NLP Connections - the ultimate NLP resource on the internet - and the largest NLP forum!

I was prompted to ask this question, after seeing the other thread I posted with the man with the 30 second active memory. I couldn't help but notice his suffering. Do you believe the suffering should be allowed to end their suffering?

Hi Sam,

There are very good arguments for euthanasia. There are very good arguments against euthanasia. I doubt I could add more than the lists of pros and cons any debating site will offer.

But I have to say Sam that I found bringing this subject up in the context of this video pretty distasteful. My aunt has senile dementia, is oblivious to most conversations going on around her, and can barely dress herself. But she is still much loved and she still enjoys herself. And Wearing, for all his confusion, still has moments of real joy in his life, he loves and is loved.

However tragic the change in his life may have been, it seems fundamentally wrong - something I rarely say so categorically, but wrong is the only word I can think of here - to reference this man's life, show a video of him, his intelligence, his love, his relationship with his wife, and to then propose this as a starting point for an intellectual debate about euthanasia.

What exactly were you suggesting Sam?

Joseph

I appreciate you posting your feelings, and am glad you're posting your feelings.

It goes to show the different models of the world we all have. How we can all take the one issue, and spin it with entirely different feelings, and hence actions.

I personally don't think it's wrong to end someone's suffering. I actually, personally, felt sorry for his profound suffering.

Also every medical condition affects people differently. Sufferers of senile dementia, as is quite common as people age. Alzhiemer's disease is frequently being more diagnosed, as people's lose tissue in their frontal lobe as they age, amoungst other issues. And many of these people are very much loved. Personally (and people may disagree with that), I don't think being senile, or having dementia, is worthy of Euthansia, as the person can have a quality of life.

I was referring to this gentleman in particular who a virus has detroyed his right temporal lobe, and had destroyed both his hippocampus', and destroyed most of the connection between the two lobes in his brain. Rendering him to wild painful anger as he can't function.

I don't think we know enough of the variables about the case to tell, but I was reffering to Euthanasia in cases where people were suffering so tremendously that their existence is nothing short of torture, such as great pain at the end of cancer.

I was talking about having enough compassion, to help someone who can't end their own tortuos existence. Obviously the variables are different in every case. But I think you've fallen victim here to what I call 'the Bon Jovi phenonenom'. Meaning you see a little bit of someone's life and you project the rest onto him. That documentary didn't talk about his endless torture, his day in, day out suffering, his almost endless anger outbursts, his emotional roller coaster, his inability to do anything except talk abot thow his existence is a waking death, then forget what he was saying by the end of the sentence.

You may have a different viewpoint on the video and that's fine. but I was talking about not getting our own selfish viewpoints in the way, instead mustering our compassion to examine options that we can do for those suffering.

Euthanasia isn't the only option. Maybe we need to make knowledge of other types of medicinal treatment options available. Personally I believe that the fundamental values that all of us as human beings cherish such as choice and freewill are obviously some of the most important of all of us in the human family. And being able to bring relief to those who suffer greatly is one of the highest applications of these values.

I think you probably agree, you just believe that the suffering in this case is not great enough to warrant needing relief.

The military give people pills to end their life so as not to suffer in a prisoner of war camp. Maybe we should look more cloesly into how to help those less fortunate than us. Wouldn't it be better to do everythign we can to help the less fortunate?

We should be giving people choices. I don't believe we should be taking choices away nor controlling people. Isn't it better to give people more choices, rather than trying to control them?


the above message was writte in pure reframing and sleight of mouth. 100% NLP patterns. Give me some honest feedback. Did it work for you or did it suck?

Basically I framed letting others suffer as cruel. Used the word 'relief' for those suffering, to presuppose anyone who is against it would be leaving them with an 'affliction'. I talked in terms of values we all share, and presupposed, then that ending suffering was fulfilling the highest values that all human share (chocie and freewill) after presenting these values as 'obviously' want we all believe is important, thus just making an assumption.

Then I ended with a question that was rhetorical, that you couldn't help but agree with.

So did it work for you, or did it suck?

Wow, do they actually still do that? I must of lived a sheltered life in the military as I had never heard of this. I just thought it was James Bond secret agent type stuff.

As far as your original question, I think that if the person wants to elect euthanasia as an option for a terminal ilness, then they should be allowed to do so. I imagine, that if they deep down believe that ending their life is their best option they will find away to do it, regardless. Hence, to me euthanasia is a better option than suicide.

Have a great day

Frederic

I think it's going to depend on a whole host of variables which are probably not relevant to go into here.

The "Bon Jovi phenomenon" eh? I see. Here's a quote from a Guardian interview with his wife, Deborah:

"On her return to Britain, she comes to the conclusion that 'there is still a Cliveness about Clive'. She still sees in him a kindness, a generosity, a way of looking at the world that is uniquely him.

'I realised that we are not just brain and processes. Clive had lost all that and yet he was still Clive. Even when we didn't see one another, when we were six months apart and only spoke on the telephone, nothing had changed. Even when he was at his worst, most acute state, he still had that huge overwhelming love ... for me. That was what survived when everything else was taken away.'

For years she'd tried to make sense of what had happened to her, whether it was searching for the meaning of life in art galleries or New Age workshops. On 10 March 1999, she found solace. She telephoned a Christian friend and asked her to pray for her. 'I didn't even think I liked Christians. I rang this person despite the fact she had a faith. Yet there I was, alone in my flat and wondering why am I here? What am I doing? I love this man but I can't live with him and I can't live with anybody else. During the call I felt like this force was with me. I was drained and it was like life pouring into me.' She says it's this new-found faith that has helped her to come to terms with the fact that she'll never have children. On Easter Sunday three years later, Deborah dressed up in her best frock, collected Clive from the home and they renewed their wedding vows. Later that afternoon Clive celebrated by tucking into Victoria sponge.

Now it's enough to look forward to weekends with Clive and know that finally he accepts who he is. He is still handsome and charming, garrulous and good fun. But he's calmer now, easier."

I really don't understand you on this one Sam. You can read the above, watch your video clip, and conclude that this man would be better off dead?

Or are you just having an intellectual debate - practising "sleight of mouth patterns"?

And speaking of sleight of mouth, you asked: did yours suck? Yes. As an exercise in a training, they may have been a decent, if artificial, example of the patterns. But for real world use, yes, for me they absolutely sucked.

I like your curiosity Sam, and your energetic contributions to this forum. And I appreciate I'm being more confrontational than normal here. But the one objection I gave you in my first reply was that I found it distasteful to show a video of this man and his wife, and the struggles they're going through and the love between them, and then to start a "Who believes in euthanasia?" thread.

Your "sleight of mouth" reply to this objection - or can we drop the oily jargon and just say, your "argument"? :cool: - was mostly as follows:

1) That what you really meant to talk about was that you think people with painful terminal illnesses should be allowed euthanasia.
2) That it's compassionate to give them the choice to die.
3) And that having choice is good.

Which isn't, as far as I'm concerned, some jazzed-up, NLP-fueled "unstoppable linguistic wizardry". It's erm... the standard argument for euthanasia. One for which I have a lot of sympathy, but it's hardly an ingenious reframe!

You also said that I don't know how horrible Clive Wearing's life really is. That I've been misled by the video (the same video you referred to when you began the thread). Well, that brings up three immediate objections of my own:

1) What credibility do you have to comment on his life? Do you know Clive and Deborah? Have you read her book?
2) A cursory internet search brings up enough details to show his life is richer than the endless suffering you claim it is.
3) How exactly would you visualise Clive's "assisted suicide" taking place? How could he lucidly and coherently request it? Or do you think his wife might want to organise it if someone offered?

And by the time we get to 3), I'm left with a bad taste in my mouth for discussing this on a public forum.

Here's "a sleight of mouth pattern" for you Sam. When you think of all the determination, patience, compassion and love that Deborah Wearing has shown in caring for her husband. In returning to him and renewing their wedding vows, in sticking by him and finding that the essence of her husband is still there, however much obscured. When you think of all she's been through, and the touches of hope she's had as she's seen incremental improvements in him, as she's watched him go through hell, and then come through the worst of it...

When you think of Clive Wearing's enduring love for his wife, his joy at seeing her, the miracle that he can still play music and conduct...

Doesn't it strike you as morally wrong to be publicly suggesting that it might be better if they just let him die? These are real people. Alive. Today. With access to the internet.

How would you feel if Deborah Wearing read this very thread, thinking of her whole life and the resiliance she's had to find, and found people practising NLP language patterns on whether her husband might be better off dead?

Joseph

Hi Joseph,

I'm sincerely impressed with your ability to disagree with someone and still remain respectful, and I respect that because I think that's a skill.

You've obviously got pretty strong convictions around this, and I think it's good sometimes to have strong convictions around right and wrong, as it allows us to navigate our life with a moral compass.

One thing I clearly didn't articulate well, which I understand how people made the conclusion, is that I didn't think that Clive needed Euthanasia. It may seem not all together fine, as I brought up this thread at the same time as the video about Clive. I dont' know enough about the variables of Clive.

I was thinking in general. I've been in hospitals where people have been in a car accident, have most of their brain damaged, and writhe around at strange angles all day, can't talk or communicate or control their movements, scream in pain all day, and every time they're fed have to have a vacuum tube down their throat to make sure they can't choke.

They have to live in the hospital, because there's no laws to be able to do anything with them.

So I think you'll have to forgive me for this one and let me live and learn.

Discussing Clive in particular. To my knowledge I think Deborah has left him a few times. You were talking about his joy of conducting, did you see his spasms. You said there's been incremental improvements to my knowledge there's really been no improvement.

I do think that it's these strong emotional issues: that touch our heart, that move us, that make us question things, that are the time to ask the hard questions.

I appreciate your reply, and I hope that we can disagree on this issue, and still agree on many others, because I personally benefit from many of your other posts on the forum.

Hey Sam,

Thank you for not construing my argument as a personal attack. I know that there are plenty of people who would have! And thank you for being civil and respectful in your replies. To be clear: I have no problem with you whatsoever Sam.

You only did one thing that I thought was inappropriate, and that was the way you began this thread.

I don't think that's because you're a bad person. I think it's because your style of posting is sometimes driven by free association. "Amnesia... Clive Wearing!... tragedy... no relief... Ah! Euthanasia!... Who believes in it?!". I believe you're very well-intentioned in your posts, and are only trying to spark interesting debates. But in this case I think it's a spontaneous association that happens to be very disrespectful of two living people.

As to whether Clive Wearing has "really" shown any improvement, or whether his wife "really" came back to him and has stuck by him since: I "really" think you should just drop this one Sam. I gave you the link to this 2005 Guardian article and Google turns up several others which detail these events. And since you've said you're not actually arguing that Clive Wearing would be better off dead, why not leave him, his wife and their marriage out of your debate?

If you do want to debate assisted suicide, can I suggest in future you choose an example of someone who actively wants/wanted it such as this woman?



As to your question about euthanasia itself, as I said in my first post, the pros and cons have been rehashed time and again. You can find a good summary here.

Personally, I'd say that of course one person in great suffering with no end in sight deserves the right to a good death. For me that's self-evident.

So why isn't it legal everywhere? Religion? Squeamishness? Well no, there are other arguments against euthanasia. As an exercise in forming a sustained argument, I'd suggest you have a read of that summary Sam, and see if you can think through each of the objections, and either find a plausible argument for why they're wrong, or a plausible way that the problems they propose can be circumnavigated.

All the best,

Joseph.