eat by doing the kind of writing people here decry as ruining the internet, and to hell with producing the kind of writing that makes it to the front page of HN doesn't begin to solve the larger issue that this article brings up: journalism itself is in crisis, which is how this misinformation spread so widely to begin with.

This is a serious problem. Encouraging me to cave and just do more freelance writing only serves to keep it alive.

It's a problem that has world changing consequences, and not in a good way.

I'm sure you mean well and you imagine that this is just about feeding one pathetic loser. You couldn't possibly be more wrong.

I'm a woman. If I get adequately fed up and decide to throw in the towel and cave to the status quo, I can marry well to escape poverty.

I'm reasonably certain I would rather die for reasons that aren't especially pertinent to this discussion and that I doubt anyone here would actually understand, believe or care about.

I talk about my situation as testimony to the problem space. Please don't miss the big picture here.

If my problem can be addressed in a manner that moves the needle on the larger issue, that's worth something. But your advice amounts to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I've been basically crawling naked across broken glass for about a decade. I'm flabbergasted that none of this ever really sinks in with anyone. There's always some new BS excuse to push aside the real issue and act like I'm just dumb and not trying hard enough.

Which makes me feel like the world might actually be doomed. Not because it has to be, but because, wow, there is no getting through the amazingly thick skulls of a large gathering of generally intelligent and competent people.

This is not "one dumb woman can't figure out money." That's not what this is about.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A suicidal mind is often one caught in the temporary throes of delusion and irrationality, even if it comes from internal wiring going haywire instead of external substances. Why do you make this assertion that a rational person can't be suicidal? DFW was definitely a very rational person, for instance. I'd recommend reading Good Old Neon for an insight into his character, and a good depiction of both a suicidal an…

"Key words there are 'most often', but I'm curious to know your evidence for this assertion." Don't you believe that such cases exist? Presumably there are also people who want to die, no matter what. But there are also people who just go through periods of depression. I also had the issue as a youth. It sounds to me as if you are hellbent on denying the OP's point by pointing to the extreme examples of suicidal peop…

> It sounds to me as if you are hellbent on denying the OP's point

I'm in sympathy with the OP's post (the one with the DFW quote). The post I was responding to, seemed to suggest that people who are suicidal should generally not be taken seriously - that they arrived to their ideations by delusion - without acknowledging the other possibility.

I'm positing a counter-claim that not all people that are suicidal are also irrational, and I provided one example that I don't think so extreme, that was referenced in the OP's post. Robin William's case is another example though his decision was spurred by physical ailment[0]. Keith Flint (singer of the Prodigy) is a better example, he claimed his own death to be 'a positive thing'[1] (have no special love for the band, just a good example)

These examples could be outliers, I don't deny the possibility, but I must at least acknowledge that they exist - which was my whole point. I'd go further to say that we under-estimate how many people are both suicidal and rational.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/nov/03/robin-williams-... [1] https://metro.co.uk/2019/03/04/im-done-kill-keith-flints-bru...

edit - mistaken claim about post/grammar

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#87

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.

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

Touché! Thanks for pointing that out. I agree and I won't complain in the future.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#88

There are many things to talk about here, but this is part of why I posted this to Hacker News: The deeply shocking story on such a controversial issue was irresistible, and became a top news item all over the world overnight. Pothoven’s name was soon trending on Twitter in Italy. News reports repeating the false claims were published from Australia to India to the United States. Yes, the article touches on many thin…

Real story is even more horrific than just euthanasia. I think that to an extent the click bait value takes priority when it gets to the media. Whatever makes people click on it.

Agreed.

Her having to kill herself by refusing nutrition, dying of thirst and starvation, because society decided it knows better than her whether she should live or not, that's truly horrifying.

To me it sounds like she was a terminally ill person: they tried everything for years to "fix" her problem, but failed completely and the condition even worsened.

She wasn't out of her mind and had a temporarily crisis, got help and regretted her previous suicide attempts; she had the goal of ending her suffering by ending her life for a long time, after having seen all the "help" others offered not working at all, she regretted the previous attempts failed, and was determined to try again and again until it worked.

And for a long time, she had to live in agony, just like a terminal cancer patient in countries without assisted suicide (most of them), was denied a way out repeatedly (not just the petition for euthanasia, but her failed suicide attempts that probably failed because of intervention of other people), and ultimately killed herself using one of the worst, horrifying, agonizing suicide methods imaginable, because that's what was available to her with other better options having been taken away already. The thirst and hunger, and feeling your body slowly break down, over days, must have been excruciating, and yet she thought that was better than continuing to live her life in the constant dread and agony she was in.

There certainly are a huge number of suicidal (at one point) people who are in temporary crisis, or have conditions that can be managed and improved (e.g. bipolar people often report that medication does help), but this wasn't that. This was us telling the cancer patient that they gonna suffer and wither and eventually die, with no hope for things to change, but no you cannot just end it now because it would make us feel bad about ourselves somehow, fuck you for even suggesting that.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you define when the suicidal ideation is irrational, though? Let's say you're having a persistent depressive episode, and have had suicidal urges and possibly even attempted it in the past. Let's further say that you've been attempting treatment consistently from multiple approaches, for extended time intervals, and none of them have yielded improvement. Is there a point at which the suicidal urges should no l…

I would agree that there is potentially a point where a mental illness could be so severe and life-draining and incurable that it would be an option to end that life, but I think even in that case it's hard to argue that the person in question is even in a position to make that call, because we cannot distinguish why they're feeling the way they do. And in particular when it comes to young adults there is a significa…

The problem is the alternative. Or rather the total lack of alternative. Because the state won't actually pay for personnel in mental facilities (even for kids), the only option is the isolation cell. Constantly. Obviously without glasses or books, both of which provide options for suicide. Suicidal patients are never let out (because doing that is, of course, an extremely stressful thing to do that necessitates large amounts of staff)

You know what you don't get in an isolation cell ? An optimistic outlook on life.

Even in those circumstances patients often figure out how to commit suicide anyway with the very limited tools they have there. There's plenty of examples of patients that figured it out after 2 months or so. Of course there's also examples people who haven't figured it out after years, but I doubt anyone who's seen that considers it a good outcome.

You have to realize that you're choosing between 2 alternatives. You cannot just choose against something. What I've described here is the only alternative, and yet I feel like the vast majority of people would give these people an alternative, even if it was suicide. I don't think you'd really consider 10 years of this a better alternative to suicide if you were to go and see one of those patients.

And of course, there is the alternative "provided": get the staff angry enough (damage a few of them permanently for example, systematically attack them psychologically and pester them), and there is a point where they will throw you out (will make things worse in the short term of course). That's another thing that can't be prevented.

And I get it. There are other problems. Who judges these people ? Because obviously there's problems there. Who decides if a request is sincere and not forced ? Who executes such requests ?

But still allowing suicide is not the worst thing to do.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#90
For me reading foreign media writing about a topic that is entirely uncontroversial in the Netherlands, i.e. Euthanasia, is a bit weird.

I have relatives who are doctors and perform legal euthanasia as part of their job. I've heard their stories and they are without exception a combination of very sad and heart warming. This is not exactly the most popular part of their job and it usually comes at the end of a very long process. To give you the context, euthanasia is legal but it comes with a lot of strings attached. Basically it's only legal if a very strict protocol is followed. It's at their discretion to say no and not a right but a privilege for the patient. There are always second opinions involved. This protocol exists to both protect the doctors involved and the patients involved. It's biased towards a "no, unless". Not following it can land you in court with murder charges or lose you your medical license.

I also have relatives and friends who have died after volunteering to die this way; and I've had the conversation with my parents about their wishes when this becomes a topic for them. They are both healthy and fine now but well aware that this can change. They regularly attend funerals of people they know where the person died after euthanasia. This stuff is completely normal for several decades now and there is no political support whatsoever for rolling back the rules around this. Even moderate christian parties have pretty much given up on this topic as lots of their own members would choose this option. Most people don't actually like the prospect of a long painful death.

Simply put, euthanasia is a popular choice among patients and less so for the doctors that help them who are biased towards addressing the suffering. People actually notarize their decisions to agree to euthanasia and people like my parents have a lot of anxiety about ending up in situation where they'd want this but it would no longer be possible due to their degraded mental state.

Euthanasia is actually quite common elsewhere but you might be thinking of it in terms of the traditional euphemisms that exist to protect the doctor and relatives involved. More traditional ways of euthanasia that are common in other countries involve sedation, stopping treatment, or simply "allowing someone to die", which is a euphemism for drugging them into a coma and then deliberately not feeding them. Also there's the ever popular morphine overdose and a few other options where somebody puts their finger on the scale. It all amounts to deliberate acts that result in the patient dying. As this is highly illegal nobody talks about this openly. For the same reason it's hard to get solid numbers on this. But considering that everyone dies and that several of the leading causes of death are quite nasty towards the end, you can make some deductions.

What happened in my country was recognizing that this kind of thing was quite common and exposed the doctors involved legally in a way that felt very wrong and unreasonable as basically all they were doing was respecting the patients wishes. So, we fixed it to ensure it gets done properly or not at all.

Post reply on HN