I hope she finds the peace she didn’t have in life.
If you die, there is no peace to find … there is nothing.
I used to think that, and then I smoked some space dust and now I’m not sure anymore.
Is space dust what the kids are calling PCP these days?
DMT, PCP isn’t really my thing
Asking as an atheist myself: what is “nothing”?
Imagine a mind, a person, a body… then imagine it is not there anymore.
But that requires me to imagine something, which is not nothing
Beige. Forever.
Remember the 13 billion years before you were born? More of that.
Yes, I remember parts of it because I enjoy learning about history. But I’m remembering something, which is not nothing.
What do you remember about before you were born?
Lots, see another reply I’ve made
That’s a pedantic way to answer a question that you understand the purpose of, but are choosing to answer it hyper literally. So, I’ll respond hyper literally. You don’t remember anything about before you were born because you weren’t there to experience it. You’re recalling scientific theories and stories passed down through the years about historic events that took place before your birth.
The question again since you want to be hyper literal is “what do you remember about ‘your life’ before you were born?”. It’s a thought experimemt to make you think about the totality and finite of nothingness.
I get what you meant by the question but I’m trying to demonstrate that it is impossible for us to conceptualize what nothingness is without something. It’s a philosophical issue that science can’t answer. You’re welcome to whatever beliefs and answers to the question you like, but without a way to falsify it, that’s all it is. A belief* (edited correction to autocorrect). Not scientific truth.
Further edit: just to be sure I’m clear, you’ve asked me to imagine what life was like before I was born, thereby pointing to my birth, which is something. My life is something. I don’t know what life would be like without
“Nothing” is peace for some people.
And that’s perhaps the most peaceful peace. A peace only nothingness can bring.
Nothing is a peace.
Yeah I also got a friend like that which I just met over Snapchat. I’m from Austria and I immediately started crying when I heard that. I mean good when people can choose how to go out but still sad. She’s still living though and going strong 💪
Ah and she’s also from the Netherlands
It’s her choice what can we really do? It’s tragic but because it is so visible while many others are in this position without such visibility.
I pray I never experience this state of things however at the same time I know I will sooner or later. I sometimes approach the state of insufferable mental torture however it is never permanent or hopeless but I have some tiny glimpse to understand her decision.
The choice of how one exits life is the last bastion of power the living have.
We can change societies in a few ways to reduce the number of people that reach her situation. That’s going to take a very long time. Another thing that could be done is creating a plan for people in her situation. I think this will happen in the future (and will impact society in general). It has to do with the use of psychedelics. It may sound crazy to some, but I’d recommend we give people like this some shrooms, then escalate that to something like Ayahuasca and then DMT. If she still feels like nothing is worth it at that point, so be it, but I believe she’d change her mind on this path and have the potential to live a much happier life. This comment may seem extreme now, but looking back, I don’t think it will be.
What leads someone in her situation to decide to go down the euthanasia route rather than regular suicide which doesn’t need any approval?
It’s a morbid thought but euthanasia approval seems like it could often be a slow drawn out process, and someone able-bodied wouldn’t necessarily need it.
For me I don’t want someone to have to find me and deal with the aftermath. I’d much rather it be a planned thing so no one else has to suffer just because I needed to end it all. Unfortunately I’m in a country where that’s not possible so when the time comes I need to go deep into a forest or something.
-
making someone else do it because although you want it done, you can’t bring yourself to do it when the time comes
-
making someone else do it because you don’t want to fuck it up and deal with the rather significant aftermath after waking up 3 hours later with only a pumped stomach
Plus, gathering from comments about the article cuz I’m lazy, but I gather (and empathize) there’s the added benefit of giving any loved ones time to prepare and say their goodbyes without potentially traumatizing anyone that might find you after
Quick edit someone else commented the same thing literally right below 😶🌫️
-
This is mentioned in the article. She chose euthanasia because someone she knew growing up committed suicide and she saw how it devastated the family.
Also I imagine the anxiety about messing up without professional expertise would be awful. Plus worrying about legal repercussions for any assistance. Etc. etc.
Its still suicide.
Again, no, it’s assisted death. Quite different.
This should be a standard option at annual physicals. Skip the BP check I just want out.
Maybe if the medical industrial complex surrounding mental health wasn’t so profit-hungry and dehumanising, then she might not think that death is an option that she needs to take.
On the appointed day, the medical team will come to Ter Beek’s house. “They’ll start by giving me a sedative, and won’t give me the drugs that stop my heart until I’m in a coma. For me, it will be like falling asleep. My partner will be there, but I’ve told him it’s OK if he needs to leave the room before the moment of death,” she said.
this struck me as a bit odd. In switzerland they cannot „act“, they can only prepare the drugs etc, but you have to do the final act by yourself, otherwise its considered murder.
interesting that they handle it differently
Actually both options are possible here in the Netherlands, it’s a matter of preference of the patient. In both cases a doctor will be present, whom will also supply the drugs if a patient chooses to take them themselves.
This case is incredible rare though, it is already extremely hard to have a euthanasia request granted for mental issues at an older age, let alone someone so young.
A bit more background on ‘the aftermath’: after the euthanasia took place a coroner will establish that this was indeed the case and once that is done the public prosecutor needs to give permission before the remains may be buried or cremated.
Also, the coroner will send the report of both the physician who approved and performed the euthanasia and that of the SCEN-doctor, who performed the obligatory 2nd opinion mentioned in the article, to a special committee who will check if everything went by the book. Not only the procedure leading up to the euthanasia, but also the act of the euthanasia itself. If there are doubts about whether or not all means of treatment were exhausted and if there really was undue and indefinite suffering, or if there are any doubts if the patient really wanted to go through with the procedure at ‘the moment supreme’, a doctor can be held accountable for that. Fortunately that is rare, as the whole procedure is not taken lightly.
Let people be free.
And healthcare is for everyone. The means are healthcare in this case. And social & cultural support helps.I’m glad she will be able to end her suffering painlessly.
“People think that when you’re mentally ill, you can’t think straight, which is insulting,” she told the Guardian. “I understand the fears that some disabled people have about assisted dying, and worries about people being under pressure to die… But in the Netherlands, we’ve had this law for more than 20 years. There are really strict rules, and it’s really safe.”
She embarked on intensive treatments, including talking therapies, medication and more than 30 sessions of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). “In therapy, I learned a lot about myself and coping mechanisms, but it didn’t fix the main issues. At the beginning of treatment, you start out hopeful. I thought I’d get better. But the longer the treatment goes on, you start losing hope.”
After 10 years, there was “nothing left” in terms of treatment. "I’ve never hesitated about my decision. I have felt guilt – I have a partner, family, friends and I’m not blind to their pain. And I’ve felt scared. But I’m absolutely determined to go through with it.
Honestly and genuinely, I’m glad to see all that she has put into this decision and glad the state is allowing it. Now she doesn’t need to cause further pain to others through a traumatic suicide and she can gain the peace she’s been longing for.
Each day, so many lives are snuffed out of existence without a second thought. She given this an incredible amount of thought, time, and work.
Rest in peace, Zoraya. 💜
P. S. There’s thousands of live today that want to live. They don’t want to die. And yet their lives are taken anyway. Perhaps we should focus on saving them rather than making someone like Zoraya feel even worse.
Life’s one big experiment anyway… There is no peace.
I can’t understand why so many people are against someone dying with dignity. This is a form of harm reduction for not just the patient, but also their loved ones, and society in general.
Nobody wants to see their loved ones suffer endlessly or needlessly, and this is also a while lot less traumatic than people committing suicide. Nobody wants the last memory of their loved ones to be the scene of their (potentially messy) suicide.
And that’s not to mention the trauma inflicted on bystanders for some of the more public suicide methods (not to mention that jumping to your death or intentionally walking into/driving into traffic has a decent chance of physically injuring or killing said bystanders).
If this process is undertaken with care and compassion, it’s far less likely to be traumatizing to all involved. And it prevents “spur of the moment” decisions, like many successful suicides are.
You don’t want people jumping in front of a train, but what do you think would happen if this concept were fully embraced by the American for-profit insurance industry? I’m imagining taking my mom to a doctor’s appointment for an expensive treatment and finding tasteful brochures for dying with dignity helpfully placed around the office.
I’m absolutely worried this will get taken advantage of in the US’ hellscape that is their healthcare system, but that doesn’t mean the concept is without merit.
It’s like arguing that cars should not be available for purchase because someone might use one irresponsibility, while forgetting their utility outside of abuse.
In a healthcare system that optimizes outcome instead of profit, having the option to allow someone to choose to end their suffering should not be considered a bad thing.
You haven’t seen all the hospice brochures? You don’t even have to imagine - it’s like the P.C. version of assisted suicide for old people.
Nobody wants to see their loved ones suffer endlessly or needlessly, and this is also a whole lot less traumatic than people committing suicide.
This is people committing suicide, though.
That’s both debatable on a semantic level (is it really suicide if it’s assisted?) and not how I intended the use of the term.
What I tried to say is that this option is less traumatic than non-assisted options for ending your existence and comes with less risk of injury to bystanders to boot.
How is it debatable? If you’re claiming it’s not suicide because it’s assisted, then by that logic it’s murder.
It’s one thing to support the policy, it’s another thing to misrepresent what the policy is. Suicide is still suicide. Is it less disruptive to society? Absolutely. Is it a good policy? Debatably. But it is still suicide? Indisputably. Support it if you will but don’t go around saying that it’s “less traumatic than suicide” as if it isn’t a form of suicide.
“Less traumatic than violent, ad-hoc suicide” perhaps?
There’s no such thing as “non-violent” suicide. Maybe, “less traumatic than non-assisted suicide” or “regular suicide,” or “suicide that isn’t state approved,” or any number of other phrasings so long as a spade is still called a spade.
We have a great term for the realm between murder and suicide - assistance in dying.
It bridges the gap between the definition of murder (where one party unalives the other party against their consent) and suicide (where one party unalives themselves with intent) by having the person looking to be unalived explicitly expires their intent and consent for the other party to assist them.
I feel as if you’re trying to create a false equivalency to undermine the validity of this option.
And as to whether this is less traumatic than suicide - you have got to be kidding or you’ve never had to deal with the reality of someone committing suicide versus someone choosing assistance in dying.
One generally involves a lot of shock and someone finding a dead body in some state, the other is generally a peaceful affair where loved ones say their goodbyes before the person peacefully falls asleep for the last time.
They are nowhere near the same thing for the survivors and you claiming otherwise is an insult to both. And if you can’t see the difference between these two options I’m frankly done debating this with you.
See, the difference is that I’m not looking at how clean or messy the suicide is, I’m looking at the fact that a suicide occurred. I would have much more respect for you and your position if you were willing to look it in the eye and call it what it is, instead of hiding behind these nonsense euphemisms.
At no point did I make any claims regarding the trauma involved, except to say, “Is it less disruptive to society? Absolutely.” The exact opposite of the position you ascribed to me, in other words.
But trauma and shock are merely side effects of suicide. Symptoms that exist to reflect the awfulness of the event. If a person kills themselves on a deserted island, no one is traumatized or shocked by it, but it is still, factually, a suicide.
I don’t see why you’re reacting so strongly to a simple clarification in terminology. Or rather, I’m beginning to see why, but I wish I didn’t.
That’s not entirely honest - you’re also trying to argue that having this option is not a good or valid option (you called “debatable”) and are trying to steer the conversation by creating a false equivalency between assistance in dying and suicide, which are not the same thing.
I fully agree with your example - someone unaliving themselves on a deserted island committed suicide. Never said they didn’t.
What I said, and what you’re conveniently omitting, is that suicide is an act by an individual, there is no other party to the unaliving. This is not the case in assistance in dying, and there’s very good legal reason why we consider these distinct from eachother, and from murder (to your earlier point).
Even if we forget the traumatic angle I brought up earlier, surely you must see the difference between an act that involves one party and an act that involves two parties with express intent and consent.
What you’re trying to do is the same as arguing masturbation and sex are the same thing because they end with the same result (orgasm).
That’s not entirely honest - you’re also trying to argue that having this option is not a good or valid option (you called “debatable”)
Saying it’s “debatable” is not the same thing as asserting it’s not a good or valid option. It just means that whether it’s good or valid hasn’t been conclusively established.
Assisted suicide is a form or suicide that is assisted. The thing that makes it different between it and regular suicide is that someone else is assisting. You’ve chosen the example of masturbation vs sex because it’s one of the few analogies that would work for you. Tandem skiing is skiing. Assisted murder is murder. Skydiving with an instructor is skydiving.
The onus is on you to present why the addition of an assistant meaningfully changes the nature of the act.
surely you must see the difference between an act that involves one party and an act that involves two parties with express intent and consent.
I see no such thing. Solo suicide involves intent, and there is no need for consent because there isn’t a second person involved. How on earth would the addition of a second person make it meaningfully different? Are you refusing to say the reason because you think it’s obvious, or because it doesn’t exist?
What the fuck is “unaliving”. Are you saying that unironically? If so, it’s staggeringly Orwellian.
And it prevents “spur of the moment” decisions, like many successful suicides are.
It may prevent some, but at least some of the ones experiencing acute issues will still go for the immediate option. The bureaucracy of it will add a layer that I suspect will deter some. If it takes months or years, people are just going to find their own way.
I’m not suggesting that we just help any person right off the street. I think the government has duty of care once they are involved. I’m just saying the reality is that many will still choose not to take this alternative path.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A 29-year-old Dutch woman who has been granted her request for assisted dying on the grounds of unbearable mental suffering is expected to end her life in the coming weeks, fuelling a debate across Europe over the issue.
Zoraya ter Beek received the final approval last week for assisted dying after a three and a half year process under a law passed in the Netherlands in 2002.
Her case has caused controversy as assisted dying for people with psychiatric illnesses in the Netherlands remains unusual, although the numbers are increasing.
An article about her case, published in April, was picked up by international media, prompting an outcry that caused Ter Beek huge distress.
“I knew I couldn’t cope with the way I live now.” She had thought about taking her own life but the violent death by suicide of a schoolfriend and its impact on the girl’s family deterred her.
“I was on a waiting list for assessment for a long time, because there are so few doctors willing to be involved in assisted dying for people with mental suffering.
The original article contains 837 words, the summary contains 180 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
She is really pretty, and it’s sad she wants to go. However, I believe in personal agency, and if she wants to go, let her fucking go.
It is so bizarre to me that regarding an article about a woman who wants to die because of constant mental anguish, the very first thing you felt was worth saying is “she is really pretty”.
If I’m being perfectly honest, I don’t entirely know my own point, I just had to comment on it because it stood out as do bizarre to me.
Bro’s really doing the “nooo don’t kill yourself your so sexy aha” meme
I’m currently midway through a program to become a therapist. I’ve been in the mental health space for quite some time, and worked with students of many ages.
This is the wrong decision. Suicide is usually a consequence of hopelessness. In my experience, hope can be brought back to most people suffering from mental health issues.
It also sets a dangerous precedent. A way out, so to speak, for people with a temporary, overcomable problem.
(For the record, I am ok with medical assistance in dying when it comes to chronic severe pain and illness).
Do you really think that becoming a therapist is a good idea when you can’t even read the article which lays out her hopeless situation?
Also this isn’t a precedent.
Also why are you okay with assistance in dying when it comes to pain and illness but not mental illness? Because you can’t see/diagnose the latter so easily?
This is definitely a nuanced discussion and every situation is different, so I’m not going to make any sweeping statements about the whole thing, but I generally see suicidality as a symptom of something else. If we can improve the “something else,” the suicidality improves or even goes away in the vast majority of cases.
This is different from other Medical Assistance in Death situations because in the cases where it is implemented because of pain and illness, there is no reasonable hope of improving their outcomes. In the vast majority of mental health cases, there is a lot of hope, even if the patient does not see it (which is often. Most situations where a person expresses suicidal ideation and intention to family, friends, or therapists do not end in follow through. Having someone to talk to about those thoughts helps. Even validating their thoughts helps: “It makes sense that you feel like that, honestly.” But ultimately, you want to help them get through to the next day. The vast majority of people who were in this circumstance are glad they did not follow through).
Again, the discussion is nuanced and I don’t think Lemmy is the best place to facilitate this discussion, but that is more or less my take on it.
Dude… Did you still not read the article?
And do you think that it was willy billy that the state approved her request?
but I generally see suicidality as a symptom of something else. If we can improve the “something else,” the suicidality improves or even goes away in the vast majority of cases.
If it was as easy as that she would never have gotten her request approved. It is extremely rare for someone at her age to have her euthanasia request approved on account of mental issues. Hell, it is near impossible to get your request approved for this at old age, let alone when you are in your 20’s or 30’s. So please be careful with comments like this, as having exhausted all available treatments is a prerequisite and there are a lot of those. Mental healthcare in the Netherlands is in a fairly shitty state thanks to 20 years of budget cuts and ‘let the market solve it’-policy, but it is not so shitty that we just resort to killing off troubled people.
If medical professionals would even have had the lightest feeling that there was a way remaining to get her some semblance of a normal life, she wouldn’t have been eligible.
I don’t think your distinction makes sense.
You’re saying most mental health/suicide cases have hope, and thants probably true! But the article wasn’t “every suicidal person granted euthanasia approval”, it was approved for one very extreme case of mental suffering with no indication of improving. That would be like saying “most cases of pain still have hope”. Yes exactly, they do, but there are rare, chronic cases where euthanasia may be a valid option, right? And just as much as suicidality is just ‘a symptom of something’ else, isn’t pain also just a symptom of something else?
And obviously we should help suicidal people to improve their mental health, but in her case she has been struggling since childhood with no indication of improvement. So how was this “the wrong decision” for her?
Have you read the article?
Under Dutch law, to be eligible for an assisted death, a person must be experiencing “unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement”. They must be fully informed and competent to take such a decision.
After 10 years, there was “nothing left” in terms of treatment. “I knew I couldn’t cope with the way I live now.”
In the three and a half years this has taken, I’ve never hesitated about my decision.
How is this a temporary and overcomable problem? It seems clear that it is not temporary and no kind of treatment worked for her. As per the law, there must be unbearable suffering without prospect of improvement, and during the multiple stages of this process, apparently no one came to the conclusion that that wasn’t the case for her. So how can you make that assessment?
I’m currently midway through a program to become a therapist. I’ve been in the mental health space for quite some time, and worked with students of many ages.
So you are not a therapist.
Bodily autonomy includes the right to die, if one choses to do so. Are you against bodily autonomy?
And what do you think would happen if she had been denied? Instead of a dignified death in a safe environment she might have resorted to options available to her, possibly endangering other people as well.
The previous commentor sounds exactly like all those people who have harassed Zoraya with their bullshit “miracle cures”.
It had always astounded me that we offer painless, merciful euthanasia to our pets and animals, both wild and domesticated, yet not to our fellow humans, who must suffer until the bitter end.
There definitely is not a miracle cure, and sending someone random messages is not the way. I definitely agree with you there. Medical Assistance in Death should be more widely available as well. The one point I think is important to clarify is that it shouldn’t be used if there is reasonable expectation of some kind of improvement. In mental health, I think the vast majority of cases are improvable, at least beyond the point of suicide ideation.
I responded to another comment with some clarifications.
Its the remnants of the religious infestation that still slumbers in the collective consciousness of society that makes madness like that possible.
How did you misconstrue their comment so badly? Are therapists not allowed to work with students? I believe there is a clear and obvious difference between bodily autonomy, having the right to die with dignity, and euthanasia. This lady stated she “cannot cope with the suffering” and yet she proceeded to do so for three years while waiting patiently for approval. IMO anyone with truly intolerable suffering (mental or otherwise) would have found a way out long before this decision.
Are therapists not allowed to work with students?
Read the comment again and try to figure out why I said they aren’t a therapist. Hint: It’s in the very first sentence.
IMO anyone with truly intolerable suffering (mental or otherwise) would have found a way out long before this decision.
How would you know?
