3 ms·

On top of that, there's no good reason to offer euthanasia to those who are fully capable of killing themselves. If they want to, they can do it. This system i

by mateo1 5y ago

On top of that, there's no good reason to offer euthanasia to those who are fully capable of killing themselves. If they want to, they can do it. This system is going to get abused so much. It's sickening really. And think of all the perverse financial incentives it is creating.

glandium 5y ago
I found this from a quick Google about suicide attempts in Canada: > For every suicide death, there are an estimated 20-25 attempts. So when you say "if they want to, they can do it", the fact is that most people who do, in fact, fail. Not judging whether they should be helped or not.
- mateo1 5y ago
  This way of presenting facts is a bit odd, as it makes it sound like someone will have to try to kill themselves 25 times before they succeed. In reality what this means is that a mere 4%-5% of suicide attempts will actually result in a death. If these people were to go via the official medical route, the percentage would be 100%. Is that a good thing? In my opinion, most of those people don't really want to die, which is part of the reason for the 95% survival rate. They are desperate for something, but that something isn't death. They are very vulnerable and we ought to protect them, not kill them, even if this is what they say and think they want.
  - FrenchAmerican 5y ago
    People attempt suicide but unconsciously don't really want to die, so they choose "inefficient" methods. Therefore they are often qualified as a "call for help", which is disputable. If my memory is right, something like one third of death by guns in the US are suicides. Something like 10,000 deaths per year. Not that using a gun always work, many people survive but disfigured. This is to me an argument strong enough to revoke the 2nd amendment. I'm against the idea of assisted suicide. But our society generates so much mental illness without either trying to solve its cause nor providing a solution to cure it - e.g. a low cost access to psychiatric therapies. So the suffering can be unbearable. The society doesn't care much about homeless veterans wandering the streets with their post-war syndrome. So in the name of what exactly would the society forbid the stop to their suffering to those of the veterans who choose it? They gave their life to the country and are forbidden to a way out? The proper way out is of course an intense therapeutic work and social reinsertion. But if it is not provided, I find it hypocritical to forbid assisted suicide. There is plenty of way to improve the mental health of people, through protective laws and concrete actions: detect abuse on children, abuse at work, reduce inequalities so that life is not so hard for at leafy of the population of this country. Paying for the high cost of metal healthcare can be achieved very easily. Like reducing from 4,000 to 1,000 the number of nuclear bombs. Or set up a few laws forbidding ultra bad food. Fighting obesity has an immense ROI for the health costs. A small percentage of the population has genes that causes a "natural" obesity. Most obese people have just disastrous bad food habits. I'm not shaming them. I consider them being victims of a pandemy. I'm not either "fat-shaming" for how they look. I just want them in better health. So that money is available for mental health for everybody. The steady rise of mental illness is a sign of a very dysfunctional society. So I dislike wholeheartedly the idea of assisted suicide, but l refuse to consider it immoral. The way our society works is what is immoral. The worst hypocrisy of all is that the conservative veto to the aforementioned laws is in total contradiction of the Christian values they pretend to defend. Jesus Christ would vote Bernie. Just read the New Testament if you disagree.

by mateo1 5y ago

glandium 5y ago

I found this from a quick Google about suicide attempts in Canada: > For every suicide death, there are an estimated 20-25 attempts. So when you say "if they want to, they can do it", the fact is that most people who do, in fact, fail. Not judging whether they should be helped or not.

mateo1 5y ago
This way of presenting facts is a bit odd, as it makes it sound like someone will have to try to kill themselves 25 times before they succeed. In reality what this means is that a mere 4%-5% of suicide attempts will actually result in a death. If these people were to go via the official medical route, the percentage would be 100%. Is that a good thing? In my opinion, most of those people don't really want to die, which is part of the reason for the 95% survival rate. They are desperate for something, but that something isn't death. They are very vulnerable and we ought to protect them, not kill them, even if this is what they say and think they want.
- FrenchAmerican 5y ago
  People attempt suicide but unconsciously don't really want to die, so they choose "inefficient" methods. Therefore they are often qualified as a "call for help", which is disputable. If my memory is right, something like one third of death by guns in the US are suicides. Something like 10,000 deaths per year. Not that using a gun always work, many people survive but disfigured. This is to me an argument strong enough to revoke the 2nd amendment. I'm against the idea of assisted suicide. But our society generates so much mental illness without either trying to solve its cause nor providing a solution to cure it - e.g. a low cost access to psychiatric therapies. So the suffering can be unbearable. The society doesn't care much about homeless veterans wandering the streets with their post-war syndrome. So in the name of what exactly would the society forbid the stop to their suffering to those of the veterans who choose it? They gave their life to the country and are forbidden to a way out? The proper way out is of course an intense therapeutic work and social reinsertion. But if it is not provided, I find it hypocritical to forbid assisted suicide. There is plenty of way to improve the mental health of people, through protective laws and concrete actions: detect abuse on children, abuse at work, reduce inequalities so that life is not so hard for at leafy of the population of this country. Paying for the high cost of metal healthcare can be achieved very easily. Like reducing from 4,000 to 1,000 the number of nuclear bombs. Or set up a few laws forbidding ultra bad food. Fighting obesity has an immense ROI for the health costs. A small percentage of the population has genes that causes a "natural" obesity. Most obese people have just disastrous bad food habits. I'm not shaming them. I consider them being victims of a pandemy. I'm not either "fat-shaming" for how they look. I just want them in better health. So that money is available for mental health for everybody. The steady rise of mental illness is a sign of a very dysfunctional society. So I dislike wholeheartedly the idea of assisted suicide, but l refuse to consider it immoral. The way our society works is what is immoral. The worst hypocrisy of all is that the conservative veto to the aforementioned laws is in total contradiction of the Christian values they pretend to defend. Jesus Christ would vote Bernie. Just read the New Testament if you disagree.