4 ms·

It's pretty obvious to me most people debating how unethical euthanasia is have no exposure to needlessly prolonged suffering or just favor dogmatic cruelty ove

by fsloth 10y ago

It's pretty obvious to me most people debating how unethical euthanasia is have no exposure to needlessly prolonged suffering or just favor dogmatic cruelty over humane treatment of people. The kind of folks who think mother Theresa was a saint with her horror houses of suffering.

wtracy 10y ago
It amazes me how many people will favor putting a suffering animal out of its misery, then fight tooth and nail against offering that same mercy to their fellow human beings.
- yourapostasy 10y ago
  In many cases, it's social virtue signalling, with no real sapience behind the actions. See how virtuous I am empathizing with lower-order animals' suffering. See how virtuous I am championing the sanctity of human life. A lot of the latter can be mitigated: make those who want human life preserved "at all costs" pay cash-over-the-barrel into that "at all costs" effort, on an individual basis. Voluntary, elective euthanasia becomes an option when no one steps up to pay for the extraordinary efforts. They either withdraw their opinion immediately when they can no longer externalize their social virtue signalling choice's costs onto everyone else, or they go broke very soon and those who are suffering can make a free choice. Or we can pursue the sane choice and legislate elective assisted euthanasia with safeguards like Switzerland's or other rationally-chosen parameters. It is long past time to recognize that our medical technology has far outstripped our ability to reliably deliver an acceptably high quality of life.
  - fsloth 10y ago
    "Voluntary, elective euthanasia becomes an option when no one steps up to pay for the extraordinary efforts." Generally euthanasia is considered an ethical option when medicine can't help anymore, and any prolonging of life would either be useless (patient is braindead) or unable to mitigate the pain of the patient. Personally I think bringing economics in wil obfuscate the moral discussion.
    - yourapostasy 10y ago
      In the US, officially-sanctioned euthanasia that I was personally acquainted with in a hospice took the form of death by dehydration and starvation. Both are barbaric, considered war crimes in a different context. In the case I was personally acquainted with, asphyxiation by rapid flooding of CO2 into the patient's airspace was prohibited.
- ams6110 10y ago
  It's because (correctly, in my view) we value human life more than animal life. Killing an animal in a humane way is not morally wrong; killing a human usually is.
nommm-nommm 10y ago
Some of the biggest critics of euthanasia are the disabled.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  For example: http://notdeadyet.com http://notdeadyet.com https://dredf.org/assisted_suicide/assistedsuicide.html https://dredf.org/assisted_suicide/assistedsuicide.html http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/disability-rights-assisted-suicide-california/397235/ http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/disability...
  - nommm-nommm 10y ago
    Doh. That meant to be http://notdeadyet.org http://notdeadyet.org not .com
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  There's an unsettling undercurrent of thought in the disabled community: "What if society decides I'm more trouble than I'm worth?" Some of their opposition to legalized euthanasia probably comes from that, and some from religious motivation. Obviously neither justification is valid as a basis for making laws that apply to us all, but on the other hand, how do you tell them their concerns aren't worth listening to? Some cultures have practiced selective involuntary euthanasia in the recent past, so you can't say "It'll never happen."
  - norea-armozel 10y ago
    The fact that some doctors will readily offer it is also a concern. Without strict oversight to ensure patients aren't unduly affected by medical professionals in their choice is something that bothers me greatly. I'm all for euthanasia but it must be done in a way where the patient is of sound mind and knows there's alternatives to it like assisted living if the condition itself isn't fatal.

by fsloth 10y ago

wtracy 10y ago

It amazes me how many people will favor putting a suffering animal out of its misery, then fight tooth and nail against offering that same mercy to their fellow human beings.

yourapostasy 10y ago
In many cases, it's social virtue signalling, with no real sapience behind the actions. See how virtuous I am empathizing with lower-order animals' suffering. See how virtuous I am championing the sanctity of human life. A lot of the latter can be mitigated: make those who want human life preserved "at all costs" pay cash-over-the-barrel into that "at all costs" effort, on an individual basis. Voluntary, elective euthanasia becomes an option when no one steps up to pay for the extraordinary efforts. They either withdraw their opinion immediately when they can no longer externalize their social virtue signalling choice's costs onto everyone else, or they go broke very soon and those who are suffering can make a free choice. Or we can pursue the sane choice and legislate elective assisted euthanasia with safeguards like Switzerland's or other rationally-chosen parameters. It is long past time to recognize that our medical technology has far outstripped our ability to reliably deliver an acceptably high quality of life.
- fsloth 10y ago
  "Voluntary, elective euthanasia becomes an option when no one steps up to pay for the extraordinary efforts." Generally euthanasia is considered an ethical option when medicine can't help anymore, and any prolonging of life would either be useless (patient is braindead) or unable to mitigate the pain of the patient. Personally I think bringing economics in wil obfuscate the moral discussion.
  - yourapostasy 10y ago
    In the US, officially-sanctioned euthanasia that I was personally acquainted with in a hospice took the form of death by dehydration and starvation. Both are barbaric, considered war crimes in a different context. In the case I was personally acquainted with, asphyxiation by rapid flooding of CO2 into the patient's airspace was prohibited.
ams6110 10y ago
It's because (correctly, in my view) we value human life more than animal life. Killing an animal in a humane way is not morally wrong; killing a human usually is.

nommm-nommm 10y ago

Some of the biggest critics of euthanasia are the disabled.

nommm-nommm 10y ago
For example: http://notdeadyet.com http://notdeadyet.com https://dredf.org/assisted_suicide/assistedsuicide.html https://dredf.org/assisted_suicide/assistedsuicide.html http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/disability-rights-assisted-suicide-california/397235/ http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/disability...
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  Doh. That meant to be http://notdeadyet.org http://notdeadyet.org not .com
CamperBob2 10y ago
There's an unsettling undercurrent of thought in the disabled community: "What if society decides I'm more trouble than I'm worth?" Some of their opposition to legalized euthanasia probably comes from that, and some from religious motivation. Obviously neither justification is valid as a basis for making laws that apply to us all, but on the other hand, how do you tell them their concerns aren't worth listening to? Some cultures have practiced selective involuntary euthanasia in the recent past, so you can't say "It'll never happen."
- norea-armozel 10y ago
  The fact that some doctors will readily offer it is also a concern. Without strict oversight to ensure patients aren't unduly affected by medical professionals in their choice is something that bothers me greatly. I'm all for euthanasia but it must be done in a way where the patient is of sound mind and knows there's alternatives to it like assisted living if the condition itself isn't fatal.