Physically healthy 28-year-old woman schedules euthanasia due to depression
themirror.com
themirror.com
I'm not sure for what reason people think everyone needs to be alive and live long natural lives. If she doesn't end her life humanely and in the comfort of trained professionals, she can just simply do it at home in a far more unpleasant way. Hope it all goes well for them.
What's the difference? It's unavoidable that long term if assisted suicide is normalized (and even endorsed by the healthcare system) more people who wouldn't have chosen that option on their own will decide to kill themselves (or ask a doctor to do it).
How do you think a person suffering from a mental illness would be affected by their psychiatrist telling them that he can't help him anymore and that maybe they should consider killing themselves? A terminal cancer patient has no hope and is doomed to die regardless of anything else. That's not the case if you suffering from a severe mental health issue: - there are many other treatment options that they didn't try (because they couldn't afford to, are not available in their home country, they aren't aware of them etc. etc.) - a definitive diagnosis is impossible, psychiatrists are not oncologists and due to the nature of the field only have a very vague understanding of what they are even doing.
I'm certainly not judging the person who chose this path (even if they weren't indirectly forced into it by other people and had no other options, even if I find it hard to believe that could be the case very often) but from the perspective of the state/society/healthcare system this creates some very perverse incentives. The cost difference between investing large amounts of money into new advances/expensive (possibly not even financially but politically) treatments and using euthanasia as a way to solve the same problem (just way more effectively) is pretty big.
Is that happening as policy? Anyway, we can always add a rule not to do this.
What does that matter? Aren’t we all supposed to be entitled to have that control over our own lives?
The last time I saw him he was just like a zombie from all the medications he was on.
He committed suicide just before Xmas a few years back and I had to wait for the coroner and the cops before I could move the step ladder and they kindly removed the rope from the beam.
I wished he had a more dignified option available to him and that his wife did not find him like that but I doubt his family would have accepted his decision to end his own life.
It's a big part of why so many big name romans fell on their swords on defeat, metaphorically or literally. Self-determination was seen as a bigger virtue than life, and e.g. Cato killing himself was regarded as a way to rob Julius Caesar of ultimate victory, turning him into a sort of martyr for the philosophy.
I am willing to grant them the point that in a hypothetical society where suicide was not taboo, but an mundane and uncontroversial act, a lot of things we consider problems would vanish overnight. Indentured servitude, extortion, social injustice, slavery. All these hinge on a human being having no way out of mistreatment. In such a society, it would be largely impossible to compel anyone to do something against their will.
At first glance, this seems like it would benefit the bullies, but if you think further, you realize they would find themselves completely isolated without allies. The only way to successfully work with other people would be through cooperation.
It's obviously not entirely realistic to have a society that functions this way, but it's arguably an underexplored counterfactual that raises questions regarding who actually benefits from particular taboo.
Hope is what you may be referring to here. If a person in mistreatment could let go of hope and accept the now as the way it always will be, they would be freed to end their life and have that dignity of self determination. I have read somewhere that kidnappers will give their victims false hope of being released because it makes the victim less willing to fight back.
Unfortunately for those of us in most of the world, we need to work jobs that may not be appealing to us at all, and may even beat us down physically and mentally over time, in order to pay bills and support families. I'd argue most people are working against their will, but it's a lever they can pull to dump money into their bank accounts.
I know I wouldn't have a 9-5 job if I truly had the choice, and I happen to like my job and have fun with it most of the time!
> Indentured servitude, extortion, social injustice, slavery. All these hinge on a human being having no way out of mistreatment. In such a society, it would be largely impossible to compel anyone to do something against their will. > At first glance, this seems like it would benefit the bullies
Sure, people can remove themselves from harm, but most of the time they will remove the harm themselves - this definitely would not favor the bully
This is where revolutions and revolts come from
Suicide taboo is not holding anyone back
Ah mate I don't know about that.
> healthy young woman who struggles with crippling depression, autism and borderline personality disorder
Besides a large hole and some rust, the Titanic is in tip top shape.
Maybe one in five or ten are depressed
Isn't it about curability and pain?
Euthanasia for incurable cancer patients is a no-brainer, but for incurable depression sufferers? Well, their bodies are healthy. What if it's just a phase they'll grow out of? Maybe they're just faking it? They should probably be more grateful for the gifts they've received from God, and they'll be happy. Maybe they're just bad people?
This is absolutely not a universally held belief.
My point was that it is drastically easier to believe that euthanasia for cancer patients is okay, than for depression sufferers.
Nonsense - you clearly never had somebody close to you suffer from it. My daughter suffers from depression - it is not a state of mind or a funk you can snap out of.
That sentence is not a reflection of my opinion - my whole second paragraph was a mock example of how mental illness skeptics think about depression.
It really get's me in the crop when my family unfamiliar with mental illness says the same things.
The folks who think you only see a mental health professional or go to the clinic because you are mad.
These are fundamentally different situations. Incurable cancer patients are basically guaranteed to die because of their condition in the near future.
Allowing "euthanasia"/assisted suicide only normalizes suicide and encourages the state/societe/health-providers to dedicate less resources to mental health since we have a much cheaper/easier solution now. How do you determine that someone suffering from a mental health condition "terminally ill"? The patients surely can't do that themselves and the healthcare system(private or public) is only able to dedicate a certain amount of resources to a relatively limited number of approved treatment options.
I don't know what happened in this case but I'd bet that there were certainly many experimental (and probably mainstream) treatment options that she simply had no access to. Cancer and other terminal patients beyond a certain point are effectively doomed and can't be saved regardless of money/resources, they can't wait for another year or two for improved treatments, which IMHO is a huge difference because "euthanasia" shouldn't be an acceptable option unless every other option has been exhausted.
We don't object to euthanasia for incurable cancer because we understand that A) it's painful and B) it's terminal.
But that's not the case for depression because there are literally millions of people that have recovered or at least learned how to live with depression.
I'm just not sure that a 28 year old is really facing incurable depression.
You can be in a pretty long deep depression in your 20s and pull out of it in your 30s and 40s.
That you don’t have or see one doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
Are you some kind of arbiter of bodies and lives of others? If not, what's your business with that?
"But what if she gets better?", some say. What if she doesn't? What if there is no cure in her case? You may have gotten over a case of depression yourself, just like some people have recovered from a cancer. Does that mean that all cancers patients will eventually heal? So what makes you think that depression is any different?
Either way, if an adult is unwilling to live, they should be allowed to end their lives with dignity. Your desire to not go through with it yourself is not sufficient to deny it to others. We are all adults and can make our own decisions.
May the earth be light upon her.
Would you recommend death in all circumstances just in case?
Would you like a side of straw man with your order of controversial topic?
Nobody is proposing euthanasia as a first line of treatment for anything, folks. It is a desperate measure for desperate times.
Another straw man. The patient is not the one that decides the first line of treatment, either. Nobody is walking for the first time into a clinic like it was a coffee shop and casually ordering one suicide to go.
I'm afraid you will have to excuse me now.
Sitting here without crippling depression I certainly disagree with the choice.
Related material:
Dutch Euthanasia Report 2021 (English PDF): https://wfrtds.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/RTE_JV2021_ENG...
Number cases (1998-2022): https://www.statista.com/statistics/1363041/netherlands-euth...
Odd internal variations by district and other factors: https://healthcare-in-europe.com/en/news/a-critical-look-at-...
I haven't found a before|after comparison of suicide in the area, the report distinguishes between "Termination of life on request" (the bulk of cases) and "assisted suicide" - the criteria for differentiation of these likely has to do with terminal illness and quality of life.
In 2021 it was 7,459 Termination on request Vs 189 assisted suicide.
However, I still feel a bit conflicted about this situation. As per the report, she is physically fit, has a loving boyfriend, a pet cat, and doesn't seem to be in any monetary duress. Plus, she happens to be living in one of the happiest and prosperous countries in the world.
When I compare her with a vast multitude of people in developing countries who continue to toil against all odds (physical, mental, societal, economic, etc.), I feel that she should have been encouraged to not give up.
An old song that has always stuck with me has lyrics that say, "there is so much pain in the world; (comparatively) my pain is so little. When I saw people's pain, I forgot my own."
Of course, these are just my thoughts. I fully respect her (& everybody else's) rights to decide what's best for them. May she be at peace with her decision and enjoy her remaining days in a better frame of mind.
For how long would you say? Have they not discussed this for an extended amount of time with multiple people?
Some folks have mountains of internal pain and anguish that they necessarily mask from everyone around them every day. For them, the thought of the relief of death is very tempting.
But WHY do you consider it fair to compare her condition to others’?
You don’t know what’s going on in her mind, you have absolutely no idea how agonizing a mental state can be. Yet you judge her as she’s perceiving things and feeling feelings just like you or anybody else. But that is not the case.
The sad thing about suffering is that if you don’t encounter it before a certain individual threshold amount, it’s very easy to dismiss. For some people, encouraging them to stay here is just another pain point that you can’t even begin to fathom that you’re advocating to add to their struggle with existence.
How about pausing and thinking for a second, what a real, tangible and not “socially feel-good” compassion would mean in such cases?
https://www.psychotropical.com/10-patient-stories-a-long-sto...
They have gnarly side effects. SSRI's as well.
Still probably worth a try, I mean doesn't seem like a big deal at all considering these circumstances.
Also IIRC modern(ish) MAOIs are a lot safer.
What?
You're probably conflating it with the risk of serotonin toxicity when combined with SSRIs or without a proper washout period of 1-3 weeks depending on the SSRI.
————
Serotonin toxicity in the context of MAOIs is — just like the hyper[1] (and hypo!) tensive effects — a heavily exaggerated risk that we know how to avoid and manage thanks to the 50 years of experience we have with MAOIs.
Excerpts from [1]:
> The first mistaken assumption to tackle is this: the idea that a tyramine reaction will raise someone’s BP, higher and higher, until their head explodes. That simply is not a plausible scenario.
> Second, the degree of elevation of BP caused by ingestion of tyramine is generally no greater than elevations produced by a host of other factors. These include, exercise, sex, stress, driving, anxiety, lifting weights — in fact just living. There is a detailed and extensively referenced commentary about that here.
————
About serotonin toxicity see these excerpts from [2]:
> If somebody is already taking an SSRI antidepressant and you want to start an MAOI then you need to allow 3 to 5 half lives before doing that, that means 3 to 5 days for most drugs. Hardly a major problem.
> It is perfectly possible, and often quite sensible, to try a tricyclic antidepressant like nortriptyline before an MAOI. That can act as a bridging antidepressant prior to starting an MAOI.
> So, just add NTP to the SSRI, cease the SSRI immediately, or after a few days (tapering-off of the SSRI is usually not needed, unless the dose was very high); then once the SSRI is out of the system the MAOI can be started in combination with the TCA, since it is quite safe to administer TCAs and MAOIs concurrently.
————
[1] https://www.psychotropical.com/acute-tyramine-hypertension/
[2] https://www.psychotropical.com/maois-misconceptions-and-ques...
Leftovers, as in "food left over from a previous meal".
Quote from the Wiki link provided earlier (first paragraph):
> People taking MAOIs generally need to change their diets to limit or avoid foods and beverages containing tyramine, which is found in products such as cheese, soy sauce, and salami.[21] If large amounts of tyramine are consumed, they may develop a hypertensive crisis, which can be fatal.
It is a struggle between providing support for a person who has chosen to end their life, and not standing in their way should they ultimately choose to go forward.
My gut just screams at me: this is wrong. And I cannot help.
The rational arguments do not convince me at all. Call me old fashioned or whatever but this is how I feel about it, and since there is an article about this I imagine that there might be certain interest in this being out of the ordinary.
It also begs the question, are the people in these situations even mentally fit enough to make the decision rationally? With the limited context I have, I don’t think so.
There’d also a lot of reliance on the doctor’s “its never going to get better” - yet time and time again with physical ailments we hear of the impossibility of recovery yet many do recover.
Without euthanasia. A person in that situation can and will choose other means to kill himself/herself.
Life is complex and it is not within me to fully comprehend everything that everyone around me is feeling, all I can do is help to the best of my abilities and respect others decisions.
As for the reason why this is an article, it's probably because this is quite new for a lot of people, like when antibiotics was first found. At first it was the news of the century and was advertised on the news, now it's just common practice and you don't even know when doctors use it on another human.
It is in the best interest of everybody to offer assisted suicide at a set time and date instead of taking the matter into their own hands and leaving family, friends and first responders with the trauma of discovering a body.
What's the limiting principle here exactly? If we normalize the idea that suicide is a solution to any problem, it's inevitably going to start being used as a "solution" for more and more problems: treatable illness, poverty, old age, disability, dependence on those who'd rather not shoulder the burden of caring for you.
It's already happening.
What I say is that, for those cases where professionals have reasonable suspicion that it would happen anyway, offering a more humane option is the right thing to do. It shouldn't be an option to be offered lightly to anyone.
For example, here's the story of a disabled Canadian man who "consented" to euthanasia because he thought it was his only alternative to homelessness:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canada-eut...
In this case he withdrew his "consent" after strangers helped him out financially, but I'm sure there are other cases that didn't end so luckily.
As suicide gets normalised you can expect the concept of "consent" to get expanded even further beyond the bounds of decency.
The edge-case is that the person wants to become an early suspended customer of a cryonics organization. Already there have been successful suicides from people who stated they would have preferred to be suspended and have the very small chance of actually getting a second chance at some distant point in the future, but there are various legal obstacles as well as practical ones to that, and so these people are just as assuredly gone forever as anyone else.
Besides being complex, it's also an old issue. You might enjoy reading this case report from 1993 about a suicidal person who wanted to be cryopreserved: https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/library/complete-list-of-alc... He did eventually shoot himself, and unlike others there was at least a brain preservation in the end, but it's pretty far from an ideal one (and no one knows if even ideal preservation is good enough for future reanimation/emulation; I'd bet against it but obviously wouldn't rule it out). More recently, in late 2018 the first person was cryopreserved while using California's new end of life option act to hasten an otherwise painful demise from stage 4 cancer. (Short version: https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/library/complete-list-of-alc... Long version: https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/docs/alcor-case-report-a-199...)
Except they certainly haven't, both because of very limited resources and became they are probably in no condition to figure what they could or should try themselves and are dependent on doctors, family members and other people (who also might have only very limited capacity to help her)
I don't see how anyone can look at what's happening now in Canada, for example, and deny the existence of the slippery slope.
- She can schedule an euthanasia. - She can throw herself in front of a train. - She can hang herself somewhere. - Many many other "traditional" way.
The difference here is, if she schedule euthanasia, the people provide the service will have to finish everything up for her, and they should be less traumatise compare to the train driver in the hypothetical example.
We surely shouldn't take this lightly, but this is not wrong at all.
A killer set on killing will kill anyway, so maybe we could pair them up and have both happy?
The "they will do it anyway" argument is as absurd as it is dangerous.
Heh, it's not like it backfired in the past at all, is it?
I differ, considering life as sacred, and worried though not surprised of how we're moving as a society from holding life as sacred, at least in appearance, to overtly disregarding it in this manner. On the other hand, as I mentioned in a different reply, I have a big difficulty trusting doctors and their "nothing else to be done".
If yes, then we should have places where one can go and absolutely get destroyed by meth or fentanyl or whatever's your choice.
I'm afraid the only difference between both cases is the economic burden they cause or not. The one with drugs increases it, while euthanasia decreases it. That makes me suspicious.
https://www.uniting.org/community-impact/uniting-medically-s...
These exist in a number of countries and are seen to have favourable outcomes:
https://adf.org.au/insights/medically-supervised-injecting-c...
I read your argument and it seems like you're not actually considering the point of view from the woman who no longer wants to live.
You can read my other replies for more context, but what I see as a problem here is that all this will normalise death. By enabling it, we're one step closer of people resorting to this more easily, and having people that could recover just giving up early.
And yes, my stance is biased, I don't trust doctors that much.
No one healthy and of sound mind will choose to die. It isn't called "survival instinct" for nothing. This will not normalise death, it will not become a fad to die just because it's easy to do so. Despite the US having a very widely available and quick way to commit suicide (guns), the suicide rate in the US is not so much higher than in Germany - where it's more difficult to obtain guns.
I think legalising euthanasia is an act of love. It prevents unnecessary suffering for those who suffer the most, but only if those who suffer explicitly request it and under extremely strict regulations - like they do in the Netherlands.
I think your position about this is typical, but it's also (I think) primarily reasoned from the perspective of society, and not from the perspective of someone who is suffering.
Death is normal. You are going to die. I am going to die. We are all going to die.
If we look at it from a utilitarian angle.
Euthanasia - The one who apply to euthanasia get what one want - Those who assists get paid to do what that person sign up to do.
Other way - The one who commit suicide other way get what they want. - Those who witness got shocked. - Those who "clean up" get paid to do what that person sign up to do, but less amused than those who assist euthanasia.
I am not saying enabling euthanasia for all and granting access to it easily. However, for those who suffer so badly it could be one of the escape hatches.
I think, maybe, you weren't aware of it's legality; especially, in the Netherlands[1]?
[1] - https://www.government.nl/topics/euthanasia/euthanasia-assis...
> She claims the right to a dignified ending: euthanasia. "You can buy a rope, you climb up an apartment and a train also runs. But why is it made so difficult for us? Why do you have to be 75 before you have a completed life? Say that maybe we can get better? That's what you say not even against a cancer patient who has completed treatment."
Rough read. Jesus.
[1] https://www.tubantia.nl/oldenzaal/zonder-juiste-medicijnen-w...
In the latter case, recent studies have shown exercise to be even more effective than medication or therapy. As so keeping a clean diet (which is so much harder than anyone realizes with all the petro-chemicals everywhere). I feel like this used to be (if not for the mass indoctrination by the church of Big Pharma) common sense.
It's a little silly to encourage or enable such a young woman to take such a drastic step without asking critical questions and trying to address the problem, and then acting like your morally superior for supporting "her choice".
If you really gave a damn, maybe you actually encourage her toward life, but so many nowadays are so hopelessly nihilistic they would just as soon join her. Sad.
Your next sentence holds that assumption as obvious:
> I think it's good to force people to do things in many situations
Why do you think you should have freedom to even think, let alone decide, what is good for other people?
It's not necessarily good for each person, but good for society. Also I don't even know if I should have that freedom, that would be something we would have to philosophically investigate.
Why do you even think you should have the freedom to decide what's "good" in the first place?
All roads lead to freedom. There can be no tyranny without freedom to tyrannize - there's just no way around it.
This is literally what law is. A social construct to codify (and enable the enforcement of) what is deemed moral vs amoral.
Which implies that someone else had the freedom to decide what's good for you. Society is just a bunch of other people.
You appear to be trying to paint some kind on complex philosophical picture where it just simply doesn't exist.
Law is the codification, and ratification, of what society deems ethical/moral behaviour.
Unless you are about to start declaring some magic creates law, no shit it comes from people.
Or accept it as axiomatic.
We generally need them to force people not to do a few really bad things (e.g. some basic laws), but in recent decades it feels that the concept of freedom has been under relentless attack and in an era without religion, the state is almost becoming a substitute for a god.
But these days it seems that our leaders are motivated almost entirely by profit. They will not do what is best for the average individual.
EDIT: the second and third paragraphs were added after I wrote this message
We don’t require a medical reason to enhance or build our bodies, we don’t need one to damage or destroy them.
I’m already allowed to eat fried foods 10 times a day and chainsmoke and do it slowly and painfully; if that is legal then anyone should be allowed to do it in a quick, painless, and dignified fashion.
Should it be illegal for the doctor to deny me an amputation that I ask for? After all, I should be "free to destroy myself" absent any justification?
Not in a dignified, foolproof way. E.g. can you go to a pharmacy and get a dose of morphine that will kill you with certainty? You can't, in most jurisdictions.
Forcing other people to deal with the trauma of cleaning up your bloody remains after you jump off a window isn't exactly compassionate either.
Give people a clean way out, even if you don't want it for yourself.
I am not sure that we "should be free" to end our life as you say. Sure, we did not have any say about coming to life but I think that if you don't have any incurable disease that causes you significant pain, you can always find something that will make life worthwhile. Unless you are born in Northern Korea or some country that restricts your freedom.
They could die at any time. This is an elaborate show by someone who needs to be told “no” and given a clear direction.
No health professional is being forced to assist in an euthanasia against their will.
Is it so hard to believe that all the parties involved are willing participants?
Euthanasia, or suicide, is instead a problem of diminished capacity and whether or not suicide could ever be a decision of someone who is of sound mind. Much like we don't let babies walk into traffic, believe that a 9 year old is able to consent or allow severely mentally handicapped people the ability to refuse surgery -- having legal frameworks that don't encourage these things isn't about stripping away the right to self-ownership.
Edit: I think this may have come off as “geez just kill yourself and spare us the drama”, but I’m just genuinely curious why’d she choose one over the other whenever I assume she has the means to pursue both.
The procedure for this woman to have been granted euthanasia is not something that is easy to get through. It is mentioned she has suffered from this disease for all of her life and there is no cure. Multiple medical doctors need to be in agreement before a request for euthanasia is granted in any case. There is even more scrutiny when it is about a young person as well as when the disease is mental in nature.
In all, I hated reading this article, because it's extremely far from the truth about how the Netherlands have implemented their euthanasia laws. I suggest reading up on it from more reputable sources than `the mirror`
Also where do we a draw a line? If we're talking about terminally ill patients it's usually fairly clear. Surely there are many mentally ill (suffering from severe depression etc. not intellectual disability) people who are incapable of rational reasoning (in general or under specific circumstances) so do we end up with having death panels determining who is allowed to kill themselves and who is not?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands
Statistically the likelihood of a person of chosing or not choosing to go through this will strongly depend on external factors: their financial conditions, family, support network access to healthcare and different treatment options (.e.g when you psychiatrist tells you "There’s nothing more we can do for you" that (optimistically) means there is nothing left that you could afford to or the state/insurance company is willing to pay for, not that there is nothing else that could be tried).
That's a separate argument but long-term this will likely also create false incentives. Euthanasia is certainly cheaper than spending large amounts of money on new treatments and also providing welfare and social services to those people (because on the whole they are guaranteed to be a net drain on the society economically).
And they're often forced to use brutal methods that some unfortunate soul then has to discover or clean up (e.g. firearms, jumping, or standing in front of a train)
Giving the long-term-suffering an option of a peaceful and painless way out seems much more compassionate. It just needs the right level of safeguards to stop people doing it impulsively. A 3-6 month 'cooling off period' between booking the appointment and going through with it would likely solve most of the problems (although may be too long if somebody is in severe pain, e.g. late-stage cancer. But separate rules could be used for those who clearly have terminal illnesses)
Which is actually a good thing if these statistics are correct: "Approximately 7% (range: 5-11%) of attempters eventually died by suicide, approximately 23% reattempted non-fatally, and 70% had no further attempts."*
*https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/survi...
> Giving the long-term-suffering an option of a peaceful and painless way out seems much more compassionate
Also much cheaper for the state/society/healthcare system (and even their families) than investing into providing additional treatment options
> e.g. late-stage cancer. But separate rules could be used for those who clearly have terminal illnesses
IMHO that's an entirely different issue, if all the available options were exhausted and the patient is basically guaranteed to die in N weeks/months while simultaneously suffering more and more giving that person the option to end it sooner seems to both reasonable and compassionate.
How can such certainty exist when were talking about mental illness? The decision made by this person will surely depend on external factors, e.g. if you're poor, your psychiatrist tells you that they can't help you, you don't have any close family to fallback on etc. are you more or less likely to commit suicide than someone who is suffering from a similarly severe issue but has all of those things?
And because of some other, more complex cases close to me, I will NEVER trust a doctor's "Nothing else can be done". Too many times it has been proven wrong.
So I can't understand someone killing themselves based on any doctor's criteria.
It's hard for me to even imagine such a state of mind, and the suffering one experiences. Somehow the fact that the euthanization takes place in your own home gives me the creeps. I really wonder what drives people to work in this space? In the case of pets or animals being put down it's a vet that does the deed, is it doctors in this case?
Also, her therapist claiming that "There’s nothing more we can do for you. It’s never gonna get any better" sounds like an enormous red flag for me. Some authority should take a long hard look at a professional therapist speaking like that, especially considering the proximity/possibility of human euthanasia, or just suicide in general.
I was positive to euthanasia before this article (I had considered it primarily for terminally ill people and such), but this really turned me off. I can't believe we made suicide a legal depression cure before when there's been so much talk about shrooms/acid and such perhaps being helpful.
If I was about to die I'd much rather die in the comfort of my own home than any other place, a hospital is not a cozy place; a clinic wouldn't be either, it's still a foreign place with nothing of your life or about you around. I'd much rather die in a place I know, that I was part of creating and makes me feel comfortable in it than any other place.
> I can't believe we made suicide a legal depression cure before when there's been so much talk about shrooms/acid and such perhaps being helpful.
This is absurd, you're trying to decide for someone else how they should approach their own suffering, why don't let the sufferer take control? It's not up to you to decide, at all, and it's not a split-second decision, to be euthanised one has to go through consultations with professionals which might not grant it, if a panel of experts decided the person has the right to decide to kill themselves who are you to say otherwise?
The tricky thing about mental health is that unlike physical ailments it requires the individual to still persevere and try on their own possible solutions, if someone has given up it's extremely hard to change their minds unless you want to forcefully incarcerate them and force them through psychiatric interventions while monitoring for any potential suicide attempts. Is that what liberty and freedom looks like to you?
Doctors have been wrong and will continue to be wrong all the time, they try their best to the current knowledge, if a whole panel is wrong we can only hope that in the future they will improve, the person's suffering was real to all involved at the time and the decision was taken.
And just to conclude on the same vein of your argument: what if the panel of experts isn't wrong and you are denying people suffering from at least taking their own decisions on how they would like to end their life? Do you prefer that world?
I don't think this is a red flag. I don't see anything wrong with a therapist speaking like that because this statement is often made after years of working with the patient and not after the first few hours of therapy. In my time I worked in a psychiatric ward we had many patients who were considered "austherapiert", i.e. the treatments they have undergone over the years have not worked. In some cases, we are talking about patients who have been in and out of the psychiatry ward on a regular basis for over 20 years undergoing different treatments without their condition improving. People who have been suffering from their illness for decades, and we're not just talking about depression, but also illnesses such as schizophrenia, BPD, bipolar personality disorder, dementia, etc. Many of these patients take medication to manage the symptoms of their illness, but the side effects are often perceived as worse than the actual illness. And even with medication, a normal life is often no longer possible. People lose their jobs, their family, their friends - their whole life because of their mental illness. It's not only about the internal suffering, but also that their life irretrievably breaks apart and due to the symptoms of the illness building a new life may be not possible.
That is not a quote from her doctors or her therapists. It appears to be an uncorroborated quote from the patient, though even that is not clear from the article.