Live data from Hacker News

The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

politico.eu

111–120 of 131 posts

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#111

“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…

To take this a bit further:

As a psychologist what I've grown outraged by is the hypocrisy of current approaches to suicide, in that they are all focused on stopping suicide, but not the pain that drives it.

We talk about taking away guns and pills, putting up fences around parking ramps and bridges, monitoring social media, and so forth and so on. But we do nothing to address the psychosocial ills that drive the suicidal person to their state.

Labeling the suicidal as "mentally ill" does nothing but allow the living to wash their hands of the accumulated insults that drive someone to where they are, to feel good and then walk away from the most difficult issues to address. It places the blame on the person who is suicidal. It's not about protecting the suicidal, it's about protecting the living from guilt.

Sure, there are many people who obviously suffer from some sort of biological insult, but there is also a large grey area of those who have some kind of handicap, who are then thrust into horrific circumstances on top of that. And there are those who just get a bad lot in life.

These issues are spilling over into euthanasia in a way that's starkly highlighted by this case.

I'm not saying healthcare professionals should be forced into something they see as murder, or murkily close to it. What I'm saying is that as a society, our focus should be less on preventing people from accessing the means of suicide -- or euthanasia as the label may be -- and more on the sources of pain that drives them to it.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two minds of this as best exemplified by Camus and Sartre. A core tenet of existentialism is that we are always free to make choices, even if we cannot always control our circumstances. We’re still responsible for making choices — even choosing to not choose. Sartre was a believer in absolute freedom, and that suicide was a choice among many others that a person could make (and indeed, Sartre eventually did…

And what does Camus say you should do when your freedom is curtailed in unacceptable ways? (Note: way beyond social contract.)

Like being forced by the gods to do nothing but repeatedly push a boulder up a mountain for all of eternity?

The Myth of Sisyphus is the name of Camus’ book about suicide, and Sisyphus’ plight is its central metaphor.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#113

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…

Does that explain why I am not allow to foolow the original link with Lynx? 403 forbidden. Now I am guessing I am hitting a sort of paywall that refuses to cooperate with plain text browsers?

If you mean the link in my comment, there is no paywall.

It's called "The Hand Licking Incident." If you search that, my article should be the first result. You may also find it copied elsewhere. One of those copies is with permission and proper attribution. Some others are without permission/attribution.

It was discussed on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18842009

See also tips on what you can do on your end to correct a 403 error:

https://www.ionos.com/digitalguide/hosting/technical-matters...

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#114
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm sorry, what on earth is "indirect assistance" to someone refusing to eat? What people seem to be conflating here is the idea of involuntary care and "euthanasia". It's true that sometimes courts will allow doctor's to force-feed patients through an IV. For various reasons (I'm no expert on Danish medical law) that didn't happen here. And that is a controversial area of medical ethics and worth discussing calmly a…

> I'm sorry, what on earth is "indirect assistance" to someone refusing to eat?

Making them comfortable. Taking care of other needs (washing, teeth, ...). Some level of pain medication. General support.

> It's true that sometimes courts will allow doctor's to force-feed patients through an IV

Which did happen in this case by the way (with a stomach probe not with an IV). For years. Including months spent by this girl in isolation cells.

> routine tragedy and not a political flytrap for right wing moralists.

I'm not sure I've seen this used as a right wing moral cause (I don't understand why you'd say this, it's not about immigration, it's not about money, ...).

Or if it's just that the state and the help system spectacularly failing this girl (in fact arguably causing her suicidal tendencies while attempting to solve other problems with brutal repression). Yeah perhaps. It did happen though.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#115
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, what on earth is "indirect assistance" to someone refusing to eat? What people seem to be conflating here is the idea of involuntary care and "euthanasia". It's true that sometimes courts will allow doctor's to force-feed patients through an IV. For various reasons (I'm no expert on Danish medical law) that didn't happen here. And that is a controversial area of medical ethics and worth discussing calmly a…

> I'm sorry, what on earth is "indirect assistance" to someone refusing to eat? Making them comfortable. Taking care of other needs (washing, teeth, ...). Some level of pain medication. General support. > It's true that sometimes courts will allow doctor's to force-feed patients through an IV Which did happen in this case by the way (with a stomach probe not with an IV). For years. Including months spent by this girl…

All of which are excellent moral questions and absolutely worth debating without senselessly and incorrectly accusing the Dutch (I wrote Danish above, sorry) government of euthanizing teenagers.

If you want to talk about care, talk about care. Medical ethics is a hard problem.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#116
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving second parties control over the bodily autonomy of a first party because of second party opinions (with the notable bright line exception being first party acts of violence toward others) is not part of any society in which I wish to participate.

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?

Yes. Why shouldn’t they be able to self-realize at all times, and for any reason?

Assistance is a whole ‘nother ballpark. I don’t think it’s a moral imperative for anyone to do anything for a second party that the first does not fully consent to.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the time it's not very hard to figure out if a suicidal impulse is temporary, though. As a basic filter, ask several times over the course of a week and see if they're consistent.

A week??? You can't be serious.

You have to explain why you object or I can't respond properly.

But I think you're saying a week isn't enough to determine things for sure? If so, you need to read what I said more closely.

I said a week is a basic filter, that can figure out an urge is temporary most of the time. It won't tell you an urge is not-temporary. It either says "temporary" or "unsure".

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#118

“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…

Could someone tell me from where this excerpt is?

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#119

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...

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

Only if he thought she was in hell. A pastor would know that you can't commit suicide and enter heaven.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A week??? You can't be serious.

You have to explain why you object or I can't respond properly. But I think you're saying a week isn't enough to determine things for sure? If so, you need to read what I said more closely. I said a week is a basic filter , that can figure out an urge is temporary most of the time. It won't tell you an urge is not-temporary. It either says "temporary" or "unsure".

OK that wasn't clear. But then it also doesn't seem useful for the goal to determine if somebody is permanently serious and should be left alone to their suicide. But I don't think I agree with that approach, anyway.
Post reply on HN