3 ms·

I 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 t

I 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 ago
This 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 ago
  no, I'll check it out, thanks :)
pas 6y ago
Hm. 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!
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  > if they are pressured by "loved ones" to end it with dignity, and they agree, who are we to disagree? Well, my Dad for one ;) Family dynamics can get very ugly. If a family is emotionally manipulating any of its members into committing suicide, he feels that is wrong. I tend to agree, this feels wrong to me, even if everyone involved is saying that they're happy with it. At the moment, all of this behaviour is legal, right up until the parent commits suicide. There's nothing the lawyer can do because there's no expressed intention to commit suicide (just the repeated "I don't want to be a burden" I guess - I'm never witnessed this myself). I think we could incorporate language into a Euthanasia bill to cope with this situation better than it is currently, but Dad disagrees, citing his experience of how manipulative families can get. To summarise his view: families can be evil to each other. Some families already manipulate aging parents into suicide, which is wrong and should be opposed. Making assisted suicide legal and giving it a framework will encourage it, and any procedural hurdles won't stop that.
  - pas 6y ago
    > Family dynamics can get very ugly. Yeah, no questions about that. Ah, okay, thanks for the explanation. Yeah, I understand this argument. Emotional abuse, exploitation of vulnerable groups (from elderly, minors, to folks with disabilities, homeless, unemployed, persecuted minorities, etc. etc, alas the list goes on for long) is already a problem, and in many jurisdictions it's already pushed back against. I think protective care would help more if it were independent of euthanasia, because it would mean that if the manipulated relatives find out they have been manipulated and then change their minds about euthanasia then they don't have to go back to their manipulative relatives. (Duh, I know, but this catch-22 problem is very endemic in a lot of public "safety net" setups.) > Making assisted suicide legal and giving it a framework will encourage it, and any procedural hurdles won't stop that. It meaning manipulating others into it? Yes, that's probably tautologically true. But, that's the plan, to make it easier anyway, as it should decrease suicides, and even more importantly it should decrease time spent in misery and suffering. (And as I mentioned pushing back against exploitation should be a priority anyway.)

jka 6y ago

This 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 ago
no, I'll check it out, thanks :)

pas 6y ago

Hm. 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!

marcus_holmes 6y ago
> if they are pressured by "loved ones" to end it with dignity, and they agree, who are we to disagree? Well, my Dad for one ;) Family dynamics can get very ugly. If a family is emotionally manipulating any of its members into committing suicide, he feels that is wrong. I tend to agree, this feels wrong to me, even if everyone involved is saying that they're happy with it. At the moment, all of this behaviour is legal, right up until the parent commits suicide. There's nothing the lawyer can do because there's no expressed intention to commit suicide (just the repeated "I don't want to be a burden" I guess - I'm never witnessed this myself). I think we could incorporate language into a Euthanasia bill to cope with this situation better than it is currently, but Dad disagrees, citing his experience of how manipulative families can get. To summarise his view: families can be evil to each other. Some families already manipulate aging parents into suicide, which is wrong and should be opposed. Making assisted suicide legal and giving it a framework will encourage it, and any procedural hurdles won't stop that.
- pas 6y ago
  > Family dynamics can get very ugly. Yeah, no questions about that. Ah, okay, thanks for the explanation. Yeah, I understand this argument. Emotional abuse, exploitation of vulnerable groups (from elderly, minors, to folks with disabilities, homeless, unemployed, persecuted minorities, etc. etc, alas the list goes on for long) is already a problem, and in many jurisdictions it's already pushed back against. I think protective care would help more if it were independent of euthanasia, because it would mean that if the manipulated relatives find out they have been manipulated and then change their minds about euthanasia then they don't have to go back to their manipulative relatives. (Duh, I know, but this catch-22 problem is very endemic in a lot of public "safety net" setups.) > Making assisted suicide legal and giving it a framework will encourage it, and any procedural hurdles won't stop that. It meaning manipulating others into it? Yes, that's probably tautologically true. But, that's the plan, to make it easier anyway, as it should decrease suicides, and even more importantly it should decrease time spent in misery and suffering. (And as I mentioned pushing back against exploitation should be a priority anyway.)