“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 has 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 away in an instant. 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 whole 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.
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.
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).
What the fuck is “unaliving”. Are you saying that unironically? If so, it’s staggeringly Orwellian.
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?
“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.
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 irresponsibly, 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.
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.
deleted by creator
Imagine thinking your life belongs to you, and then having to get permission to end it without suffering
There are other options other than this one that requires permission. The article mentions her reasons to choose this method.
From the article:
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.
Whether we agree with her or not, it’s her decision.
You’re asking someone else to take your life and expect them to do so no questions asked…?
Jumping off bridges is free, no?
Clearly, this is about a more complex social issue/concern.
I think it’s technically illegal in most countries (suicide I mean, not specifically the bridge variety).
/s
This. Is. Awesome.
Good on her; for doing whatever was reasonable. For making an informed decision. For following the approved methods. And for sticking it out.
We “put down” pets when their suffering is too much, why can’t we let people make that same decision for themselves? Luckily the Dutch can.
I hope assisted suicide becomes more common. For everyone. Experience of conscious beings is the most important thing for me. But governments view people as manpower which is depressing.
Suicide isn’t “awesome,” and “good on her for sticking it out” in the context of suicide would pass as ironic edgelord humor 20 years ago on 4chan.
It’s terrifying that the exact same action, when done in a way that’s “clean” and legal makes people say things like that that presumably nobody would say otherwise. Setting up a legal pathway for suicide doesn’t change what it is.
Setting up a legal pathway for suicide helps people maintain agency and also allows for those with curable conditions to take the time to seek the help they really need thanks to the ample medical oversight.
I don’t think that it’s awesome. Having read the article, I think that she has full capacity to make the decision and am happy that she is doing so in a medically supported way. Botched suicide attempts can cause devastating disabilities. And I always hate when a family member finds the body of someone who died by suicide.
I don’t mind if you think it’s a good policy or better than the alternative, but I’m always going to push back against people describing suicide as “awesome.”
Removed by mod
I’m with you 100%. No one consents to being born, and it should be every human’s right to decide when they’ve had enough and consent to checking out of life.
We put down animals because they’re suffering, it’s seen as a mercy, yet when it comes to humans? Oh no, go through your fifth round of chemo, take two shots of morphine every day, exist in nothing but physical pain because wanting to die is somehow… Wrong?
I’ve suffered from depression the majority of my life, and I’ve even asked my therapist: what is so wrong, so bad, about wanting to die? We live in a society where the majority of wealth is held by very few, we’re watching governments across the world fall to fascism, people’s rights are being stripped away left and right, and yet the majority of the population believes “Well, you have XYZ, so you should be grateful! You have so much to live for!”
This is not a pro-suicide comment, either, to be clear. If you are suffering, please reach out to friends/family, or even better, a mental health professional if that is an option for you. Death is a permanent solution to what can be a temporary problem. But if an individual of sound mind and body wants to consent, for whatever reason, to no longer wanting to play this torture we call life, I believe they should 100% have the right to do so, and we should be glad we as a society have come so far as to extend the same mercy to human beings that we provide to pets.
Giving the life the middle finger is the ultimate expression of freedom.
Before I said that something could pass as ironic edgelord humor 20 years ago on 4chan, but in this case, I think this is so edgy even the channers would make fun of it.
Killing yourself is the ultimate expression of freedom? Shouldn’t you be banned for saying that? When did it become acceptable to glamorize and encourage suicide?
Suicide isn’t “the ultimate expression of freedom” it’s the complete and total renunciation of freedom. Dead bodies aren’t free to do anything except rot.
It isn’t awesome that her life is so miserable that, even though she has spent decades exhausting all medical treatment options, she still wants to die. What is awesome is that there is a comprehensive and humane way for her to end her suffering that assures this isn’t a rash decision, gives her loved ones a time frame to come to terms with it, and provides a situation where they do not have to deal with the aftermath of doing it herself.
Believe it or not, there are a lot of people out there who’s lives are nothing but pain and suffering. Pain and suffering despite seeking out all possible means to relieve themselves of this pain, and finding that none exist. Pain that isn’t going to end, and not having a life worth living to look forward to. There are also a lot of people out there that have loved these people and realized that, though it hurts them, the suffering the person they love is going through is far worse, and will not get better. Sometimes it is more selfish to demand someone not end their life than it is for them to do so.
You clearly have not actually been in this position, even if you have been suicidal before. Maybe you should admit that you don’t know everything about this, and let people have a humane way to stop their suffering.
I will never in a million years be convinced that “suicide is awesome” is a position that I should adopt or respect, sorry not sorry.
You still don’t get it, they saying aren’t suicide is awesome. So you continue on with your misinterpretation.
Clearly you don’t put nuance into it, and don’t care to. Enjoy (or hate) your black and white life.
This is the best “treatment” a capitalist shithole can give for mental health.
We live in a dystopia
Even in a utopia, some people wouldn’t want to live anymore. And it should be their legal right to end their lives painlessly at the time of their choosing.
You think a communist doctor could fix her? They were out of posible treatments, this isn’t about money.
I swear to god, if the aliens flew by and nuked half of the globe, you fuckers would rebuild society and mass media for the sole purpose of blaming capitalism.
What are you calling a capitalist shithole exactly? The Netherlands?
They did sort of invent it.
I’d say yes. Because it is.
Shithole no, capitalist very much so.
I disagree with her decision for a few reasons but I’ll defend her right to choose.
There are always going to be people who don’t want to be here anymore for whatever reason, and so the government needs to provide a humane way of dealing with these situations.
Like with abortion, access to controlled procedures with trained professionals reduces harm. Restricting access to safe procedures will cause more harm than it prevents.
Definitely sad. Possibly the wrong choice for her, possibly the right choice, but it’s her choice to make despite how I might feel about it.
Death is permanent and cannot be undone. Once someone dies they take all their love, potential and beauty with them. We can only live with the memory of it, but that memory doesn’t have the ability to create new things or react to life in new ways.
That said, people should be able to end their suffering in a dignified manner of their choosing without suffering more. No one asked to be alive, it’s a burden imposed on them by the will of the living. The least we can do, then, is to make living as devoid of suffering as we can for everyone.
If potential is key, I say keep the context of the MAID process but instead of outright death make it cryonics. Plus other potential relevant volunteer stuff and organ donation stuff lined up. Even if the initial cryonics technique is not even close to viable, other stuff could be transformative. If cryonics has any chance to work, things will get appreciably better in 300-or-so years right?
Hopeful worst is my brain in a jar mostly playing VR and sometimes knitting yarn via robotic arms. Lots of ways it could be better. Also unlike traditional cyborg stuff with all-machine life-support, I would like to still have a complex microbiome if not taking it further with symbiosis.
I would never take that right away from someone, but I’m very sad nothing else worked for her. 29 just feels so young to have to exit, so many chances for experiences left.
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 incredibly 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’ by the way, as the article doesn’t mention that: after the euthanasia has taken place a coroner will establish that this was indeed the cause of death. 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 that 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.
“People think that when you’re mentally ill, you can’t think straight, which is insulting,” she told the Guardian.
So much this. I’ve had so many people tell me that when I tell them that I don’t see a way into the future and I want them to leave me the fuck alone, it actually means that I want more help. No, you donkey, it doesn’t. It means leave me alone.
Bonus points when they are coming up with “ideas for my future” that are just genuinely unappealing to me and are then livid when I say no. Do they really think that going on a vacation or changing my job was not something I already thought about and discarded because I know it would not help? Nah, I’m ill, so I also must be stupid. “You always just say no. I am trying to help and you always just say no.” Thanks for realizing that you are not helping me but just want to feel good about yourself.
I don’t know about your personal situation, and it may be different for whatever you are suffering with, however the part you quoted is true for a lot of cases.
Having just looked after my wife through a period of ~3 years really severe depression I’ve seen it first hand, it completely changed her personality and outlook and she was saying all kinds of stuff she’s quite embarrassed by now. She genuinely couldn’t think straight at all or see any way out, and in that moment if offered the choice to die she might have taken it (a fact she is quite scared by now, having mostly recovered).
Similar story with my brother, who has bipolar… when he’s manic he has an absolute inability to hold a train of thoughts together for longer than 30 seconds. When he’s depressed it’s absolutely awful. He’s now stable and enjoying his life.
I’m not arguing that this shouldn’t be an option for some very extreme chronic conditions, but it’s obviously complicated.
The world we live in, where this news travels all over the globe, and we get to argue about the death of a girl on the internet.
Funny times, to say the least.
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.
I hope she finds the peace she didn’t have in life.
If you die, there is no peace to find … there is nothing.
“Nothing” is peace for some people.
And that’s perhaps the most peaceful peace. A peace only nothingness can bring.
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
Never tried it, just know it was called Angel Dust at one point
Nothing is a peace.
Asking as an atheist myself: what is “nothing”?
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.
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.
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
Amazing
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.
-
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 😶🌫️
-
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.
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.
