• ✍️ WORDS ✍️

    Welcome Guest!

  • Words Moderators: Mysterier

Final Exit

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain.Heroin

Captain.Heroin

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
94,868
This is intended to be a book review/discussion thread for Derek Humphry's final edition of Final Exit. I have a PDF of this with 2 pages missing (I know, right? What the fuck?) so if anyone is interested holler at your boy.

I loved this book, it's my favorite non-fiction book by far. It is filled with tidbits, practical information, a bunch of heart warming stories and it will make you cry if you are not an unfeeling sociopath. My chief complaint is that he did not address temazepam vs other benzodiazepines as a method.

The only other complaint is that he has a perpetual indifference to the suffering of chronic mental health disorders like I have. It's alright though. People will one day accept that chronic mental health disorders are terminal illnesses too. That day is coming.

Anyone else read this?

51WE7Bo7nbL._SX325_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


Published 2002, the revised, 3rd edition of the bestseller "Final Exit" describes the ways in which a dying person may consider hastening the end of their life if suffering is unbearable. Laws and ethics are outlined in a straightforward fashion. Drug dosage tables and the latest inert gas technique of 'self-deliverance' are explained, with illustrations.
Click to expand...
 
nuttynutskin said:
If you're talking about assisted suicide for mentally ill people I doubt it.
Click to expand...

If you look to better countries like the Netherlands, or other countries where the society and government have together turned a blind eye to this phenomena, you'll see that it is coming and nothing's going to stop us, other than the religious right.
 
I contacted a Swiss line, many years ago - they were on fucking, fire to take my monetary details - not so much about the context or, the personal narrative. Sometimes, you learn.
 
I think it would set a dangerous precedent if assisted suicide was allowed for mental patients. What if the person could've eventually recovered but instead killed themselves? It would also go directly against the hippocratic oath. I support adult's personal right to suicide but I don't believe it needs to be or will be sanctioned except in cases like someone with end stage cancer.
 
nuttynutskin said:
I think it would set a dangerous precedent if assisted suicide was allowed for mental patients. What if the person could've eventually recovered but instead killed themselves? It would also go directly against the hippocratic oath. I support adult's personal right to suicide but I don't believe it needs to be or will be sanctioned except in cases like someone with end stage cancer.
Click to expand...

Take a look into the practices of the Netherlands. Or individual cases where people were allowed to continue with a lifestyle in the US that would almost certainly result in death.

You are ignorant of what the Hippocratic Oath is. I forgive you for not knowing extensively about Greek history, as we're all modern human beings. Euthanasia is not harm. The word euthanasia came about after the Hippocratic Oath. Abortion and euthanasia were common-place in this part of time. Patients being harmed by their physicians typically meant intentionally getting their patients addicted to drugs for repeat business, or poisoning their patients, or not practicing help when it could have otherwise been implemented. Lastly, an example of "do no harm" is do not sexually abuse or rape your patients. You'd think people would just know this is morally wrong, nope. Larry Nassar, the USC doctor, etc. These are men that should be given severe penalties for sexually abusing innocent girls and women.

The Oath was never intended to cover the religious right ideology that never existed at this point in human history.

If you want to point to the Bible and explain why you dislike these ideas, that's one thing. You are going to lose if you look at the standards of the culture that created the Hippocratic Oath, primarily because you don't live back then and you're extrapolating and projecting modern religious beliefs to the past where they did not apply. Surely you do know Christianity is a modern invention?
 
I'm not sure why it seems you're trying to insinuate that I'm some right wing christian because I'm not. Other than that I guess I'll assume you've studied more about it than I have but that still doesn't stop me from having an opinion on the matter.
 
Historically misinterpreting events is a pretty bad mistake to make.

Your opinions are yours and I can understand that. Thanks for sharing.
 
Perhaps you weren’t. I just clarified the historical of euthanasia regarding the Hippocratic Oath. That is all.

Society and/or religion tend to ruin the good intentions individuals initiate in society. Some even claim Jesus’ message gets watered down or even bastardized due to the presence of an autocratic state, etc (as a religious example of this phenomena).
 
To me euthanasia for mental illness wouldn't quite fit with do no harm or whatever, if that's what we're talking about. I've sort of lost track.
 
It is a debate worth having.

The west is largely opposed to it historically due to WWII.
 
So how does it fit in then? Doctors are supposed to help people, not kill them because of their problems. Enough mentally ill people already kill themselves on their own anyways. Is that something to really strive for? Like I already said, I think suicide should be a right, but I also think people should get help. And the notion that one day there'll be euthanasia for mentally ill people I think is a pretty absurd one. That just goes against all sorts of things regarding doctors and the modern world in general.
 
The least desired civil rights are the ones we fight for the hardest, I.e. minority rights. Not many people would self-elect for euthanasia. It won’t rock society like gay rights or interracial marriage did.

It would have almost no noticeable effect on society or reality.

I believe certain mental disorders are terminal. I am sorry.
 
^Personal 'belief' is one thing, actually proving that a particular or, any mental disorder is 'terminal' is another. How would you go about proving that certain mental disorders are terminal?

Captain.Heroin said:
What?

Is this some double speak to encourage me to go to Europe? I won’t.
Click to expand...

lol My bad, Im guessing it was the subjective, 'I' statement that gave-away how I was directing my post at you - ya giant, flute! ;)


Captain.Heroin said:
Take a look into the practices of the Netherlands. Or individual cases where people were allowed to continue with a lifestyle in the US that would almost certainly result in death.

You are ignorant of what the Hippocratic Oath is. I forgive you for not knowing extensively about Greek history, as we're all modern human beings. Euthanasia is not harm. The word euthanasia came about after the Hippocratic Oath. Abortion and euthanasia were common-place in this part of time. Patients being harmed by their physicians typically meant intentionally getting their patients addicted to drugs for repeat business, or poisoning their patients, or not practicing help when it could have otherwise been implemented. Lastly, an example of "do no harm" is do not sexually abuse or rape your patients. You'd think people would just know this is morally wrong, nope. Larry Nassar, the USC doctor, etc. These are men that should be given severe penalties for sexually abusing innocent girls and women.

The Oath was never intended to cover the religious right ideology that never existed at this point in human history.

If you want to point to the Bible and explain why you dislike these ideas, that's one thing. You are going to lose if you look at the standards of the culture that created the Hippocratic Oath, primarily because you don't live back then and you're extrapolating and projecting modern religious beliefs to the past where they did not apply. Surely you do know Christianity is a modern invention?
Click to expand...

First of all, the HO is not legally binding but is used as a code of ethics (perhaps there may be different legislation in someparts of the US - so maybe you can research that).
Secondly, the HO is not even used (sworn-in) in many countries.
Thirdly, The Hippocratic Oath, post Geneva Convention, was altered as it was ascertained how it enabled unethical practices to occur i.e. medical experimentation etc and the current one, still presents all manner of moral dillemas i.e.. treating contagion, and the like.

Also, the original Hippocratic Oath would not allow for abortion OR, Euthanasia, that was changed post 1940's - therefore, the religious-right ideology you mention, is actually more alligned with the tenets of the 'original', Hippocratic Oath. So, am confused about where your reason stems from or, is directed toward?
 
Last edited:
The literal word euthanasia is derived from Greek (welcome to Words!) the HO pre-dates the Greek portmanteau of ?eu? and ?thanatos?.

Mental diseases are terminal. Look at the brains of people dead from more serious neurosis, psychosis, drug abuse. Believe in neuropsychology and biology and chemistry. Believe in science. Reject the hocus pocus ?we are all one/equal? crap.

Intelligence and sentience and information are end-game objectives to strive for. Not seven billion mostly broken human beings destroying Earth?s ecology. People like me are part of the problem, not the solution, and I happen to value civil rights over having to live out a life and dragging everyone else along with me.
 
Apologies in advance to the community if I am coming off as combative. I can close/erase this thread if I am stepping on toes.
 
Not sure about combative but sure don't see how saying things like "mental diseases" are terminal is beneficial to harm reduction.
 
Not all of them are and most people can and will recover with therapy and time.

It would be wrong and a lie of me to say ALL mentally ill people will follow this recovery trajectory or even could. Which is why I said the words “most serious neurosis”.

Words is a friendly place to share literature and share friendly debates about the impact of words, literature and such on the mind, culture, society etc. I hope none of the opinions shared were too extreme. BTS and I normally don’t censor ideas or words.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top