Why Therapy Could Be the First Step Towards Euthanizing Victims of Oppression

There have been several stories of child sexual abuse survivors who had therapy and psychiatric medication and treatment and then ended up with euthanasia in Belgium. One of them was a woman and another one of them was a trans man both of whom had been sexually abused. I find these stories chilling. I do not know how society could while failing to deal with the problem of child sexual abuse, then tell these survivors that there was no hope for them and their suffering was untreatable. Yes it was untreatable by medical means and individualistic means but who is to say that if society had been changed if we stopped the child sexual abuse happening all around them and really took their pain seriously, these people could not have made a full recovery ?

I think there are a lot of people who appear “treatment resistant mentally ill” and “untreatable” who can make a full recovery if only we could change society. They could get better if they knew that society was taking what happened to them seriously and doing everything possible to make sure it never happened to another victim again.

I think sending these people for therapy is the first step in refusing to give them the listening ear of taking their pain seriously and changing society. I believe it is the first step on the road to “euthanising” them. This is how I envision it happening. This is how I envision victims of violence and oppression such as these people being disappeared and euthanized and their stories erased.

First you locate the problem in the individual rather than in society. There are many people in our society who have suffered horrific violence, violence that you would not even think it’s possible for a person to survive or it’s a wonder that they survived it. (The trans man above was an incest survivor, how do we expect anyone to survive that sort of violence ?). They are lucky to have survived and must have some “strong moral fibre” to have done that. This doesn’t mean victims can’t recover though, it means that

Here is how you get on the road to euthanizing people who probably could otherwise have recovered. You seek an individualistic (rather than a collective) solution to the problem of their pain. You decide that we’ve done all that we can about societal changes to stop the violence or that the process of stopping the violence in society cannot move any faster. We can’t diminish their pain by fixing society rather them or maybe we won’t. We don’t want to do the work of swimming upstream, we don’t want to try harder or put more effort into changing society. We somewhat willfully decide that it’s too hard or too much work. We’ve done enough or we’re doing enough, we can’t be expected to do more.

Imagine that then you send the victims for therapy. When therapy doesn’t work, then you could give them antidepressants and other psychotropic drugs. When that doesn’t work you would move on to electroshock treatments. (It’s conceivable that even other things like psychosurgery and chemical treatments are tried at this point).

Then after all of this if this is not working (even though the problem could always have been addressed society and on a collective level, people just chose to treat it individually with therapy and “fix yourself” because that was “easier” and it was easier to fix the victims of violence and the weakest links rather than society) people could be then labelled treatment resistant. All your treatment is not fixing the problem and diminishing their unbearable suffering (it is probably unbearable, why would they go to therapy or for treatment int he first place if their suffering was bearable? People with bearable suffering generally have the more pressing concern of accomplishing things to do with their lives other than therapy, like getting educated, travelling the world and accomplishing things, they don’t have time for therapy, none of us do but if your suffering is painful then people start making time for therapy). If their suffering is unbearable and society has already opened up assisted suicide and euthanasia, then they could be given euthanasia. Euthanasia and fixing the problem in society by killing the victims and disappearing their stories is what I see as very imaginable. I am afraid that if we go down this road this is where we will end up.

Looking at therapy on victims of child abuse, at no point when therapy isn’t working, when medication isn’t working, are practitioners ready to turn back and say, “We are fixing the wrong thing, the problem is in society not in the victims.” Do they ever tell patients, “Well therapy isn’t working, you are only getting worse. You’re not actually sick or the problem to be worked on.Sorry it was wrong to give you therapy. Obviously it doesn’t work you’re not the problem” ? Does a psychiatrist ever turn back from a series of antidepressants that do not work (and probably make the person sicker) and say, “Well we have tried all of them and nothing works. Now that nothing and no antidepressant has works, we will now consider other sources of the problem, we will now look at the problem being outside of you. Probably you are not the problem” ? Do any of these treaters say, “Since no treatment has worked to “fix you” probably you are not the problem to be fixed, and the problem is something else” ? Do therapists ever admit to being wrong ? Do psychiatrists ever admit to being wrong and locating the problem in the person (in chemicals and biology) rather than in society ?

I never see this happening. Why is there is always one more drug and one more therapist and one more treatment option to fix the victim ? When nothing is working to fix the victim, in fact all the treatment methods are clearly beating up the victim and making their pain worse at no point do people turn back and say, “Maybe you aren’t the problem. Let’s go back to the harder and more daunting option of fixing society. The option that we didn’t have the courage to choose in the first place.” When the victim has probably gotten worse and “sicker” and more beaten up from the efforts to fix them then do people then go back and say, “Well this problem was not the victim in the first place, it’s society. This person is really having a normal reaction to awful situations.” It seems it never goes that way. Once you decide to swim downstream instead of upstream because upstream is too untenable, do you ever decide to swim upstream again ? Even in an extreme situation ? You have already decided it’s untenable and too hard, what could possibly make you go back on your decision ?

Once you do not have the courage and capitulate and take the easy way out do you ever go back to the harder way ? (I don’t think that the strength to go with the harder way (maybe through no fault of your own), which you did not have and so chose the easier way, generally ever magically appears out of the blue. I’m not saying a person can’t get this strength but it doesn’t happen randomly out of thin air without some (unlikely) outside intervention or event. If you didn’t have the strength to go down the other road at the beginning, I don’t think that you will randomly get filled with the strength to go down it later). Does the victims getting beaten down further and starting to capitulate even more in self harm encourage you to now have more courage ? It seems to me the opposite. The more the victims are beaten down and made to fix themselves, the more society seems intent on fixing them.

It is very difficult once you have gone down this road of “fixing” the victims and placing the problem with the victims, it’s hard for people to turn back and say that the problem was in society not the victims. Once you start taking the easy way out and you capitulate into taking the “easy way” out, no one wants to go back to the hard way, even when the “easy way” shows time and time again that it isn’t working. Isn’t there another never ending quest to find another easy way because you’ve already decided that doing the hard way and swimming upstream is too hard and out of the question ? This is how it seems to me.

It’s not just that people out of pride might refuse to acknowledge their prior mistakes or not happen upon the courage to do what they should have done in the first place. Could people not go down the easy way out road of treating the victim and then see it’s not working and then stop ? It is also the fact that in seeking “alternative” solutions to the problem of oppression rather than confronting it directly it instils shame for confronting the problem directly in everyone the treaters and society and the victim. It reinforces the hierarchy in everyone. It begets more denial and shame in everyone. I think people go down this road because they are in denial in the first place and the further they go down the road the more wrapped up in denial they get. The more people deny, the more attractive it is to keep denying. When you start denying do you ever intend to stop or to find the truth or find the courage to be truthful spontaneously ? Doesn’t one lie usually just lead to another lie ? It’s unlikely that starting down that road truth is going to happen. It’s unlikely in general that truth will happen randomly but it’s even more unlikely that truth will happen when starting down a road of lies.

The problem with denial is also that it seems to work. (It does disappear the problem in a way). People are confused by their own denial. Why would they deny in the first place if it didn’t work at confusing them ?

Euthanasia is an individualistic solution. It is the final individualistic solution when all the other individualistic solutions have not worked. It is what happens when society and anti oppressive activists have gone down the road of fixing the victims rather than the oppression in society It’s not hard to envision it when after stubbornly resisting fixing the problems in the world, and continually resisting over years as the therapeutic solutions do not work, society then resists fixing the problem collectively even more. If you decided to bury your head in the sand and be in denial in the first place what is to stop you from keeping your head in the sand later even when the consequences are even graver ? It is the end of the road and where we could end up if we start pursuing individualistic solutions to oppression’s toll on people’s mental health. And once we have gone down the road of individualistic solutions rather than societal ones, if the suffering continues I don’t see us stopping until the final individualistic solution. It’s the final part of “fix yourself.” It’s the final part of society has had enough of people’s pain and hearing their stories and now we want to go back to our lives and not have to hear them or know them any more or bother changing the world so we sent them to therapy. Therapy is the first step in erasing people’s stories and saying you don’t want to listen (let a therapist listen but someone, anyone but not me). Euthanasia is also the final step of shutting up people’s stories that you absolute don’t want to hear and have avoided at all costs.

The thought of this makes me sick. Imagining this literally takes a toll on my mental health. This is what could happen if we send the oppressed and horribly abused and beaten down victims to therapy.

(I think that the feeling of fixing the victim is in opposition (and almost like a countercurrent) to the feeling of fixing society. Going with the current in one direction is going opposite the current in the other. I guess you could do both theoretically but I don’t know whether you can in practice, it seems like you would be swimming against yourself and fighting against yourself.)