With the discussion of whether assisted dying should be allowed in Scotland befing brought up again, I was wondering what other people thought of the topic.
Do you think people should be allowed to choose when to end their own life?
What laws need to be put into place to prevent abuses in the system?
How do we account for people changing their mind or mental decline causing people to no longer be able to consent to a procedure they previously requested?
It bothers me that in the U.S., we extend that courtesy to pets who are suffering from terminal issues. But we expect loved ones to hang on and suffer for no real reason other then the vague notion that the imaginary sky man would disapprove.
My grandma passed away 2 months shy of her 101st birthday. I visited her a few weeks before she passed, she was gaunt, skeletal, couldn’t see us and was reacting to hallucination caused by their body slowly shutting down. She didn’t even know my Mom and I were even there, and when we told her her daughter was there to see her, she said “No, I don’t believe it” while staring blanking into the corner of the room. She wasn’t suffering from dementia, it was cancer that came back which was killing her. What reason would we not allow a loved pet to suffer though that, but a blood relative, hell yeah, let them lay and suffer for weeks, months, years.
I don’t have any grand ideas on how to prevent abuse, I just think it’s humane to not let a thinking being suffer needlessly.
It’s the same for the young end of the spectrum, I’ve seen lots of kids and adults who were born with a bad disability to be permanently wheelchair bound unable to care for themselves or even communicate. But “they were breathing on their own when they came out, so we can’t do anything about it now” because sky daddie might be mad
And then ofc the whole stress added onto the parents who will have to primarily care for the child for the rest. Of. Their. Lives.
I think a legitimate concern for that one is what do you define as a disability worth terminating the baby’s life for. Some would likely abuse it for eugenics.
Good investment and R&D for better early pregnancy testing would be a good start, if we can accurately predict disabilities early enough for an abortion it would head off a lot of issues later on
But for post birth disabilities, yea, but it’s hard to even have that conversation because many would just shut the conversation down entirely with “life is life” or some BS like that
If life is life… why do I have to pay a monthly tribute to a labded lord? I thought my life is sacred!
if we can accurately predict disabilities early enough for an abortion it would head off a lot of issues later on
That literally already is eugenics.
And the fact that you consider people advocating that disabled lives have just as much value as abled lives as “BS” tells me you really don’t care, because even if you won’t admit it, you are a eugenicist.^ see, found one already lmao
Yea no, to cross the line into eugenics the state or other authority needs to mandate that X or Y disabilities need to be aborted even over the objections of the parents
Simply giving the parents and their doctors the tools and legalities to detect and come to their own decisions, is not
Agreed!
Not being able to live without any assistance and no hope of improving seems like a reasonable criteria. In fact, with that criteria they can remove the assistance and let the child (or adults) suffocate and die right now, but they can’t use drugs to ease the suffering and speed up the process or it is ‘murder’.
There are many things we can put in place to mitigate the concerns about eugenics, like requiring two doctor’s to agree that it is appropriate in addition to consent of family/guardians/other legally responsible persons.
None of us could live without any assistance.
With minimal reading comprehension you could have inferred that the assistance in the example was breathing for the person since they would suffocate without the assistance.
Im the hopes of avoiding a similar stupid post, that does not mean I think anyone who need needs a machine should die. That was an example of a situation where doctors can currently let a patient die through ‘inaction’ by removing the assistance that is taking care of vital functions like breathing. Think brain dead people or someone whose cancer is so bad that they refuse care that could keep them alive, but have no option to end the suffering faster.
I Would be in favor of assisted dying being introduced for anyone who need it.
No one should be forced to live against their will.
Also its better to let a person die peacefully than having them die in gruesome ways (jumping in front of a car/train, jumping from a building, hanging themselves with family and loved ones having to see them in this state, etc …
Also its better to let a person die peacefully than having them die in gruesome ways
you know what would be even better? Creating a society where millions of people aren’t suffering to the point where they see no other option in the first place.
The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. you could create the society and still give people freedom to decide when to end their lives.
What a great idea! Society should just simply not have any disease! That way there will be no suffering!
Why hasn’t anyone else thought of that???
Absolutely - and not even just terminally ill. We typically recognize when pets are past their meaningful life - once things start getting difficult or painful enough, we let them off. Meanwhile if you have bone cancer and live an eternity of agony every second, “tough shit lol” I guess.
Sometimes you just can’t fix things. Then it gets to be about harm reduction. Flogging someone whose continued existence will only bring them and everyone else pain… seems pretty horrific to me.
I’m strongly in favour of assisted dying. If an animal is too ill and can’t be cured, we do the humane thing and put them down so they don’t suffer. Yet if it’s a human who is terminally ill, you’re just told to suffer. How do animals have more rights than we do in death?
I’ve never understood how it’s considered the “moral choice” from opponents of assisted dying to let people suffer.
We already have it in Switzerland.
I’m all for it. I actually had to promise my mum to off her in case she ever get’s dementia. (She had to care for her own mother with dementia for almost a decade, to the point where everyone in the family was just glad when she finally died).
Get something on paper. I have no idea what the laws are like in Switzerland, but a verbal promise may not be enough.
She already made sort of will for the case when she’s mentally impaired which would give me power over medical decisions (not quite sure what all the proper english terms here are).
Okay, good. I hope you never have to use it, friend!
Yup. On the other side I have a slight feeling she’s actively trying to spare me from it. She’s 60 now and just picked up climbing and caving … and not the “guided tourist” stuff. I think she’s now looking into diving …
That’s awesome! Glad to hear it!
I have no idea about Switzerland, but a lot of these death with dignity laws do not include dementia and the like. You may want to check out what the legal options and realities are.
I’ve watched both of my grandmas head down this same road, preparing for my mom to do the same. It’s absolutely terrifying and I was seriously looking at moving somewhere that would give me the option, only to find it doesn’t exist currently in my country (US).
promise my mum to off her in case she ever [gets] dementia
My dad has what we call a ‘DNR’ order after his time as an EMT prolonging the life of some elderly people who didn’t. He also now has a ‘living will’ after an affliction that will kill him in the next decade and is not feasibly preventable. Before his brain is too far gone from oxygen deprivation and he can’t be judged fit to make the call, he’s got provisions and criteria to end his life. He still had to meet with a psyche to ensure it’s what he wanted, a blessing since a former EMT who’s worked on the Water has more than enough information and no need to ask permission.
We humanely end the suffering of our old cat or dog. Heavens forbid we let grandma go out peacefully. Sorry gramma ya gotta slowly drown in your own blood because I’m afraid of theoretical scenarios in which the government decides to kill everyone.
Any person should have the choice to die at the moment they want with dignity.
If you’ve lived 40 years of a terrible life and want out, you should be able to.
The legislative side of this issue would be a mess, but the work has to start now.
deleted by creator
I didn’t write it in my post, but that’s a 100% correct. Keep the machine running.
Do you think people should be allowed to choose when to end their own life?
People who want to kill themselves will do it without permission.
What assisted dying provides is dignity for the person, and some amount of closure for the family.
I fully support assisted dying, because mandatory suffering is insanely cruel and inhumane.
The bioethicists have ready worked out the kinks of assisted suicide laws and I would defer to them. You don’t offer it to people who cannot make the decision, you make sure people are fit to make the decision before they become too impaired, and you have plenty of checks for elder abuse, family pressure, and so on. Ultimately right now I can choose to end my life and that knowledge has made bearing some really painful medical things much easier.
We can all do things that make us less safe. We can drive, we can eat unhealthy food, we can drink alcohol, we can smoke, we can have unprotected sex, we can go base jumping, and so on. There is a concept called Dignity of Risk, meaning that while we have a duty of care, a responsibility to protect someone, we also have to respect that person enough to let them make choices, including choices we disagree with. If we don’t have this then we treat people as less than human and in the process we are stopping them living the life they want.
If we are going to say life choices should be in your hands then I think death choices should be too.
Yes
Yes
Absolutely. Thankfully we actually have it in the Netherlands, with some restrictions. I.e you do need to be clearly ‘suffering’ for a doctor to agree to it.
Personally though, I think there shouldn’t be any restrictions on this beyond making sure it’s a well articulated wish and not someone just having a bad day.
If say, a healthy 30 year old wants off this ride, they should be allowed to die with dignity at a time and place of their choosing. Nobody asked to be born, so we should at least give them the freedom to choose how they depart this realm.
In my opinion, nobody should disagree with that - it’s not your place to force someone to live if they don’t want to.
Thankfully we actually have it in the Netherlands, with some restrictions. I.e you do need to be clearly ‘suffering’ for a doctor to agree to it.
A judge in a region of Canada just ruled a girl of 27 may under-go Medical Assistance in Dying (aka assisted dying) when the only overt afflictions present are ADHD and Autism.
Are we enabling suicide, or are we merely enabling dignified suicide? When someone chooses to die - 6 times as often for boys - one of two things are gonna happen: they’ll be assisted or they won’t be. The result is the same, but one way has more dignity and less collateral fall-out.
I think we don’t gauge suffering like olympic judges gauge figure skating, and instead we just allow people to choose.
Dying should always be a personal choice, and not even limited by physical or mental health. Other people having a say over it is, imo, evil.
With a waiting period, I think assisted dying should be available for adults in general, regardless of terminal illness.
No one opted in, and at least in my society where we are belligerently unwilling to tangibly help one another, where most are expected to endlessly produce regardless of our wellbeing under threat of homelessness and gruesome death by exposure, and where struggling people are often condemned for being lazy or making bad decisions when they’re already down, it would be a small, efficient mercy to allow a quiet, painless opt out.
We could even have the capitalists run it and charge a small fee since they need to turn everything into a for profit endeavor. Everyone wins.
I was with you until the capitalists part ad that would incentivize abuse and overuse for malicious reasons.
What, don’t you want to pay for an assisted suicide subscription? Look at all the options! We’ve unbundled it so you can get the basic plan with a DIY bottle of Benzos, our mid tier with a caregiver that can assist, and our top tier at our Aid in Dying facility with a nurse on standby. You can even add packages like flowers, snacks for the family, and even carting service to the funeral home. Subscribe now and get 50% off your first death!
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
you have selected slow and horrible
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
jokes on you i prefer invidious
They’re the biggest reason assisted dying would be so popular, regardless of how it was run.
This is their world, and they must benefit to permit something merciful for the people to happen. Their malice is already everywhere, for this to even have a chance of ever existing, they must get their cut, or they wouldn’t let their middle managers in governments pass it. Just the reality.
I was just suggesting a potential offering to the rule makers to make it achievable. They have no kindness or mercy to appeal to, only money.
I live in Oregon in the US and we’ve had it for a number of years. We had to fight hard for that and even so its fraught with BS, but a couple years ago I had a family member make use of it and I was very glad it was available.
The short answer is yes. The longer answer is also yes.
