7 ms·

I’m of the believe that people who are against assisted suicide have never had to provide end of life care to a person who died a painful death, riddled with di

I’m of the believe that people who are against assisted suicide have never had to provide end of life care to a person who died a painful death, riddled with disease and indescribable pain on the way out. Seeing the final days of my grandfathers life, who died of colon cancer, being robbed of his dignity and condemned to suffering for an agonising six months made me a staunch advocate of assisted suicide.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
camdenlock 6y ago
Indeed. In my opinion, opposition to assisted suicide is an actively immoral stance precisely because of this sort of situation. It’s a complex topic, for sure, but also a rather morally clear one.
1123581321 6y ago
Count me as one who has been through the ringer with a family member’s prolonged dying and opposes it.
- riku_iki 6y ago
  What is your reasoning?
  - MichaelMoser123 6y ago
    (someone else answering) my reason for opposing it is that it creates opportunity for abuse, for example like pushing older relatives toward that decission because someone doesn't want to care for them.
    - kungito 6y ago
      So you can think of all the people suffering an inescapable and slow death and you want to force them to have to go through that because you are worried about a case of neglected older people who will get one more of many ways to commit suicide. Do you think those older people aren't talked into other stuff as we speak?
      - MichaelMoser123 6y ago
        no, i am just afraid that this is going to be the common use case. Or that some other opportunity for abuse will be found, it's a very slippery road...
        pdpi 6y ago
        In a weird perverted way, I can see someone preferring assisted suicide over the alternative of being cared for by somebody who'd push you into assisted suicide because they don't want to care for you.
        guareber8 6y ago
        Now reverse it, would you want to force someone you care about to waste their life caring for you without any quality of life? One gives you a choice, the other one doesn't. If you want to prevent abuse, make it difficult in the law. Restrict it to advanced directives, require a psychological assessment, etc.
        pdpi 6y ago
        Sorry, I wasn't clear. The scenario you're describing is the easy one — if I have people who love me enough that they're willing to care for me, I wouldn't feel forced into making this decision and there's no risk of abuse. If anything, I might feel pressured to stick around to avoid hurting them. GP's argument is trickier: Callous family members might want to force me into accepting assisted suicide against my will, because they don't want to care for me. My point was precisely that, in that position, I wouldn't want to be cared for by those callous relatives, and might choose assisted suicide of my own accord anyway.
        knuthsat 6y ago
        Sounds like reasoning out of emotion instead of data. I'd have these fears if countries that already have assisted suicide report that most cases are healthy elderly people deciding to not live anymore. What all the data says is that most of assisted suicide cases are people suffering from horrible incurable diseases.
    - chronofar 6y ago
      This is the same fallacious reasoning people use to advocate many laws, drug prohibition a popular one. For instance people will say if drugs are legal then it opens the door to people being intoxicated while driving or harming someone else in x other way. But of course these are already illegal in of their own. What you’re looking for here is protections of the elderly against abuse via coercion to act counter to their best wishes. This is a separate concern that needs to have laws and parameters around it. Virtually anything can be “an opportunity for abuse.” Look at the internet. That’s not a good reason at all to prevent it, it’s a reason to outlaw and protect against the abuse.
      - MichaelMoser123 6y ago
        i don't think that the drug thing applies here; protecting the live of its citiziens is the most basic function of a state; if there are loopholes here then these loopholes will be exploited. I am afraid it's not the same situation so that your argument doesn't apply.
        sokoloff 6y ago
        Is it protecting/maximizing the duration of life of its citizens or maximizing the freedom of its citizens? Both in isolation seem like laudable aims for the State, but lead us in opposing direction on this issue.
        MichaelMoser123 6y ago
        I am not arguing from a position of principle, my argument is one of computer security; if you got a zero day exploit then that's an invitation for taking advantage of it? Now if you can legally get rid of someone, then that's something similar to a zero day exploit with regards to the principle of having to protect the lives of the states subjects (who are paying taxes exactly for the purpose of upholding this principle).
        sokoloff 6y ago
        Should the state’s citizens (or subjects as you call them) be allowed to run a different OS than the one which the state determines is “the absolutely most secure and therefore state-sanctioned”? If they can’t, do they really own their computer?
    - Accacin 6y ago
      But some countries already have this and there's no evidence of this happening. It's the same thing time and time again, for example, gay marriage, abortion, etc. etc. For some reason we are unable to see outside of our countries where it's successfully implemented, but we'd sure as hell take notice if there was the smallest issue. The fact is for me, I'd rather that it's available and legal for those that want it even if the sad reality is, someone, someday will abuse this.
    - oleander73 6y ago
      People said the same thing here in The Netherlands and research shows it just isn't happening.
  - 1123581321 6y ago
    Several reasons best not discussed here, as evidenced by the other thread. :) I just don’t agree that experience with pain leads to a singular political response and offered myself as a data point, since the GP had no experience with varied political opinions in this area.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bobthechef 6y ago
> I’m of the believe that people who are against assisted suicide have never had to provide end of life care to a person who died a painful death, riddled with disease and indescribable pain on the way out. Then your belief is wrong, and your claim utterly insulting and presumptuous. Having been in that situation, I will flatly reject the idea that somehow suffering robs a person of dignity. If anything, euthanasia is a perfidious assault on the dignity of a human being. The problem is with us and our attitude toward human beings and their suffering. We should do some soul-searching and take a good hard look at what really motivates us to think this way. We might be horrified at what we discover, as we should, and this horror might wake us from our moral slumber. Be glad you didn't have the opportunity to be complicit in your grandfather's suicide and in his murder.
- Orochikaku 6y ago
  I say this genuinely but what the heck are you on about? I'd be gladly complicit.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

camdenlock 6y ago

Indeed. In my opinion, opposition to assisted suicide is an actively immoral stance precisely because of this sort of situation. It’s a complex topic, for sure, but also a rather morally clear one.

1123581321 6y ago

Count me as one who has been through the ringer with a family member’s prolonged dying and opposes it.

riku_iki 6y ago
What is your reasoning?
- MichaelMoser123 6y ago
  (someone else answering) my reason for opposing it is that it creates opportunity for abuse, for example like pushing older relatives toward that decission because someone doesn't want to care for them.
  - kungito 6y ago
    So you can think of all the people suffering an inescapable and slow death and you want to force them to have to go through that because you are worried about a case of neglected older people who will get one more of many ways to commit suicide. Do you think those older people aren't talked into other stuff as we speak?
    - MichaelMoser123 6y ago
      no, i am just afraid that this is going to be the common use case. Or that some other opportunity for abuse will be found, it's a very slippery road...
      - pdpi 6y ago
        In a weird perverted way, I can see someone preferring assisted suicide over the alternative of being cared for by somebody who'd push you into assisted suicide because they don't want to care for you.
        guareber8 6y ago
        Now reverse it, would you want to force someone you care about to waste their life caring for you without any quality of life? One gives you a choice, the other one doesn't. If you want to prevent abuse, make it difficult in the law. Restrict it to advanced directives, require a psychological assessment, etc.
        pdpi 6y ago
        Sorry, I wasn't clear. The scenario you're describing is the easy one — if I have people who love me enough that they're willing to care for me, I wouldn't feel forced into making this decision and there's no risk of abuse. If anything, I might feel pressured to stick around to avoid hurting them. GP's argument is trickier: Callous family members might want to force me into accepting assisted suicide against my will, because they don't want to care for me. My point was precisely that, in that position, I wouldn't want to be cared for by those callous relatives, and might choose assisted suicide of my own accord anyway.
      - knuthsat 6y ago
        Sounds like reasoning out of emotion instead of data. I'd have these fears if countries that already have assisted suicide report that most cases are healthy elderly people deciding to not live anymore. What all the data says is that most of assisted suicide cases are people suffering from horrible incurable diseases.
  - chronofar 6y ago
    This is the same fallacious reasoning people use to advocate many laws, drug prohibition a popular one. For instance people will say if drugs are legal then it opens the door to people being intoxicated while driving or harming someone else in x other way. But of course these are already illegal in of their own. What you’re looking for here is protections of the elderly against abuse via coercion to act counter to their best wishes. This is a separate concern that needs to have laws and parameters around it. Virtually anything can be “an opportunity for abuse.” Look at the internet. That’s not a good reason at all to prevent it, it’s a reason to outlaw and protect against the abuse.
    - MichaelMoser123 6y ago
      i don't think that the drug thing applies here; protecting the live of its citiziens is the most basic function of a state; if there are loopholes here then these loopholes will be exploited. I am afraid it's not the same situation so that your argument doesn't apply.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        Is it protecting/maximizing the duration of life of its citizens or maximizing the freedom of its citizens? Both in isolation seem like laudable aims for the State, but lead us in opposing direction on this issue.
        MichaelMoser123 6y ago
        I am not arguing from a position of principle, my argument is one of computer security; if you got a zero day exploit then that's an invitation for taking advantage of it? Now if you can legally get rid of someone, then that's something similar to a zero day exploit with regards to the principle of having to protect the lives of the states subjects (who are paying taxes exactly for the purpose of upholding this principle).
        sokoloff 6y ago
        Should the state’s citizens (or subjects as you call them) be allowed to run a different OS than the one which the state determines is “the absolutely most secure and therefore state-sanctioned”? If they can’t, do they really own their computer?
  - Accacin 6y ago
    But some countries already have this and there's no evidence of this happening. It's the same thing time and time again, for example, gay marriage, abortion, etc. etc. For some reason we are unable to see outside of our countries where it's successfully implemented, but we'd sure as hell take notice if there was the smallest issue. The fact is for me, I'd rather that it's available and legal for those that want it even if the sad reality is, someone, someday will abuse this.
  - oleander73 6y ago
    People said the same thing here in The Netherlands and research shows it just isn't happening.
- 1123581321 6y ago
  Several reasons best not discussed here, as evidenced by the other thread. :) I just don’t agree that experience with pain leads to a singular political response and offered myself as a data point, since the GP had no experience with varied political opinions in this area.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bobthechef 6y ago

> I’m of the believe that people who are against assisted suicide have never had to provide end of life care to a person who died a painful death, riddled with disease and indescribable pain on the way out. Then your belief is wrong, and your claim utterly insulting and presumptuous. Having been in that situation, I will flatly reject the idea that somehow suffering robs a person of dignity. If anything, euthanasia is a perfidious assault on the dignity of a human being. The problem is with us and our attitude toward human beings and their suffering. We should do some soul-searching and take a good hard look at what really motivates us to think this way. We might be horrified at what we discover, as we should, and this horror might wake us from our moral slumber. Be glad you didn't have the opportunity to be complicit in your grandfather's suicide and in his murder.

Orochikaku 6y ago
I say this genuinely but what the heck are you on about? I'd be gladly complicit.