As a Dutch person I am proud that my country was the first to enact a law allowing euthanasia. I have always been in favour of it. I think this article paints an unbalanced negative picture with a fair bit of emotive language. It is presented as if euthanasia for (young) women on the basis of mental suffering is or is becoming common, is exclusively based on cases where the woman was sexually abused, and that allowing it is always unconscionable.
The article intentionally uses the word “incurable” near the end, instead of “unbearable”, which is misleading at best. To my knowledge, and in a simplified explanation, there is no requirement for a condition to be “incurable” even for physical illnesses, in order to be judged “unbearable”, although incurability is used as an indicator. And that is completely correct in my view, because it is a major flaw to assume that mental suffering can never be shown to be insufferable. That assumes not only that there is treatment available, but that a patient does not have agency for self determination. You thereby declare all people suffering from mental trauma universally incompetent. That is, in a way, ironically patriarchally arrogant, certainly if the underlying motivation is the wish to protect women. I see that as a slippery slope to pre-determining what someone with mental suffering will be allowed to do. Is the next step forced treatment if a doctor says it should continue? What about forced medication?
I do not see any statistics in the article about a “huge increase of young women ending their lives via euthanasia” or that it only is granted to women with certain backgrounds. A ten second Google search showed me that at present around 1.5% of euthanasia cases in The Netherlands is granted on basis of mental suffering. Between 2020 and 2023 this was in total 456 people (from 115 in 2020 to 138 in 2023). Of those 456 people, 11% (52) were younger than age 30. Of those, 43 were women. However, the reason for the requests was not disclosed in this report to the Tweede Kamer (the equivalent of the English Lower House). It would be helpful to have an article based on more thorough statistical evidence comparing not only cases granted, to whom and why, but also the number of requests and the split in male/female, physical/mental, and the medical background. Without that, an article lacks credibility in its basic premise.
It is also incorrect that euthanasia is “offered” as a way out. The request for euthanasia must always come from the patient, and there are many more requests refused than are granted. It isn’t an easy process getting approval for it, but the article makes it seem that women are forced by the medical profession on a path of no return. That's rather insulting to the psychiatrists involved and their teams which are included in the deliberations before making recommendations.
The mention of a patient’s own doctor not supporting the request cannot be taken as an indication that the request is unfounded. The article does not specify whether this was a GP (who may have limited psychiatric expertise). In any event, the view of the patient’s doctor should not take precedence over the patient’s wishes. If a doctor refused a particular course of action for a patient with a physical illness, you would probably be the first to proclaim that the patient should seek a second opinion. I do not see why this would be different for a mental issue.
I do not believe that mental suffering should never be a ground for allowing euthanasia. To me that would be cruel, and only increases the chance of people taking their own lives in far worse ways than by medically assisted methods. That would go against the basic premise that someone suffering unbearably has the right to end their own life. The fact that mental suffering is more difficult to determine should not be a reason to place a blanket prohibition on granting a request. There may be a case for different guidelines or a minimum age (the latter is, as I understand, the case in Belgium). But the picture your article paints that hordes of (young) women are willy nilly allowed and helped to die based on in your view insufficient grounds is too black & white. And that can never be helpful to people struggling with severe mental suffering seeking a solution. For some, euthanasia may be that solution.
As a society we need to take the power away from these abusers and stop this idea that they have the power to damage these women beyond repair. If we viewed these women differently, not as damaged and destroyed, perhaps they wouldn't view themselves this way either! Very, very slippery slope. That's the point. Also, perhaps as a society we should be looking at how we failed these people and how we can succeed. I understand the idea to stop the suffering but we are lying to ourselves if we feel like we have given these people everything we have.
We recently had a case in Australia where an elderly gentleman chose VAD because he couldn’t access the home care that he needed to live independently with his medical conditions (and did not have any family either), which should be considered absolutely appalling since the government should be funding adequate health and community services but unfortunately barely caused a ripple. The sad reality that I see, particularly as a nurse of 20 years, is that the government and society in general (particularly pro- capitalists) prefers that people choose VAD as it lifts the burden from them to provide and invest in adequate health and social services (which is expensive if you do it properly).
While in some cases such as terminal cancer or neurological conditions it does provide a more compassionate end to the inevitable, there is a much greyer area and a very slippery slope in my opinion in situations such as psychiatry and geriatrics where it is very convenient to provide VAD in place of adequate services for our most vulnerable members of our communities, demonstrating a complete lack of care and compassion to those often deemed “too much trouble/unworthy/ inconvenient”.
The future of health and social services is here…too much of a burden/too expensive/too damaged….VAD…..
This plays out in pop culture as well… several Instagram models influencers have died recently from anorexia. No one is talking about it in this light.
As a Dutch person I am proud that my country was the first to enact a law allowing euthanasia. I have always been in favour of it. I think this article paints an unbalanced negative picture with a fair bit of emotive language. It is presented as if euthanasia for (young) women on the basis of mental suffering is or is becoming common, is exclusively based on cases where the woman was sexually abused, and that allowing it is always unconscionable.
The article intentionally uses the word “incurable” near the end, instead of “unbearable”, which is misleading at best. To my knowledge, and in a simplified explanation, there is no requirement for a condition to be “incurable” even for physical illnesses, in order to be judged “unbearable”, although incurability is used as an indicator. And that is completely correct in my view, because it is a major flaw to assume that mental suffering can never be shown to be insufferable. That assumes not only that there is treatment available, but that a patient does not have agency for self determination. You thereby declare all people suffering from mental trauma universally incompetent. That is, in a way, ironically patriarchally arrogant, certainly if the underlying motivation is the wish to protect women. I see that as a slippery slope to pre-determining what someone with mental suffering will be allowed to do. Is the next step forced treatment if a doctor says it should continue? What about forced medication?
I do not see any statistics in the article about a “huge increase of young women ending their lives via euthanasia” or that it only is granted to women with certain backgrounds. A ten second Google search showed me that at present around 1.5% of euthanasia cases in The Netherlands is granted on basis of mental suffering. Between 2020 and 2023 this was in total 456 people (from 115 in 2020 to 138 in 2023). Of those 456 people, 11% (52) were younger than age 30. Of those, 43 were women. However, the reason for the requests was not disclosed in this report to the Tweede Kamer (the equivalent of the English Lower House). It would be helpful to have an article based on more thorough statistical evidence comparing not only cases granted, to whom and why, but also the number of requests and the split in male/female, physical/mental, and the medical background. Without that, an article lacks credibility in its basic premise.
It is also incorrect that euthanasia is “offered” as a way out. The request for euthanasia must always come from the patient, and there are many more requests refused than are granted. It isn’t an easy process getting approval for it, but the article makes it seem that women are forced by the medical profession on a path of no return. That's rather insulting to the psychiatrists involved and their teams which are included in the deliberations before making recommendations.
The mention of a patient’s own doctor not supporting the request cannot be taken as an indication that the request is unfounded. The article does not specify whether this was a GP (who may have limited psychiatric expertise). In any event, the view of the patient’s doctor should not take precedence over the patient’s wishes. If a doctor refused a particular course of action for a patient with a physical illness, you would probably be the first to proclaim that the patient should seek a second opinion. I do not see why this would be different for a mental issue.
I do not believe that mental suffering should never be a ground for allowing euthanasia. To me that would be cruel, and only increases the chance of people taking their own lives in far worse ways than by medically assisted methods. That would go against the basic premise that someone suffering unbearably has the right to end their own life. The fact that mental suffering is more difficult to determine should not be a reason to place a blanket prohibition on granting a request. There may be a case for different guidelines or a minimum age (the latter is, as I understand, the case in Belgium). But the picture your article paints that hordes of (young) women are willy nilly allowed and helped to die based on in your view insufficient grounds is too black & white. And that can never be helpful to people struggling with severe mental suffering seeking a solution. For some, euthanasia may be that solution.
As a society we need to take the power away from these abusers and stop this idea that they have the power to damage these women beyond repair. If we viewed these women differently, not as damaged and destroyed, perhaps they wouldn't view themselves this way either! Very, very slippery slope. That's the point. Also, perhaps as a society we should be looking at how we failed these people and how we can succeed. I understand the idea to stop the suffering but we are lying to ourselves if we feel like we have given these people everything we have.
One doesn't exclude the other.
We recently had a case in Australia where an elderly gentleman chose VAD because he couldn’t access the home care that he needed to live independently with his medical conditions (and did not have any family either), which should be considered absolutely appalling since the government should be funding adequate health and community services but unfortunately barely caused a ripple. The sad reality that I see, particularly as a nurse of 20 years, is that the government and society in general (particularly pro- capitalists) prefers that people choose VAD as it lifts the burden from them to provide and invest in adequate health and social services (which is expensive if you do it properly).
While in some cases such as terminal cancer or neurological conditions it does provide a more compassionate end to the inevitable, there is a much greyer area and a very slippery slope in my opinion in situations such as psychiatry and geriatrics where it is very convenient to provide VAD in place of adequate services for our most vulnerable members of our communities, demonstrating a complete lack of care and compassion to those often deemed “too much trouble/unworthy/ inconvenient”.
The future of health and social services is here…too much of a burden/too expensive/too damaged….VAD…..
This plays out in pop culture as well… several Instagram models influencers have died recently from anorexia. No one is talking about it in this light.