MS sufferer rides wheelchair for 2 hours to kill herself

Stark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGXSPf9b-xI

MrStuffins

Stark wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGXSPf9b-xI

I didn't bother clicking on that video once I saw it was by "The Onion". I've no idea why you think a satirical video would fit right in the middle of this pretty serious discussion which is going on!

Bad Panda

What a brave woman! And very sad she was forced to end her life in such a cruel manner. Cruel for all concerned, especially the 'victim' in this case.

niamhx

Stark wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGXSPf9b-xI

Seriously not funny !!

MrStuffins

And for those (the usual suspects in at least one case) here saying what she did was selfish.............. so what? Good for her! She was living a life of hell and wanted to end it! The decorators that saw it will get over it!

I doubt she actually thought "Well, I better spend the next 40 years trapped behind 2 eyeballs because if I kill myself, someone might see me and have a few nightmares"

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

And for those (the usual suspects in at least one case) here saying what she did was selfish.............. so what? Good for her! She was living a life of hell and wanted to end it! The decorators that saw it will get over it!I doubt she actually thought "Well, I better spend the next 40 years trapped behind 2 eyeballs because if I kill myself, someone might see me and have a few nightmares"

"A few nightmares"... lol. Someone very close to me is retired from an emergency service for almost 15 years now and still gets nightmares/emotional problems about things they came across and dealt with during their career. It's easy for you to say 'ah sure it will only be a few nightmares'..

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

"A few nightmares"... lol. Someone very close to me is retired from an emergency service for almost 15 years now and still gets nightmares/emotional problems about things they came across and dealt with during their career. It's easy for you to say 'ah sure it will only be a few nightmares'..

Yeah, and it seems it's easy for you to compare a guy you've never met seeing this lady floating in the water with someone who has worked in the Emergency Services for 15 years :rolleyes:

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

Yeah, and it seems it's easy for you to compare a guy you've never met seeing this lady floating in the water with someone who has worked in the Emergency Services for 15 years :rolleyes:

..and the PC who jumped into the canal and got her out and presumably tried to resucitate her? Ah sure, she'll get over it too. Maybe a few nightmares...

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

..and the PC who jumped into the canal and got her out and presumably tried to resucitate her? Ah sure, she'll get over it too. Maybe a few nightmares...

Now you're gettin' it;)

Augmerson

As awful as what happened to that woman is, no, I don't think euthanasia should be made legal. I think everything the government touches turns to **** and whatever way they would handle it would just be botched. I do have a lot of sympathy for people with terminal illness, really I do but even if it happened to family or friends of myself, I'd still be against euthanasia.

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

Now you're gettin' it;)

Seriously what a childish attitude. It's thinking like that that gives people ideas to jump in front of trains and whatnot. No regard for what they put others through.

Fenian Army

MrStuffins wrote: »

And for those (the usual suspects in at least one case) here saying what she did was selfish.............. so what? Good for her! She was living a life of hell and wanted to end it! The decorators that saw it will get over it!

I doubt she actually thought "Well, I better spend the next 40 years trapped behind 2 eyeballs because if I kill myself, someone might see me and have a few nightmares"

What if like my friend the decorators had jumped in to save her and drowned?

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

Seriously what a childish attitude. It's thinking like that that gives people ideas to jump in front of trains and whatnot. No regard for what they put others through.

It seems this lady weighed up what she was going through and what effects it would have on others and made her decision.

It's YOU who seems to have no regard for what she was going through.

MrStuffins

Fenian Army wrote: »

What if like my friend the decorators had jumped in to save her and drowned?

Well that didn't happen!

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

It's YOU who seems to have no regard for what she was going through.

Why? Because I have regard for the others she dragged into it? That before I clap her on the back for her bravery and offer my congratulations I comment on how others might be affected for a lifetime?

Yes, that obviously means I have no regard for what she was going through.... 2+2=5.

Fenian Army

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well that didn't happen!

But it easily could have, and stuff like that happens all the time

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well that didn't happen!

....but she wasn't to know that was she? Do you think train drivers have an easy time of getting over the sight of a body falling in front of their trains? Or do you spare them a thought at all before you go congratulating the person committing suicide?

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

Why? Because I have regard for the others she dragged into it? That before I clap her on the back for her bravery and offer my congratulations I comment on how others might be affected for a lifetime?

Yes, that obviously means I have no regard for what she was going through.... 2+2=5.

I'm not saying you should pat her on the back. I for one find the "brave" label a very strange one to be put on this lady by some of the people in this thread.

But what i'm saying is, if she needed to end her suffering so badly and there were others effected, so be it!

Fenian Army wrote: »

But it easily could have, and stuff like that happens all the time

I'm really sorry to hear what happened to your friend, but people also get killed crossing the street all the time too.

In this case, nobody died trying to save her.

prinz wrote: »

....but she wasn't to know that was she? Do you think train drivers have an easy time of getting over the sight of a body falling in front of their trains? Or do you spare them a thought at all before you go congratulating the person committing suicide?

I never congratulated anyone my friend.

Fenian Army

I'm really sorry to hear what happened to your friend, but people also get killed crossing the street all the time too.

In this case, nobody died trying to save her.

Hardly the same ****ing thing.

Its a natural reaction to try and save someone, especially of you see them in a river, canal or whatever. If you toss yourself in you have a degree of responsibility for what happens to those who do the right thing and try to save you.

MrStuffins

Fenian Army wrote: »

Hardly the same ****ing thing.

Its a natural reaction to try and save someone, especially of you see them in a river, canal or whatever. If you toss yourself in you have a degree of responsibility for what happens to those who do the right thing and try to save you.

Well, again, that didn't happen in this case thankfully.

ScumLord

Augmerson wrote: »

As awful as what happened to that woman is, no, I don't think euthanasia should be made legal. I think everything the government touches turns to **** and whatever way they would handle it would just be botched. I do have a lot of sympathy for people with terminal illness, really I do but even if it happened to family or friends of myself, I'd still be against euthanasia.

So you'd rather they suffer for your peace of mind? Suffering with no release is a horrible existence, I think making them live though that is pretty close to torture.

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

But what i'm saying is, if she needed to end her suffering so badly and there were others effected, so be it!

So let's say I feel like killing myself this evening. So I head into Dublin City Centre, make my way to the top of the GPO, because I really need to end my suffering, and jump off. And it just so happens person x walks past as I'm falling and I land on top of them and we're both killed. Oops. Shít happens. So be it. I really needed to end my suffering. The fact I caused the death of someone else is meh, collateral damage. People get killed crossing the street too, right. What if I just miss them and they get splattered with my blood and insides? Ah well so be it. Wrong place, wrong time. They might be mentally scarred for life, but my need to end my suffering takes priority... they'll get over it.

Seriously? How self-centred and selfish can you get.

Fenian Army

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well, again, that didn't happen in this case thankfully.

But it COULD EASILY HAVE, thats my point, saying **** like "fair play" "brave" or whatever encourages others to accept that as a viable step to take, its not, because it effects more than just the person killing themselves, as I and my friends family found out.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

So let's say I feel like killing myself this evening. So I head into Dublin City Centre, make my way to the top of the GPO, because I really need to end my suffering, and jump off. And it just so happens person x walks past as I'm falling and I land on top of them and we're both killed. Oops. Shít happens. So be it. I really needed to end my suffering. The fact I caused the death of someone else is meh, collateral damage. People get killed crossing the street too, right. What if I just miss them and they get splattered with my blood and insides? Ah well so be it. Wrong place, wrong time. They might be mentally scarred for life, but my need to end my suffering takes priority...

Seriously? How self-centred and selfish can you get.

What the hell are you on about now? Your hypothesis is completely different to what happened in the case of this lady! Why not just throw a dragon into the story there friend?

MrStuffins

Fenian Army wrote: »

But it COULD EASILY HAVE, thats my point, saying **** like "fair play" "brave" or whatever encourages others to accept that as a viable step to take, its not, because it effects more than just the person killing themselves, as I and my friends family found out.

Well it was the only viable step for this lady to take. There was no curing her condition. it was die or continue to live a life of torture. She made the choice and nobody else died.

xzanti

We should absolutely be allowed to choose to die in dignity when faced with a an undignified and agonizing death..

It's a mercy that we afford to our pets but not our loved ones.. baffling really

Fenian Army

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well it was the only viable step for this lady to take. There was no curing her condition. it was die or continue to live a life of torture. She made the choice and nobody else died.

If, as very easily could have happened, someone else did die, would it have been the "right thing"?

ScumLord

Fenian Army wrote: »

If, as very easily could have happened, someone else did die, would it have been the "right thing"?

So what she's done wrong is kill herself in such a way as to put others at risk trying to recover her body? Simple solution is to give her a legal and humane way of ending her life.

MrStuffins

Fenian Army wrote: »

If, as very easily could have happened, someone else did die, would it have been the "right thing"?

It's never a good thing for someone to die in a situation like that. Luckily it didn't happen.

Fenian Army

ScumLord wrote: »

So what she's done wrong is kill herself in such a way as to put others at risk trying to recover her body? Simple solution is to give her a legal and humane way of ending her life.

Yeah, but that option aint there is it? Thus what she did wasn't "brave" or the "right thing" it was supremely self centered and selfish and could have caused great physical harm as well as the probable mental harm it did cause, to innocent third parties.

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

What the hell are you on about now? Your hypothesis is completely different to what happened in the case of this lady! Why not just throw a dragon into the story there friend?

..and that's the best you can come up with? My hypothesis differs only in the method of committing suicide. So perhaps you could try again?

This lady threw herself into a canal, instead of off a building, she had no way of knowing if somebody else would be hurt/die trying to get to her? Or how affected the workmen or the PC or the ambulance staff etc would be... and the best you can come up with is 'so be it'?

Fenian Army

MrStuffins wrote: »

It's never a good thing for someone to die in a situation like that. Luckily it didn't happen.

You going to answer the question or dance around the issue? I cant stand people who are purposefully obtuse.

The King of Moo

Fenian Army wrote: »

Yeah, but that option aint there is it? Thus what she did wasn't "brave" or the "right thing" it was supremely self centered and selfish and could have caused great physical harm as well as the probable mental harm it did cause, to innocent third parties.

So you suggest she should have carried on suffering for the rest of her life, just to adhere to the law?

Obviously any suicide causes some degree of suffering or even on rare occasions, danger, to others, but someone who is suicidal is probably well aware of that but suffering so much that they see no other way out.

At least this woman waited till there was no-one around who might try to rescue her.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

..and that's the best you can come up with? My hypothesis differs only in the method of committing suicide. So perhaps you could try again?

This lady threw herself into a canal, instead of off a building, she had no way of knowing if somebody else would be hurt/die trying to get to her? Or how affected the workmen or the PC or the ambulance staff etc would be... and the best you can come up with is 'so be it'?

It really isn't the same thing. You gave absolutely no information as to what the reasons were for your commiting suicide, what your other options were, it's quite frightening that you think this lady's suicide and you "feeling like killing myself this evening" are the same thing.

I'm not gonna play this silly game with you. Youv'e already lost anyway!

Fenian Army wrote: »

You going to answer the question or dance around the issue? I cant stand people who are purposefully obtuse.

I've already said it's never a good thing if someone dies in that situation. What more do you want from me? And why are we all talking in hypothesis? What if this and what if that? The details as to what happened are written down. Concern yourself with what happened and not with what might've happened.

ScumLord

Fenian Army wrote: »

Yeah, but that option aint there is it? Thus what she did wasn't "brave" or the "right thing" it was supremely self centered and selfish and could have caused great physical harm as well as the probable mental harm it did cause, to innocent third parties.

While that's a logical way of looking at it, logic goes out the window when your life is just suffering. You simply can't expect people to put up with that if they can help it. It's a fact of life that people will take this option if they can see no other solution and expecting them to just not to do it is as futile as expecting it not to rain because you've got plans for the day.

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

It really isn't the same thing. You gave absolutely no information as to what the reasons were for your commiting suicide, what your other options were, it's quite frightening that you think this lady's suicide and you "feeling like killing myself this evening" are the same thing..

What a willful and pig ignorant attempt at twisting my words. You know full well what I meant and how I meant it. I made not attempt to equate my hypothetical to this woman's condition and suicide. You really had to scrape low to appear smart on that one.

MrStuffins wrote: »

I'm not gonna play this silly game with you. Youv'e already lost anyway!..

It's frightening that you think this lady's suicide is a game. See what I did there? It's a bit sad and telling you think there is winning and losing to it anyway.

MrStuffins wrote: »

I've already said it's never a good thing if someone dies in that situation. What more do you want from me? And why are we all talking in hypothesis? What if this and what if that? The details as to what happened are written down. Concern yourself with what happened and not with what might've happened.

Life is about "what might've happened". Then again if you don't give a toss about the possible consequences of your actions, I'll stick by the selfish assertion.

Fenian Army

The King of Moo wrote: »

So you suggest she should have carried on suffering for the rest of her life, just to adhere to the law?

Obviously any suicide causes some degree of suffering or even on rare occasions, danger, to others, but someone who is suicidal is probably well aware of that but suffering so much that they see no other way out.

At least this woman waited till there was no-one around who might try to rescue her.

You obviously struggle with comprehending things... I said nothing about the law, I dont give a fcuk about the law, I said she, and the "fair play" brigade should take into account the effects of what throwing yourself into a river or whatever can have on others, like my friend who died after he jumped in to try and save someone he saw in the water.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

What a willful and pig ignorant attempt at twisting my words. You know full well what I meant and how I meant it. I made not attempt to equate my hypothetical to this woman's condition and suicide. You really had to scrape low to appear smart on that one.

Well, if you'd have bothered putting any sort of thought into your hypothesis then you wouldn't have appeared so silly!

It's frightening that you think this lady's suicide is a game. See what I did there? It's a bit sad and telling you think there is winning and losing to it anyway.

Wow, so when I said "game" you thought I meant the lady's suicide was a game........ even though I said "I'm not gonna play this game with you"........... riiiiiiiiiiight!

Life is about "what might've happened".

Lol. it certainly is not!

Then again if you don't give a toss about the possible consequences of your actions, I'll stick by the selfish assertion.

I DO give a toss. i really do. But i give a toss about both sides. Apparently you equate this lady's decision to end her life after lifelong suffering and decades of potential suffering to "So let's say I feel like killing myself this evening"

Amazing!

The King of Moo

Fenian Army wrote: »

You obviously struggle with comprehending things... I said nothing about the law, I dont give a fcuk about the law, I said she, and the "fair play" brigade should take into account the effects of what throwing yourself into a river or whatever can have on others, like my friend who died after he jumped in to try and save someone he saw in the water.

Not generally, no.

I assumed you meant she should obey the law as you pointed out that she had no legal way to kill herself, or be euthanised.

If you don't think she should have continued suffering, what should she have done then? She was immobile and didn't have anyone to help her; she wasn't blessed with options.

I'm also sure she was aware of the potential hazard to others, but don't you realise that she was suicidal and that was the dominant factor in her thinking?

MrStuffins

Fenian Army wrote: »

You obviously struggle with comprehending things... I said nothing about the law, I dont give a fcuk about the law, I said she, and the "fair play" brigade should take into account the effects of what throwing yourself into a river or whatever can have on others, like my friend who died after he jumped in to try and save someone he saw in the water.

What other options did she have Fenian Army?

if you think what she did was wrong, what would you suggest she should've done instead?

Defiler Of The Coffin

Fenian Army wrote: »

You obviously struggle with comprehending things... I said nothing about the law, I dont give a fcuk about the law, I said she, and the "fair play" brigade should take into account the effects of what throwing yourself into a river or whatever can have on others, like my friend who died after he jumped in to try and save someone he saw in the water.

Very sorry to hear about your friend but can you not see it from the woman's perspective? She was suffering, her quality of life was at zero and down the road she was faced with a situation where she wouldn't even be physically able to attempt to take her own life. I am sure she didn't want anyone to witness her death, she did wait until the workmen were on a break. Yes it would be a horrible thing for someone to witness but obviously in her mind the need to end her suffering was greater than the need to shield members of the public from witnessing something horrible. If euthanasia was allowed in this case the emergency services would not have had to get involved.

Chuck Stone

The woman asked to die in dignity. She was not allowed to so she felt she'd no option but to throw herself into a canal.

It's her cowardly loved ones and a cowardly society and those useful idiots who think only god gives you life (Lol) so only he should take it that are responsible for the collateral trauma exactly because she was denied the option of dying in dignity.

UsernameInUse

It's immoral that marijuana is not legal for sufferers of MS.

MrStuffins

UsernameInUse wrote: »

It's immoral that marijuana is not legal for sufferers of MS.

Welcome to a completely different discussion buddy :P

Fenian Army

The King of Moo wrote: »

Not generally, no.

I assumed you meant she should obey the law as you pointed out that she had no legal way to kill herself, or be euthanised.

If you don't think she should have continued suffering, what should she have done then? She was immobile and didn't have anyone to help her; she wasn't blessed with options.

I'm also sure she was aware of the potential hazard to others, but don't you realise that she was suicidal and that was the dominant factor in her thinking?

Right thing would have been for her to get the psychological help she needed. Not fair or correct to say that everyone with that stage of MS should be killing themselves as thats their only option.

If she really wanted to kill herself she should have done it a better way which lessened the risk to others. Leaving yourself floating in a canal is not doing that.

She was immobile from the chest down, she had other options. And no, I'm not going to list a variety of ways in which she could have done it, thats very bad tasted. Use your imagination.

I've never said that euthenasia is wrong have I? Only concern I have about it is that people with similar disabilities might feel obliged to do it to lessen financial hardships on their family etc.

Oafley Jones

prinz wrote: »

..and the PC who jumped into the canal and got her out and presumably tried to resucitate her? Ah sure, she'll get over it too. Maybe a few nightmares...

In the case of the emergency services, things like that are part and parcel of the job. Its not a nice thing for them, but you can't join the police, fire service etc. and go through a career without seeing a few horrors.

twinQuins

Apologies for responding so late, I've been out since then.

prinz wrote: »

Not really no. The article mentions that she was suffering from depression. Probably brought on because of her health condition, but still depression. If it was brought on by financial worries would posters still be lining up to comment on how brave she was? I don't think so. They'd probably be suggesting ways she should have/could have gotten or been given help. Remove the condition from the equation and what I see is a depressed woman taking her own life.

But you're not comparing like with like. A person can take steps to alleviate their financial situation and even change it comepletely. Terminal illness has no such silver lining. All that awaits them is death after a variable period of suffering.

Saying it's really the depression is splitting hairs. In this case, the cause of the depression can't be removed.

Let's say it had progressed to the stage that she had no control over her movements and couldn't communicate her desire to end her life. How do we justify forcing her to live then?

If the person has a living will it's clear cut but otherwise I don't see the point in keeping someone alive when... well they're not really alive, just existing.

Cases such as that are always going to be messy and, I believe, there's no right answer. Personally, I would err on the side of euthanasia, however: they're going to die eventually, why keep them alive in such a vegitative state.

When it comes to mental illness... again, I don't like making a decision. If someone isn't of sound mind then are they really capable of making that decision for themselves?
That must sound contradictory, given what I've said above but I would make the distinction that in the case of physical ailments giving rise to depression the mental illness is not innate but a symptom of a physical defect that can't be treated.

My knowledge of neuroscience is limited so I don't know to what degree certain mental illnesses (schizophrenia seems to be cited a lot) have a basis in neurochemical imbalance.

Ultimately, I don't think you can make a single judgement for all cases of euthenasia. For situations of terminal illness, like this case, it's clear-cut for me.

Stavro Mueller

It's very harsh to blame the woman for her choice of death or to judge her for being suicidal. Her options were rapidly running out and if she didn't do something soon, she'd be stuck in a wheelchair unable to do anything for herself. Nobody else was going to lift a finger for her so all that'd be left for her was to sit and wait til she caught something or drowned in her own saliva. I can't think of any way she could've committed suicide which would've not upset someone. Someone was always going to have to find the body.

Chuck Stone

FLOOPER wrote: »

Only concern I have about it is that people with similar disabilities might feel obliged to do it to lessen financial hardships on their family etc.

This is a concern and it might even happen but to prevent everyone genuinely seeking and end to terminal suffering a dignified death because of the selfishness of a small number of people is a cowardly cop out or an excuse for those with 'religious' motives.

Augmerson

ScumLord wrote: »

So you'd rather they suffer for your peace of mind? Suffering with no release is a horrible existence, I think making them live though that is pretty close to torture.

I don't have a problem with someone ending their life if they are suffering and I would, after much thought and consideration, if the only option was, help a family member or friend to die if they were only suffering badly in this world. I am still against legalised euthanasia. I am against giving the government any say in the dying process, mark my words they will **** it up.