Woman dies by euthanasia after becoming paraplegic trying to commit suicide after gang rape

That last article you are quoting is misrepresentative.

That girl was denied euthanasia via the usual pathway. She died by not eating and drinking, and medics made sure she didn't suffer.

I think everyone understands that pain is horrible. Most people in the UK support the principle of assisted dying and understand the reasons for it.

There is no argument there from me.

I wish the govt had tasked someone competent to write the legislation, not put it through as a PMB, and considered properly, seriously, and rigorously whether its possible to legislate for it without all of the unintended downsides.

Of which there are many, including murder, coercion, and 'accidental mistakes', which in this situation have the gravest consequences and can't be reversed.

It'd be good to look far more closely at other countries with a critical eye. As with so.many issues, its framed as adverserial, people with questions are jeered at. That in.itself means concerns are not being scrutinised properly.

Scotland eventually chose not to go ahead, despite public support. I think once one looks closely and considers the issues it reveals just how complex an issue it is despite apparent simplicity. And just how grave the implications.

Sadly the hard truth is that feelings of self worth and vulnerability tend to disappear when one's body is filled with excruciating pain like dust in a furnace. Everything comes down to the here and now and enduring each second, then the next, then the next, then the next.

Painkillers, even fentanyl, don't always touch the sides.

Enduring that pain or discomfort, or watching someone you love beg to die for weeks and months because they can do nothing to escape that pain, puts things in perspective. To have a fulfilled and pleasant life we need self-respect and to feel valued, but that involves our attention after we're free from extreme pain.

Unfortunately as well some (not all) people going through that level of pain, well, their world becomes small and defined only by pain, and they stop being able to see beyond it to the effect that their actions have on others. It's not selfishness, it's the extremes of suffering. Just being human. But it's extremely difficult to handle and can leave awful after effects.

Suffering is not always optional, indeed. It is cruel to force people to endure it, when there are ways out that the person themselves longs for.

But the state is not actively killing people, at least.

Which is pretty much the most dangerous and basic threat possible.

Its a fundamental change in the relationship between individual and state. Between doctor and patient.

There are so many concerns to consider.

Also concerns are how this affects public perception and culture. It frames of suffering as optional or something with one solution. Pam Duncan Glancy spoke movingly about how the debate had made her feel, about her self worth and vulnerabilities.

Because "a balance" is just what seems balanced to you, right now.

We are talking about the law. If you introduce a principle, it will ripple through the whole of the law over time.

Adults have a duty of care to minors. If we say that in some cases death is better than suffering it then becomes the obligation of adults to manage those decisions for children. That is why it has become an active question in every place that allows assisted death.

If PTSD from a rape, sexual assault, and the like causes the victim to get the state to kill them, i'd like to see the perpetrator/s of the original crime tried for manslaughter.

the system absolutely fails people. Hospitals and social services aren’t set up to see individuals. This young woman was failed again and again.

There were likely multiple points in her life where the people who were supposed to help her could have made different decisions. Instead, it helped make her an easy target which made things worse.

the rapes make for a sensational headline, but I doubt they are the whole story.

Just like now, where wrong decisions happen and unbearable suffering ensues, because AD is not available.

'Fundamentally allowing euthanasia means that some wrong decisions will probably happen.'

Indeed.

@ArabellaScott outliers, abuse and unintended consequences definitely need to be considered and the legislation to be written in a way to minimize this as far as is possible.

For terminal illnesses, it seems relatively easy - two separate doctors' permission, one not connected to the organisation carrying out euthanasia. (of course that depends on how the euthanasia possibilities are set up in that particular country, whether it's a separate organisation or whether it's extended within the hospital).

If euthanasia for mental distress was/is permitted then something like a 5 year period between first application and then consent, with interviews by two separate and unconnected psychiatrists seems reasonable (to me, at least). For Dignitas you have to have the two interviews and to have a written report saying that the psychiatric distress is long term, treatments have been attempted and it's incurable.

For extreme long term but not terminal pain, then something like the psychiatric path would also seem a good idea.

The subject of euthanasia like abortion is incredibly complicated and difficult. It's one of the subjects where each individual case is what matters, but we're trying to legislate for an entire society. Fundamentally allowing euthanasia means that some wrong decisions will probably happen. Not allowing it means that some people will suffer extreme pain and a horrible death, the likes of which we'd certainly not allow animals to experience. Honestly, the fact that an active action rather than a passive action is needed to bring death does make a difference here, but I personally think that if a well trained compassionate professional team is willing to do that, then it should be allowed.

It CAN be a compassionate service. I 100% agree. I support the principle.

Legislation requires consideration of abuse, outliers, unintended consequences.

I am not convinced its possible to introduce AD without also creating a means for control, murder, and even just terrible mistakes.

Some people claim it is worth some people being murdered/killed in error to help alleviate the suffering of others. I am also unconvinced of the morality of that argument.

The people I've known over the course of my life, who have killed themselves, were invariably depressed and usually traumatised. No physical pain, and frequently no real attempt to treat the emotional turmoil they felt. They just bottled things up, and then committed suicide.

So I'm not sure your argument holds up.

As for very controlled euthanasia in a civilised society - perhaps it would have a place. But we don't live in that civilised society.

Okay, but also :

Abusive parents exist.
Deluded parents exist.

People attempt suicide usually because of some variety of pain. Those who can; of the three who went for euthanasia that I knew, two were no longer able to attempt suicide because they were in end stage cancer.

Ill leave you to your moral assignations though. I simply think that in a genuinely civilized society, where there really is respect for others, (safeguarded) euthanasia is a compassionate service.

I'm not overlooking anything. Plenty of people try more than once, and there are multiple methods available. People manage to kill themselves every day, in fact. So nothing was stopping her from doing it herself, except, one can only assume, that she was afraid (and fair enough). Regardless, I disagree with the notion that a woman demanding the state kill her because she was too afraid to do it herself, is 'brave'.

Suicide itself is not 'brave'.

I ascribe no moral value to pain, and I don't know why you've made that assumption. Although you do seem to ascribe moral value to suicide?

I'm trying to discuss the problems with the state having the power to kill vulnerable people.

It's odd that you worry about family and friends having the incentive to kill off someone but not that the state has similar incentives, no real reason to keep you alive (unlike friends and relatives most of whom presumably value your life), and no consequences for killing you or helping you kill yourself (unlike friends and family).

Nonsense. If you really can't see why it's a problem to say that only family/friends can carry out euthanasia, you're not using reason any more.

Anyway to give you just a few reasons

1. access and training to use to the correct medical equipment and drugs
2. "my husband/wife/child really wanted to die but the only way to do it was to kill them myself" is a rotten responsibility to place on someone you love. Rotten. If you want to talk about moral bankruptcy, that's it.
3. Because that really WILL lead to situations where Nephew Reuben bumps off Aunty Matilda for the inheritance.

You still haven't answered why state provision for euthanasia in the case of terminal illness is wrong, at the very easiest of my points. Never mind the one about treating people with respect.

And since you're only posting now to justify your own position and not to engage with my points, goodbye.

So you still aren't addressing my issues.

Maybe their friends and family won't help because they think it's wrong. Maybe they have a point.

I don't see how I'm being disingenuous just bc I strongly disagree with you. I'm addressing your concerns. You haven't addressed mine.

Oh come on. You know full well why 'friends and family' often can't or won't help with euthanasia. At this point you're being disingenuous.

But why does the state need to help them? What about their friends and family?

What safeguards will allow the state to help those who cannot kill themselves but only those people? What safeguards will prevent the state from encouraging them to ask for assisted suicide?

Please address my concern that by not allowing legislation for euthanasia, that many people who wish to use it cannot access it.

I don't understand what you think I'm not engaging with.

I know many suicide attempts fail. I know many people who have attempted suicide. A few succeeded but most didn't. I don't think that's a reason for the state to get involved. What other aspect of state assisted suicide do you want me to address?

Please address my concern that the state has a great deal of power to make people's lives miserable and to withhold care and treatment, making more people who see death as preferable to life.

BTW, my own family wants me to continue living. I'm not concerned that they'll push me to die early, as someone (maybe you) speculated above.

@GenderlessVoid attempts at suicide very often go wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attempt

If the state legislates for the provision of effective euthanasia, as in the NL, then the exit from life will be far more effective.

But at no point have you addressed the situation for 98% of people who go for euthanasia, they do so for physical reasons (Nl, again). 86% have terminal illnesses. I don't see any point engaging further with you until you can do this, because it's the core of the issue given the proportions involved.

In your opinion. Which seems to have overlooked the face that Noelia did try to commit suicide. You can find moral value in pain if you like. I see it as simply a sensation which has no moral aspect to it. Sometimes it's necessary, like resetting a broken limb. Sometimes it is simply pointless.

I don't think you've address my issue about the state's power at all.

I'm not sure what your concerns are. Can you state them in bullet point?

I agree that doctor's are dismissive of pain, especially women's and minority groups' pain. It's now considered a "fifth vital sign", which is an improvement from decades ago, but society and medicine still has a long way to go in understanding and treating pain.

To reiterate, I'm not suggesting that we make attempting suicide illegal. People should have that option, though I think society needs to do much more to make people's lives worth living.