17 year old girl allowed to kill herself Legally

[Minusorange]

I have been through depression as a teenager, so I know how it feels actually

You only know how your own depression feels and you're trying to project that into equating that all depression is equally the same as yours, which it is not

So you are advocating continual force feeding and keeping her alive against her will in perpetuity...

Preservation of life no matter the cost

 

[FoxEye]

He said "genetically", not in memories.

Why would that be important... are some genes superior?



A much more useful contribution is to somehow leave your part of the world a better place than you found it, or to have advanced understanding or fostered good attitudes in the generations succeeding you.

Your genetic continuity is the least of our worries, unless your genes are super special...

 

[Akagi]

Apparently this is fake news and she wasn't allowed euthenasia - However as a result of being refused it, she effectively starved herself to death instead... Which is obviously worse in terms of her suffering, and flips the argument on its head and raises more questions...

See the prior post with the Twitter link.

 

[peterhc]

I think, if you decide that you don't want to live anymore you should be able to have an option to end your life. Freedom of choice, nowadays we get people changing sex etc like it's nothing, why can't we let person die peacefully with some dignity instead of finding them hanging somewhere?

 

[Suicidal Ferret]

Futurama got it right.

 

[The_Abyss]

No problem with it. It is within the national legal framework, which appears to have agreed sufficient checks and balances to mitigate understood risks that include younger people and their trauma scenarios.

Has anyone here been through the same experiences as this woman did, with the same support structure and arrived at a different conclusion that wasn't personal choice?

 

[B&W]

Well some of the responses are showing how lame/weak and pathetic society is becoming. It is not a good sign for the future.

 

[FoxEye]

Well some of the responses are showing how lame/weak and pathetic society is becoming. It is not a good sign for the future.

The alternative in this case was forced feeding, potentially for years. Probable hospitalisation or sectioning. Suicide watch to prevent self harm.

Would you want that to be ongoing potentially for the rest of her life?

Please answer the question.

 

[B&W]

The alternative in this case was forced feeding, potentially for years. Probable hospitalisation or sectioning. Suicide watch to prevent self harm.

Would you want that to be ongoing potentially for the rest of her life?

Please answer the question.

No that is not the only alternative. Perhaps forced feeding for a while through drip, eventually limit it and give her other options. But it seems she has been failed before this. To get into such a position in the first place, I do blame parents tbh.

 

[dowie]

No problem with it. It is within the national legal framework, which appears to have agreed sufficient checks and balances to mitigate understood risks that include younger people and their trauma scenarios.

Has anyone here been through the same experiences as this woman did, with the same support structure and arrived at a different conclusion that wasn't personal choice?

I don't think you need to have been through every situation possible to have a valid view here.

Anyway it turns out this was fake news:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ands-girl-not-legally-euthanised-died-at-home

A severely ill Dutch girl widely reported by international media as having been “legally euthanised” in a clinic in the Netherlands died at home, apparently after voluntarily refusing to eat or drink and with no evidence that her death was assisted.

Noa Pothoven, 17, who for several years had been treated in multiple institutions for severe depression and anorexia, and had made previous attempts to kill herself, died at her parents’ home in Arnhem on 2 June, local media reported.

Media organisations from Australia to Britain and the US to India reported it as a case of “legal euthanasia” performed by a Dutch “end-of-life clinic”, and Noa’s name was trending on social media on Wednesday in countries including Italy, where the story was front-page news.

In fact, it is unclear how she died. No official cause of death has so far been given and there is no evidence the case involved either euthanasia or assisted suicide, both of which are legal in the Netherlands subject to strict conditions.

As mentioned in the first post I made, it would be rather worrying if this sort of thing was extended to people suffering from depression, especially a depressed teen. I agree with it for terminal illness, potentially chronic pain too but a case like this (if what was originally reported was true) potentially undermines its introduction/wider adoption in other countries.

 

[StriderX]

I mean she died anyway... why make it tormenting? I wonder what the source was for the engineered story, i can't believe it was just a mistake.

 

[413x]

What kind of nonsense is "their body so it's up to them"?

She is 17 years old, she is a child despite legally 16 being seen as adulthood due to the onset of puberty it does not mean one has all the experience or knowledge to be able to make such a decision.

My stance is she needed help/support and the lack of that help is the real problem here.

You should help others who are suffering, not legalise there death and eliminate them from society.

To me this is just as bad as the Nazis euthanising (through painless means they thought it was ok too) they deemed not fit for society.

I can't believe that last part. Wow
Id say its torture not to let the person take their own life

Just because you value life doesn't mean she does It really gets me how even though we all die people seem to want to prolong others lives often no matter what.

Ending life is a can be a cure. It's extreme but it is.

 

[h4rm0ny]

let it go. you're fighting a losing battle arguing with some people who have no respect for their life and are happy to compare human life to that of grains dirt/sand on the ground. there's nothing you are going to say that will change that viewpoint in people.

More than that - people who WANT nothing to have value. If nothing has value, then no effort and no changing of oneself is required. What is consistent with such people is that they're not content to simply believe this themselves. They repeatedly attempt to convince others of it. The reason being it's based in social expectation. If you feel you aren't meeting social expectation you essentially have two options. One is to change, one is to reject social expectation. Nihilism is a very deep-rooted form of the latter.

 

[B&W]

I can't believe that last part. Wow
Id say its torture not to let the person take their own life

Just because you value life doesn't mean she does It really gets me how even though we all die people seem to want to prolong others lives often no matter what.

Ending life is a can be a cure. It's extreme but it is.

It's tantamount to murder when the deceased is a young teenager with no physical difficulties just mental ones. And no I am not belittling mental problems, my own sister was sectioned as a teenager I know better then most here of it's horrors hence why I am so against this voluntary euthanasia.

And make no mistake, that is what this thing is actually about. Yes the original article was incorrect but she still was allowed to die instead of being fed fluids through a drip. Her pain must have been awful part of me thinks at least she doesn't experience that anymore but then she has no chance of ever feeling happiness, of ever loving someone ever again.

The example set by the Dutch authorities will set a precedent that it is ok to give up on the mentally ill and severely depressed. As this is getting more and more prevalent in modern society it does set a worrying standard.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I think, if you decide that you don't want to live anymore you should be able to have an option to end your life.

Everybody does. I don't get why anyone here keeps arguing on the basis that legality should dissuade someone. What are they going to do - put your corpse on trial? If you want to end your life, nothing stops you. Nor do you need to choose a prolonged and painful method such as starving yourself to death. There are methods available to everyone that are quick or fairly painless. Two false dichotomies keep being used by the pro-euthanasia crowd in this thread: One - choice to end your life is being denied to you if someone else isn't allowed to do it for you. Two - any ending of your life you do yourself must be so prolonged and / or agonizing that it effectively removes the option.

Neither is true. Both are used repeatedly in this thread.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

https://news.sky.com/story/girl-17-dies-after-being-legally-euthanised-in-the-netherlands-11734815

I don't know why this is allowed to happen to someone at the age of 17, at that age you don't even know what's happening with your own body you have all sorts of feelings dragging you everywhere.

I did read she was raped and had a lot of issues but that does not mean her future is doomed. She was physically fine and could have contributed to society.

Perhaps she would have committed suicide anyway but in no way should it be allowed by the authorities.

This sets a dangerous precedent and is tbh disgusting, liberalism and freedom gone too far in this case.

You should have full control over the moment when you choose to stop living. It's nothing to do with anyone else whether you live or not.

It's not ******* liberal values either. If we didn't have these liberal values then the current state of things would be that only the government could decide when you die, and then do it legally by a state sanctioned execution.

 

[StriderX]

It's indeed precisely because liberal values are a thing that you even have rights in the first place, an authoritarian would seek to control people's ability to do as they please. Like force feeding someone who has given up.

 

[B&W]

It's indeed precisely because liberal values are a thing that you even have rights in the first place, an authoritarian would seek to control people's ability to do as they please. Like force feeding someone who has given up.

I am well aware of that and mention it to many other people all the time that because of liberal values you have the same rights as others. But there are limits on everything, and in this case it is a step too far.

 

[shorttricky]

Yes the original article was incorrect but she still was allowed to die instead of being fed fluids through a drip.

A drip just provides fluids - not nutrients. That's effectively like giving someone who's starving water - it'll keep them going for a bit longer, but you're just dragging out the inevitable.

Force feeding involves inserting a tube into the stomach and pumping in a high nutrient food - looks like a milkshake. A willing patient can have a PEG or RIG installed that comes through the abdomen - an unwilling patient can yank those suckers right out. If she was determined enough to starve herself to death, you'd likely have to sedate her every time you wanted to feed her - that seems like a really brutal thing to do to a young girl who's already been through some utterly horrific trauma.

 

[FoxEye]

Everybody does. I don't get why anyone here keeps arguing on the basis that legality should dissuade someone. What are they going to do - put your corpse on trial? If you want to end your life, nothing stops you. Nor do you need to choose a prolonged and painful method such as starving yourself to death. There are methods available to everyone that are quick or fairly painless. Two false dichotomies keep being used by the pro-euthanasia crowd in this thread: One - choice to end your life is being denied to you if someone else isn't allowed to do it for you. Two - any ending of your life you do yourself must be so prolonged and / or agonizing that it effectively removes the option.

Neither is true. Both are used repeatedly in this thread.

I'm not sure anyone has said those things. Because for one it's obvious that starving yourself is not the only way to commit suicide.

This girl however chose to starve herself, and the question being asked was whether - given that this was attempt 5 or whatever - the doctors should take action to prevent her from being successful in the attempt.

What some of us have said is that many of the methods for suicide are lacking dignity, and would result in trauma for (eg) paramedics, train drivers, random members of the public.