And in this specific case, please keep in mind that it is so exceptional that it made international news. Both the Netherlands (RTL, as mentioned) reported on it as well as apparently the BBC. It's not as if we go along with every teen's death wish, and as the article says, "the process can take years". It's on the long side rather than short, as you have all the time in the world to reconsider, but also all the time in the world to suffer more. My grandfather had it finally arranged and was looking forward to it, but it was scheduled for a week after he died naturally. Poor man. This really is not about giving up on someone or saying someone doesn't deserve to live.
So far, in places where euthanasia is legal, this isn't the case. I doubt it ever will be, but I can understand how people can fear widespread euthanasia for that reason.
Careful extrapolating successes/failures across cultures. Different peoples and different societies are much more amenable to abuse than others. It's less about their innate humanness and more about the societal structures in which they live and justified/unjustified faith (or lack of) in institutions and oversight bodies.
Is it avoided/discouraged because it is an irrevocable act.
Many people believe that murderers "deserve" death and yet are reluctant to systemically end the lives of convicts even in "clear cut cases." What if the process, despite it being slow and deliberate and involved still gets it wrong?
I understand that.
Words cannot express how grateful I am that suicide was not an endorsed or approved option for me in my younger years.
Life sucks. Right now I'm going through a really tough time. So bad that I wanted to Shut Down. But instead I chose to Reboot. Got a plane ticket, flew on Wednesday, and now I'm 10,000 km from the problems and very relieved. I really, really hope that I can find a new job and restart life soon - my savings won't last more than a couple of months. But this is an emergency.
If it doesn't work out, becoming a monk is another possibility to retreat from the world. And if that doesn't work out, then perhaps prison. And extremely dangerous career choices, such as war zone photography. Bad circumstances will drive me to those first, before I'd hurt myself. If you're not afraid of death, you're fearless! You're free! That courage can be used to help people. Please try that first.
For people wanting to help, don't ask "What happened?" - that focuses on the problem. Say "Are you OK?", "What can I do to help you?" if you care about the solution.
The first thing I tackled was my sleep disorder, followed by being aggressive about reducing the stresses in my life that I could control. The sleep bit was more controlling routine than medicine- pretty much ever sleep pill was worthless for one reason or another.
It took a few years, but finally I was art a point where I could comfortably cope with everything but any sort of long term stress would bring back depression and anxiety. Lexapro has been amazing in that regard.
Ultimately, friends, family, and the private shame of how selfish my thoughts were kept me going, forcing a discipline, reducing stress, a few months of therapy and now medicine, and I feel like I haven't in 15 years.
There is light at the end of the tunnel. There is so much good in this world it is worth all that and more to hang on and see it through.
We should have headlines that read "Troubled 29-year-old helped to live by Dutch doctors" We should not embrace euthanasia we should embrace every individuals inherent worth, they deserve love not poison.
I know exactly how people feel for them and say it is their right. Indeed it is the open door. It is always available, you need to simply walk through it. I would hope that we on this side of it would be begging people not to go rather than shoving them through it. It is no great thing to put someone to death, no matter how it makes us feel about it they will never have the chance to feel anything.
We are already "begging" people not to go - that leads to the efforts to turn it into a huge guilt trip as often practised by church dignitaries when discussing euthanasia - both in the specific or abstract. Also, as described in the article, they have to validate their state of mind with others first.
Neither should we be shoving them through it.
Can't we just accept that sometimes someone has actually had enough and let them make their own minds up? Their life might actually be shit, and it is they that have to live it.
The fact that it rare enough to be headline worthy, yet the thousands of cases who go through a temporary acute crisis and hang or shoot themselves aren't speaks volumes don't you think?
It is far cheaper to provide assisted suicide than to provide social support, medical support and guidance. When we have all these baby boomers headed for infirmity and assisted living lacking the funds to pay for it, make no mistake. You will see suicide made out to be heroic, it will be lifted up. Death with dignity will be promoted with unassailable stories. But you will never hear of the lives, of those silenced ultimately because of an economic reality. We should choose to lift up life even when it hurts to affirm the great dignity of each person. Because an emotional story can become the authorization in a bureaucratic system to wipe people away to save money.
I get uncomfortable when it's others imposing the belief that a life is "sacred". I might then be forced to die slowly, and extremely painfully, over some years having been diagnosed with terminal cancer. Having seen that with my father, though he received superb palliative care, no thank you.
I've heard the killed for cost argument many times over the thirty or so years since it became a regular media topic in the UK. It;s roughly 20 since Netherlands legalised euthanasia, maybe more. The reality doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to your predictions; the vast majority in the Netherlands are still in favour of the law (over 90% I think), yet the numbers taking euthanasia are still low. The requirement for medical second and third opinions should prevent unpleasant relatives pushing granny under the bus or the state seeking to save cash. A universal healthcare system undoubtedly helps distance the patient from the cost implications.
Even having passed all the the hurdles, with an advance directive completed beforehand, it's not guaranteed euthanasia will result. If you haven't completed an advance directive and are not in sound mind, it's simply not available. In other words it's not a policy decision, it's a personal and medical one.
Life is what it is. But I would prefer it if there was an easy and painless means to end one's life. Human right means nothing without the right to die without pain, and with dignity.
Edit: I would also add Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and group and talk therapy as well as ongoing engagement with professionals in general was essential.
It is a liberty, it's the closest thing we have to a truly inalienable right, mostly by virtue of being un-punishable. Short of strapping someone to a bed permanently it's impossible to forcibly prevent.
That said, I'm not sure I could be part of euthanasia in a case like this. This one is very tricky with the mental state to consider. Also, what if a new treatment for some of her conditions arise within a few years? Unfortunately, progress in psychiatry is slower than probably all other medical fields.
After seeing some old people have miserable lives during their last few years I think we should give people the option to leave life in diginity if they want to.
In my way of thinking, a person is not "old" until they have lived past their "expiration date". Everyone reaches their expiration date at a different time. One woman told me she immediately thought of her first husband when the idea of people having expiration dates came up: he'd died from getting electrocuted while working on a ceiling fan. At the time they had young kids and losing her husband was traumatic, but retrospectively she realized he actually had very little drive to live.
Both my grandfathers lived past their expiration date, as they were kept alive by artificial means for an extra 5-10 years. But once those pacemakers were installed, it was easier to keep them running than to turn them off.
Conservative care is much kinder for old people than modern medicine. Since doctors don't have to care about cost, it's easy to use any measure to keep their patient alive, even when it's not very appropriate.
No, it's not fair. I don't have a good answer.
After seeing some old people have miserable lives during their last few years
Absolutely. Some people suffer terribly at the end of their lives. This is the type of euthanasia I support.
If you disagree, say why you disagree. Don't just say "your viewpoint has no substance".
I get what you mean about trite, inflammatory comments, but I don't think the one you're objecting to qualifies. It points out a non-obvious implication of accepting someone's request to die. I see a clear difference between that and something like, "sure, let everyone who feels hopeless die, that sure saves money on people who aren't worth saving!".
For some reason, mental/emotional problems are not treated differently from physical ones here, it's perverse. Some physical problems we don't have the technology to heal, allowing people relief from the pain they suffer from them is reasonable. But I'd wager the large majority of mental and emotional problems can be healed, given enough care, time and love.
But love is in short supply already, so may be that's not reasonable.
Perhaps our biological instinct for survival simply kicks in and whereas many people all throughout history have taken direct/bloody route to an exit, some of us just can't seem to do it.
Most methods have non zero chance of survival and consequences.
You weren't built to kill yourself, you were built to survive. That makes it difficult to harm yourself even if it would allow escape.
The world has too many people, why not let those who want to leave leave