Anonymous wrote:In my line I've work, I've dealt with many individuals with severe mental illnesses and people who have taken many serious attempts on your life. Its hard for me because on one hand, you don't want to let people die. But on the other hand, it almost seems cruel to keep them alive. I don't feel this way with non mental health issues and feel like everyone should have a right to choose how they want to go out. However with those with mental health issues, if their brain isn't working right due to chemical imbalances, is it that different than the elderly dementia patient whose child is making their medical decisions because the patient's brain isn't working right either? Its ethically a grey area when it comes to mental health

The chemical imbalance theory of mental illness was debunked decades ago. Mental illness has a complex psychopathology and neurobiological basis just like many other illnesses. And mental illness is not synonymous with a loss of competence. With some people with severe mental illness or in an acute episode may not be competent, the majority of people with mental illness are competent.

All right to die legislation has built in protectors. MAiD legislation isn’t just that anyone at anytime can ask someone to help them die.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I support the right to die for mental disorders, not just for physical disorders. "Not being in your right mind" to make the decision is the point. If you're not in your right mind, and you're in pain, you should be allowed to choose a terminal solution.

I hear the people who are grateful to be alive after they hit rock bottom. But people don't know whether they'll ever get better. They have a right to make decisions for themselves. The article also mentions patients who were offered the option, and chose not to take it, because the mere fact of having the option was re-assuring. I understand that mindset, having lived in myself! So people don't even know who will make which decision. We have to offer all the options, out of respect for individualism and freedom of choice.

The vast majority of the people who are suffering terribly from mental illness do get better. Much better. With treatment. Unfortunately this is often impossible for them to see, imagine, or even work toward while they are in the throws of the illness. This has to be born in mind when considering policy around assisted suicide.


-- person with lifelong bipolar disorder

There are many, many people who do not get better. I have a mental illness and have been through many treatments and have met people who have been suffering most of their lives.

Why the hell is this article in the Style section of WaPo?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they want to die they can kill themselves. I’m not going to be responsible for the death of any other person!

Many cannot, as they think suicide is a mortal sin. My mom is in this position now.

Well, if that is the case, that is an odd thing for her to want someone else to do for her, as the Church teaching is that euthanasia is also a mortal sin.

What seems to me MUCH likelier is for a patient whose sense of self-determination would call for euthanasia to be unable to participate in the ways currently required in the legal regime around assisted suicide—ex by being able to swallow medication or to pass a mental status exam in the case of so many dementia patients.

Anonymous wrote:In my line I've work, I've dealt with many individuals with severe mental illnesses and people who have taken many serious attempts on your life. Its hard for me because on one hand, you don't want to let people die. But on the other hand, it almost seems cruel to keep them alive. I don't feel this way with non mental health issues and feel like everyone should have a right to choose how they want to go out. However with those with mental health issues, if their brain isn't working right due to chemical imbalances, is it that different than the elderly dementia patient whose child is making their medical decisions because the patient's brain isn't working right either? Its ethically a grey area when it comes to mental health

This is one of the most interesting arguments I have ever heard about this—thank you for laying it out!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's actually kind of crazy to me that the right to die is even debated. It seems fundamental, in my mind. Why should we be able to force people to stay alive? What gives us that right?

People die all the time. Causing that to happen is murder.

I hate to break it to people, but this happens all the time. Morphine is given. Person dies soon after.

Agree, we also have assistance with death through hospice. Morphine is pushed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's actually kind of crazy to me that the right to die is even debated. It seems fundamental, in my mind. Why should we be able to force people to stay alive? What gives us that right?

People die all the time. Causing that to happen is murder.

I hate to break it to people, but this happens all the time. Morphine is given. Person dies soon after.

Anonymous wrote:
I support the right to die for mental disorders, not just for physical disorders. "Not being in your right mind" to make the decision is the point. If you're not in your right mind, and you're in pain, you should be allowed to choose a terminal solution.

I hear the people who are grateful to be alive after they hit rock bottom. But people don't know whether they'll ever get better. They have a right to make decisions for themselves. The article also mentions patients who were offered the option, and chose not to take it, because the mere fact of having the option was re-assuring. I understand that mindset, having lived in myself! So people don't even know who will make which decision. We have to offer all the options, out of respect for individualism and freedom of choice.

The vast majority of the people who are suffering terribly from mental illness do get better. Much better. With treatment. Unfortunately this is often impossible for them to see, imagine, or even work toward while they are in the throws of the illness. This has to be born in mind when considering policy around assisted suicide.


-- person with lifelong bipolar disorder

I support the right to die for mental disorders, not just for physical disorders. "Not being in your right mind" to make the decision is the point. If you're not in your right mind, and you're in pain, you should be allowed to choose a terminal solution.

I hear the people who are grateful to be alive after they hit rock bottom. But people don't know whether they'll ever get better. They have a right to make decisions for themselves. The article also mentions patients who were offered the option, and chose not to take it, because the mere fact of having the option was re-assuring. I understand that mindset, having lived in myself! So people don't even know who will make which decision. We have to offer all the options, out of respect for individualism and freedom of choice.

Anonymous wrote:If they want to die they can kill themselves. I’m not going to be responsible for the death of any other person!

It’s easier said than done to find a quick, painless way to kill yourself.

Anonymous wrote:If they want to die they can kill themselves. I’m not going to be responsible for the death of any other person!

Many cannot, as they think suicide is a mortal sin. My mom is in this position now.

Just absolutely heartbreaking with no easy solution.

Very sad. That article is well written and well researched!

I don't like that many were restrained and force feed by feeding tube. You have a right not to not be fed.

Anonymous wrote:If they want to die they can kill themselves. I’m not going to be responsible for the death of any other person!

I don't want to be the source of prolonged suffering for another person. We are kinder to our pets.