[deugtniet]

This article is disingenuous by only referring to expert opinion from a Christian university, which is obviously against euthanasia. Experts from other universities would provide a more nuanced view on the subject. Furthermore when the article discusses an increase in numbers, they don't mention that 60% of euthanasia is performed for individuals who suffer from late stage cancer. Most others are generally very old, and will only suffer without remit for the rest of their lives.

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`

[Wytwwww]

Fundamentally this is not different at all from suicide. Every physically healthy and conscious person is capable of committing it if they were strongly want to. So why would we as a society want to make it more acceptable and encourage people to see it as a perfectly viable option?

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?

[bluescrn]

Given the number of failed suicide attempts, not everyone is capable of committing it successfully.

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)

[Wytwwww]

> Given the number of failed suicide attempts, not everyone is capable of committing it successfully.

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?

[deugtniet]

The Netherlands have drawn their line, have a look at their laws [1]. This includes a procedure where multiple medical doctors have to agree to grant someone a death with dignity. I prefer this over unbearable suffering.

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

[Wytwwww]

All of those conditions seem pretty vague and subjective if we're talking about mental illness.

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).