Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChrisMarshallNY | Hacker News Reader

This is something that I have had some personal experience with. I've known quite a few suicides, and survivors of the suicides of others.

Very much a "walk a mile in a man's shoes" kind of thing. Everyone has opinions on the matter, until it hits them. Then, they have personal experience (not just an opinion).

It sucks. In some cases, I can see why someone would want to end it all. In others, like this one[0], I find it doubly tragic, as there are proven alternative solutions (I personally know many people that were once far worse off than that gentleman, and are now doing quite well).

When we are in a singularity of pain, it seems like the suffering will never stop, and we can convince ourselves there's no escape. In some cases, we're right, but other times, not so much.

It's a permanent "solution" to what is often a temporary problem.

[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/man-holland-...

View on HN

> In others, like this one[0], I find it doubly tragic, as there are proven alternative solutions

"eight years of help and 21 stints in rehab" sounds like they tried pretty hard to find a better solution. Not everyone can be cured.

Like I said, I personally know folks that have been clean for decades, and went through worse. I’ll be hanging out with a bunch, tonight.

Addiction is a very strange problem. Lots of folks have opinions on it, but I have experience with it.

And that’s about all I’ll say on the matter.

I've always found it interesting that addictive behaviour is often seen as a virtue by our society if it's about the 'right sort of thing' (as far as society is concerned).

We end up considering people as 'dedicated' or 'committed' to some cause or other. If they are a workaholic, or pious, or a sports superstar, or a concert pianist, chances are there is an addictive personality that just happens to have gotten attached to a socially acceptable pursuit.

Meanwhile, the same people with a slight twist of fate end up in rehab.

Addiction is defined by the negative impact on the addict, not the behavior itself.

It is a semantics game. Drive, Focus, and motivation are just that unless they are maladaptive and detrimental to the individual.

These behaviors only become addiction when they run counter to the goals and desires of the individual.

That's just utilitarianism?

There's a bunch of things where the morality of what you're doing will change depending on a small detail, with the main action being essentially the same.

Eg, if you dedicate yourself to exterminating rats with dedication and professionalism you'll be a hero, do the same thing using the same tools and attitude to cats and dogs and you'll be a monster.

Which is exactly how it should be IMO. We build the world we live in by enacting change in it. Praising actions in a context devoid of its consequences is a good way to end up in a world where everyone basically hacks the reward algorithm without any concerns about the results of that.

There's a constructive/destructive dimension to all behaviours, even addiction. Constructive addictions have probably created a lot of great art, innovations and achievements, where destructive addictions ruin the lives of a person and those around them. Not that addiction in any form is necessarily healthy, but it seems obvious that constructive ones are more healthy than destructive ones, for all involved.

Worth pointing out. I know of a person who was a workaholic and then died pretty young from also having been a secret alcoholic for much of their life.

No such thing as an addictive personality- it was invented by the pharmaceutical companies (the term) to play down the addictive effects of their drugs, doctors were told only people with addictive personalities will get hooked on the opioids

I can't say much about 'personalities' but it has been quite consistently demonstrated that some people are genetically predisposed and more likely to become addicted to certain substances than others regardless of social factors or even (pre-addiction) consumption patterns.

I also think there's something to it: each person is different.

I've smoked and quit a couple of times, and still get urges to go back sometimes. Meanwhile, I know people who casually smoke once in a while and don't get the habit.

I don't want to be arrogant or looks like moron, but how can you know that people that you know "went through worse"? How can you measure it? I`m really curious, because all my life I live with understanding that there no way to measure other people feeling, emotions, suffering.

I think the point is that the critical differences are on the inside, not on the outside.

People can go through worse experiences on the outside and recover and overcome.

This points to the somewhat obvious reality that how people handle and respond to their environmental conditions is a critical factor in outcomes.

Sometimes you have to fix the internal root of feelings, emotions, and suffering. You can believe the difference IS the person, without being overly judgmental. In fact, realizing that person themselves needs to be changed is often a key part of recovery.

I think you've really hit the nail on the head here. I think substance abuse is often treated as the underlying root problem when its just a symptom of a much deeper trauma or mental health problem. The lifestyle changes (often) required to deal with the underlying problem can't be forced on the person once the stint in rehab ends. They are usually right back to their old situation with their old friends in their old routines, or they stop taking their medicines or any number of things that lead to relapse.

This is pretty well known. The surviving brother in that story even says that his brother was using alcohol to deal with anxiety and depression.

Sure, it's possible for someone who went to war and ended up killing a family of civilians to recover, overcome and lead happy and fulfilled lives henceforth. Does it mean that another soldier struggling with constant guilt and nightmares is defective and in the need of fixing? Our justice system imposes death penalty for murder. What if someone is truly convinced, on rational bases, that they have committed a murder, but in the circumstances where justice doesn't act? Are they acting insane by taking a matter in their own hands?

Now let's take another person who NEEDS to be surrounded by love and belonging and ends up estranged from family and devoid of friends, living alone in an apartment at the age of 50? Are you suggesting that this person needs to be fixed to not intensely crave those things? Or that efforts to build these up at their age are likely to be successful in today's society? Just what physical, emotional and financial resources is anyone else willing to contribute towards this person's well-being, other than pumping them full of numbing drugs?

My point is pretty simple. It is that the critical differences are on the inside, not on the outside.

I wasn't taking a position on what people should do with this information, but I think that understanding the fact is important if you want to change anything, or simply understand how the world works.

In the context of depression, I think it is up to the individual if they want to change. In your example, the relevant question is if the lonely 50 year old wants to change. As long as they aren't hurting me, I am fine with them choosing either option. What, if anything, I am willing to do the help, would depend on if or how much I care for the individual.

What do you think about your questions? It seems like you have on opinion you aren't stating.

My opinion is that in the end I don't think really wanting a change is enough for most people in sad social circumstances. They simply do not have the stamina, the skills or the opportunities to get out of the rut.

For example, I have a much more modest desire to have a shared hobby with is common and not expensive or difficult to pursue and a group of friends (casual to start with) to go and do that in free time. I have been at it for a year, taking classes, asking classmates and coworkers to join me. Not. A. Single. Luck.

Now, I have family, successful career, financial freedom, enough health to be active, no serious character flaws that would tax friendships. Are you telling me a fat and bitter guy who have been living alone long enough to be rusty in social graces is going to suddenly have willing friend material, let alone romantic prospects?

Personally I am not going to judge him or say he should have just tried harder. You?

>My opinion is that in the end I don't think really wanting a change is enough for most people in sad social circumstances. They simply do not have the stamina, the skills or the opportunities to get out of the rut.

I would agree that it often isn't enough by itself. My thinking is more along the the lines that it is a necessary prerequisite, but not always sufficient by itself. Nothing in this life is guaranteed.

Im not interested in judging some random stranger. Maybe they should have tried harder, maybe they should have tried something else. Maybe it would have worked, maybe it wouldn't. However, I know if they dont try, then they have no chance.

My advice to a friend or someone I cared for would be different. You can't let your happiness be contingent of factors outside your control. If you can't make yourself happy, you are extremely unlikely to find someone or something else to do it for you. If you don't like who you are, then you need to start there because you cant run from yourself. The bad news is that it is your problem to fix, and the good news is that it is your problem to fix. Success is not guaranteed, but these are baseline facts you need to accept if you want to have a chance at change.

You cant force someone to be your friend, let alone a romantic partner.

Oh well, my advice to someone I cared about is tell me what I can do to help. And of course at this point, other commitments in my life as well as general ideas of what is healthy come into play. The other person will have to respect my boundaries and put in a substantial effort to be helped effectively. But, that is very different from being left on your own.

Since I obviously can't care about everyone, I would like to see a society that encourages virtuous cycles rather than downward spirals. Let there be regular public holidays with festivities that single individuals can enjoy without being awkward and that provide opportunities to reconnect with neighbors and meet strangers. Let there be a culture where if one is missing a cooking ingredient or needs to borrow a stepladder, the first impulse is to ask a neighbor for help rather than going to Instacart. This will give these neighbors a license to stop by and chat later without losing their dignity.

Collectively, majority that is doing Ok mentally is in a better position to boost someone who is not, without any single person getting overwhelmed, as opposed to someone who is down figuring it out on their own.

> Or that efforts to build these up at their age are likely to be successful in today's society?

I've seen that happen -literally- hundreds, if not thousands, of times.

It's usually difficult. Like, really difficult, but sometimes, it's well worth the effort. We can often help each other through the rough bits.

I've known a few folks that have done pretty awful things (not getting into detail), and have recovered. Many, work hard to help others to recover.

Love, charity, empathy, and generosity are very powerful.

There was a book written by Richard Adams (Watership Down), called Shardik[0]. It's about redemption. Sort of like the Ashoka myth[1]. Not a unique trope.

It's never too late to recover. In many cases, we may not climb "as high" as we once were, but are much happier. In other cases, it's the opposite.

I know a chap that wanted to put the park bench he slept on, in the garden of his mansion. He couldn't find it, though, as the city had replaced them, by that time.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shardik

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka

Oh sure, I know people have rebuilt their lives in 50s. But there is luck and anecdotes and there is prevailing reality. When something is difficult, it requires physical and emotional stamina to overcome. At some point, one may be unable to handle hundreds of rejections after trying to make a single casual friend in a space of years. Not lazy, or insufficiently motivated, just not able to, period. And that assumes, for example, enough financial independence and free time from work to try in the first place. I am not ready to declare people who give up defective or put all the responsibility at their feet, rather than society in general or plain bad luck.

Well, I can only speak for myself, and for those in my peer group, but we regularly help each other to rebuild our lives.

It takes a community. It's not usually something we can do, on our own.

Long story, and not one for press, radio, and film.

AKA the "man up" argument. You know people who survived worse, thereby somehow invalidating the people who didn't make it when they were suffering less. Because you have experience with it and can therefore judge others.

Nobody is saying it's easy or that people are invalid here.

ChrisMarshallNY is sitting in judgment of the fellow in Holland who made use of the euthanasia laws there.

Specifically:

"I find it doubly tragic, as there are proven alternative solutions" (judgment)

"I personally know many people that were once far worse off than that gentleman, and are now doing quite well" (justification that invalidates the man's suffering)

"Lots of folks have opinions on it, but I have experience with it." (Pushing his opinion above others, to hammer the judgment home)

He doesn't know Mark Langedijk's mind and soul, and yet he feels comfortable desecrating the man's legacy.

You have a point, but I would submit that "desecrating the man's legacy" is a bit ... shall we say ... over-the-top ... rhetoric?

I assume that you have known many, many folks like him (and like me), and are comfortable being extremely and overtly judgmental.

Too bad. I looked at your GH profile, and I suspect that we'd find a lot in common.

Hacker News civility makes it more acceptable to use an over the top phrase like that, where normally I suspect he would have jumped to straightforward ones like “being a dick”.

Well, like I have said, before, I always find it fascinating, when folks in a professional venue, initiate relationships with an attack.

Not exactly sure the advantages it brings, but never a dull moment, eh?

The idea that any posts in this thread "invalidate's this man's suffering" is hyperbole.

Anyway, what's wrong with judgement? Despite some people's insistence on it being taboo, there's nothing wrong with judging other people's behavior.

From what I've seen, I have no doubt Chris means well.

People everywhere have all different things worth living for, and of course there are ups & downs that vary across time and relationships.

Regardless whether someone has the capacity to be helpful or harmful, almost always some judgement needs to be made or absolutely neither one will be forthcoming.

And there is always going to be someone else to disagree.

Whether either one is correct I wonder who is supposed to be the judge of that?

I see not a word of desecration.

Looking at the story of this particular dying Dutchman, seems to me the only thing within reach beforehand were quite temporary solutions not capable of overcoming relatively longer term problems.

I don't find that to be overly invalidating or judgmental.

There is a difference between saying you think someone is/was wrong, and denying their humanity.

It’s the definition of judgmental to say someone is wrong like that. You’re judging their actions as wrong.

Note that I said overly judgmental. Judgment itself is part of the human condition. You can judge an action or choice without demeaning or dehumanizing the person. You can even do it from a place of empathy understanding and compassion.

The idea of that people shouldn't or can't judge any choice or action another makes is absurd at face value.

Except you very rarely have enough information to make informed judgements. It’s inherently dehumanizing to assume the limited information you get from say a news article is all that’s relevant because it treats them as cardboard cutouts of actual people.

It’s easy to see a pregnant teen and think poor thoughts about them without considering if perhaps they are older than you assume and married or they got rapped etc. Read about a convict and perhaps they did something horrible or perhaps they’re wrongly convicted, you simply didn’t know.

Are you discounting the person who chose euthanasia’s experience with it by saying that though?

Nope.

I personally know people who have been dirty for decades. A friend of mine "inherited" the stewardship of one such person and he was a miserable bastard until he died of cancer and the only people who knew him regretted that it didn't progress faster. He was a drag on the few people willing to associate with him (neither his mother or daughter among them) both emotionally and financially. I myself helped clean up the disgusting mass of cigarette tar filled beer cans he left in my friend's house after he passed.

So your mileage may vary I suppose. And that's about all I'll say on the matter.

I’d appreciate it if you didn’t dismiss everybody’s opinions on the matter for lack of direct experience. You’re setting things up to avoid debate.

"War talk by men who have been in a war is always interesting; whereas moon talk by a poet who has not been in the moon is likely to be dull."

- Mark Twain

The good thing about interesting vs dull is that you can just filter it on the spot. No need to dismiss people before actually hearing what has been said.

There's enough wiseacring as is.

The first step would be to understand that rehab is not the solution to any kind of problem.

Rehab is about making a lot of money, not healing people, they benefit from relapsing, they have zero incentive to help people.

This is a typical overly cynical and overly online take. I think it would be dispelled by talking to or being friends with a single person that works in rehab

there are certain places where a lot of dubious, predatory drug rehab facilities have popped up in the last decade, since health insurance now has to pay for it, yet it's not quite regulated like other healthcare. if you see a lot of these it can make you very cynical.

I'm sure bad things happen, but to embrace all or nothing cynicism is to reject reality.

It is pathological in it's own right to paint the world with such broad and biased brushstrokes.

You could apply this to countless professions.

Plumbing is about making a lot of money, they benefit from you pipes leaking again.

We just have to hope that human beings actually care about their work.

Cleaning houses is about making money too. Eventually you're going to be ready to keep the house clean after they leave.

Rehab helps about a quarter of the people it treats - provided you accept that they'll probably need multiple rounds of treatment. It's wicked to encourage the belief that a single round of rehab, followed by lots of willpower, is likely to solve problems.

Single rounds of rehab do sometimes work, and longer sessions have better changes. Willpower is part of it, but often completely changing one’s social circle is critical.

Commenting under you on the entire subthread here....

I think this is a two part problem. If you talk to a particular therapist/counselor it would be very rare to find one that doesn't want to see you get better. In general the people at this level are empathetic and do care.

But above that there is a 'rehab system'. You start moving away from the people that want to see other people get better towards that people that want to see the system make as much as much money as possible no matter the cost.

We talk about systems like this all the time here on HN with the term 'Molochs'. Systems where the individual optimum would be X, where X is things people actually like and think are good. Instead the system optimizes towards Y, where Y is far worse outcome for individuals, and individuals are seemingly powerless to stop the system from optimizing on Y.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

> "eight years of help and 21 stints in rehab" sounds like they tried pretty hard to find a better solution.

First step towards that would be to ditch Anonymous Alcoholics and other religious cult-based "rehabs".

I'm a staunch atheist and was also very cynical about this too. That is, until I attended several of these meetings in support of a friend.

The intensity of the religious aspect probably varies depending on where you live but what I observed was pretty minor and wasn't at all offensive.

The two people I know who have been helped by AA are happy and healthy now.

AA and other twelve-steps programs are not inherently "religious-based". They only ask you to believe in some power higher than yourself that you can tap into as a source of inner sternness and restraint. You can call that a spiritual outlook if you like, but it's a very mild one and quite far from any organized or established religion. And it actually works quite well as far as helping people to stop drinking and stay off alcohol for the long term.

There have been many that linked it to being cultist (e.g. [1]).

> And it actually works quite well as far as helping people to stop drinking and stay off alcohol for the long term.

In any case, that is my biggest issue with AA and a lot of other "abstinence" programs (particularly those mandated by courts): they all but mandate that complete and utter sobriety is the only acceptable way instead of helping people to moderate their consumption or to find out and fix why they are consuming substances. Someone who's in hurt because their partner died or cheated upon them or they lost their job or home (these four causes are behind a lot of addiction careers) doesn't need a sobriety program run by questionably or barely qualified random joes, they need professional counseling.

[1] https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2023/03/from-the-archives-exposin...

I spent decades of my life trying to pursue moderation. It doesn't work (for me). The Sinclair Method worked. I tried AA but the white knuckle approach wasn't right for me. I know people who have absolutely gotten sober using AA, others who use both, and others still who use different medications.

In my experience, moderation was the worst possible solution. It was like perpetually kicking the problem down the road to be dealt with on another day. Relapse was frequent and always right around the corner, and with relapse came shame, guilt, and other feelings of failure.

I just wrote a long reply detailing why moderation isnt an option for people like me, but as usual the best explanation of my relationship with alcohol comes from the Westwing:

> I'm an alcoholic. I don't have one drink. [pauses] I don't understand people who have one drink. I don't understand people who leave half a glass of wine on the table. I don't understand people who say they've had enough. How can you have enough of feeling like this? How can you not want to feel like this longer? [pauses, sighs] My brain works differently.

> sobriety is the only acceptable way instead of helping people to moderate their consumption

That only works for some people and not others (likely due to genetic factors amongst other reasons). Which can be quite hard to grasp for people who are actually able (or believe that they are...) to 'moderate their consumption'.

Have you been to an AA meeting?

> I personally know many people that were once far worse off than that gentleman, and are now doing quite well

This sounds extremely callous unless you were the dead man’s therapist or close personal friend. Surely you’re not going to infer you understand the situation from news articles.

> proven alternate solutions

Plenty of people seek help and yet still die of alcoholism despite trying to fix the addiction. There is no 100% guaranteed solution, and unless you are intimately familiar with the dead man’s life I really don’t understand how you can assume he didn’t try to get clean.

> Surely you’re not going to infer you understand the situation from news articles.

Surely you're not presuming you understand the horrors that the OP has himself witnessed or been privy to? For all you know the OP could have been working with addicts for 50 years and literally seen it all. Maybe be a bit more charitable.

> 50 years

42, actually.

Not everyone’s experience of pain is the same. We should keep that in mind and have empathy.

exactly. the alcohol is usually just secondary and self-medication to deal with pain and that pain is very individual and personal.

And often there is no other solution and I’m very happy that people in my country have a choice about this. I would not want to see others suffer so that I won’t suffer their loss.

>I would not want to see others suffer so that I won’t suffer their loss.

The world being what it is, it's increasingly the opposite: others left or encouraged even to commit suicide (assisted or otherwise) so people dont have to help and support them.

In Canada it's increasingly becoming a trend for poor people to commit assisted suicide, not because they have some incurable disease and pain, but because they can't get by and are depressed by it.

The Canada example is not about suicide at all but about the impact of a society without a safety net. The issue isn’t the suicides, it’s almost a logical response to a situation that is objectively terrible without a possibility or getting better.

It's connected though, when assisted suicide there, is not just legal, but increasingly accepted, nornalized, or even encouraged as an invididual solution to not having a safety net.

So, the cause of the problem isn't the suicides - but they are offered (and used) as a way-out of it. This eases the burden on the state to do something to solve the root problem (why improve their condition, when they just off themselves and they wont be bothering us with their need for help anymore?).

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/woman-with-chemical-sensitivit...

> Woman with chemical sensitivities chose medically-assisted death after failed bid to get better housing

https://www.liveaction.org/news/euthanasia-unjust-social-con...

> a recent poll found that 27 percent of Canadians polled strongly or moderately agree that euthanasia is acceptable for suffering caused by “poverty” and 28 percent strongly or moderately agree that killing by doctors is acceptable for suffering caused by homelessness.

> And in the context of medical issues, the authors claim that this includes killing patients who would not want to die if they could access proper treatment (emphasis theirs)

> So, socialized medicine fails, and a splendid answer to the problem for patients in need is euthanasia. Do you see now why I call euthanasia/assisted suicide “abandonment?”

While this case is indeed controversial and worthy of examining... I'm sceptical of "liveaction.org" as a source because it describes itself thusly: "Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective."

Nothing wrong with that of course, but I'd hardly consider it an authoritative source.

This was a commentary piece which quoted (to comment on) other sources.

Almost everyone talking about this topic is at least biased, and generally (what's-the-word for "motivated to convince others as to their point-of-view"?).

Upon closer inspection, it's an exact reprint of from an article from "National Review" which is a famously conservative organization.

>This was a commentary piece which quoted (to comment on) other sources.

Understood. I just thought I'd point out the potential for bias because it isn't obvious at a quick read. One of the great things about HN (IMHO) is that people tend to discuss things from a more scientific perspective than a religious or ideological one.

More to the point, there is no link to this study cited in the very first paragraph. As a Canadian I've never heard of this study so was interested to take a look. Googling a bit found the results and further discussion on why the National Review interpretation of it is pretty dishonest.

Sorry, but this is a terrible source for HN.

>Upon closer inspection, it's an exact reprint of from an article from "National Review" which is a famously conservative organization.

Conservative? It must be wrong then! Everybody knows that only liberal sources can have correct viewpoints!

> More to the point, there is no link to this study cited in the very first paragraph. As a Canadian I've never heard of this study so was interested to take a look. Googling a bit found the results and further discussion on why the National Review interpretation of it is pretty dishonest.

Here is the study:

https://researchco.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Tables_MAiD...

The relevant question:

"At this point, only an adult with a grievous and irremediable medical condition can seek medical assistance in dying in Canada. Do you agree or disagree with allowing adults in Canada to seek medical assistance in dying because of the following reasons?"

(a) Poverty Agreeing 27% (Strongly agree 11% + Moderately agree 16%)

(b) Homelessness Agreeing 28% (Strongly agree 11% + Moderately agree 17%)

>found the results and further discussion on why the National Review interpretation of it is pretty dishonest.

Dishomest "interpretation", eh? Let's focus on the shocking raw results then, with the number agreeing with those two cases being above 1%?

(Sure, one might expect a 1% of hardcore scum being OK with the poor getting assistance to off themselves to solve their poverty/homelessness in any society. Maybe 2%. But not even Thacher would expect an above 5% agreement on that).

>Conservative? It must be wrong then! Everybody knows that only liberal sources can have correct viewpoints!

That's not what I said. There's a vast difference between quoting X public figure might have a conservative viewpoint and quoting an opinion piece from an organization who's entire reason for existing is to spread conservative opinions. Spreading those opinions is literally their job. It's what pays the rent.

I hope you can see why that is important context to know.

>Dishomest "interpretation", eh?

As mentioned, I did see the question and the results already but I'm still glad you posted it. As you can see the question is about "assistance in dying". It says it twice. But that opinion piece discussing the results however never even mentions the phrase. It does use the much scarier words "euthanasia" and <gasp> "murder" repeatedly. (Just in case the distinction is unclear - assisted dying implies personal autonomy, while euthanasia and murder do not). So what we have here is not just a conservative opinion, it's literally false information. Euthanasia is not what the poll is about. Nor murder.

Note: I'm not interested in advocating for or against assisted dying or discussing the poll results. That's tangential to my point; this is terrible source to post on HN.

From my perspective the poll itself is somewhat biased in wording. Personally I'm in favor of not using these terms at all, but explicitly writing out the process in the question: "Are you in favor of allowing people to have medical practitioners inject or provide them with lethal drugs in order to die for reasons of..."

In 2021 there were 10,064 deaths by MAiD in Canada, fewer than 7 were self-administered[1]. Making greater than 99.9% of MAiD deaths euthanasia, or at least consented-to mercy killings. I personally think calling them "assistance in dying" implies an autonomy in the actual act that does not exist. The autonomy is theoretically[2] in the decision (until the exact moment of administration), but this is the case for all suicides.

"Assisted dying" also, to me, implies inevitability. That the person is already dying, and that this process is just made easier. 219 of the 10,064 MAiD deaths (2.18%) in 2021 were of people whose deaths were "not reasonably foreseeable" (not in progress)[1]. "Assisted dying" is a disingenuous term for these deaths, "assisted suicide" is better. I don't know whether the change in terms would have altered the polling results. I'd presume that most people realize that poverty is not a lethal condition, but I don't know what's going through their heads as they answer the question.

[1] - https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assi...

[2] - Except for those who feel pressured into it for social or economic reasons.

This particular issue is difficult to discuss from a scientific perspective, because basically the only non-opinion (i.e. ideological) questions that can be asked are: whether making assisted suicide legal increases or decreases total suicides, and what are the economic impacts of assisted suicide legalization. Everything else about assisted suicide is ideological or ideological driven (at minimum, the balance between antipathies of death compared to pain).

Everyone talking about this is biased. Some lie or exaggerate, and this is important to point out, but every source of information cherry-picks what they choose to highlight.

I agree that bias is unavoidable. But what we're talking about here is an organization who's entire purpose for existing is to spread conservative views. Furthermore, they blatantly misrepresented the very question asked in the poll. The poll is not about "euthanasia" or "murder", yet the piece implies otherwise.

Since it's emotionally charged and intentionally misleading, it's not really the best source to quote.

> it's not really the best source to quote.

Sure. I presumed people could parse out the emotion from such an obviously biased source and focus on the claims. But yes, cherry-picked quotes have a higher likelihood from such a source.

The purpose of a source doesn't matter. Whether or not they are misrepresenting (and what they are misrepresenting) does. ProPublica exists solely "To expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing." Yet it does it right, earning a very highly-placed spot on the Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart.

Just take the "L" :-). You're not going to convince me that it was a worthwhile source, or that the motivations of a speaker don't deserve consideration. Thats plainly absurd. Especially when there's money AND (religious) ideology involved. Sorry.

It's true that no source is perfect - but some sources are much less perfect than others.

Anyways, thanks for the respectful dialogue. Cheers.

I was thinking of this as a discussion, not something people can win or lose. You having an opposite opinion isn't a loss to me, because we had a good discussion about it.

I enjoyed the discussion. If you gave some semblance of acknowledgment that the opinion piece wasn't so great, and those same sentiments could be expressed in a more constructive manner we could have moved on. No worries, though. Cheers.

It was a poor source for the content that I didn't directly quote. I stand by the content that I did quote.

What’s the basis of this strong claim?

Some people are opposed to suicide under any circumstances because it is proscribed by their religion. They have been told by an authority that it’s wrong. They hold a strong bias against it.

For people without that view, why would they be biased? Are they not free to come to their own conclusion? Having an opinion does not preclude a good faith argument. And holding an opinion contrary to someone’s dogma does not make an opinion dogmatic.

> For people without that view, why would they be biased?

- Fear of pain

- Fear of old age, or aging in general

- Fear of debility

- Fear of loss of autonomy

- Desire for liberty to do what they want without input from others who may be affected by their decisions

Most people don't opine on issues unless they feel strongly about them. A strong feeling is a bias. There are few scientific parameters on the issues of suicide/euthanasia/MAiD, but it's fraught with ideological parameters, and basically all of the discussion about it comes down to ideology-based claims (with the few fact-based claims used as singular arguments to support a position).

I'm an atheist who values life in large part because I don't believe in an afterlife. I find pain unpleasant, but don't particularly fear it (at this point in my life). I fear the social pressures that government sanctioning and assistance with suicide brings. I fear the decisions that would be made about me, if I'm incapacitated, by people with different moral standards, in a societal framework that encourages them to make those calls for me. I fear the repercussions of "me"-centric (egocentric) social policies, given the power differentials between various individuals. These are my biases.

Those sound like views you have arrived at by your own consideration, and not things that would cause you to discuss the topic dogmatically.

Bias does not necessitate dogmatism. I've read at least one non-dogmatic Catholic priest on suicide.

There's just nothing "scientific" about these sorts of opinions, though, from either side.

Edit to add: I was taking the term "dogmatic" as the colloquial usage. There are ideas about freedom, suffering, and the role of government or physicians that are effectively secular dogmas pertinent to assisted suicide. And many Catholics have personal (non-dogmatic) reasons for their beliefs. Even strong believers pick and choose which parts of religious dogma they find authoritative.

To be frank, I don’t buy those stories about people being nudged to commit suicide. In NL we have euthanasia for decades and the system works well. I think those scare stories originate from politically / religiously tainted sources.

Trying not to judge this guy but to put your parents through that seems unimaginable to me. Could not comprehend gathering my family around to watch me kill myself.

people seek alcohol in pathological amounts to numb a pain they carry around. you don't know what pain that was for him and what caused it. not everybody stumbles into alcoholism out of habit, partying too much or work related stress.

I'm no doctor but I know they seldom have actual pharmaceutical cures, however they can often provide worthwhile treatments which are very effective and truly make life more worth living.

Not always through medication.

Sometimes things work out for the best without doctors involved, also with medication or not.

I just have a lifetime of working (as carefully as possible to minimize harmful exposure) with very toxic materials.

Beverage Grade alcohol is just one of them.

People widely accept that alcohol is truly a substance that can be abused, but it has never been scientifically sound to classify it as a "drug".

It is simply a toxic solvent like many others, it's primary effect is not to kill pain, more so just to kill, usually germs but depending on the amount applied, all life forms eventually.

Most will agree that one of the additional characteristics of a solvent is to accomplish dilution of some kind or another. Maybe not unlike weakening a strong pigment with paint thinner, solvents in the bloodstream seem to weaken an otherwise strong mental state. Sometimes also not so strong to begin with. I think it's also well known people like it anyway, some choose alcohol, others paint thinner, sometimes depending on availability sometimes not. Ideally whether painting or not the solvent dissipates and things end up as intended.

Toxic materials will always have dangers which sometimes accumulate more than others, and need to be carefully balanced against non-toxic approaches.

As we have seen, the overwhelming number of toxic choices can seem so encompassing and exclusive to alternatives.

How are you defining “drug”? Or, I guess maybe I should be asking “how is ‘drug’ defined in the field which is the context that your statement that it doesn’t make sense to classify alcohol as a ‘drug’?” if you are using a standard definition like that?

I think I’ve heard that the word pharmakon can be translated as any of [poison, medicine, drug, paint]? That’s I guess not really relevant, but I wanted to mention it because all 4 of those translations seem relevant to your comment, and this amused me.

Good question, and well stated.

I am the first to admit being a terminology geek.

I say "pharma" of any kind today implies overwhelming benefit compared to risk in making a disorder measurably better, and I expect doctors and pharmacists to know this better than me.

When it comes to solvents though, and materials much more toxic than appear in the pharmacopeia, I do have an unfair advantage in direct experience and decades of intense study for the most part.

Substance abuse or addiction is possible whether or not the substance is really a drug or even very toxic or responsible for physical dependence.

I guess my point is that people can use things, and develop a dependence of many different kinds, like they were a drug even if they are something as simple as a common solvent.

Availability may mean more than "drug seeking behavior" a lot of the time.

Sometimes it's straightforward toxicity-seeking.

Chemically, solvents are usually very simple industrial chemicals compared to the vast majority of true drugs, especially the drugs in the PDR which are mostly carefully crafted for particular patients, rather than general consuption (like beer or liquor) or non-consumption which is how I scientifically categorize the solvents overall.

When I see people treat drugs no differently than alcohol, or alcohol no differently than drugs, I just don't think that is the most realistic treatment.

Once again, I'm not the expert on metabolism but I do think the metabolic effects are far too dissimilar also.

Disclaimer: my first job was with a drug manufacturer, I got there after paying my way at the university giving chemistry lessons to pre-med students, but that's as far as I went in that field. Solvents OTOH, I've been handling and directly observing their effects for decades since.

Sidenote: You might want to describe that link, as The Independent redirects based on location and/or device language. All I get is the front page.

It's about a chap in Holland that was a recidivist alcoholic, who took advantage of the Dutch Euthanasia laws, to end his life.

There's really no way to put a positive spin on it. It sucks, no matter what opinions we hold on the matter.

The laws aren't the issue. If someone really wants to end things; they will. I have seen it many times, and alternative means can be absolutely devastating to the survivors.

> who took advantage of the Dutch Euthanasia laws, to end his life ... it sucks, no matter what opinions we hold on the matter

His brother disagrees with you, explicitly answering an anti-euthanasia protester with: "I am just glad my brother did not have to jump in front of a train or live a few more years in agony before dying of his abuse"

He could have ODed on opium from the dark web. He could have networked with other suicidal people to find a humane way to kill himself (or be killed).

I hate that people steelman governmental oversight and approval of suicide by strawmanning the other options.

In countries which legalize euthanasia it becomes easier to do it for more reasons.

Just keep it illegal, but don't prosecute people who try to do it. When a person reaches a point where they really want to die, they can figure out a way.

I would think my right to live also includes my right to die with dignity.

Sure. But just as you don't have a right to material support from the state in order to live, you don't have a right to material support from the state in order to die. Unless you happen to live in a country in which you do have such a right. Regardless, these rights are limited. I'm in favor of increasing the first right such that suicides are minimized, and reducing the second right to not prosecuting you for attempting suicide.

Well thought.

When considering rights conferred by authorities or society, there is often litte relationship between what's available at any one time, to what is beneficial to any one individual, who most often has no significant input about ways their particular needs may be better addressed.

My right means the government can't hinder me. Making it illegal, regardless of whether it's prosecuted or not is stamping on my rights. The government has no ability to make it illegal

I took GP to be mean that it's sad that the man felt the need to end his life. His final sentence seems to support that sentiment.

In the article, the family of the patient cited that his alcoholism was secondary to his depression - a symptom of the bigger thing he was suffering from. The article goes to lengths though (see: title) to put the focus on “an alcoholic was euthanized.”

The brother’s relevant quote:

> "My brother suffered from depression and anxiety and tried to 'cure' it with alcohol. He's from a normal family, he did not want this to happen. He did not take an easy way out. Just a humane one.

> "If that's troubling for Mrs Bruce that's a pity. I am just glad my brother did not have to jump in front of a train or live a few more years in agony before dying of his abuse.

I can’t tell you for sure what is fact, but I’m inclined to take the more rational explanation of the family over the irrational “this was an alcoholic choosing death over rehab.”

https://archive.is/TKUXU https://web.archive.org/web/20161130080200/https://www.indep...

Headline is “Man in the Netherlands euthanised due to his alcohol addiction”

Just to be clear, in case anyone doesn't read the article: the man chose by himself to be euthanized, not the alternate reading I first thought.

Death isn't the terrible tragedy many make it out to be. Very soon we will all be dead; this is all temporary anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com