Dubstepforum.com

I thought people like that just worked in call centers?

or NI customer support

There's a much wider discussion to be had about people in persistent states of call-centre employment. There should be a cyanide pill with every contract.

magma wrote:

AxeD wrote:It's case dependent dudemen. There have been several cases of euthanasia for mentally ill people.

Well, obviously it depends on the illness. "Mental Illness" is a very broad term indeed. I expect it's slightly easier to trust the consent of a person with Tourettes than it is a person with severe paranoid psychosis.

Here's those two words again... common sense.

Yeah for sure and it's not even just the type of illness, there's probably a list of factors and of course
an analysis by a psych of sorts.

I don't think they will just keep people in a 'permanently' vegetative state alive btw. If there's no people coming for that person, will his/her healthcare just keep paying?

magma wrote: That's definitely the most difficult judgement call to make... all I know is that I've got a signed bit of paper in my files at home saying I'd want my machine switched off if it came to that. If somebody's never expressed a preference, I personally think you've got to leave them be. The whole thing's torturous though, I wouldn't wish that situation on anyone.

I think it's difficulty is related to the principle it helps establish, it's because there is no chance of a return to health and no possibility of giving assent that our answer to it goes someway to establishing our answer to the less extreme cases.

I generally think less suffering is good as is greater empowerment I also think loved ones should be able to act for their partners/children/parents interest

I don't think they will just keep people in a 'permanently' vegetative state alive btw. If there's no people coming for that person, will his/her healthcare just keep paying?

not even healthcare just gov funding

it's like that in the western hemisphere

and a question of human rights not money btw

What about really tough cases of alien hand syndrome ?

hi5 or guillotine?

AxeD wrote:I don't think they will just keep people in a 'permanently' vegetative state alive btw. If there's no people coming for that person, will his/her healthcare just keep paying?

Depends where you are, I guess... one of the episodes of Louis Theroux's last series LA Stories visited a facility that was almost entirely full of people in PVS just being tended by nurses for years on end as if they were fleshy shrubberies.

In the absence of 'loved ones' I'm sure switch-offs happen more often, but whether that's strictly abiding by the law or realising that nobody's around to sue and making a 'pragmatic' decision, I don't know.

There are also the cases where loved ones are there and are looking for the persons support to be turned off Terri Schiavo being the memorable one.

By Law and human rights agencies that spend time trawling cases even in foreign countries.

m8son wrote:

jags wrote:they should go through a serious process where they have to convince multiple docs/judges etc that they aren't mentally ill

What, so if they are terminally ill but also judged to be mentally ill then they shouldn't be offered this option? Why does they mental health of a terminally ill person matter? I expect most terminally ill would fit the diagnosis of depression.

because you can't reliably determine that they truly want to die because of their terminal illness if they also have depression - it would cloud their judgment. in one word, what magma said - consent.

m8son wrote:

jags wrote:for mentally ill people, hell no. i'd rather they were treated with serious euphoriants like ket or something than allowed to commit suicide (now there's a thought).

This is often what i notice about this kind of discussion, it usually boils down to selfishness. 'I'd rather' why would you rather, how does it effect you? Is it just because it fits into your ethics and morality? If someone wants to die it should be up to no-one else apart from them imo, obviously it shouldn't/wouldn't be as easy as walking into somewhere and in an hour you would be dead, it would/should be a decision made over several months. In my experience, suicidal thoughts and feelings are rather fleeting and although feel so strong and insurmountable at the time days/weeks later you realise how ridiculous they may be, so obviously this should be a prolonged decision.

i didn't mean "I'd rather" as in it affects me. it has no effect on me. i'm not ethically opposed to suicide. i would just rather we first tried to utilize euphoriants before jumping to the suicide option. i mean if suicide is a last resort, then surely we should try euphoriants - drugs that FORCE you to be happy - first. that would be so typical murica - let people die because we're so scared of someone "getting HIGH" (omg). i think society has waaaaay underestimated the value of drugs like ketamine, opiates, mdma, etc for mental illness. and i bet you most of those people with treatment-resistant depression would choose low dose oxycodone or methadone over dying if given the chance.

m8son wrote:

jags wrote:i think anyone can get better with time, and since depression isn't primarily life-threatening, there's a chance researchers might come up with a cure/treatment for it within the patient's lifetime.

Depression and similar mental illnesses are incredibly life threatening, the suicide attempt rate for people with BPD is around 60-70%. If people are going to kill themselves why not allow for it to happen in a comforting environment surrounded by family instead of forcing these people to spend their last hours on earth with intense feelings of guilt and isolation. Also with the risk of a suicide attempt going wrong and leaving the person even worse off than before?

read what i said - they are not primarily life-threatening, i.e. they can lead to death through secondary causes like suicide or poor nutrition. again, it's the issue that a mentally ill person cannot consent to euthanasia and i think they can be treated with more aggressive options and they might live to see a cure.

just as a side note, BPD = borderline personality disorder?

m8son wrote:

jags wrote:if someone's truly treatment-resistant, treat them with fucking oxycontin or methadone or whatever if you have to, better than dying

Better than dying for who? For the patient who would live doped up to their eyes for the rest of time, unable to live anything resembling a normal life. Or for you, as it would better fit your morals?

uhh what? again my "morals" are not opposed to suicide. i just think that stronger drugs could be used to successfully treat TRD and that our society has a ridiculous fear of pursuing that option because of the war on drugs etc. and i don't think they'd need to be on a dose where they're "doped up to their eyes, unable to live anything resembling a normal life". anecdotally, lots of people talk about things like tramadol being very effective for TRD. they're probably people who also have "fibromyalgia" (same thing really amirite?) and the tramadol happened to fix their depression. i don't know any good studies, i'll leave that up to you, but i personally think some sort of low dose opiate would be the most effective thing, if they've tried everything else. mdma and ketamine don't seem feasible long-term. maybe they could help for acute episodes.

magma wrote:There's a much wider discussion to be had about people in persistent states of call-centre employment. There should be a cyanide pill with every contract.

go-to crew when everyone else is being a wetty though

Most people are capable of suiciding without assistance.
Which means that only people who are incapable of suiciding, can't.
Sounds unfair to me, particularly as they're the people that would likely have the best reason to suicide.
So assisting them to suicide is justified on the grounds of equity.

In fact, doctors are assisting suicide every day of the week with the way they manage palliation.

sd5 wrote:Most people are capable of suiciding without assistance.

Hmm. Well, yes, but not exactly in ideal ways. I'd rather a medical professional gave me a cocktail of drugs that were assured to be speedy and painless than slash my wrists in the bath or risk a botching hanging. I'd also rather not clean up after a loved one who's blown their head off with a shotgun.

I think sd5 had that as part of his equation tbf.

The notion that not leaving someone in that state is a form of sentencing in itself along with the account that the fate might be worse than death, would mean it could exist in a healthy side of society just like abortion does. But it's a terrible reality ofcourse.

magma wrote:

sd5 wrote:Most people are capable of suiciding without assistance.

Hmm. Well, yes, but not exactly in ideal ways. I'd rather a medical professional gave me a cocktail of drugs that were assured to be speedy and painless than slash my wrists in the bath or risk a botching hanging. I'd also rather not clean up after a loved one who's blown their head off with a shotgun.

Take a picture and put it on an album cover imo

I'm watching a documentary ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTCSfx47R1w ), there is this autistic guy who self harms a lot, if he's not tied to a bed he bashes his head against walls and rubs his skin raw and shit, he's been tied down for like 3 years or something and only gets to walk a little bit a few times a week and he just spazzes out all day every day, so bleak.. they shouldn't be kept alive

nobody wrote:….he's been tied down for like 3 years or something...and he just spazzes out all day every day

That's a difficult one right!!??

He obviously has no - and I mean - zero - quality of life…
and it's pretty hard to believe he's having a nice time - "in there"

Then you hear of stories from autistics who gain the ability to type…
after years of what appear to be relatively insignificant progress…
and they tell us they have stuff going on in there -
and the spasms are involuntary…

I feel like I can only make that decision for myself…

and yet I doubt that the"them" of - many of them…
is even truly available to experience this world…

Is a perpetual dream worth living for?...or worth being kept living for?

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58rP44NSNNs" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>

I've been thinking….

That this concept reminds me of the documentary
about the family and the girl who was a super successful photographer…
She jumped off a building when her life became "ordinary"…

I can't remember the title - I think it was their last name….

I just remember reading people on the critique - harshing out on
how much the family was lame…
In relation to how "awesome" the girl was…

and I was having a completely different experience with the film.

I was seeing - from the beginning of her career…
a girl who was manipulating everyone…

and although she did her art with great skill…
She had a VERY dark sense of entitlement from the very beginning….

and what I got was - she could't sit the fuck down
even for a minute...professionally
- thought literally - the entire world was about her shit.

and when it wasn't - she had nothing to live for.

When the world is so much about you you you…


I've lost my train of thought.

something about shooting stars…

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGJuMBdaqIw" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>