Some chick felt like therapy was beneath her, and sucked so bad at offing herself that she failed two times, hired a professional to do it to her because to go to therapy would decrease her social status.
Somehow, a multi-suicidal PTSD-riddled narcissist was not considered unable to consent to procedures due to mental state.
The family's lawyer says the article is inaccurate, but will not elaborate to journos, which, I mean, reasonable, they ARE journos.
Fucking w*men. I know there aren't handy tools for suicide here in Europe but 2 failed attempts? No belts in her household? No bedsheets? Did she forget the direction you're supposed to cut? If David Carradine can kill accidentally kill himself while jerking off you can manage it dear.
P.S. It wasn't the news report that was inaccurate it was the shrinks' report or the prosecutor's report (I'm not sure which).
There's no way to legalize euthanasia and not have shit like this happen. There's just far too much for potential for abuse or people slipping through the cracks. It should be banned except as the sole authorized treatment for "gender dysphoria".
It's not just that, but the fact that an organ of state has no deeper value system for weighing the extent of a person's suffering or the value of their life. It's all complete arbitrary guesswork, even when they allow it for someone with a terminal illness. One person in 24/7 pain might want to die, yet another might soldier on bravely to the last and never lose hope; someone with a deathplague might remain optimistic for the future yet a person with tinnitus or chronic back pain might curse their whole life.
Ask a government to create a standard of judging this right to death and pretty soon afterwards they'll re-examine the standard and realise it isn't based on anything concrete, then decide the right is open to anyone. And if you're euthanising healthy yet traumatised 23 year olds on the say so of a couple of quacks, then you're pretty much there already.
After that, the state will start to leverage and encourage the euthanasia 'option' against those whose lives it considers inconvenient. We haven't got there yet but we will soon enough.
There was also the instance where the Canuck version of the VA told a combat veteran to kill himself. And then bragged that this wasn't the first time they had given that advice.
People who want to improve their mental health go to therapy - this is true in 99% of cases. There do exist situations where psychopharmacology is warranted, but they are vanishingly rare compared to what people have grown accustomed to.
...and therapy should also be utilized in conjunction.
How I know I’m an asshole: I read the article and think “my god this is horrible.” Then I click the link and see what she looked like, think “ew, would not bang” and immediately any fucks I give evaporate. Oh well, maybe I’ll say hi to her when I go to hell.
It’s really hard to legally and effectively kill yourself in places where it’s hard to get a gun. Hanging yourself… Can be difficult. If you don’t know what you’re doing properly.
So… While it sucks that this was her course of action, and I do feel that more due process could have been followed… If that’s really what she wanted, I accept this. It’s her decision and her choice.
I realize that’s unpopular (especially here, I imagine), but, IMHO, it’s better than her jumping in front of a train/off a bridge or whatever. It’s her life. She’s an adult. If she wants to die, I’m ok with that.
I don’t think it’s up to anyone else to force someone to keep living, when they patently do not want to do so…
There are plenty of people who really want to live, who don’t get the chance, for varying reasons. Focus on doing all that’s possible to keep them alive instead, and let the… Gallows people be free of their torment, let’s say…
Yeah, I’m fine. I just don’t see this in the same way most of you do.
Agreed. I'm also someone who spent a long time contemplating suicide, though I never attempted it and my outlook is much brighter these days. This is less a matter of whether suicide can ever be a justifiable choice and more about the ramifications of involving wider society and government institutions in that choice. Even in my bleaker periods I came to the conclusion that reasonable deterrents to suicide are a good thing and state facilitation of suicide is potentially a catastrophic thing.
One time, before the internet died, a certain search brought me upon a page where all sorts of suicidal randos were posting in despair. People of all ages, teenagers, pensioners, single, married, all had got there within like 1 click of a google hit and spilled their thoughts anonymously. Something which surprised me was the significant proportion of them who said they wanted to kill themselves and were prepared to, but that they were scared what would happen afterwards because they were Christian. As a non-Christian, this didn't strike me as a great deterrent against suicide - for someone like me. But it was worth contemplating that some meaningful number of posters, whose fear forced them to carry on living, may well have kept going and then later developed a perspective that quenched their suicidal impulses. Maybe I just wasn't a very good nihilist, but it was impossible not to feel some relief and compassion from that idea.
Further, you have to consider how society shapes people's values just as much as it is shaped by them. I think secular modernity has unquestionably introduced a streak of nihilism into many people's lives. Our leaders are in no way moral leaders any more. Most politicians have settled for trying to advertise themselves as competent managers and shied away from anything deeper or more philosophical. As such, if you turn to the state and grill them for a good answer to the question of why you should go on living, you will never get one, beyond an idea that turns you into a well-behaved citizen and profitable consumer. A society that starts down the path to demolishing the obstacles between an individual and wilful death, will eventually demolish them all, because there is no moral to divert them other than profit. Life in general will be cheapened.
But that isn't the worst of it. Human beings are purpose-driven, even apparachiks who work for a soulless state, so you will start to find that purpose within the euthanasia option, even if the option itself arose out of moral abrogation and nihilism. I feel like the pattern of this will be easy to predict based on recent global affairs: in a secular and supposedly rational society, the meaning and purpose that people lose from an absence of tradition starts to be rediscovered in science and medicine, as the few remaining trusted pillars of the society - the repositories of meaning. Legalised euthanasia will necessarily be presented as a medical, rational, scientific process - and therefore it can't ever be demonised. It won't ever be sold as 'you can do this, we've made it possible for you - but we strongly discourage this for all people, we think it's a terrible idea'. Instead it will be presented as a noble, graceful option for a certain type of person, and something that can't be misused because it is guarded against by rational, medical principles. As such it will be perfect for weaponisation against the suggestible masses, since at that point you can get them to nobly kill themselves by convincing them they're the right kind of people for euthanasia.
Hanging yourself… Can be difficult. If you don’t know what you’re doing properly.
I think you are really overstating this, especially now in the Internet age where people can instantly look up instruction manuals for almost anything. I could probably find 20 cheap ways to off myself right now. Ok maybe a dozen that don't involve "jumping in front of a train/off a bridge or whatever" and traumatizing other people.
Bathtub suicides do fail quite often though. People have no idea how arteries work.
All I'm saying is there is no need for medical professionals to be involved in killing people. That's barbary.
Unless you’ve been there, I’m not sure you really get this, to be honest.
Believe me, it’s really not as easy as you might think.
At least this way there’s no trauma to any onlookers, put it that way.
Completely disagree with your last sentence. I realize that I’m in the minority here, but I do not care. I fundamentally disagree with your entire point, there.
"Assisted suicide" is murder. Doctors are enlisted to violate their oath to kill people who don't have the guts or the technology to off themselves. "Passive" euthanasia of vegetables ("pulling the plug") is the same thing, only much more cruel than any "active" method.
Luckily, technological innovation saves the day once again:
This is a brilliant idea. I can foresee a day when every family has a Sarcopod in the garage next to the grocery-getter.
Make a few phone calls alerting authorities or neighbors or family members to the disposal problem, climb in, activate the pod, and voila! You are wafted to eternity gently after a brief period of euphoria.
Edit: those who are uncommunicative and terminal should stipulate in a living will the desire to be killed in a Sarcopod.
GetmetotheBaboon, actually. And, no, another dead useless hole. The world has too many of them as it is. If you can't survive witnessing a tragedy, we don't need you.
TL;DR:
Some chick felt like therapy was beneath her, and sucked so bad at offing herself that she failed two times, hired a professional to do it to her because to go to therapy would decrease her social status.
Somehow, a multi-suicidal PTSD-riddled narcissist was not considered unable to consent to procedures due to mental state.
The family's lawyer says the article is inaccurate, but will not elaborate to journos, which, I mean, reasonable, they ARE journos.
Fucking w*men. I know there aren't handy tools for suicide here in Europe but 2 failed attempts? No belts in her household? No bedsheets? Did she forget the direction you're supposed to cut? If David Carradine can kill accidentally kill himself while jerking off you can manage it dear.
P.S. It wasn't the news report that was inaccurate it was the shrinks' report or the prosecutor's report (I'm not sure which).
There's no way to legalize euthanasia and not have shit like this happen. There's just far too much for potential for abuse or people slipping through the cracks. It should be banned except as the sole authorized treatment for "gender dysphoria".
It's not just that, but the fact that an organ of state has no deeper value system for weighing the extent of a person's suffering or the value of their life. It's all complete arbitrary guesswork, even when they allow it for someone with a terminal illness. One person in 24/7 pain might want to die, yet another might soldier on bravely to the last and never lose hope; someone with a deathplague might remain optimistic for the future yet a person with tinnitus or chronic back pain might curse their whole life.
Ask a government to create a standard of judging this right to death and pretty soon afterwards they'll re-examine the standard and realise it isn't based on anything concrete, then decide the right is open to anyone. And if you're euthanising healthy yet traumatised 23 year olds on the say so of a couple of quacks, then you're pretty much there already.
After that, the state will start to leverage and encourage the euthanasia 'option' against those whose lives it considers inconvenient. We haven't got there yet but we will soon enough.
How the heck does anyone tolerate living in Canada?
Canada, truly leading the field in all ways dystopian.
There was also the instance where the Canuck version of the VA told a combat veteran to kill himself. And then bragged that this wasn't the first time they had given that advice.
It's a sad day when your family would rather you died.
Psychiatry: finishing what ISIS started.
Psychiatry is 'mental illness affirming' care.
People who want to improve their mental health go to therapy - this is true in 99% of cases. There do exist situations where psychopharmacology is warranted, but they are vanishingly rare compared to what people have grown accustomed to.
...and therapy should also be utilized in conjunction.
She was kind of cute, so I guess this is was a tragedy.
Time for that ophthalmologist appointment you've been putting off.
I used the qualifier kind of.
Kind of ugly would have been accurate
He's a glass half-full type of person.
She had potential, if she had looked after herself better, let’s say…
Genetically, she was decent, if she had wanted to make herself look good, so yeah, you’re not wrong, IMHO.
How I know I’m an asshole: I read the article and think “my god this is horrible.” Then I click the link and see what she looked like, think “ew, would not bang” and immediately any fucks I give evaporate. Oh well, maybe I’ll say hi to her when I go to hell.
Unironically… A blackpill.
It’s really hard to legally and effectively kill yourself in places where it’s hard to get a gun. Hanging yourself… Can be difficult. If you don’t know what you’re doing properly.
So… While it sucks that this was her course of action, and I do feel that more due process could have been followed… If that’s really what she wanted, I accept this. It’s her decision and her choice.
I realize that’s unpopular (especially here, I imagine), but, IMHO, it’s better than her jumping in front of a train/off a bridge or whatever. It’s her life. She’s an adult. If she wants to die, I’m ok with that.
I don’t think it’s up to anyone else to force someone to keep living, when they patently do not want to do so…
There are plenty of people who really want to live, who don’t get the chance, for varying reasons. Focus on doing all that’s possible to keep them alive instead, and let the… Gallows people be free of their torment, let’s say…
Yeah, I’m fine. I just don’t see this in the same way most of you do.
Agreed. I'm also someone who spent a long time contemplating suicide, though I never attempted it and my outlook is much brighter these days. This is less a matter of whether suicide can ever be a justifiable choice and more about the ramifications of involving wider society and government institutions in that choice. Even in my bleaker periods I came to the conclusion that reasonable deterrents to suicide are a good thing and state facilitation of suicide is potentially a catastrophic thing.
One time, before the internet died, a certain search brought me upon a page where all sorts of suicidal randos were posting in despair. People of all ages, teenagers, pensioners, single, married, all had got there within like 1 click of a google hit and spilled their thoughts anonymously. Something which surprised me was the significant proportion of them who said they wanted to kill themselves and were prepared to, but that they were scared what would happen afterwards because they were Christian. As a non-Christian, this didn't strike me as a great deterrent against suicide - for someone like me. But it was worth contemplating that some meaningful number of posters, whose fear forced them to carry on living, may well have kept going and then later developed a perspective that quenched their suicidal impulses. Maybe I just wasn't a very good nihilist, but it was impossible not to feel some relief and compassion from that idea.
Further, you have to consider how society shapes people's values just as much as it is shaped by them. I think secular modernity has unquestionably introduced a streak of nihilism into many people's lives. Our leaders are in no way moral leaders any more. Most politicians have settled for trying to advertise themselves as competent managers and shied away from anything deeper or more philosophical. As such, if you turn to the state and grill them for a good answer to the question of why you should go on living, you will never get one, beyond an idea that turns you into a well-behaved citizen and profitable consumer. A society that starts down the path to demolishing the obstacles between an individual and wilful death, will eventually demolish them all, because there is no moral to divert them other than profit. Life in general will be cheapened.
But that isn't the worst of it. Human beings are purpose-driven, even apparachiks who work for a soulless state, so you will start to find that purpose within the euthanasia option, even if the option itself arose out of moral abrogation and nihilism. I feel like the pattern of this will be easy to predict based on recent global affairs: in a secular and supposedly rational society, the meaning and purpose that people lose from an absence of tradition starts to be rediscovered in science and medicine, as the few remaining trusted pillars of the society - the repositories of meaning. Legalised euthanasia will necessarily be presented as a medical, rational, scientific process - and therefore it can't ever be demonised. It won't ever be sold as 'you can do this, we've made it possible for you - but we strongly discourage this for all people, we think it's a terrible idea'. Instead it will be presented as a noble, graceful option for a certain type of person, and something that can't be misused because it is guarded against by rational, medical principles. As such it will be perfect for weaponisation against the suggestible masses, since at that point you can get them to nobly kill themselves by convincing them they're the right kind of people for euthanasia.
I completely disagree with what you’re saying, here. Which is fine. That’s why we have these debates.
But I don’t agree. At all. Shame, in this case, does far more harm than good.
I fundamentally have a different view of the “morality” and “societal consequences” of this than you do. But that’s fine.
I think you are really overstating this, especially now in the Internet age where people can instantly look up instruction manuals for almost anything. I could probably find 20 cheap ways to off myself right now. Ok maybe a dozen that don't involve "jumping in front of a train/off a bridge or whatever" and traumatizing other people.
Bathtub suicides do fail quite often though. People have no idea how arteries work.
All I'm saying is there is no need for medical professionals to be involved in killing people. That's barbary.
Unless you’ve been there, I’m not sure you really get this, to be honest.
Believe me, it’s really not as easy as you might think.
At least this way there’s no trauma to any onlookers, put it that way.
Completely disagree with your last sentence. I realize that I’m in the minority here, but I do not care. I fundamentally disagree with your entire point, there.
The gene pool thanks you for your service.
"Assisted suicide" is murder. Doctors are enlisted to violate their oath to kill people who don't have the guts or the technology to off themselves. "Passive" euthanasia of vegetables ("pulling the plug") is the same thing, only much more cruel than any "active" method.
Luckily, technological innovation saves the day once again:
https://www.exitinternational.net/sarco/
This is a brilliant idea. I can foresee a day when every family has a Sarcopod in the garage next to the grocery-getter.
Make a few phone calls alerting authorities or neighbors or family members to the disposal problem, climb in, activate the pod, and voila! You are wafted to eternity gently after a brief period of euphoria.
Edit: those who are uncommunicative and terminal should stipulate in a living will the desire to be killed in a Sarcopod.
It's a game-changer!
weak coward.
And nothing of value was lost.
Another dead goy hey jester?
GetmetotheBaboon, actually. And, no, another dead useless hole. The world has too many of them as it is. If you can't survive witnessing a tragedy, we don't need you.
Having read stories about Canada's MAID program, these state sanctioned killing services are highly abused and should all be shut down.