It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NZ woman starves herself to death

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


blueorder quote:

Think this is dramatic nonsense, most people who have a failed suicide attempt do not go on to commit it again, clearly they feel fortunate to have survived a low point in their life



Your anger is scary, by the way. Maybe you could try to analyse why a mere discussion about people's right to die enrages you so ?

As to your above claim --- you might find the overwhelming majority of mental health professionals would disagree with you

It's exactly the non-comprehending power and control attitudes such as you've demonstrated re: OTHER PEOPLE'S right to die whey THEY choose, which compells people like the woman in New Zealand to use their death to MAKE a POINT ! That point being: 'my death - my choice - my business ! '




posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
reply to post by Retrovertigo
 


*snip*


Name calling...And that really is the best you've got...How mature...

The weapon of the weak minded


Staff Edit - Removed personal insult inside of quotes.

[edit on 3/31/10 by niteboy82]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Blueorder

Have you watched the documentary, 'The Bridge' ?

If not, and for the sake of others who may not have seen it, it's approx. an hour long and features the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco

If you do watch it, I think you'll find it will stay with you for quite some time. It will sadden and disturb. It made me cry, to be honest

But what I really wanted to discuss are those who jumped from the Golden Gate during the time the film-makers had their cameras stationed there

For example, a middle-aged man. Wearing jogging clothes, he stood for several minutes on the bridge, speaking into his cell phone. He laughed quite a bit and it seemed to be genuine laughter, as if he was really enjoying the conversation in which he was engaged. I would never have expected him to place his cell phone on the bridge at the end of the conversation, and then simply step out into thin air.

Or the attractive young girl who climbed over the safety-barrier, back pack on, fully clothed .. she looked as if she could have been on her way to university or off to work in a boutique. Just a pretty young girl who was so weary of life that without a pause she climbed out there, preparing to jump. A young firefighter on his day off was filming on the bridge. He grabbed her. She struggled to get free. He was stronger and hauled her back to safety. Later, we learned that this was not her first attempt

Then the striking man in his 30s -- Dean. During the interviews with an older woman who'd known him all his life, we learned that he'd had suicidal tendencies most of his life, despite that he was popular, talented and had lots of friends. The documentary filmed Dean as he walked the bridge, his long hair blowing in the wind. Then, as if he was eager to go, he leapt up onto the railing and simply fell backwards into space. Didn't put his arms out in an attempt to 'grab' life back. No, he kept his arms folded across his chest all the way down. That's how he wanted to do it. Clearly, he'd thought it through

These were not down and out people. They were not sick or in physical pain. They were sick of life, clearly. They wanted to leave. They made a decision and attempted to carry it through

HItting the water from that height and at that speed ... hurts. They would have known before they jumped that it would hurt

But what were their options --- to jump under a train ? To hang themselves in the woods or try some other method, with no guarantee they'd succeed ?

Wouldn't it be preferable to provide a more humane method ? Shouldn't we, by this stage, have accepted people's right to die with dignity, grace and minumum drama ? Isn't it time we lifted the burden from the shoulders of police, ambulance officers, water-patrols ? Isn't it time we stopped using up valuable resources such as mental health facilities by basically incarcerating those whose only 'crime' was wanting to exit their earthly existence ?

If a more humane and practical solution were offered, it could require people to register for euthanasia/suicide in the same way people register their intention to marry, for example. Every week for say, 3 weeks, the person could be required to attend and to reiterate (or not) their continuing wish to die, after which they could be provided a potion such as is used in suicide clinics in Europe, which kills in a few minutes

That way, having completed the formalities and satisfied the authorities that their wish to die is genuine and not simply a whim, the person could invite others to spend their remaining time on earth with them. The entire undertaking could take place within the clinic facility, to ensure the death-potion was not taken away and used to murder someone

We do as much for our pets



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Dock9
 


I wish I could add to your post, but I can't...Everything you said resonated with me...

Yes...

Surely dying in a dignified manner either on one's own or with the help of a caring doctor is preferable to jumping off a bridge and everything that goes with it, both for the person concerned and for those who have to "pick up the pieces", so to speak, (emergency services, family) after such a traumatic event...



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
It really bothers me that the article doesn't mention any palliative care. Morphine would have eased the pain of what is reported to be a painful death. In her situation she should have been allowed both the dignity and the means to prevent her further suffering.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by elfie
 


Hopefully she did have access to morphine

It may be that she could have chosen to take stronger and stronger doses until death

But it seems that this woman believed it her right not to have to endure a drugged-up prolonged period leading inevitably to death, and the attendant suffering of those compelled to watch her slowly die

Instead, she wished to be provided the means to die at a time of her choosing --- perhaps while she was still largely the person she'd been during life --- rather than be reduced by the disease to someone she would have much preferred not to become, not to be witnessed as

But that choice was denied her. In order to fight the cause for others to follow as well as registering her protest, she refused to conform and comply and STILL, in a way, made it HER choice

Strong woman, strong spirit

She did what she did to ignite indignation and discussion. And she succeeded. This thread (and others) are testimony to her spirit, her success



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by elfie
It really bothers me that the article doesn't mention any palliative care. Morphine would have eased the pain of what is reported to be a painful death. In her situation she should have been allowed both the dignity and the means to prevent her further suffering.


That's a very reasonable viewpoint


However, depending on how long the palliative care lasts, people who are given opiates for pain relief can often develop tolerance to same very quickly, especially where large doses are given...

Many people in palliative care die in agony because they have developed tolerance to opiates and pretty much no dose will give them relief...



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Tough issue. Strong feeling on both sides of this fence...

Here's my tuppence...

I hear people say that if they can't have a decent life they'd prefer to die. I agree with that comment...sort of.

It depends upon what sort of effort is made to have that decent life...and by what standard are you measuring the decency.

In this case the woman is, by this account, mentally impaired as well as physically... But what sort of effort was put into making a life for her? I didn't see that in that article, or did I miss it?

When one is physically challenged, yet mentally unimpaired, is it not possible to live a filling, productive life anyway? I see it being done on a fairly regular basis. Even mentally impaired people, for whatever reason, have been known to live happy lives. If they're happy, and the family is, what need is there for "productive"...

Of course, it's easy for me to say this, as I have all four limbs, and my brain is functioning as well as it ever does...right? So I really don't have a dog in this fight...right? Wrong. I watched my grandmother, a tall, strong woman who raised three sons, and a daughter, my mother; decide she served no purpose anymore...and it was time to die. So she did. It was, perhaps, one of the most selfish things it's ever been my misfortune to witness... No purpose? Bullpucky. She had innumerable grandchildren, one of which was me; who looked up to her, loved her dearly, and yes, still extremely angry with her. She could have been there for us to talk to, to laugh with, play cards with, go on walks to the park with... But no. She chose to ignore all that and die. I sat with her, and it was all I could do, not to reach out and give her such a pinch...anything, to make her realize there was still a reason, actually many reasons, to live.

So if you, or someone you love, wants to end it all, for whatever reason...make sure they really don't have anything to live for. That might indeed be the case, but you can't undo it, once it's done. Life is, as the saying goes, what you make of it.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I believe that the whole point of the euthanasia debate is that the practice is not the same thing as suicide.

When a second person is involved, I would presume a professional mind that is clinically detached, or morally objective has exercised a 'vetting' of the request; and can (or should) accurately determine if the cause of dismay and surrender is something that can be eliminated - thus restoring the person from the duress of their circumstance.

This is a real tough issue. One that I am reticent to explore because frankly, I don't like imagining myself wanting to die..., and that seems to be the only true way to embrace and sympathize with someone who is requesting to be euthanized.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Wow 3 pages for this? and heated to boost... its all but forgotten here in NZ already.

Personally she had a choice, and given her life she choose the one she thought was best... its her right, doesnt matter what others think.

My grandmother effectively staved herself to death 2 years ago, she was 89 as frail as a sparrow, granddad had died the year before and she was effectively an invalid and she was living in the care of members of the family. She drank nothing but little amounts of water for weeks then just winked out, it was a testament to her physical strength that she went on so long after she decided to go ahead with it, she was incredibly healthy but just saw noting to go on for. We all respected her choice, and none of us regret her doing so.

People have a right to choose when and how they go, if anything else its the last 'right' we all have and can exercise. The only time its wrong is if it negatively effects other people, thats when it goes from something to be respected to something selfish (and a relatives grief over the passed on terminally ill or old loved one isnt a good enough negative in my book).

Do I want to die?.. no, will I fight like a delusional nutter to live no matter the cost when my time comes to move on. No... everything dies, after all its a part of life.


Originally posted by seagull
It was, perhaps, one of the most selfish things it's ever been my misfortune to witness... No purpose? Bullpucky. She had innumerable grandchildren, one of which was me; who looked up to her, loved her dearly, and yes, still extremely angry with her. She could have been there for us to talk to, to laugh with, play cards with, go on walks to the park with... But no. She chose to ignore all that and die. I sat with her, and it was all I could do, not to reach out and give her such a pinch...anything, to make her realize there was still a reason, actually many reasons, to live.


Its odd but all I see in that paragraph is that you wanted her to continue to live for your benefit and others?.. isnt that in some small fashion a selfish act on your own behalf in itself?. Overriding her will for the sake of the will and benefit of everyone else?

Yet you also mention innumerable grandchildren (my own grandmother had well over 20 herself including great grandchildren)... I would say in her own mind she saw in all of you her success, not sure how id write what im thinking but its like looking at a finished piece of art, when its perfect and just the way you wanted it... theres nothing more to do to it, and so the artist moves on, be proud that you are part of her legacy thats the ultimate respect you can give her.

In many ways its the greatest complement, she believed you could all get on with out her I guess. I could be completely wrong in my assumtions and I apologize if I am. But all i see is someone hating a long dead loved one for their own personal selfish reasons, which is sad and to my mind set, perplexing.

Oh and dont think im cold hearted, since im nothing of the sort, Ive blubbed like a fish from extreme grief at all my grandparents funerals, even after completely accepting their coming deaths well before hand.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by BigfootNZ]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


This.

People are mingling 'suicide' and 'euthanasia' together, and it is muddying up this whole discussion.

I'm not sure where I stand on the legal/socio-political aspect, but I do understand the clear difference between "suicide" and "euthanasia". The latter consists of stopping someone's abhorrent suffering and complete loss of dignity. For instance, I would hardly call a life worth living if my life consisted of defecating on myself in bed, waiting to die, in and out of consciousness as my friends and family slowly stop coming to visit me as it is too much for them to witness.

I would almost call it torture for the state and authorities to force someone to stay alive, literally lying in their own feces for hours every single day, as the staff rock-paper-scissors to decide who should go in and clean it up. Is that not completely dehumanizing and immoral? Considering the fact that the hospital is making fat wads of money, hand over fist, waiting for this person to die.

If I would ever have to agree with euthanasia being a legal practice, then I would only accept it if it were done with immense scrutiny and professionalism. One or two highly professional M.D.'s that operate in one district and are always under watch, etc.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dock9


Generally speaking, most people don't automatically consider submitting an application seeking permission to die



This is not correct.

Most people or many do submit an application to die.

However it is routinely turned down.

In the US it is nearly impossible to obtain the necessary drug,Nembutal,from any medical source. The only exceptions are 3 states where if you are on your deathbed with a few months to live you might get it.



[edit on 31-3-2010 by RRokkyy]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder



Think this is dramatic nonsense, most people who have a failed suicide attempt do not go on to commit it again, clearly they feel fortunate to have survived a low point in their life


Source?
I doubt that. Spend some time reading on ASH,Google Groups Alternative Suicide Holiday. You will find lots of people who have made numerous attempts.
Finding a non violent method to die is very difficult.
DOCTORS WILL NOT PRESCRIBE LETHAL DRUGS ANY MORE SUCH AS BARBITURATES,SECONAL OR NEMBUTAL.

groups.google.com...

Would you want to jump into a great hole in the ground?



[edit on 31-3-2010 by RRokkyy]

[edit on 31-3-2010 by RRokkyy]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Clearly suicide is irrelevant to this topic. Anyone can do that at any time and the legality of it is of little matter.

Euthanasia however is completely different. Asking another person to do something that may harm them mentally for life is on its face unreasonable. Make it legal and it will be abused no matter what anyone wishes to believe.

I could not, would not, ask another person to do that for me no matter how incapable.

It is the slippery slope of if it is legal, how do you stop it being abused? Want Grannies money a little sooner, push the plunger. Tired of emptying Granddads bedpan when you would rather be playing Golf, push the plunger.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Clearly suicide is irrelevant to this topic. Anyone can do that at any time and the legality of it is of little matter.

Euthanasia however is completely different. Asking another person to do something that may harm them mentally for life is on its face unreasonable. Make it legal and it will be abused no matter what anyone wishes to believe.






Euthanasia is assisted SUICIDE with the person assisting performing the final step.
The government makes it quite difficult to do in a simple peaceful manner.One is left with;
HANGING,
JUMPING FROM A HIGH PLACE,
SHOOTING,
DROWNING,
EXTREMELY PAINFUL CUTTING,
EXTREMELY PAINFUL POISONING.


Definitions
Euthanasia: Euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit.

Voluntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed has requested to be killed.

Non-voluntary: When the person who is killed made no request and gave no consent.

Involuntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed made an expressed wish to the contrary.

Assisted suicide: Someone provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her own life with the intention that they will be used for this purpose. When it is a doctor who helps another person to kill themselves it is called "physician assisted suicide."

Euthanasia By Action: Intentionally causing a person's death by performing an action such as by giving a lethal injection.

Euthanasia By Omission: Intentionally causing death by not providing necessary and ordinary (usual and customary) care or food and water.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Clearly suicide is irrelevant to this topic. Anyone can do that at any time and the legality of it is of little matter.


I think suicide IS relevant to this discussion. Would you rather be in a situation where somebody you love and care for ends their life in a public manner without warning, or would you prefer they do it in a controlled manner, in private in which they let all those they love know before the reasons and motivations? Both are dire situations to be in, but I know the one I would rather support.


Euthanasia however is completely different. Asking another person to do something that may harm them mentally for life is on its face unreasonable. Make it legal and it will be abused no matter what anyone wishes to believe.

I could not, would not, ask another person to do that for me no matter how incapable.


I see where you are coming from. It is one thing to end your own life and take responsibility for the possible consequences of doing so, but asking somebody else to do the same for your own life is a different matter. Another reason why Euthanasia is a complex issue.


It is the slippery slope of if it is legal, how do you stop it being abused? Want Grannies money a little sooner, push the plunger. Tired of emptying Granddads bedpan when you would rather be playing Golf, push the plunger.


That is true, there is potential for abuse and using Euthanasia for person gain. However, I am sure strict guidelines would be in place to prevent these types of things from happening.

For example, consider the following hypothetical law: those wishing to die must have the consent of a relative or close friend as well as their own. This person cannot be somebody that is set to gain from any inheritance as a result of the person dying. If it is found that somebody has tried to circumvent these boundaries, a minimum jail term of 5-10 years will be incurred.

[edit on 1/4/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


That issue of harming another mentally could easy be avoided by using self administering drips. The same way they you can self administer morphine....



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRokkyy

Originally posted by Dock9


Generally speaking, most people don't automatically consider submitting an application seeking permission to die



This is not correct.

Most people or many do submit an application to die.

However it is routinely turned down.

In the US it is nearly impossible to obtain the necessary drug,Nembutal,from any medical source. The only exceptions are 3 states where if you are on your deathbed with a few months to live you might get it.
[edit on 31-3-2010 by RRokkyy]



I think we all know and understand what you're saying

(please note: I wrote 'generally speaking, most people don't automatically consider submitting an application seeking permission to die' )

In any event, not everyone resides in the US. I currently reside in Australia, for example, which reportedly has included websites which discuss euthanasia -- on the 'banned' list. If even mere perusal is banned, imagine how much chance Australians have of 'seeking permission to die'

In fact, euthanasia is treated in Australia in pretty much the way the Roman church regarded heretics, if the media's to be believed

For example, recently, a number of ageing individuals were charged, in relation to euthanasia

What had they done 'wrong' ? Well, reportedly, these retired bank-managers, professors, educators, police officers, public-servants etc. had formed a group comitted to investigating means via which they could ... if they chose ... end their lives. Say, if they learned they had a terminal condition or whatever. They all had their reasons for not wanting to 'drag on'. Their prerogitive, right ?

They spent weekends on a rural property owned by one of the group and immersed themselves in investigation and experimentation -- built their own science-lab --- and conducted experiments in order to produce something akin to Nembutal

They are tax paying senior citizens of good repute. Own their homes, owe nothing to anyone. Their only foray on the wild side, apparently, is their 'irrational' conviction about not wanting their lives to be extended against their wishes. How bloody dare they, huh ?

The Minister for Ageing is aged about 30. I'm not quite sure why he was appointed to that office. Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it ?

Anyway, the gang of senior citizens was rounded up and charged with various offences. So apparently it's some sort of crime to imagine you have any say in how or when you'll die !

At around the same point in time, the non-commercial tv channel held a public round-table, televised, and attended by selected members of the public, the esteemed young Minister for Ageing, various 'experts', etc.

It's surprising just how articulate the average person actually is. Very impressive. And from memory, it would appear that at least 50% of the general public agrees with the idea of people being free to determine if they should live or die. In fact, that percentage could have been considerably higher, but I'm choosing here to opt on the side of conservatism

There were a couple of stand-out moments within that show, my favourite being the 50-to-60s woman who'd travelled to Mexico to buy a version of the Nembutal-type drug -- for herself and friends (not long afterwards, Aussies were charged for bringing the drug into Australia. Maybe suicide potions are now included in the fake War On Drugs ? )

The woman in question said the Nembutal-type stuff can be purchased for a fraction of the US price and that it can be arranged for it to be purchased from Mexican veterinarians. So this is what's it's come to. If you're a tax-paying Aussie, your politicians can fly all over the world and provide very nicely for themselves and their families and friends (health-wise and other) on the Aussie tax-dollar. But if you're a mere voter, you have to sneak over the oceans to a Mexican vet in order to buy something that will ease you into death ... after which you must secrete it in a bodily orifice like a criminal -- usually when you're already suffering a terminal condition and are 50+ years old. What a scandal, huh ? What a bloody disgrace !

But the government won't object to your sons, fathers, brothers, uncles, etc. DYING (and dying young and heathly to boot) -- no, no objections to that sort of death --- as long as you're dying overseas, for Uncle Sam and Israel etc.

The televised debate resulted in some chuckles --- when the senior-aged woman who'd had to sneak drugs into Australia in a bodily orifice ripped open her blouse and bared her upper chest at the sapling who is our young Minister for Ageing. ' Look at this ! ' she spat (yes, she despised him and all he professes to stand for ) ' Look at THIS ! '

And, tattooed across her chest was the instruction, ' DO NOT REVIVE '. Or maybe it was ' Do Not Resuscitate '. (it was a hand-done tattoo)

The woman said she had terminal cancer which was in remission at the moment. She'd bought the death-drugs in Mexico because they are illegal in Australia. She said that so far, doctors had resuscitated her twice already, against her wishes. Hence the tattoo on her chest. She said doctors would not be able to claim they had not seen it if they attempted to resuscitate her at some future time. And if they DID resuscitage her, she said (I think) she would kill and/or sue them. Something like that (she was furious)

It was during the same televised debate that members of the group who were experimenting in order to produce the death-drug, spoke up, honestly and eloquently. Shortly afterwards, they were arrested

So, if you wish to end your life in Australia ... too bad. The young and fit Minister for Ageing doesn't believe you have the right to make that decision. You'll have to lie in a nappy in a care-home, your breath stinking, your body a hated burden, and wait until you 'die naturally'.

You family and friends will have to psyche themselves up and visit you out of sense of pity and duty. And you'll have to pretend you don't notice the expressions of shock and revulsion when they see you there, looking a travesty of your old self, connected to wires and tubes, reliant on strangers, nurses and doctors. Or a variation of same. Until, finally, your body calls it quits. Only THEN, and not UNTIL then, are you allowed to end what is laughingly referred to as 'YOUR life'

If it's YOUR life, then it's yours to end any time you please --- or should be

People have said that others shouldn't really be able to end their 'own life' if it 'impacts negatively on others'

Hey ! We ALL impact negatively on others, much of the time.

We impact 'negatively on others' when we load up with drink and drugs and smash our car into an oncoming car filled with a family of strangers. Or when we die on a skiing, or deep sea diving holiday. Or when we have a stroke, or become quadruplegic. etc. etc. etc.

'Others' will have to get over it if/when we die. Death is part of life. People have to stop denying that THEY and everyone else is GOING TO DIE ANYWAY ! Death and dying are NOT preventable diseases !

Death is not 'an unfortunate accident' that only strikes a few. Death is as real and common as birth, as sliced bread

'Others' are not empowered to sit in judgement and 'decide' if suicide or euthanasis 'should be allowed'

It has nothing to DO with 'other people'







[edit on 1-4-2010 by Dock9]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
It's a complex issue, with valid reason's on both sides of the argument, but when it come's down to it how can we call ourself's free if we don't even have the right to decide how or when we die? You can be fined or even go to prison for allowing an animal to suffer unreasonably but to stop your own or a friends is against the law, it just seems wrong to me.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Dock9
 


They resuscitated me against my wishes here in the USA.
Good thing is it cost them about 75 thousand dollars.
My mother decided to ignore my living will,and previous instructions to her.

She signed every consent form put in front of her, as I was telling
her I didnt want to be resuscitated , while in a semi conscious state at the time. I have no recollection from leaving my house to waking up in the ICU and finding out they had replaced my Aorta with a dacron one.
I am 59 years old.

Dont trust your mother to let you die!!!!!!!!!




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join