6 ms·

I think Right-to-die laws increases the pressure on the person to commit suicide, especially in the case of those who want to die to preserve or transfer their

I think Right-to-die laws increases the pressure on the person to commit suicide, especially in the case of those who want to die to preserve or transfer their life-savings. It does not provide protection to an individual who may want to live. Right-to-die laws were primarily conceived to alleviate pain, but it is sad if it would be used for monetary reasons.

noobiemcfoob 10y ago
That's an insightful unintended consequence that I too can unfortunately see playing out all to often. Still, the individual would have to choose suicide, right? They may have pressure on them for the choice from vultures, but it is still their choice. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't see the need for any protection.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > Still, the individual would have to choose suicide, right? Patient: I'm in pain, and need painkillers. Insurance company/state health plan: We'll pay for poison pills, but not painkillers. Patient: … It similar to the way the United States uses highway funds to blackmail the several states into setting a uniform national drinking age.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    One of the "usual" ways assisted dying has been done (illegally) is opiate overdose.
  - marchenko 10y ago
    Exactly. coercion on the part of emotionally uninvested financial stakeholders like insurance companies is a likely end- state.
  - philipkglass 10y ago
    I can't tell if you are serious but strong opioid painkillers are inexpensive to manufacture and many have been out of patent for decades. They're significantly cheaper than e.g. the pentobarbital* that Oregon physicians prescribe for assisted dying. Despite what people on my Facebook feed say, Big Pharma isn't making big money off of any of the old standbys like morphine, oxycodone, hydromorphone, etc. The prices a patient sees are unrepresentative of the actual cost of drugs to health care providers. A few years ago a friend got a shot of hydromorphone in the ER for kidney stone pain and the line item on the bill was like $200. About 1% of that would represent the cost of replenishing the consumed Dilaudid, maybe another 2% for a disposable syringe. As for where the other 97% came from, see: many lengthy tomes about American health care. *Pentobarbital itself is also cheap/easy to manufacture in volume and has been out of patent for a very long time, but nowadays it is a niche drug so the overhead costs are higher.
    - zeveb 10y ago
      Oh sure, the painkillers themselves are cheaper, but the painkillers plus hospital care plus other medicines &c. will not be cheaper than poison (or just a heavy one-time dose of painkillers).
  - flukus 10y ago
    the lesson there is not to get insurance.
- DougN7 10y ago
  Technically it is their choice. But it's easy to imagine coercion. I can only imagine the state someone is in if this is an option for them - they might not be strong enough emotionally to stand up for themselves. I have a very hard time with coming to a conclusion on this one.
hx87 10y ago
> especially in the case of those who want to die to preserve or transfer their life-savings I don't know about you, but I think that that is a valid reason for someone to want to control when they die.
- gknoy 10y ago
  I thought that was something that one can do by putting things in a trust? If it's not your money anymore, what prevents you from passing it on?
  - hx87 10y ago
    Trusts don't protect you and your heirs from the cost of long term care and end of life treatments. I suppose you could put all your wealth in a trust and claim poverty/declare bankruptcy, but that's a very dickish thing to do with respect to society, not to mention your caretakers, and it isn't a widely practical solution.
mikeash 10y ago
Personally, I am not at all worried about being forced into suicide, but I am quite worried about being forced to live in tremendous pain with a terminal disease. Same for friends and family. I understand the worries, but they seem rather unlikely compared to the common reality of long, painful deaths.

noobiemcfoob 10y ago

That's an insightful unintended consequence that I too can unfortunately see playing out all to often. Still, the individual would have to choose suicide, right? They may have pressure on them for the choice from vultures, but it is still their choice. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't see the need for any protection.

zeveb 10y ago
> Still, the individual would have to choose suicide, right? Patient: I'm in pain, and need painkillers. Insurance company/state health plan: We'll pay for poison pills, but not painkillers. Patient: … It similar to the way the United States uses highway funds to blackmail the several states into setting a uniform national drinking age.
- pjc50 10y ago
  One of the "usual" ways assisted dying has been done (illegally) is opiate overdose.
- marchenko 10y ago
  Exactly. coercion on the part of emotionally uninvested financial stakeholders like insurance companies is a likely end- state.
- philipkglass 10y ago
  I can't tell if you are serious but strong opioid painkillers are inexpensive to manufacture and many have been out of patent for decades. They're significantly cheaper than e.g. the pentobarbital* that Oregon physicians prescribe for assisted dying. Despite what people on my Facebook feed say, Big Pharma isn't making big money off of any of the old standbys like morphine, oxycodone, hydromorphone, etc. The prices a patient sees are unrepresentative of the actual cost of drugs to health care providers. A few years ago a friend got a shot of hydromorphone in the ER for kidney stone pain and the line item on the bill was like $200. About 1% of that would represent the cost of replenishing the consumed Dilaudid, maybe another 2% for a disposable syringe. As for where the other 97% came from, see: many lengthy tomes about American health care. *Pentobarbital itself is also cheap/easy to manufacture in volume and has been out of patent for a very long time, but nowadays it is a niche drug so the overhead costs are higher.
  - zeveb 10y ago
    Oh sure, the painkillers themselves are cheaper, but the painkillers plus hospital care plus other medicines &c. will not be cheaper than poison (or just a heavy one-time dose of painkillers).
- flukus 10y ago
  the lesson there is not to get insurance.
DougN7 10y ago
Technically it is their choice. But it's easy to imagine coercion. I can only imagine the state someone is in if this is an option for them - they might not be strong enough emotionally to stand up for themselves. I have a very hard time with coming to a conclusion on this one.

hx87 10y ago

> especially in the case of those who want to die to preserve or transfer their life-savings I don't know about you, but I think that that is a valid reason for someone to want to control when they die.

gknoy 10y ago
I thought that was something that one can do by putting things in a trust? If it's not your money anymore, what prevents you from passing it on?
- hx87 10y ago
  Trusts don't protect you and your heirs from the cost of long term care and end of life treatments. I suppose you could put all your wealth in a trust and claim poverty/declare bankruptcy, but that's a very dickish thing to do with respect to society, not to mention your caretakers, and it isn't a widely practical solution.

mikeash 10y ago

Personally, I am not at all worried about being forced into suicide, but I am quite worried about being forced to live in tremendous pain with a terminal disease. Same for friends and family. I understand the worries, but they seem rather unlikely compared to the common reality of long, painful deaths.