28-Year-Old Dutch Woman to Legally End Her Life in May.
A Dutch woman has decided to legally end her life citing her struggles with crippling depression and autism, according to a report. Zoraya ter Beek, a 28-year-old physically healthy, who lives in a small village in the Netherlands near the German border, is slated to be euthanised in May, according to the New York Post (NYP).
The Dutch woman said she decided to be euthanised after her doctors told her nothing more could be done to improve her condition.
Didn’t we use to try to prevent people who were depressed from committing suicide?
The World has turned into a Monty Python skit.
I’m 'bouta move to the Netherlands after hearing this. Honestly this is a good thing. Mentally healthy people and the puritanical may not realize but living with depression is literal torture. It sucks that we live in a world that crushes people like this but forcing someone to stay and suffer is far less humane than just letting them pass on peacefully.
Why attempt to treat/cure any disease at all, then? It’s clear she wanted to get better, but once the doctors told her there’s nothing they can do, they suggested they kill her.
“Pass on peacefully” as opposed to what? Assisted suicide is there to help her family and loved ones cope, she’ll be dead. She could blow her brains out or jump off a building, but that’s messy. What this does is help her die without making a mess, much like the suicide pods they introduced in Switzerland.
As opposed to being forced to continue to suffer for no reason other than to make others feel good. Other diseases can be cured. Depression (especially when caused by life factors as opposed to physical factors as life factors cannot be properly treated with meds) cannot be cured. Its not a fixable thing. Its not a broken leg, its a broken life and no amount of creative reframing can unfuck someone’s life.
(Material) conditions can be changed. Most problems with “life factors” have their roots in capitalism and how capitalist society is organised. It sounds to me like that person is perfect for radicalisation and agitation, they should fight to change things so that others aren’t affected by the same problems.
Suicide means giving up, as revolutionaries we should actively discourage it.
Revolutionary vs. reactionary suicide
Look, forcing someone to suffer off the blind hope they become your little soldier is an actually psychopathic position to take. People are not your playthings, especially those who are suffering. I’m not arguing that capitalism wasn’t the cause of their suffering, it probably was however socialism is not just gonna be built overnight. You’re not just asking, but proposing to force a person to suffer every moment of every day for likely the rest of their life (or at least a greater portion of it) to try and push your political agenda and that is frankly a disgusting notion.
Now it’s just insults… Don’t take disagreement personally. Read the sidebar.
The psychopaths are the psychiatrists who propose suicide as a cure for depression. That’s par for the course for a discipline that started off as caretakers of zoos for the “insane”, graduated to torture and then performed lobotomies into the 70s and 80s, among other sick and twisted “treatments” (like the removal of teeth).
The worst part of it is that they pretend to care and say it is all for the good of the patient. Now that’s true psychopathy!
Living is the default, nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. Besides, if she was so sure in her decision to die, why doesn’t she go off into the woods and hang herself? She needs psychiatrists to encourage her and convince her it is the right thing to do. It’s fucked up.
Ah yes, the political agenda of telling people they have the power to change material conditions instead of just killing themselves. How evil and manipulative!
Everyone suffers under capitalism, that’s why we’re communists, to end or greatly reduce that suffering. The easy way to end that suffering would be for everyone to just die. Isn’t that silly though? You don’t fix a broken clock by smashing it, you don’t improve a meal by throwing it in the trash.
No one is arguing that her doctors made the right call in this instance or that modern mental health treatment isn’t fucked thanks to capitalism. I’m just arguing that in general, suicide is a valid treatment for those who wish for it. Your entire argument was to try and force them to be a soldier for the revolution as if that somehow invalidates their suffering.
You want to restrict her access to suicide yes? Congratulations, you’re forcing her to stay alive by restricting her ability to do the contrary.
It is manipulative to prey on the mentally ill (one of the most vulnerable groups in society) for political reasons regardless of how noble or great you think such political positions are. If you cannot reconize that simple fact you are equally as monstrous as a military recruiter who preys on the poor.
Also that little blurb at the end is just silly. Especially when your food analogy doesn’t even make sense as fucked up food is often fucked in ways that cannot be fixed. You can’t unburn a steak. Ofcourse I’m not saying that life or whatever is unfixable (though that seems to be how you’ll take it). I’m just saying your choice of analogy is poor.
No. If she wants to kill herself she can jump off a building. I want to restrict doctors from suggesting and encouraging suicide as a “treatment”.
That’s basically saying that thoughts of suicide are valid and healthy and that people should act on them if they so wish. Now that’s fucked up.
Saying it is “preying” on the mentally ill for political reasons is like saying it is “preying” on the poor for political reasons. Like wtf? Should poor people also not be radicalised and agitated because they have other things to worry about?
That’s really fucking disingenuous, because by that logic communists also “prey” on the poor for political reasons, yet you used the example of military recruiters.
Do you think communists should only “recruit” among those who have all their mental health in order? Who the hell would that leave?
Everyone in capitalism is “mentally ill”, be it from anxiety, depression, stress, and so on. Capitalism makes people mentally ill, that’s an effect it has on people. That’s why “the mentally ill”, much like poor people and other marginalised groups have a vested interest in abolishing it and establishing something better.
While I don’t believe doctors should encourage it, it should be an option on the table. That is what I’m saying.
Everyone gets dark thoughts from time to time. Be it hurting someone, hurting themselves, engaging in reckless behavior. These are normal thoughts. Yet anytime someone brings up suicide suddenly its a whole production. I’m not saying constant suicidal thoughts are healthy exactly, but they are often quite reasonable given an individual’s condition so they shouldn’t be shamed either. Shaming will only make it worse.
You’re right, you shouldn’t prey on anyone. There is a big difference between preying on someone and simply talking with them and giving them the information they need to make their own decision. Your wording made it seem as though you wanted to target such people to try and trick them into joining. Now, approaching people with problems and discussing our solutions is perfectly normal. The difference comes in how the decision to join comes about. You read as if you wanted to pressure such people in with promises of pie in the sky like a cult leader. Instead of simple approaching them as an equal. Its worse with mentally Ill people because our minds are already a bit fucked and another manipulator trying to use that to try and get us to do something for them is not going to help matters.
As someone who struggles with severe depression- I have to disagree with this. I understand the appeal, and in a perfect world- or at least in a socialist society- sure, providing euthanasia for depression might be implemented properly- but there’s a very dangerous institutional motivator that is introduced and clearly present in the scenario in the article above, and that is rampant here in Canada where similar controversy and applications are occurring.
This woman wanted to get better; she was seeking to get better, and it is her doctors and society that have told her that nothing more can be done for her conditions. And I think it’s important to ask- why is that, exactly? Where was that line drawn, that nothing more could be done to better her situation, or at least to accommodate her? That is what demonstrated she wanted (through seeking aid in doing so from her doctors), what she would clearly choose if possible- and perhaps it isn’t, but there is a failure here- not on her part, but on society’s part, for failing to support her past this nebulous point where “nothing more can be done” as the doctors claim.
Mind you, I can understand why she chose this. I’m glad that if nothing else, she will get relief (even if that relief is in death). But there is a perverse incentive here for the state and institutions- an incentive to kill her and be done with it (however pleasantly and consensual it may be, this is what it is) rather than to offer further support (bettering her material conditions, providing further social supports, perhaps further counseling/psychiatry/etc, working to accommodate her autism or even her depression better) to further see if her condition could be alleviated into something at least tolerable and preferable to death. And they blatantly, clearly have chosen the opposite- to draw a line in the sand for her, when she herself clearly sought better. And what kind of doctors will tell their patient that “nothing can be done to improve their mental health condition?” They- her doctors, and the healthcare system and state itself- may as well have told her- “rather than accommodate your condition further, rather than seek to improve your life in the countless ways it almost definitely could be improved, we’d rather just kill you.” And the incentive gets worse when one considers that by killing those too depressed, or neurodivergent, or disabled, or simply plain poor and disenfranchised for the state to turn a profit on- instead, they are no doubt saving the expenses that would otherwise have gone into her healthcare (as meager as it has shown itself to be), her welfare (if she was a recipient), etc. if she had continued to live, even just as-is without additional treatment.
It is an incentive for the system to encourage- if not explicitly, implicitly (for instance, through drawing aforementioned lines in the sand where they claim “nothing can be done”- and through leaving her to dwell in her misery) her death; for her to choose suicide, assisted or otherwise. And sure, maybe she (and many others like her) would have killed herself anyways, and going with dignity and without pain is at least preferable- but on the other hand, maybe she wouldn’t have, and certainly there was more that could have been done, that should have at least been offered if they were to offer euthanasia as well.
Perhaps this- suicide- was the inevitable outcome. Perhaps ultimately none of her problems had to do with the system she lives within, and accommodation or not, life would prove intolerable. And sure, it’s not like people should be expected to exhaust every possible avenue to live when they’re in pain- but she wasn’t seeking to stop trying altogether. But what I see is a pressure relief valve for an inhumane system which is choosing to kill rather than to further support its victims, and in this scenario I think that’s undeniably what it is. Hell if I know if it’s better that the pressure relief valve be provided or not, regardless of perverse incentive, regardless of the fact that- no ifs, ands, or buts- they killed her, through drawing that line in the sand (they drew it- not her, they did and the article makes that clear) but I certainly think it’s thoroughly fucked and inexcusable that things even are at such a point to begin with.
Certainly, but we don’t live a world where the government will help you. We live in our world. Plus, let’s be honest, assisted suicide is definitely far more expensive than helping a single individual when you factor in necessary counciling for the family, lost productivity at work from family, massive deadweight of funeral expenses, etc. The healthcare system of our world is not built to deal with economic and larger social problems. Its only mechanisms allowed for it to help are those relating to physical life and maybe therapy. I’d love to live in a world without SLS but this isn’t that world. Assisted suicide isn’t a matter of saving money when you factor those into account. Its saving on suffering. Plus having it as a destigmatized option helps a lot with mental health. Once I came to the conclusion that I had the power to make sure my life never got as bad as it used to be I was much happier and more willing to fight because I knew no matter what I had an out. This wasn’t a legally provided out, its one I concluded on my own and I’m all the better for it. I know if my life ever becomes intolerable its ok, I can escape. This makes me all the more willing to fight to improve it and soldier through it. Plus being talked down to for being depressed only made it worse. This is the opposite, its saying that its ok to throw in the towel and that’s a good thing.
I mean, that’s why we’re both here on Lemmygrad, isn’t it? It absolutely is possible for the government to help, but our present systems in the west are more designed to harm and perpetuate harm instead. And I don’t think it can be said that killing off the depressed and neurodivergent (whatever their personal thoughts on the matter, and the possibility this is relief, as my previous comment described- I don’t think that, in this scenario in the article and ones like it in particular, it can be considered anything but murder on the state’s part- driving people to suicide)
As for that- perhaps, but the bulk of the costs are pushed down, to third parties, particularly the victim’s family in this case. Capitalism isn’t an efficient system for society, particularly in this late-stage-capitalism, neoliberal hellscape we live in today. Happy, thriving people may be more productive than depressed, or worse yet, dead ones, but clearly that’s not what our societies are working towards all the same- because our states are not run for societal benefit, but the benefit of a parasitic few. The perverse incentive/profit motive still stands, for the healthcare system and the state- and that’s without getting into the not irrelevant ideological components that- for the capitalist state, however well-intentioned most of the populace may be, draws short of eugenics and “culling the herd.”
As I see it, it should be a good thing- but I must note again, it wasn’t her (Ter Beek) who threw in the towel, at least not first. It was the state and the healthcare system- and considering the circumstances I feel it has to be said, it is wholly and utterly wrong for said actors (state/doctors) to throw in the towel when it comes to someone’s life, when it comes to non-fatal conditions, and especially when it comes to such a scenario where the citizen/patient clearly wanted to continue- they, the state- are the ones who shot down her hopes, who drew an arbitrary line where “nothing could be done”- and in doing so they have killed her. The state has responsibility to its citizens, and power over its citizens, and what is described in this article, and in many like it- can only be described as pissing all over said responsibility and slaughtering off the vulnerable rather than providing help, instead.
It’s ok for individuals to throw in the towel. Absolutely. It’s sad, but it’s a fact of life, and I do think it’s a good thing she can at least go with dignity and peace. But it’s not ok for the state, for society, to throw in the towel, and that it was so clearly done in this case should be terrifying.
FWIW I’m not the one who’s downvoted your posts, but I also can’t agree with them- I understand where you’re coming from as said, but I simply think that the process of how this is being done is being tainted by the capitalist society we live in- and that this taint by all appearances, in the context of the current implementations- seems to be far worse for society- and for those most disenfranchised by it- than the relief and self-autonomy it grants individuals (by killing them, by driving them to death or explicitly abandoning them so they see their only or preferable option as death).
I do agree that its definitely not being handled properly. The capitalist state will never handle life properly. In that we agree completely. I also agree the government shouldn’t be the ones who initiate such a thing. I believe the only place we diverge is in if its a net good or bad that its doing this and I doubt we will agree as I think its a net good its an option and if I’ve read you right you don’t believe the capitalist state can be trusted with this power and that is an entirely legitimate position to take. Also don’t worry about whoever is downvoting me, I figured it wasn’t you. Even if it was its just made up internet points you know?
Liberal moralising with some hedonism and utilitarianism sprinkled in. Communism isn’t about “maximising the good” and “minimising the bad”.
Funny, when the suicide “solution” is something that has developed under capitalism, in neoliberal capitalist states like Canada, Netherlands and Belgium. Read the differences in psychiatry in capitalist states and socialist states. Socialist states never lobotomised people, for example.
What are you talking about? This shit is off topic. Really if you want me to respond to the net good or bad thing its obvious I meant whether it was beneficial to society as a whole and to the individuals dealing with such issues.
Also yes, the nature of mental health treatment as well as the practice of medicine in general and damn near all social sciences at minimum would change greatly under socialism. No one disputed that. I’m not sure what you’re arguing against here. Feels like you just want an excuse to try and imply I believe the contrary of such things. For what reason I don’t know but your comment is not really connected to me and the other persons discussion.
How can making a person (who isn’t a danger to others) kill themselves be a net benefit to society? The “net good” and “net bad” measures/conclusions are what liberals use to say capitalism has been a “net good” for the world, among other things. Look into philosophies/theories of happiness and you’ll find utilitarians who try to quantify the human experience and weigh the “good” and “bad”, like Amartya Sen.
The discussion we’re having is proof that you cannot objectively quantify “good” and “bad” because in this case you think helping her commit suicide is “good” and I think it’s “bad”. There is no authority that can decide which is right or which is wrong, therefore there can never be the final answer on whether it is “good” or “bad”, the “net result” cannot be calculated.
They didn’t force her. They brought it up as a treatment recommendation and she accepted. Very different.
I’m not arguing BS moralisms, I’m saying we need to as a society have a healthy discussion on suicide instead of going straight to knee jerk reactions. Because understanding suicide in a more complete fashion, the motivators behind it (for any given individual as it is individual), and actually engaging with it is the only way to deal with it in a healthy manner. As someone who has depression, my condition only really began to improve when I fully embraced suicide as a possibility. Why? Because it created a floor for the quality of my life. My life will never fall below a certain threshold because I’d kill myself before it does. This one simple act was massively motivating for me and put me on a more positive path.
A society that acts as you propose. That trys to hide and constantly talk people out of suicide instead of letting them properly engage with themselves and their personal needs is what nearly drove me to doing it myself. Accepting suicide as an option stopped me from doing it, because by accepting it I found I could always escape a bad situation, if not by wit, then by gun.
I’m not arguing objective mortality as you anti suicide types love so much. I’m arguing that only in recognizing and engaging with all aspects of oneself and ones own mental state in an honest fashion can a person actually find real healing and that can be helped along by a society that doesn’t try to dictate your actions, but encourages honest self reflection and introspection without judgment. And I personally believe that is a good thing. Perhaps you disagree, that’s fine. As we both agree, morality is not objective, we all have our own standards.