I worked in a cancer hospital. The patient is often ready to die long before the family will let them go. They know what they have been through.

It is selfish for family members to keep pressuring them to try more experimental treatments. Most just prolong the agony.

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post the text for the article, I can’t read it…

https://wapo.st/3SscWk1

Gift link

I have a DD who has recovered from anorexia.

Anorexia is first and foremost a starving brain. You can't treat a starving brain with anything but food for a long time before anything improves and other therapies can help. And in order for the brain to fully heal they may have to get their weight up much higher than most people realize and hold it there long enough for the body to stop having a response to the trauma of starvation. And that can't really be left up to the person suffering because they.will.not.choose.to.eat. There is no amount of therapy that will work on a starving brain.

Deep in her illness, my DD begged me to let her go. Now, she is thriving and thanks me for not giving up on her. Watching her reawaken as her brain was nourished and working again was amazing. She had therapy to support her recovery but it literally was consistent nourishment for an extended period of time that did it. And I had to make it impossible for her to do anything else for as long as it took and I could because she was a minor child. There's such a low recovery rate for eating disorders because the environment has to impose treatment. For many adults there is no environment to impose treatment (they can opt out of everything).

I don't know where the line should be drawn, and have empathy for people who are suffering and don't see any way out (or dealing with a terrible terminal illness). But me not giving up on my DD was a critical part of her recovery. I can only imagine how much more difficult it would be to have an adult child suffering from this terrible disorder, and I have so much empathy for the families in the article.

Can someone post the text for the article, I can’t read it…

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think you are missing the PP’s main point, which is not about the causation of intractable mental health issues.

The point is: “I feel differently about this for mental health diagnoses than I do for non-mental health diagnoses, but I realize that that may be irrational. For instance, I would support MAiD being expanded to a person with advanced dementia, who is not in any kind of gray area as to competence; they are categorically unable to make their own decisions and I still think it would be OK.”