NZ woman starves herself to death

I think if a person desires chemical euthanasia, same as they give to prisoners... they should be allowed to dies with dignity.

This poor woman had to suffer for 16 days... what a sad world we live in.

Agreed.

Sadly in this regard we treat our pets better then our terminally ill family members. Religious beliefs aside people are actually afraid that with this option available suddenly people will be pressuring people to take their lives ala Logan's Run or that Star Trek episode with Trois mother falling for Dr. Charles Emerson Winchester from MASH.

I don't think that if she would have lived in The Netherlands, euthanasia would have been granted, or been legally possible. She wasn't terminally ill, she just "didn't want to live like this" anymore. That's no ground for euthanasia. It is for suicide, but helping with that in her case would be illegal.

Well just because she might not have met the criteria in the Netherlands doesn't mean she didn't meet humane criteria. It doesn't give all that much info except after suffering a brain haemorrhage she needed help to eat and shower. "Help" is a very loaded and subjective term in this regard. It does sound like she could have benefited from psychological help but given the description of her very active lifestyle it is quite likely she found the conditions of continued life intolerable and was unable to adapt to it.

If somebody is so despondent with life that they take a very long and difficult way to kill themselves such as starvation then its not in the same vein as somebody depressed who tries to commit suicide. This is a person who at any time can change their mind but over a significant period of time does not.

She has been like this for 20 years... She was not terminally ill.

I'm just saying that help with suicide is illegal, and thats why she didnt get the doctors help. They might even be proscecuted for this.

Remember the JW girls parents that refused her treatment (bloodtransfusion)? Whats the difference? There was a lot of uproar about it...

I have to agree with her (ex) husband. She should have been taken to hospital for treatment.


*edited for spleling. Geesh, its early...

I don't see that. Anorexia is a mental illness, why isnt this? Why isnt she deemed depressed (like her (ex)husband said?

Thats right, she has been dealing with this for 2 years but found that life was intolerable that changed. All supporters of euthanasia don't think that the moment you decide to die you can simple get help doing it. Certainly qualified help in the form of a psychological assessment is no different then a medical assessment. I'm not sure how much more treatment would help her as this is a decision she likely made after long deliberation and is in a category unlike the sleeping pill/wrist slitting variety by healthy but depressed individuals.

Now just because she wasn't in a terminal illness doesn't detract from quality of life. Quality of life is a very important proponent of living and important enough to be part of the debate. The law states she had the right to refuse food and water but euthanasia opponents also say that in these cases people should be force fed.

Your JW case would only be applicable if somebody else had decided for her even though she was able to make her own decision. In the case of children, we intervene for the same reason we do in other cases involving kids and that is to protect them from being pawns in their parents beliefs. Children shouldn't die on account of their parents beliefs. When they grow up if they make that choice on their own then that is a different story.

No. Anorexia isn't a disorder where people are so depressed they don't want to live. They don't eat because they are obsessively worried about being fat.

Depression is a mental disorder but we cannot force it on them can we? On that note can we also force adult JWs to receive blood and medical treatment against their wishes also?

In the end, the result is the same. If they dont eat (for whatever reason), they die. I get your point tho.

I believe that suicide is illegal (but I can be wrong) and help with suicide certainly is. It makes you wonder that if you in a care-facility, and you are not taken to hospital (or being cared for) when you are in need of treatment, the doctors (or carers) can be held responsible.

I was told that if you don't help when you see an accident or something happen, you are doing something illegal. Why would this be any different?

Are you saying that a depressed person who murders his family (or a PPDepressed woman who kills her child) can not be held responsible?

I am assuming that you say that you cannot force treatment on them...

Suicide isn't illegal, it is. Actually I don't think either is against the law although there may be avenues the police or family members can act on the attemptees behalf to get medical treatment.

When I used to work in hospitals we were the people responsible for taking blood in the "psyche wards" and some people were there not of their own accord. Didn't mean I could force them to give blood and some did in fact flat out refuse (one threaten me and at least one coworker was assaulted).

Yes, I am referring to medical treatment.

Suicide isn't illegal, it is. Actually I don't think either is against the law although there may be avenues the police or family members can act on the attemptees behalf to get medical treatment.

When I used to work in hospitals we were the people responsible for taking blood in the "psyche wards" and some people were there not of their own accord. Didn't mean I could force them to give blood and some did in fact flat out refuse (one threaten me and at least one coworker was assaulted).
Hehe, it's kinda hard to punish someone who committed suicide anyway
What are they gonna give them, the deathpenalty?