Skip Navigation
236 comments

  • “People think that when you’re mentally ill, you can’t think straight, which is insulting,” she told the Guardian. “I understand the fears that some disabled people have about assisted dying, and worries about people being under pressure to die... But in the Netherlands, we’ve had this law for more than 20 years. There are really strict rules, and it’s really safe.”

    She embarked on intensive treatments, including talking therapies, medication and more than 30 sessions of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). “In therapy, I learned a lot about myself and coping mechanisms, but it didn’t fix the main issues. At the beginning of treatment, you start out hopeful. I thought I’d get better. But the longer the treatment goes on, you start losing hope.”

    After 10 years, there was “nothing left” in terms of treatment. "I’ve never hesitated about my decision. I have felt guilt – I have a partner, family, friends and I’m not blind to their pain. And I’ve felt scared. But I’m absolutely determined to go through with it.

    Honestly and genuinely, I'm glad to see all that she has put into this decision and glad the state is allowing it. Now she doesn't need to cause further pain to others through a traumatic suicide and she can gain the peace she's been longing for.

    Each day, so many lives are snuffed out of existence without a second thought. She has given this an incredible amount of thought, time, and work.

    Rest in peace, Zoraya. 💜

    P. S. There's thousands of live today that want to live. They don't want to die. And yet their lives are taken away in an instant. Perhaps we should focus on saving them rather than making someone like Zoraya feel even worse.

  • Unsolicited Conservative: "Has she tried to put God on that wound? If only she was religious..."

    Dude, doctors will even try homeopathy before resorting to euthanasia.

  • I feel like a lot of replies here have the same "every live is precious and needs to be protected at all costs"-vibe as you get with a lot of anti-abortion arguments.

    • You are casually ceding the "not wanting people to kill themselves" ground to the right while also allowing them to paint themselves as caring about human lives when in reality they just want to control women's bodies and protect fetuses, not people.

      "Every life is valuable" is obviously a left-wing stance because the left are the ones who actually care about people's lives, even when they're disabled, downtrodden, and painted as burdens on society.

      • Oh right wing def feel every life has value.

        Just less value then everybodies right not to be forced to pay for them.

        They are fairly open about the value of a states non right to force an indevidual to fund anothers life. Being more important then anything.

        That the value for all lives is based on either an indeviduals ability to self support. Or other indeviduals willingness to offer charity.

        It is forced charity usinging the states ability to use violence they consider a greater crime then any % of society not wanting to support the lives of those in need.

        Its not value or no value. But priority of those values that differs.

        IE states using its same power of violence to kill forign people who might disagree with the state. Can be argued with no worry about the value of those actions. They have no issue with not choosing to fund defence or the actual state ability to use violence to enforce its laws.

        Just the state taking money via potential force to provide life to US citizens in need.

      • I have no clue why you're trying to push my argument into a political direction.

    • Until they are asked to do something to help, then it's crickets

  • Death is permanent and cannot be undone. Once someone dies they take all their love, potential and beauty with them. We can only live with the memory of it, but that memory doesn’t have the ability to create new things or react to life in new ways.

    That said, people should be able to end their suffering in a dignified manner of their choosing without suffering more. No one asked to be alive, it’s a burden imposed on them by the will of the living. The least we can do, then, is to make living as devoid of suffering as we can for everyone.

    • If potential is key, I say keep the context of the MAID process but instead of outright death make it cryonics. Plus other potential relevant volunteer stuff and organ donation stuff lined up. Even if the initial cryonics technique is not even close to viable, other stuff could be transformative. If cryonics has any chance to work, things will get appreciably better in 300-or-so years right?

      Hopeful worst is my brain in a jar mostly playing VR and sometimes knitting yarn via robotic arms. Lots of ways it could be better. Also unlike traditional cyborg stuff with all-machine life-support, I would like to still have a complex microbiome if not taking it further with symbiosis.

  • Don't really agree with this. If you look at it on an individual level, there's a case for it, but on a social level, it's dangerous. Individualist societies look for individual solutions even if the problem is social. There are problems that can't be solved with any sort of medication, therapy, etc, because the cause of the problem isn't with the individual. It's impossible to know for sure if any kind of social change would fix her problems, but if suicide is simply the go-to answer when such a problem is encountered, then we will never know. And once this becomes normalized and people start accepting it as a viable solution, then it's going to be a lot harder to materially improve things for people in these situations. Often it's only when people see that there is no individualist solution that they start thinking in terms of systemic changes, and if there's any kind of "solution," no matter how horrid it is, they'll turn to that first. I don't want to create a future where, "I've tried everything I can to fix myself and I still feel like shit," is met with a polite and friendly, "Oh, well have you considered killing yourself?"

    Suicide is violence. Self-harm is harm. It's nonsense to describe a process that kills you as "safe." I understand that many people view it terms of rights or personal wills because those are prevailing ways to look at things, in individualist cultures. But life is inherently valuable and if someone thinks otherwise about their own, then they are wrong. I would make an exception for someone with severe, incurable physical pain, but while mental pain is just as real and valid as physical pain, the way it functions is more complex, and so I'm skeptical that it could be declared "incurable" to a sufficient standard, especially if solutions aren't limited to the individual level.

    The fact is that we ought to be striving to accommodate as widely diverse minds as possible. Both because it's the right thing to do, and because diversity is valuable, and people who see things differently may notice or understand things that others don't. If the diversity of minds starts to narrow, I'm concerned that it will continue to narrow until neurodiverse people are effectively eliminated from society, or be isolated without community, as more and more pressure builds against anyone who doesn't fit the mold of a productive worker.

    • Suicide is violence

      sorry that's simply your opinion. for most who seek it for medical reasons, it's the final escape. I don't have enough familiarity with this case to judge but would want the option open should I need it. You have no idea what kind of physical pain people have to live with - shit that can't be touched by opioids or other painkillers, like bone cancer. The only out for some of these folks is to be gorked to unconsciousness. I'd prefer to pass on that and go straight to the end myself.

    • But it is it a greater harm to decline her request and force her to endure suffering (or risk more drastic methods)?

      I hear where you're coming from (I think), and agree this is tragic, but part of me is jealous of her.

      How much that part of me equates to changes each day with my tension headaches

      • Personally, I think the greater harm would come from the normalization of suicide, because it will lead to cases where it is unnecessary. It's better to err on the side of caution.

        The prototypical case where assisted suicide is pitched is an elderly person, lying in bed in constant pain, unable to end their life without it. That I can accept.

        But in this case, it's possible that something could change that would allow her to live a healthy and happy life, and she wasn't confined to a hospital bed, so if it was so important for her to kill herself she could've found a way to. What assisted suicide is doing in that case is not providing a last resort option, but removing the social barriers and stigma around what should be considered a last resort option. Making the process sterilized, clean, and beurocratic.

        People on here have said stuff like, "Oh it's so much less traumatic to her loved ones this way." But what about without the policy? What would be stopping her from communicating to her spouse and family her intentions and the necessity of the act, because of the pain she was in? What exactly changes about the situation just because the state rubber stamps the act?

        Many people choose suicide rashly and impulsively, and the social barriers we've created exist for a reason, because it's supposed to be discouraged, it's supposed to be stigmatized. Because if stigma and discouragement are enough to dissuade you, then it wasn't actually necessary.

    • What makes you think that severe chronic depression is more curable than severe chronic pain? maybe within a year someone will come up with a new drug or therapy that cures certain types of severe chronic pain? Should we force people to endure the pain in the basis of this possibility?

      Or what makes you think this woman's problem is social? What if she has some genetic or neural predisposition to having such problems? Should we deny her request on the basis that normally mental health issues are social?

      You are talking about accommodating neurodiversity but your view of life and mental health conditions is extremely black and white.

      • Mental health is socially defined to a very large extent. One of the ways that we evaluate a person's mental health is whether their issues interfere with an ability to live a "normal" life, which includes providing for themselves. Well, a person's ability to provide for themselves can vary drastically based on external circumstances, like how rich they are or what social services they have access to.

        It's my belief that it's rare for evolution to screw up. Of course, sometimes it does, but I'd argue that many mental illnesses are the result of one's mind being equipped for a different set of circumstances than the one they're in. In some cases, there's clear evidence that this is the case, but in other cases it's more difficult to prove.

        I just don't believe we should give up on a person just because they ask us to. If a friend came up to me and asked me to help them kill themselves because of a mental illness, I would do everything I could to find an alternative solution and talk them down from it. I feel like that's the normal response anyone would have, and people are treating it differently just because a state said that it's ok.

    • If someone wants to end their own life, that isn't your choice to make.

    • I don't want to create a future where, "I've tried everything I can to fix myself and I still feel like shit," is met with a polite and friendly, "Oh, well have you considered killing yourself?"

      Are you for real? This kind of thing is a last resort that nobody is going to just outright suggest unprompted to a suffering person, unless that person asks for it themselves. No matter how "normalized" suicide might become, it's never gonna be something doctors will want to recommend. That's just... Why would you even think that's what's gonna happen

    • I don't really see why you say you'd make an "exception" for strong and lasting physical pain (which by the way are of course the vast majority of assisted suicide cases), but not for mental health reasons. In this case multiple doctors concluded that the patient is unlikely to improve, and no progress has been made in over 10 years of therapy.

      especially if solutions aren't limited to the individual level.

      What do you mean by "not limited to the individual level"?

      • What I mean by that is that there are some problems that affect individuals which are not caused by anything wrong with the individual, but by the world at large. For example, climate change. It can't be solved at the individual level, and it may be possible to shut out and ignore it, but that's not really a proper way of handling it. No amount of therapy or drugs will make climate change go away.

        I'm not saying that the woman in question is killing herself for that reason. But I am saying that how much things like that can affect people's mental health is something that is difficult to study and prove. One example that does have evidence though is social support for gender transition - trans people with social support generally have much better mental health than those without, but addressing this issue can require changes to society as a whole and not just the individual trans person's behavior or mentality.

        My concern is that people will overlook potential social changes to accommodate people, if they view the issue as solved by means of assisted suicide.

    • Self-harm is harm. It's nonsense to describe a process that kills you as "safe."

      Safe to her? No. Neither option can boast that.

      Euthanasia is safer to everyone else around her. And tidier.

      Get it?

      • And tidier.

        Those two words are why I find this thread so terrifying and so alienating. I'll never "get" the perspective that tidiness is a significant factor when discussing matters of life and death, and to be perfectly frank, it makes me feel like a lot of this is coming from a mentality towards suicidal people of "Get them out of my sight so I don't have to deal with them and their negative vibes bring me down" rather than genuine empathy and concern for wellbeing. And that sort of mentality surrounding this, about how neat and tidy and clean it all is, how it avoids disruption to society, is exactly what makes the policy so concerning to me.

    • The slippery slope falacy is so passé my dude, get on with it.

      • Especially in a situation where someone could feasibly find other ways to “solve” their problem. Why would the slippery slope apply when people are already ending their own lives?

      • It's not a fallacy to say that policy designed with the goal of normalizing something over time will cause it to become more normalized over time.

        Besides, the responses in this thread are terrifying enough already.

  • I've had those depressive thoughts, I've fought self harm and depression. I have mostly gotten past it and during the period, I don't think I ever saw light at the end of the tunnel.

    I'm glad she is able to get the relief she needs. I couldn't imagine putting someone through the turmoil that I had during my lowest points. It's sad, but it's okay for things to be sad in life. I'm glad she is able to have frank discussions on her desires and her wellbeing. It's going to be hard for her partner, friends, and family, but it would be so much worse and so traumatic if she didn't have help or had to hide the desires until she took her own life regardless of the laws.

    • It's going to be hard for her partner, friends, and family, but it would be so much worse and so traumatic if she didn't have help or had to hide the desires until she took her own life regardless of the laws.

      I'm not sure that's true. Losing someone to suicide is in itself quite traumatic. One relief many people have is when they wrap their head around how a self destructive impulse in the heat of an especially devastating moment could have led to it. But living with the fact that your daughter/wife/sister/friend very consciously decided she would rather be dead than to share in this life with you - that's tough. It's not unusual with relatives of suicide victims to struggle with feelings of intense anger towards the person they lost, which in turn can lead to feelings of guilt and shame. It's hard to work through something like that. And I don't think it gets any easier if the circumstances are as emphasised as in this case.

      I think there are very valid use cases for assisted suicide. Personally I doubt that depression is one of them, because suicidality is such an inextricable part of the disorder itself. At the end of the day this is a suicide, just with extra steps and a stamp of approval by a national agency. The people surviving her will not only have to work through the fact of her suicide but process the official approval as well.

      The only advantage to a "regular" suicide I can think of is avoiding the trauma of the person finding you. (Although there are probably ways around that anyway.) But I guess she has her reasons to have chosen this specific method and setting.

  • My arguements against this are the same as my arguements against the death penalty.

    People make mistakes, even those who wish to die. Im not trusting the state with the power to kill me, even if its by assisted suicide.

    I only support this for people who are terminally ill and about to die.

      • I get where you’re going but on the other side of your fear of the state you are denied release from what could be immense suffering because the state deems it.

        Often times its the state causing the immense suffering...

        Modern psychology really misses the mark in the sense often times its just treating the symptoms so they can get you back to work as quickly as possible.

        Im more interested in restorative justice with psychology, as well as treating the symptoms; we should be treating the causes too...

        Body autonomy is a myth, 'biopower' is a concept that has been utilized since the industrial age, the role of the structres of society are to keep you healthy enough to work.

        Regardless, I caveeted that yes, if you're physically about to die and under immense suffering id support these actions. In a privatesed health system with an aging demographic though you cannot prevent abuses of power from happening with assisted suicide; family members pressuring mentally ill family members into an early suicide to remove there care burden, people doing it for inheritance, people thinking they have a uncurable mental illness when in reality the effective treatments are denied to them (I think of PTSD war sufferers denied MDMA which is proven 90%+ effective in treating PTSD who go onto kill themselves...)

        There are so many ethical concerns with this stuff that only takes a little foresight to see how bad it would be in reality.

  • This is the best summary I could come up with:

    A 29-year-old Dutch woman who has been granted her request for assisted dying on the grounds of unbearable mental suffering is expected to end her life in the coming weeks, fuelling a debate across Europe over the issue.

    Zoraya ter Beek received the final approval last week for assisted dying after a three and a half year process under a law passed in the Netherlands in 2002.

    Her case has caused controversy as assisted dying for people with psychiatric illnesses in the Netherlands remains unusual, although the numbers are increasing.

    An article about her case, published in April, was picked up by international media, prompting an outcry that caused Ter Beek huge distress.

    “I knew I couldn’t cope with the way I live now.” She had thought about taking her own life but the violent death by suicide of a schoolfriend and its impact on the girl’s family deterred her.

    “I was on a waiting list for assessment for a long time, because there are so few doctors willing to be involved in assisted dying for people with mental suffering.

    The original article contains 837 words, the summary contains 180 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

236 comments