“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. 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.
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.
“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.
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.
Death is permanent and cannot be undone. Once someone dies they take all their love, potential and beauty with them. We can only 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Giving the life the middle finger is the ultimate expression of freedom.
Some people don’t care to continue living, some people face a mental decline that will destroy the lives of their loved ones, some are in constant pain, the list goes on.
Forcing them to keep on living is torture. Unfortunately some people are incapable of compassion and stick to medieval concepts of propriety devised to keep the serfs working.
It might be surprising to you, but there’s no beauty in suffering.
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.
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.
Imagine thinking your life belongs to you, and then having to get permission to end it without suffering
You’re asking someone else to take your life and expect them to do so no questions asked…?
There are in fact many questions asked, and any doctor can refuse for any reason.
Yes, hence kofe’s skeptical and maybe sarcastic question
I was genuinely asking, more so of the person that’s skeptical of having to get permission. I’m glad it seems to be an ethical requirement
/s
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).
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.
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.
Unsolicited Conservative: “Has she tried to put God on that wound? If only she was religious…”
Dude, doctors will even try homeopathy before resorting to euthanasia.
I’m against it. Not sure what else to say.
I’m not against it but I upvoted you because I think you have a fair position and expressed it honestly and in a completely reasonable way.
I truly mean this in good faith: you would honestly rather that she continue suffering?
Cool. Don’t do it yourself then. Not sure what else to say.
None of us signed up for this shit.
Her life is not your choice though. Thankfully.
Thats fine to have your opinion as long as youre not stopping someone else from doing what they want with their own life
I think the question is one of balance for me personally. Where do you draw the line?
Like, this person seems to have been in a pretty long queue and had a lot of time to evaluate, but is that denying her dignity? Should there be a waiting period, or is that denying someone healthcare?
I think we would all agree that we shouldn’t allow an 18yo who just broke up with their first SO to decide to have a doctor help them unalive themselves, right?
Is the three and a half years of waiting and treatments that this woman has undergone too much? Not enough?
I’ll admit that it feels bad to me to allow a 29yo to go down this particular path. People who are seeking death are rarely in the kind of headspace where I think they are able to meaningfully consent to that?
And this feels meaningfully different than the case of a 90yo who’s body is slowly failing them. This is an otherwise healthy young person.
Idk, there are no easy answers here. Bodily autonomy is important, but so is helping people not engage in extremely self destructive behavior. If we didn’t have that imperative, fire departments wouldn’t try and stop people from jumping off bridges, right? Where is that line? I don’t know, and I wouldn’t want to have to make that call.
I share a lot of your questions about this, but the following parts made me uncomfortable agreeing with you:
People who are seeking death are rarely in the kind of headspace where I think they are able to meaningfully consent to that?
And this feels meaningfully different than the case of a 90yo who’s body is slowly failing them. This is an otherwise healthy young person.
She has the following to say about that: “People think that when you’re mentally ill, you can’t think straight, which is insulting.”
Mental illness is an illness, and can be chronic and progressive. They can cause someone to be unable to carry on living, maintaining a livelihood, afford their own medication, psychiatric visits and therapy that they would need to even want to live in the first place. That’s not even to go into the absolute hell people in such situations can go through everyday.
We can debate on what constitutes “a well-thought-out decision that takes into consideration every available option” and I would actually say that one should give those options a try, but to deny that a mentally ill person can make their own EOL decisions makes me terribly uncomfortable.
In my opinion, sure, there should be a waiting period, to filter out those chronic episodes that lead to spur-of-the moment impulses, or decisions that are strongly linked to temporary conditions. This waiting period can be used to think things through, prove that they’ve tried means available to them, or even give them the chance to try the means they wouldn’t have had access to otherwise (like specialized help, therapy that wouldn’t have been available to them, etc). Now, I think what happens next is up to these medical professionals: do they deem one’s condition to be intractable and no amount of medication and therapy and counseling can make a difference? If they deem the situation to be hopeless, and the patient agrees, then yeah, the patient can make their exit. Otherwise, the medication, therapy, counseling or whatever it is that they’ve been trying should continue. If funds are needed for this to continue, then so be it. Those people who want to be no exits can be counted upon to fund this, right? Those people denying exit should put their money where their mouths are.
If signing up to an EOL waiting list could be the way for people to consider their situation and try out things that might help them, then so be it.
Oh, sorry, I’ve been rambling. My point is, yeah, there should be a waiting period that would double as a chance for people to get the help they need (but don’t have access to or maybe the motivation to). And more importantly, that anyone, and I mean anyone (okay, there’d be a triage system in place, but just allow everyone in, and sort them out once they’re in) can sign up.
The way I imagine things would go is I can just walk into some office, inform the person in the counter that I want to have a passport to neverwhere, and they’d ask me to file some paperwork and after a few days, I’d be in a clinic where someone would perform a psychological check-up on me, and do some interviews. Then after a few more days, some doctor will be informing me of my diagnosis and options—or perhaps just flat out saying I’m completely mentally healthy and my petition is denied (if I’m lucky maybe given a list of people to contact to help with my problems). If I’m continuing the process, then I’d choose which option I want, go with the treatment or other, and like, hopefully continue until I can manage my situation with minimal help!
Do we really need people to sign up for a passport to the great beyond just to get the help they need? No, in an ideal world, there shouldn’t even be a need for this. But in this kind of world we live in, I think allowing people to safely cross the streams with dignity and peace of mind (after giving it a good try, and concluding that it really can’t be helped) is a small kindness society can give to the suffering.
EDIT: Some proofreading.
See, I feel like your whole post could be summarized as, “some people’s mental illness makes them unable to work and earn money, so they’re too poor to afford treatment, and therefore the morally correct thing is to just let those people kill themselves.”
And while I don’t think that’s exactly what you meant, it’s how it comes across. Almost all of your points are some variation of who’s gonna pay for their treatment and take care of their physical needs.
And I would strongly argue that the answer is instead to have more robust social safety nets to cover those needs. Allowing people to kill themselves as the solution is hella dystopian.
But, I’m not saying that this is 100% always right. This is a hard issue with no clear answers, and I am absolutely not minimizing the pain of mental illness. My point is that mental illness is much less understood than physical illness, and I wouldn’t trust any diagnosis that said the condition could never be resolved. In the same way that I would be loathe to euthanize someone with a physical illness that has an acceptable chance of being transient, I’m loath to do the same with most if not all cases of mental illness. Especially if the person is otherwise very young/healthy.
Actually I’m going to go prevent a young person from killing themselves, just to watch you cry.
And you achieve what? A person to constantly suffer, for what? Your righteous high ground? You condemn that person to torture, you realise that right?
You’re the person who would force a baby to be born and live a life of pain, suffering, and burden on those around them instead of abortion. You’re not saving a life, you’re destroying them.
Answer me this, why? Why are you against it?
This is more of an anti-natalist position than a pro-choice one. The right to bodily autonomy includes the right to reproduce, even if you think the parents are too poor. The two situations aren’t comparable because one involves a person making a decision about a fetus, and the other involves the life of a full-fledged human being.
Nobody is forcing anyone to abort a pregnancy? Those are simply options for parents to take if they want to.
So is this option to die with dignity when life is suffering.
Where is your attorney badge, for you clearly missed your appointment.
People have the right to have children, regardless of if the circumstances they’ll be brought up in are up to your approval. To say they shouldn’t have that right is not pro-choice, it’s anti-natalist.
Yes and who denies them having children?
The right to bodily autonomy includes the right to reproduce
It also includes the right to end your own life. Are you against bodily autonomy?
If someone walks into a hospital and says they want to inject bleach into their veins to cure COVID, is that still covered under bodily autonomy?
She didn’t want to cure Covid in a hospital, she wanted to end her suffering by ending her life in a dignified way.
So are you against bodily autonomy?
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.
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’ve been in and out of therapy and on and off meds for 32 years, nothing has helped, I wish this was an option. God speed to her.
I love you username
Thanks
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
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.
