• pimento64@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    2024: “Canada has approved medically assisted death for people who are late on their rent”
    2025: “Canada has approved medically assisted death for unhoused persons”
    2026: “Canada has approved medically assisted death for social parasites the disabled”
    2027: “Canada has approved medically assisted death for adults and children with autism”
    2028: “Canada has approved medically assisted death for those suffering from the effects of institutionalized racism”
    2029: “Canada has approved medically assisted death for any First Nations, black, non-land-owning, or poor people who aren’t already dead yet, and it’s optional through 2030”

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah I support the right to a comfortable death, but there’s a hard line here of only for people who will die in the near future with or without intervention of a disease they’re suffering from a sufficiently advanced case of. And it needs strict controls including oversight by disabled people.

      I’ve watched a person slowly and painfully waste away to a disease. But I’ve also seen people say my life isn’t worth living.

      Choices still matter in drug addiction and it shouldn’t receive the final mercy we may choose to offer to the terminally ill who are unable to even end their own life. If they want to die then they should have to do it themselves without help.

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Now you’re making yourself the arbiter of whose suffering is deserving of relief. Who are you to be the judge?

        • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          The difference is that drug addiction can be cured. Maybe we should try rehab first. If they’re not clean or OD’ed after x number of years ok maybe then. But hell let’s try first.

          • Kepabar@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I still don’t think that answers the question:

            Why should anyone other than yourself be the arbiter of if your life should continue?

            • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Because people under the influence of drugs don’t always make choices that they won’t regret when they’re sober. I have personally witnessed people that wanted to die while fucked up on legally obtained prescription drugs used as directed because the side effects are just that bad. They don’t feel that way once they’re off that shit.

              • Kepabar@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                No one has suggested you would just execute a person on sight while they are under the influence.

                In these situations there are interviews, evaluations and waiting periods to ensure the person is ‘of sound mind’ before proceeding.

                So with that cleared up, I’ll repeat my question.

                Why should you get to be the arbiter of if someone else is allowed to die?

                • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If they’re truely of sound mind then I don’t see a problem with it if they want to take the long night night.

                • Nahdahar@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s the thing though. How could individuals struggling with addiction maintain clear and rational thinking?

          • gregorum@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Drug addiction cannot be cured. For many, it can be successfully treated, but it’s a chronic condition which requires a lifetime of treatment. Results vary widely, as does quality of life for those with addiction.

            And nobody is saying attempts to treat a person’s addiction shouldn’t be tried first.

        • jasory@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nobody is being the judge, the individuals condition is what is preventing them from commiting suicide. And we have no moral obligation to carry out any action someone else wants, including killing them.

          • gregorum@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You are judging these individuals here, based on your morals. This isn’t about your morals, nor is anyone claiming that you are obligated to do anything. If someone else wishes to apply for this program due to their irremediable physical and/or psychological suffering, who are you to say they’re undeserving of the help, especially when it has nothing to do with you?

            • jasory@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              “Judging these individuals here”

              Are you illiterate? Would you like to prove this statement to me?

              “Nobody is claiming that you are obligated”

              One is not obligated, this had nothing to do with me specifically.

              “Who are you to say that they’re undeserving of that help”

              Because there is no obligation to enable an action based on a desire. This is simply you (and others who make this argument) carving out a moral imperative simply because it justifies something you already want (post-hoc justification).

              • gregorum@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Mixing insults with the straw man argument that this has anything to do with morality is a fallacious argument on its face. And feigning ignorance of the meaning of your own words while asserting an intellectual argument is peak mental gymnastics. And I’m not trying to justify anything— it’s you who is trying to justify denying people medically-approved care due to your stated morality and a refusal of some “obligation” that doesn’t actually exist.

                Nobody but you is claiming any “obligation” to anything. This is matter between an individual and their medical providers, not one which involves you in any way. So, once again who are you to judge these people as undeserving of the state’s assistance if their medical providers approve them for it?

                • jasory@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  “That this has anything to do with morality”

                  You literally claimed that people have an inherent right, and even in this comment you are heavily implying that not providing assisted suicide is bad. (Both moral claims. In case you don’t know morality is just a system of determining if something is good or bad).

                  “Nobody but you is claiming any obligation”

                  You are claiming that people have a right to be killed by a second party. That second party therefore has some obligation to fulfill that right.

                  I’m fairly certain that if everyone in the world refused to meet this obligation, you would still object because it violates the subject’s wishes.

                  “I’m not trying to justify anything”

                  Besides of course permitting a second party to kill someone.

                  I’ll accept that I’m trying to justify denying this right to have your desire to die fulfilled (as it simply doesn’t exist for any other action or desire) because that is simply a moral argument, just like you are making moral arguments regardless of whether you are aware of it or not.

                  FYI mixing insults with an argument is not a logical error as commonly claimed. As long as it not part of the premises or reasoning any statement (insult or not) has no effect on the soundness of the argument. Also my argument wasn’t that you made a moral claim, it’s extremely obvious that you did I would never have bothered to point it out. The argument is that you are arguing for second-party homicide (and impermissible act) to be allowed based on some right to have your wishes fulfilled that simply doesn’t exist.

                  • gregorum@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Wow, what a hilarious rant full of outright lies and misinformation. Are you capable of telling the truth, or is your position so weak that you can’t make your point without repeatedly asserting debunked points such as imaginary “obligations” or by ignoring those with irremediable lifelong physical and/or psychological suffering as determined by medical professionals? Because you seem to want to use your own ignorance to judge these people rather than let professionals be the arbiters due to your own twisted morality.

                    It seems that you just want to see people suffer. Once again: who are you to judge whether someone should suffer rather than be deserving of relief? Why do you refuse to answer?

          • gregorum@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Personal insults and accusations without evidence are not an answer to my question, but an evasion.

              • gregorum@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It’s not a complete argument if you’re going to make accusations without evidence. And hurling insults and accusations instead of answering my question is clearly an evasion.

    • Zannsolo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d prefer if it was approved for everybody. Don’t like living, and still feel that way after a mandatory counseling course you should be allowed to choose to end your life in a humane and clean way.

      • Smoogs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        ‘Mandatory counselling course’ sounds like not trying very hard just to rush to the next step. Something hitler would say if he was looking to save on gas.

      • pimento64@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is too dangerous. If it sounds like I’m asking people who want to die to endure more suffering in order to ensure eugenics becomes relegated to the trash heap of history, it’s because I am. I would rather let cancer patients wither away under painkillers than allow the state to use the forces of institutional bigotry to cleanse its undesirables, let alone overt extermination. In the United States, we would look back 20 years from now asking questions about why black people make up 75% of the medical suicides in Mississippi—or gypsies in the UK, or First Nations in Canada, or gays anywhere, or Jews everywhere—and I absolutely believe that no benefit will ever outweigh that, not ever, not even to heat death.

        • patchw3rk@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s as simple as forbidding medical experts from recommending the procedure. Patients can request it on their own accord.

          • pimento64@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            People are forbinned from trading stocks with insider knowledge, too. Tell me exactly what constitutes a recommendation, and I can find you a way to completely flout the rule while obeying the letter of it. I’ll always be able to, you can’t win that arms race.

            • patchw3rk@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What exactly is the motivation to kill people by assisted suicide from the individual doctor? People can do illegal things, you’re right. What is the point of any law with your mentality?

              • pimento64@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s a sophistical argument, I think I’ve made it abundantly clear that the point is potential for abuse, especially passed down from on high such as in the Welles Fargo scandal.