psychiatry

Ahhh, I missed Little Treasure... an episode without him us so dull.... Get that Ziyao ***** out of my little treasure’s way!!! To think she is bragging about her psychiatry minor???? Heh.... 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

Although the author will not see this comment, I will write it. I don't even know how many sessions of psychiatry I have to go to to clear this shit from my mind. I only read fifteen chapters, and my brain was dying. I give 3 stars for the translator's efforts.

I love Ms. Gu's and her parents characters. over all the stoty is interesting. Rong Yu is also very interesting. but it gives mysterious feeling about him. not because of him know psychiatry. but it feels like he know something abt Ms. Gu... well i m hooked up to the story. plz do update regularly. as i miss reading it. cant wait for long or i might loose interest.

Wait. I’m I allowed to review my own story? I’m already writing one so too late now! Paramnesia is a story I started working on about a year and a half ago. Back then, I originally planned to draw a comic for this story. Which is why the first few chapters were kinda off, I had a bit of trouble turning a comic into a novel. Btw, if you look closely at the cover you’ll see the words ‘pathway to another world’ under the title, that’s because that was the original name of this story and that cover was from a long time ago so it still had that title. If anyone is curious, here’s the dictionary definition of Paramnesia. par·am·ne·sia ˌperamˈnēZH(ē) noun PSYCHIATRY a condition or phenomenon involving distorted memory or confusions of fact and fantasy, such as confabulation or déjà vu. I like using names that have meanings so if you want to know mean about the characters personalities you could search up their names. The only characters who are named after real people are the male and female main characters. Wow! This was probably longer than my chapters! Thanks for reading!

As American political journalist and professor Norman Cousins once said, “Death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss is what dies inside us while we live.” This saying especially rings true to those who are mentally and/or physically suffering from extreme depression or severe illnesses such as cancer and dementia. For some of these people who live on with their mental and/or physical burdens, death may seem more comforting than continuing a meaningless life. In 1997, a political action committee named Oregon Right to Die passed the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, allowing for terminally-ill patients to relieve their suffering and regain a sense of control (Oregon.gov). Since then, seven more states have joined Oregon in the legalization of physician-assisted suicide (PAS), but questions regarding morals and ethics remain at large. In addition to suicide being taboo in various faiths, many question how doctors—who are expected to save lives—could determine which ones are or aren’t worth saving. Despite great opposition, the Death with Dignity Act (DWDA) should be adopted nationwide, albeit with extreme caution and strict regulations, as it would provide practical benefits and basic freedom to those who seek a respectable ending. During this age where freedom and human rights are being preached, the legalization of physician-assisted death remains in heated discussion as legalities, morals, and ethics come into question over basic human rights. First and foremost, death with dignity (DWD) should not be confused with euthanasia as it specifically entails the patient personally preparing and ingesting the prescribed medication (Death with Dignity). According to Robert Preston, director of Living and Dying Well, “[p]hysician-administered euthanasia (PAE) describes a situation where a doctor administers a lethal dosage of drugs to a patient, at that patient’s request, in order to bring about his or her death.” For patients who request for a doctor-assisted death to be qualified, they must show that they are mentally competent and are capable of self-administering the medication; in addition to stringent requirements set by the DWDA in their state, they must demonstrate that they contain the mental and physical capacities needed for a medically hastened death. For those who worry about the legal implications of the DWDA, the existence of strict criteria proves that the entire procedure is compromised as such so that patients, their families, and physicians are protected by proper law. To some, however, the laws are not enough to represent their human rights as seen with Brittany Maynard, a young woman whose request for DWD was denied, prompting her to move to a state where DWD is legal. For the rest of her life, Brittany advocated for the right to die by assisted suicide for herself and others, remarking, I can’t even tell you the amount of relief that it provides me to know that I don’t have to die the way that it’s been described to me that my brain tumor would take me on its own. (CompassionandChoices) Her fight for medical aid-in-dying legislature in California sparked further interest in the topic of assisted suicide within her age group, as no terminally-ill patient as young as her have gone through with PAS. Her conviction and determination rivals that of Lauren Hill, another brain cancer patient whose approach to death was radically different. Lauren Hill lived out her life doing what she loved most and was able to fulfill her dream of playing college basketball; as her disease progressed, Lauren raised awareness to support the research for cures to cancer (Gerhardt). “Never give up,” says Lauren (Gerhardt). A comparison of Lauren and Brittany’s stories may lead to the thought that Brittany gave up at life, but the case lies in the basic freedom of choice. While Lauren’s choice to hang on and fulfill her dreams are commendable, Brittany’s end-of-life decision does not necessarily make her any less of a person facing death with courage. She only desires that her life ends on her terms, peacefully and painlessly with her loved ones by her side. And for many people, that choice is just not optional where they live. As J. David Velleman, a professor in philosophy at New York University, wrote, “The person living a life is the best judge of the value that its continuation would afford him—not an infallible judge, of course, but usually more reliable than anyone else.” A person would know best about something if they had experienced it, and it is extremely true in the case of end-of-life decisions. While there is a misconception that DWD equates to a dignified death, the key concept is to allow patients the option of preventing an undignified life where they deteriorate physically/mentally. Therefore, when a person cannot sustain both life and dignity, only then is DWD morally justified. While it is often natural to confer beliefs onto others, it should be left up to the patients as they deserve the limited freedom in determining their ending. From a medical perspective, medical aid in dying (MAID) appears to defy what doctors do, which is to heal and save, yet the surmounting evidence suggests that doctors have a duty in both life and death in respect to their patients. Most medical professionals do not participate in MAID as it goes against their medical ethics, while some are concerned that their Hippocratic oath prohibits intentionally helping someone die, or that aid-in-dying requests originate from treatable pain or depression (Dear). Others are unwilling to face the social repercussions and potential backlash from participating, but one doctor was determined for his voice to be heard. The late pathologist Dr. Jack Kevorkian, known as Dr. Death for assisting over 100 patient suicides, explains that MAID is: [T]o relieve [patients] of their intolerable and unending suffering. The patient's wish—see, that's not my wish. [...] Hippocrates [...] says you are the servant of the patient. [...] But doctors today consider themselves [...] the overlord of the patient. [...] I always felt that [the patient’s] wish comes first, no matter what. (Procon.org) It has long been seen that doctors are responsible for their patients’ lives, and they are, but not solely. Upon the passing of a patient, grieving family members may exclaim that doctors have not done enough to save their loved one, but the truth is that the patient’s role plays a part in their death as well. Patients may feel as though life is too painful to continue or that they accept their death with calmness and peace. Others may be more persistent and fight to live another day. To an extent, the patient’s mental strength and outlook on life are critical as well as the doctor’s medical evaluation. Because there are different factors that influence a patient’s death and his/her attitude towards it, doctors have a responsibility to clearly explain available end-of-life decisions, which should include DWD as a viable option. Opponents of a nationwide adoption of doctor-assisted suicide argue that mental suffering does not warrant a free pass in death, though significant data indicates that otherwise. In the documentary “24 & Ready to Die,” a 24-year-old Belgian woman named Emily is approved for euthanasia based on mental suffering (The Economist). Her psychiatrist, Dr. Lieve Thienpont, states that: Most people who ask for euthanasia based on mental suffering have a long history of it. […] In psychiatry, the options are endless: combinations of medications, long-term outpatient or inpatient treatment...but there must be a genuine belief in recovery. (The Economist) Thienpont’s explanation reveals how psychiatric evaluations for patients who request MAID based on mental suffering are sufficiently thorough but even then, it is not a clear-cut assessment as mental suffering cannot exactly be seen. That is what makes it so hard to understand and treat accurately. Clinical psychologist Ariane Bazan declares, “We all have moments of black [,] desperate thoughts. But most of us go on living (The Economist).” But what about the people who don’t go on living? For these people struggling with each passing day in life without a successful solution, they may be driven to self-mutilation or other harmful acts. According to the American Psychological Association, there has been a 30% increase in death by suicide, and it is the second-leading cause of death people among ages 10 to 34 (APA). Opponents may argue that this is a first-world problem and that efforts should be focused on more important problems such as poverty and world hunger, but the stigma behind mental health must be recognized and dealt with. Even if there are antidepressants and therapy, the option of DWD should always remain available as a sense of security. “Without the option of euthanasia, years of suffering would have compounded by a gruesome, lonely death. I would have killed myself,” Emily says, regarding her end-of-life decision (The Economist). Emily describes becoming serene as the date of her euthanasia approached due to the knowledge that she is about to be relieved from her mental crises and prolonged suffering, but her last-minute choice to tun away and attempt life once more supports the idea that for mentally suffering patients, having that option offers another perspective to life and a chance to rethink their decisions. Consequently, as legalization of the DWDA is being considered, the extension of DWD to mentally suffering people should also be given thought to as no one should have to die in pain and without due process. Although there are other concerns regarding death by medical assistance, proper legalization and strict regulations will ensure that patients receive their desired end with due respect. One such concern comes from the financial perspective, as Helena Berger, CEO of the American Association of People with Disabilities, argues that [I]n this profit-driven economic climate, is it realistic to expect that insurers are going to do the right thing, or the cheap thing? If insurers deny, or even delay, approval of costlier life-saving alternatives, then money saving but fatal measures become the deadly default. (Procon.org) Her statement represents the fear of potential abuse of the DWDA as it could be used to target vulnerable groups such as disabled people, ethnic minorities, and those with low socioeconomic background. Opponents of DWD may build upon Berger’s claim that DWD is just an unethical method of cutting healthcare costs and removing those deemed unproductive in society. However, CompassionandChoices responds that "[t]here is no financial incentive to pressure patients [...] 92 percent of people in Oregon who choose medical aid in dying are enrolled in hospice care and not receiving expensive or intensive treatment (Procon.org)." With the given statistic, CompassionandChoices indicates that where DWD is permitted, patients who choose to die with medical aid are not pressured into ending their lives as many skeptics are led to believe. Religious conservatives often fall back on how [l]ife is a gift from God. All life is God-given. Birth and death are part of the life processes which God has created, so we should respect them. Therefore no human being has the authority to take the life of any innocent person, even if that person wants to die. (SJU) The majority of faiths view suicide in all forms except for religious purposes as a criminal and forbidden act. However, it remains up to patients to decide which beliefs they intend to take unto their death. People should not claim rights of self-determination in someone else’s name, an example of which would be asserting “You need Jesus” as a way to combat the want for a peaceful death of one’s accord. The supposed slippery slope of death culture presents an extreme danger to everyone as this could be seen as a parallel to the executions by guillotine during the Reign of Terror. Similarly to the impending doom following the French Revolution, the expansion of the DWDA signifies that “there remains a real possibility of the extension of euthanasia to infants, those with mental incapacities or disabilities, and the elderly (Procon.org).” With all laws, there will be enforcement and strict regulations to ensure that DWD cannot be abused, and such instances of slippery slope have not yet occurred, making most support for such arguments invalid and unreliable. As with all established and forthcoming laws, the DWDA is will be carefully regulated and all procedures will be monitored to ensure the safety of all of those involved. Therefore, the DWDA should not be barred from nationwide legalization based on religion or slippery slope fallacy, among other concerns. Although it may be argued that physician-assisted death undermines the value of life, many patients and their loved ones agree that the option of assisted suicide provides a sense of autonomy, security, and self-respect difficult to achieve through palliative care. Suicide is not alright when it is seen as a permanent solution to a temporary problem, but it is difficult for anyone to obejectively quanlify a problem as temporary or not. With all factors considered, the patient has final say and deserves a respectable and dignified death if they so request.