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.
Please stop doing this. There are many suffering from years and lifetimes of extreme trauma who don't want to be here anymore and are forced to keep trying and keep living on when they already have for SO LONG long past the point of any quality of life.
There is a lot I love about Dr. Jessica Taylor but she is not considering all the aspects and scenarios around euthanasia for trauma.
Some of us really have worked so hard on our traumas, done everything we can, or just have had too much go wrong in our lives, not much supportive circumstances or support and are sick of having to rebuild our lives over and over again because of the failures of this world.
There are MANY deeply suffering souls who actually deserve a peaceful, loving death so they don't end up having to kill themselves in some horrible way in order to be free.
Eventually it does get to a point where the brain and body are so worn out, there just isn't much quality of life anymore.
Myself, my biological mother, my aunt have all really wanted to just die for quite some time now.
It is unbearable to keep living after all of the extreme generational trauma, and the world becoming horrific and dystopian and the work STILL being mostly up to women.
I don't agree AT ALL that euthanasia is becoming more easily available or normal to receive.
I WISH!
I believe what is actually happening is some PROGRESS and then still mostly resistance coming up against it. Which you are contributing to.
I'm sorry but this is not protecting women and girls, this is further limiting their agency and self determination.
As honestly, life should not be so compulsory. I believe EVERY being should have the right to determine their quality of life and whether they wish to continue to live or not.
I actually believe it is a great evil and slavery to force people to live against their will.
Those of us with severe trauma and less quality of life who are SICK of being superheroes and SICK of doing so much work because this world was so horrifically designed for us, we have been doing all we can to create and transform new better worlds but some of us are just exhausted and not sure when or if we will ever be free and I don't feel we should have to endlessly suffer and be strong, we should not have to forever be stuck doing everything like many generations of women before us. This was all supposed to end!
And maybe this is dark too and I offer it for its own sake, not as part of everything else I stated, but I have experienced so much suffering and have empathically felt the weight of the suffering of women and girls and how this world has become so dystopian and most of it still failing the Feminine that quite honestly, I actually feel a lot of us deserve euthanasia. That this world doesn't deserve us AT ALL. It doesn't deserve our labor or our existence. We may be needed here but we are not appreciated or valued at all. We should just let everything die. And be allowed to die if we wish to. Our wishes deserve to be honored. For both life and death. Not Just life.
This world keeps people alive too long when their quality of life isn't that great.
We let horses and cats and dogs be euthanized, it's a special kind of evil that we don't grant our own kind enough of the same mercy. It is purely about control and paternalism from the systems of capitalism and religion that need our labor and life force, it is truly nothing about honoring the life of the soul at all.
This was written by Eileen, logged into bio Mom's account.
I made a mistake of my description of adultery and idolatry recently;adultery tends to be when someone does or says something to you which damages your personality;idolatry is when you create a false image and description of someone or something which creates falsity within you. I have found the Commandments to be true,they do indicate how to understand a description of truth;a problem that Dr.Taylor and others can find though,is that most people suffer,at one point or another,from not being completely true;we grow up being shown and educated who to be,this can tend to mean that if we find we need something then that frequently means referring to someone else,that can indicate that a person making a decision to euthanase is difficult to understand as unassisted in the form of an individual true decision,or fully informed,as Dr.Taylor has pointed out.The courts will be involved though,palliative assistance has been talked about,I've found my mind swinging backwards and forwards-many people suffer more extreme pain during their lifetime than you hear that people approaching death will;I heard of a woman with breast cancer who couldn't get a painkiller that worked;but you have people in positions who don't see why they should live with any discomfort or indignity before they die,they can have relatives who don't relate to them,you can have a description on a fine line where people can believe they should be allowed to do out of a sense of humanity and a different person can make the other decision;I know someone who is heavily medicated because of paranoid schizophrenia,he has said he believes he would be better off dead,with paranoia and an element of aggression where does a decision go?but I would have thought that with Dr.Taylors issue a female should be able to indicate whether they want to live or die,I don't believe in a patriarchal legal system that much as there seems to be quite a few female lawyers,I believe the courts take a fairly neutral value because of there position in the constitution and that the main problems are created by the provision of evidence,I don't know if lawyers perceive themselves as having a free rein in those circumstances,or if they are controlled dependent on details in each case;I do know that it's impossible to convict without enough evidence and I do have personal realisation,despite not having all the facts,that it seems there shouldn't be that much of a percentage of rape cases where a female makes a false accusation.
I know that the Ten Commandments from the Bible can be used to translate anything into truth,this can stand in any court to the best of my knowledge,they can also be translated into language which makes them acceptable to others if someone wishes to remove religious aspects due to personal objection;so you can focus on the singularity of truth and you can analyse each word to work out where they come from,this is covered by understanding fully what idolatry and adultery mean,they can help to work out if information is adopted by someone from someone else(idolatry),or whether they have been adulterated by someone which produces related behaviour and description,also bearing false witness;if life and its'description and its' progress were that important to someone this could be the stringency of description you would look at,you could find an entire description of what is and what isn't,upholdable in court,an airtight description where you conclude with people understanding you fully or face prosecution because there should be procedures in courts internationally where falsification is illegal.To the best of my knowledge,this is what people are looking at in any situation like this,I have thought of writing this sort of thing to Dr.Taylor before,whether it's to do with rape victims,abuses towards females,the defence of life,if this is understood it will mean that this is what people are looking at,if religious connotations are found to be offensive,then someone needs to produce an entire,airtight description that is defensible by law,otherwise I would understand that people are taking a gamble;you overthrow any description by proving it to be false and you replace it with a true description otherwise you may find that you cannot.
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.
Please stop doing this. There are many suffering from years and lifetimes of extreme trauma who don't want to be here anymore and are forced to keep trying and keep living on when they already have for SO LONG long past the point of any quality of life.
There is a lot I love about Dr. Jessica Taylor but she is not considering all the aspects and scenarios around euthanasia for trauma.
Some of us really have worked so hard on our traumas, done everything we can, or just have had too much go wrong in our lives, not much supportive circumstances or support and are sick of having to rebuild our lives over and over again because of the failures of this world.
There are MANY deeply suffering souls who actually deserve a peaceful, loving death so they don't end up having to kill themselves in some horrible way in order to be free.
Eventually it does get to a point where the brain and body are so worn out, there just isn't much quality of life anymore.
Myself, my biological mother, my aunt have all really wanted to just die for quite some time now.
It is unbearable to keep living after all of the extreme generational trauma, and the world becoming horrific and dystopian and the work STILL being mostly up to women.
I don't agree AT ALL that euthanasia is becoming more easily available or normal to receive.
I WISH!
I believe what is actually happening is some PROGRESS and then still mostly resistance coming up against it. Which you are contributing to.
I'm sorry but this is not protecting women and girls, this is further limiting their agency and self determination.
As honestly, life should not be so compulsory. I believe EVERY being should have the right to determine their quality of life and whether they wish to continue to live or not.
I actually believe it is a great evil and slavery to force people to live against their will.
Those of us with severe trauma and less quality of life who are SICK of being superheroes and SICK of doing so much work because this world was so horrifically designed for us, we have been doing all we can to create and transform new better worlds but some of us are just exhausted and not sure when or if we will ever be free and I don't feel we should have to endlessly suffer and be strong, we should not have to forever be stuck doing everything like many generations of women before us. This was all supposed to end!
And maybe this is dark too and I offer it for its own sake, not as part of everything else I stated, but I have experienced so much suffering and have empathically felt the weight of the suffering of women and girls and how this world has become so dystopian and most of it still failing the Feminine that quite honestly, I actually feel a lot of us deserve euthanasia. That this world doesn't deserve us AT ALL. It doesn't deserve our labor or our existence. We may be needed here but we are not appreciated or valued at all. We should just let everything die. And be allowed to die if we wish to. Our wishes deserve to be honored. For both life and death. Not Just life.
This world keeps people alive too long when their quality of life isn't that great.
We let horses and cats and dogs be euthanized, it's a special kind of evil that we don't grant our own kind enough of the same mercy. It is purely about control and paternalism from the systems of capitalism and religion that need our labor and life force, it is truly nothing about honoring the life of the soul at all.
This was written by Eileen, logged into bio Mom's account.
I made a mistake of my description of adultery and idolatry recently;adultery tends to be when someone does or says something to you which damages your personality;idolatry is when you create a false image and description of someone or something which creates falsity within you. I have found the Commandments to be true,they do indicate how to understand a description of truth;a problem that Dr.Taylor and others can find though,is that most people suffer,at one point or another,from not being completely true;we grow up being shown and educated who to be,this can tend to mean that if we find we need something then that frequently means referring to someone else,that can indicate that a person making a decision to euthanase is difficult to understand as unassisted in the form of an individual true decision,or fully informed,as Dr.Taylor has pointed out.The courts will be involved though,palliative assistance has been talked about,I've found my mind swinging backwards and forwards-many people suffer more extreme pain during their lifetime than you hear that people approaching death will;I heard of a woman with breast cancer who couldn't get a painkiller that worked;but you have people in positions who don't see why they should live with any discomfort or indignity before they die,they can have relatives who don't relate to them,you can have a description on a fine line where people can believe they should be allowed to do out of a sense of humanity and a different person can make the other decision;I know someone who is heavily medicated because of paranoid schizophrenia,he has said he believes he would be better off dead,with paranoia and an element of aggression where does a decision go?but I would have thought that with Dr.Taylors issue a female should be able to indicate whether they want to live or die,I don't believe in a patriarchal legal system that much as there seems to be quite a few female lawyers,I believe the courts take a fairly neutral value because of there position in the constitution and that the main problems are created by the provision of evidence,I don't know if lawyers perceive themselves as having a free rein in those circumstances,or if they are controlled dependent on details in each case;I do know that it's impossible to convict without enough evidence and I do have personal realisation,despite not having all the facts,that it seems there shouldn't be that much of a percentage of rape cases where a female makes a false accusation.
I know that the Ten Commandments from the Bible can be used to translate anything into truth,this can stand in any court to the best of my knowledge,they can also be translated into language which makes them acceptable to others if someone wishes to remove religious aspects due to personal objection;so you can focus on the singularity of truth and you can analyse each word to work out where they come from,this is covered by understanding fully what idolatry and adultery mean,they can help to work out if information is adopted by someone from someone else(idolatry),or whether they have been adulterated by someone which produces related behaviour and description,also bearing false witness;if life and its'description and its' progress were that important to someone this could be the stringency of description you would look at,you could find an entire description of what is and what isn't,upholdable in court,an airtight description where you conclude with people understanding you fully or face prosecution because there should be procedures in courts internationally where falsification is illegal.To the best of my knowledge,this is what people are looking at in any situation like this,I have thought of writing this sort of thing to Dr.Taylor before,whether it's to do with rape victims,abuses towards females,the defence of life,if this is understood it will mean that this is what people are looking at,if religious connotations are found to be offensive,then someone needs to produce an entire,airtight description that is defensible by law,otherwise I would understand that people are taking a gamble;you overthrow any description by proving it to be false and you replace it with a true description otherwise you may find that you cannot.
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.