“People think that when you’re mentally ill, you can’t think straight, which is insulting,” she told the Guardian. “I understand the fears that some disabled people have about assisted dying, and worries about people being under pressure to die… But in the Netherlands, we’ve had this law for more than 20 years. There are really strict rules, and it’s really safe.”
She embarked on intensive treatments, including talking therapies, medication and more than 30 sessions of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). “In therapy, I learned a lot about myself and coping mechanisms, but it didn’t fix the main issues. At the beginning of treatment, you start out hopeful. I thought I’d get better. But the longer the treatment goes on, you start losing hope.”
After 10 years, there was “nothing left” in terms of treatment. "I’ve never hesitated about my decision. I have felt guilt – I have a partner, family, friends and I’m not blind to their pain. And I’ve felt scared. But I’m absolutely determined to go through with it.
Honestly and genuinely, I’m glad to see all that she has put into this decision and glad the state is allowing it. Now she doesn’t need to cause further pain to others through a traumatic suicide and she can gain the peace she’s been longing for.
Each day, so many lives are snuffed out of existence without a second thought. She has given this an incredible amount of thought, time, and work.
Rest in peace, Zoraya. 💜
P. S. There’s thousands of live today that want to live. They don’t want to die. And yet their lives are taken away in an instant. Perhaps we should focus on saving them rather than making someone like Zoraya feel even worse.
I can’t understand why so many people are against someone dying with dignity. This is a form of harm reduction for not just the patient, but also their loved ones, and society in general.
Nobody wants to see their loved ones suffer endlessly or needlessly, and this is also a whole lot less traumatic than people committing suicide. Nobody wants the last memory of their loved ones to be the scene of their (potentially messy) suicide.
And that’s not to mention the trauma inflicted on bystanders for some of the more public suicide methods (not to mention that jumping to your death or intentionally walking into/driving into traffic has a decent chance of physically injuring or killing said bystanders).
If this process is undertaken with care and compassion, it’s far less likely to be traumatizing to all involved. And it prevents “spur of the moment” decisions, like many successful suicides are.
Nobody wants to see their loved ones suffer endlessly or needlessly, and this is also a whole lot less traumatic than people committing suicide.
This is people committing suicide, though.
That’s both debatable on a semantic level (is it really suicide if it’s assisted?) and not how I intended the use of the term.
What I tried to say is that this option is less traumatic than non-assisted options for ending your existence and comes with less risk of injury to bystanders to boot.
How is it debatable? If you’re claiming it’s not suicide because it’s assisted, then by that logic it’s murder.
It’s one thing to support the policy, it’s another thing to misrepresent what the policy is. Suicide is still suicide. Is it less disruptive to society? Absolutely. Is it a good policy? Debatably. But it is still suicide? Indisputably. Support it if you will but don’t go around saying that it’s “less traumatic than suicide” as if it isn’t a form of suicide.
We have a great term for the realm between murder and suicide - assistance in dying.
It bridges the gap between the definition of murder (where one party unalives the other party against their consent) and suicide (where one party unalives themselves with intent) by having the person looking to be unalived explicitly expires their intent and consent for the other party to assist them.
I feel as if you’re trying to create a false equivalency to undermine the validity of this option.
And as to whether this is less traumatic than suicide - you have got to be kidding or you’ve never had to deal with the reality of someone committing suicide versus someone choosing assistance in dying.
One generally involves a lot of shock and someone finding a dead body in some state, the other is generally a peaceful affair where loved ones say their goodbyes before the person peacefully falls asleep for the last time.
They are nowhere near the same thing for the survivors and you claiming otherwise is an insult to both. And if you can’t see the difference between these two options I’m frankly done debating this with you.
See, the difference is that I’m not looking at how clean or messy the suicide is, I’m looking at the fact that a suicide occurred. I would have much more respect for you and your position if you were willing to look it in the eye and call it what it is, instead of hiding behind these nonsense euphemisms.
At no point did I make any claims regarding the trauma involved, except to say, “Is it less disruptive to society? Absolutely.” The exact opposite of the position you ascribed to me, in other words.
But trauma and shock are merely side effects of suicide. Symptoms that exist to reflect the awfulness of the event. If a person kills themselves on a deserted island, no one is traumatized or shocked by it, but it is still, factually, a suicide.
I don’t see why you’re reacting so strongly to a simple clarification in terminology. Or rather, I’m beginning to see why, but I wish I didn’t.
That’s not entirely honest - you’re also trying to argue that having this option is not a good or valid option (you called “debatable”) and are trying to steer the conversation by creating a false equivalency between assistance in dying and suicide, which are not the same thing.
I fully agree with your example - someone unaliving themselves on a deserted island committed suicide. Never said they didn’t.
What I said, and what you’re conveniently omitting, is that suicide is an act by an individual, there is no other party to the unaliving. This is not the case in assistance in dying, and there’s very good legal reason why we consider these distinct from eachother, and from murder (to your earlier point).
Even if we forget the traumatic angle I brought up earlier, surely you must see the difference between an act that involves one party and an act that involves two parties with express intent and consent.
What you’re trying to do is the same as arguing masturbation and sex are the same thing because they end with the same result (orgasm).
That’s not entirely honest - you’re also trying to argue that having this option is not a good or valid option (you called “debatable”)
Saying it’s “debatable” is not the same thing as asserting it’s not a good or valid option. It just means that whether it’s good or valid hasn’t been conclusively established.
Assisted suicide is a form or suicide that is assisted. The thing that makes it different between it and regular suicide is that someone else is assisting. You’ve chosen the example of masturbation vs sex because it’s one of the few analogies that would work for you. Tandem skiing is skiing. Assisted murder is murder. Skydiving with an instructor is skydiving.
The onus is on you to present why the addition of an assistant meaningfully changes the nature of the act.
surely you must see the difference between an act that involves one party and an act that involves two parties with express intent and consent.
I see no such thing. Solo suicide involves intent, and there is no need for consent because there isn’t a second person involved. How on earth would the addition of a second person make it meaningfully different? Are you refusing to say the reason because you think it’s obvious, or because it doesn’t exist?
“Less traumatic than violent, ad-hoc suicide” perhaps?
There’s no such thing as “non-violent” suicide. Maybe, “less traumatic than non-assisted suicide” or “regular suicide,” or “suicide that isn’t state approved,” or any number of other phrasings so long as a spade is still called a spade.
They meant suddenly and messily I presume. This is letting people know long in advance, which isnt the exact same emotional trauma. im sure its still traumatic, but more like losing someone to a long cancer battle because you are sad but ready for them to have the peace they desire as you have seen their suffering.
This is the best “treatment” a capitalist shithole can give for mental health.
We live in a dystopia
It’s more profitable for the capitalists.
You think a communist doctor could fix her? They were out of posible treatments, this isn’t about money.
Imagine thinking your life belongs to you, and then having to get permission to end it without suffering
There are other options other than this one that requires permission. The article mentions her reasons to choose this method.
From the article:
She had thought about taking her own life but the violent death by suicide of a schoolfriend and its impact on the girl’s family deterred her.
Whether we agree with her or not, it’s her decision.
Jumping off bridges is free, no?
Clearly, this is about a more complex social issue/concern.
I think it’s technically illegal in most countries (suicide I mean, not specifically the bridge variety).
I feel like a lot of replies here have the same “every live is precious and needs to be protected at all costs”-vibe as you get with a lot of anti-abortion arguments.
You are casually ceding the “not wanting people to kill themselves” ground to the right while also allowing them to paint themselves as caring about human lives when in reality they just want to control women’s bodies and protect fetuses, not people.
“Every life is valuable” is obviously a left-wing stance because the left are the ones who actually care about people’s lives, even when they’re disabled, downtrodden, and painted as burdens on society.
Oh right wing def feel every life has value.
Just less value then everybodies right not to be forced to pay for them.
They are fairly open about the value of a states non right to force an indevidual to fund anothers life. Being more important then anything.
That the value for all lives is based on either an indeviduals ability to self support. Or other indeviduals willingness to offer charity.
It is forced charity usinging the states ability to use violence they consider a greater crime then any % of society not wanting to support the lives of those in need.
Its not value or no value. But priority of those values that differs.
IE states using its same power of violence to kill forign people who might disagree with the state. Can be argued with no worry about the value of those actions. They have no issue with not choosing to fund defence or the actual state ability to use violence to enforce its laws.
Just the state taking money via potential force to provide life to US citizens in need.
Exactly. If we’re talking about vibes, seeking to normalize suicide for people with disabilities gives me the same vibes as far-right eugenics stuff.
Ill say one thing. As some one with disabilities. While i have no desire myself. Heck my life will be short anyway.
I do feel it is a right people should have.
It just really requires a sound mind at the time of choice. And huge effort to ensure it is not a choice the paiteint is neing forced or guilted into making.
As I cant really come up with an effective and garenteed way to enforce those restrictions.
Im currently happy my natiin will not allow anyform of assisted suicide. It must be entirly at partients own control. And technocally even then its a crime. But one that xamt be punished. Where as an assistant will be jailed.
But I can hope/wish for a world where people could choose to have suffering ended without so much risk of others pushing them into it for thier ow. Reasons.
As I say its not a choice I would make. But my own health means it could be one I mY want amd need help to make in the future.
I have no clue why you’re trying to push my argument into a political direction.
Is abortion not a political issue? What do you mean by that?
It is a political issue because people want it to be one. My comment was about the way the arguments sound, not about what political side says what.
Well, I was trying to push it in a political direction because I don’t like my beliefs being compared to anti-abortionists based on vibes and appearances. It’s necessary to engage more critically with the issue to demonstrate that any apparent similarities are just superficial.
There is no objective division between political and non-political. This is a question about government policy on which people are divided, so to me it’s inherently a political issue.
I don’t know what to tell you. It seems to me like you’re critical about assisted suicide but are pro choice when it comes to abortions.
In my opinion those two things are different sides of the same coin. Regardless of politics.
I don’t believe that they are different sides of the same coin. I see very little in common between the two.
From my perspective, it would be like saying opposition to war or the death penalty is just like being opposed to abortion, because anti-choice people claim to value life.
Until they are asked to do something to help, then it’s crickets
Goodbye Zoraya ter Beek, and never stop fighting!
Also the utter disrespect on social media, flooding her accounts with stupid Messages.
Actually her fight is over, that’s the entire point
Never ever! Except a few weeks from now
Idk, i am torn on this. Obviously people have had depression with suicidal tendencies since the dawn of humanity, but i feel like most modern suicides come from the failings of oir current systems. I am Zoraya’s age and have struggled with depression and finding a reason to live for well over a decade. Euthanisia should be available to anyone with a terminal condition, but she still has her whole lofe ahead of her. It saddens me that the state has decided it is better to let her have a painless suicide rather than address the issues that make her life no longer worth living. To me there is no excuse for otherwise healthy adults in the prime of their lives to feel hopeless, but that is the society we have collectively decided we want to live in.
I’m glad she will be able to die on her own terms, but there is no excuse for this to be her only option. Our society has failed Zoraya and countless people like her.
I have no doubts about her sincerity to die. I just think that a better society would have been able to find her a reason to live. She is absolutely in the right here, and has done nothing wrong. It’s her government which has failed her.
Unsolicited Conservative: “Has she tried to put God on that wound? If only she was religious…”
Dude, doctors will even try homeopathy before resorting to euthanasia.
Don’t really agree with this. If you look at it on an individual level, there’s a case for it, but on a social level, it’s dangerous. Individualist societies look for individual solutions even if the problem is social. There are problems that can’t be solved with any sort of medication, therapy, etc, because the cause of the problem isn’t with the individual. It’s impossible to know for sure if any kind of social change would fix her problems, but if suicide is simply the go-to answer when such a problem is encountered, then we will never know. And once this becomes normalized and people start accepting it as a viable solution, then it’s going to be a lot harder to materially improve things for people in these situations. Often it’s only when people see that there is no individualist solution that they start thinking in terms of systemic changes, and if there’s any kind of “solution,” no matter how horrid it is, they’ll turn to that first. I don’t want to create a future where, “I’ve tried everything I can to fix myself and I still feel like shit,” is met with a polite and friendly, “Oh, well have you considered killing yourself?”
Suicide is violence. Self-harm is harm. It’s nonsense to describe a process that kills you as “safe.” I understand that many people view it terms of rights or personal wills because those are prevailing ways to look at things, in individualist cultures. But life is inherently valuable and if someone thinks otherwise about their own, then they are wrong. I would make an exception for someone with severe, incurable physical pain, but while mental pain is just as real and valid as physical pain, the way it functions is more complex, and so I’m skeptical that it could be declared “incurable” to a sufficient standard, especially if solutions aren’t limited to the individual level.
The fact is that we ought to be striving to accommodate as widely diverse minds as possible. Both because it’s the right thing to do, and because diversity is valuable, and people who see things differently may notice or understand things that others don’t. If the diversity of minds starts to narrow, I’m concerned that it will continue to narrow until neurodiverse people are effectively eliminated from society, or be isolated without community, as more and more pressure builds against anyone who doesn’t fit the mold of a productive worker.
I don’t want to create a future where, “I’ve tried everything I can to fix myself and I still feel like shit,” is met with a polite and friendly, “Oh, well have you considered killing yourself?”
Are you for real? This kind of thing is a last resort that nobody is going to just outright suggest unprompted to a suffering person, unless that person asks for it themselves. No matter how “normalized” suicide might become, it’s never gonna be something doctors will want to recommend. That’s just… Why would you even think that’s what’s gonna happen
…and did you notice how everyone was outraged by that? That incident was not an issue with assisted suicide being available, that was an issue with fucked up systems withholding existing alternatives and a tone-deaf case worker (who is not a doctor) handling impersonal communications. Maybe it’s also an issue with this kind of thing being able to be decided by a government worker instead of medical and psychological professionals. But definitely nothing about this would have been made better by assisted suicide not being generally available for people who legitimately want it, except the actual problem wouldn’t have been put into the spotlight like this.
You’re the one that specified doctors, not me. I just said I don’t want to create a future where anyone thinks it’s ok or normal to recommend suicide to people. You dismissed my fears as unrealistic, and then I presented evidence that it’s not just a far off possibility, but something that’s actually happened. Many people may find that story outrageous now, but it’s clearly pushing things in a direction such that in 20 years, who’s to say how people will react.
But definitely nothing about this would have been made better by assisted suicide not being generally available for people who legitimately want it, except the actual problem wouldn’t have been put into the spotlight like this.
Literally the whole thing would not have happened without the policy.
where anyone thinks it’s ok or normal to recommend suicide to people
Except that’s already happening even without it being normalized, there have always been assholes that are gonna tell people to kill themselves, especially if they’ve never seen the person they’re talking to before. I don’t see how this is any different.
Literally the whole thing would not have happened without the policy.
It also wouldn’t have happened if a fucked up system wasn’t withholding actual, reasonable alternatives that the person was clearly asking for. That’s my point. Let’s fix the actual problems, rather than try to silence the symptoms.
Bringing up gamers telling each other to kill themselves (sometimes genuinely, although they wouldn’t admit they were actually that angry) is not the gotcha you think it is.
Why dont you engage with what the person you are replying to is actually saying instead of grasping at straws.
If someone wants to end their own life, that isn’t your choice to make.
No, but as a voter, it is my choice (to a degree) how the state responds to the situation.
Ah yes, you’re one of those people. “We should legislate what people do with their own bodies because I don’t like their decisions”
You people are already ruining the US, so now let’s do it to the world. Except that it was mentioned in the article that this was legislated and settled over 20 years ago where she lives.
“We should legislate what people do with their own bodies because I don’t like their decisions”
I mean, yes. That’s the vast majority of people, regardless of political affiliation, or where you live. I don’t think meth should be completely deregulated, for example. If someone goes to a hospital and asks a doctor to inject them with bleach to cure COVID, I don’t think the doctor should do it.
That doesn’t mean that I don’t support bodily autonomy, however. Just not as an absolute right, because I don’t consider any right as absolute. Rights have to be balanced against each other and considered in the context of their material consequences.
I don’t see how this is comparable to something like abortion, where only a fetus is being terminated, not a human being. Nor is it comparable to, for example, trans rights, where a person is aiming to live a happy and fulfilling life. Just because crazies want to restrict bodily autonomy in cases where there’s no valid reason to doesn’t mean that cases with valid reasons don’t exist, and discouraging suicide is one of them.
Self-harm is harm. It’s nonsense to describe a process that kills you as “safe.”
Safe to her? No. Neither option can boast that.
Euthanasia is safer to everyone else around her. And tidier.
Get it?
And tidier.
Those two words are why I find this thread so terrifying and so alienating. I’ll never “get” the perspective that tidiness is a significant factor when discussing matters of life and death, and to be perfectly frank, it makes me feel like a lot of this is coming from a mentality towards suicidal people of “Get them out of my sight so I don’t have to deal with them and their negative vibes bring me down” rather than genuine empathy and concern for wellbeing. And that sort of mentality surrounding this, about how neat and tidy and clean it all is, how it avoids disruption to society, is exactly what makes the policy so concerning to me.
I would never take that right away from someone, but I’m very sad nothing else worked for her. 29 just feels so young to have to exit, so many chances for experiences left.
I’m glad she will be able to end her suffering painlessly.
“People think that when you’re mentally ill, you can’t think straight, which is insulting,” she told the Guardian.
So much this. I’ve had so many people tell me that when I tell them that I don’t see a way into the future and I want them to leave me the fuck alone, it actually means that I want more help. No, you donkey, it doesn’t. It means leave me alone.
Bonus points when they are coming up with “ideas for my future” that are just genuinely unappealing to me and are then livid when I say no. Do they really think that going on a vacation or changing my job was not something I already thought about and discarded because I know it would not help? Nah, I’m ill, so I also must be stupid. “You always just say no. I am trying to help and you always just say no.” Thanks for realizing that you are not helping me but just want to feel good about yourself.
Let people be free.
And healthcare is for everyone. The means are healthcare in this case. And social & cultural support helps.What leads someone in her situation to decide to go down the euthanasia route rather than regular suicide which doesn’t need any approval?
It’s a morbid thought but euthanasia approval seems like it could often be a slow drawn out process, and someone able-bodied wouldn’t necessarily need it.
For me I don’t want someone to have to find me and deal with the aftermath. I’d much rather it be a planned thing so no one else has to suffer just because I needed to end it all. Unfortunately I’m in a country where that’s not possible so when the time comes I need to go deep into a forest or something.