5 ms·
> And even if euthanasia is just that – and Twitter is very proud to toot its horn as the sensitive and sensible, woke platform that clamps down on promotion an
by franciscop 6y ago
> And even if euthanasia is just that – and Twitter is very proud to toot its horn as the sensitive and sensible, woke platform that clamps down on promotion and encouragement of self-harm, including its ultimate form, suicide – the tweet, even though it opposed it, got banned.
This is such an interesting topic, because while euthanasia can be considered a way of suicide, advocating against it can also be considered advocating for painful suicide (since some patients will still suicide, just in a much worse way).
Note that the bar for euthanasia is incredibly difficult - and it should be - in most countries that allow it. A draft to make it legal was approved recently in my home country, Spain, and to apply it you need to do:
Prequisite: have a severe incurable illness.
1. Day 0. First written application.
2. Day 2. Doctor discusses with patient the diagnosis, treatments and their results, and other kind of alternatives.
3. Day 15. Second written application.
4. Day 17. Same as 2, Doctor discusses with patient the diagnosis, treatments and their results, and other kind of alternatives.
5. Day 17. Ask if the patient wants to follow up.
6. Day 27. Doctor consults with a different kind of doctor to approve situation.
7. Day 30. The president of "guarantee and evaluation" of the "state" has to be made aware of this.
8. Day 32. The president designates a doctor and lawyer to verify everything is okay.
9. Day 39. These new doctor + layer present their report.
10. Day 39. The patient signs and chooses modality of death (they can self-administer the substance or have it administer by a nurse).
Note: days here point some times the shortest possible dates, e.g. Day 15 is actually "from 15 days since Day 0" and some times to the longest available "up to 2 days since Day 0".
- modo_mario 6y agoIn Belgium we were one of the earlies to approve it and I think it depends on ones condition (If you're guaranteed dead due to the likes of cancer it changes i think) but I think generally it needs to be judged by a panel of doctors and the person needs to have some consults with a psychiatrist and all in all there needs to be no alternatives for a good life. You won't get approved if you're just depressed.
- tgv 6y agoIn The Netherlands there's the possibility for severe cases of depression, too. "Uitzichtloos lijden" (irremediable suffering ) is the magic phrase, and there is the fear that it could lead to older people deciding to euthanize when living conditions in homes for the elderly would be worsening. Not that that's bound to happen soon, but imagine not being able to tweet about it...
- nightcracker 6y agoI think "Uitzichtloos lijden" is a term more emotionally powerful than "irremediable suffering" makes it seem. Maybe not legally, but in terms of what it conveys. "Uitzicht" is your view on the future. "Uitzichtloos" means your future is empty, have nothing to look forward to. As an adverb for suffering ("lijden") it conveys nothing but endless suffering, without future, without hope.
- 4ggr0 6y agoCould maybe be translated to "Hopeless Suffering", although that doesn't sound as good as the dutch/german version.
- marcus_holmes 6y agoI had a long and interesting conversation with my father about this. He's retired now, but was a family lawyer (solicitor in the UK). He is vehemently opposed to euthanasia purely on the grounds of his experiences with ailing/aging parents and greedy children - he's had clients tidy up their wills, often with their children looking over their shoulders, and then kill themselves to stop "being a burden" on their families. He thinks if euthanasia is legal then this will become more common, no matter the procedural hurdles put in place ("come on Mum, we better get these forms signed before you get more senile and can't sign them. You don't want to be a burden on all of us, do you?"). I'm very much pro-euthanasia, because I don't plan on having any kids and consider the worst of all possible deaths to be gradually losing my mind in assisted housing (well, being eaten by a wild animal holds more terror for me, but the other one is close). Obviously I don't know how enthusiastic I'll be when the time actually comes, but I'm in my 50's and the thought of slipping away painlessly when I think the time is right holds no fear for me at the moment. Religion also plays a part - I'm atheist and so not afraid of losing my place in valhalla because of suicide. Dad's an intellectual Anglican and so suicide is morally less acceptable for him. But this didn't come into the discussion much - he genuinely fears for the consequences if greedy children are allowed to persuade their parents to kill themselves.
- jka 6y agoThis might not advance the state of the discussion any further, but have you and/or your father had the chance to see the film "Knives Out"? It's a mystery/dark comedy, and explores somewhat-related ideas in a good-natured way.
- marcus_holmes 6y agono, I'll check it out, thanks :)
- pas 6y agoHm. How does this work? Isn't the lawyers (and/or notaries) supposed to establish that the person making the will understands its content? How does suicide/euthanasia factor into this at all? If the aging/ailing person feels pressured by their descendants, how does living longer would help them? If they are capable of making/expressing their will aren't they capable of not taking euthanasia? On the other hand if they are incapable of signing a will they are also incapable of requesting euthanasia, right? And even if we simply leave the will part out of this, if they are pressured by "loved ones" to end it with dignity, and they agree, who are we to disagree? If they don't agree then it's a crime to harass someone to death (whatever the method). What am I missing? Could you explain your father's argument? Thanks!
- jkingsbery 6y agoThe offending tweet was arguing against all forms of suicide, assisted or otherwise. I'm trying to understand your point charitably, but it escapes me how arguing against suicide could be interpreted as arguing for suicide. I understand that there's a consequentialist argument ("it is going to happen anyway"), but that seems to accept something as inevitable which is not.
- franciscop 6y agoGoing against legal abortion yields more illegal abortions. Going against legal alcohol yields more illegal alcohol. Going against legal X yields more illegal X. Same concept, going against legal suicide (euthanasia) yields more suicides. Sure overall the number of suicides might go down, maybe even very noticeable, but the quality of care would suffer tremendously. I'm not arguing on suicide vs suicide, but on the quality of it. I believe it's better if N people decide to end their lifes consciously, surrounded by loved ones in a medical facility painlessly than if M people commit suicide alone and ashamed at home.
- f154hfds 6y agoThere are so many things wrong with this reasoning, it's kind of hard to know where to start: 1. Take 'Going against legal X yields more illegal X': This is a meaningless statement. For example, going against legal murder yields more illegal murder. It is a non-statement, tautological. 2. Take a revised and more debatable statement: 'Going against legal X yields more X' (much rarer, but possible, for example cocaine proliferation brought about by prohibiting less damaging drugs). This deserves careful consideration. Do our laws assume from the outset the required enforcement to enable their utility? In some ways yes, in other ways no (for example, our laws shouldn't need to take into account politically motivated lack of enforcement). 3. Even if we say that a particular law leads to _more_ of the exact averse outcome and the legislature should have known the challenges of enforcement - illegal drugs being a good example of this, or illegal immigration, it _still_ doesn't follow in all cases that the answer is to decriminalize. A debate must be had, for sure - and some change is required, but that change may be subtle, enabling better enforcement for example. However, your above logic as it stands is essentially an argument for anarchism, though I'm not sure you intended it that way.
- christophilus 6y ago> advocating against it can also be considered advocating for suicide In the same way that advocating against guns can be considered advocating for switchblades.
- mensetmanusman 6y agoAdvocating for euthanasia is advocating for the government to force doctors to take someone’s life even against the doctor’s will. It’s an interesting form of violence.
- DanBC 6y agoNo it isn't. It's advocating for removing penalities for ending someone's life in certain specific circumstances. Whether doctors make that choice will be up to them.
- mensetmanusman 6y agoIt’s both.
- bonniemuffin 6y agoCan you give an example of a location where euthanasia is mandatory for doctors to perform, if the doctor doesn't want to perform that service?