10 ms·

I would phrase this somewhat differently to express the same sentiment: I object to a system in which my dog is practically guaranteed a better end than I am.

ksaj 4y ago
Exactly this. When we do it for our beloved pets, it is compassionate. When we do it for someone who specifically asked for it, under entirely similar conditions? Where is the difference?
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  People are getting hung up on their own issues around mortality, death, and autonomy around euthanasia and projecting onto others. Safeguards are mandatory but so is free will.
- AzzieElbab 4y ago
  Your dog doesn’t have the capacity to enjoy life by simply reading a book or watching grandchildren play.
  - jpambrun 4y ago
    This is not something I would like. I want to be able to choose, for myself, when the enjoyment I get out of life is outweighed by the suffering of illness or other afflictions.
    - AzzieElbab 4y ago
      Me too but what we have here in Canada is the situation where healthcare is denied and delayed. 1500 died in Ontario while waiting for surgeries in 2021 for example. Keep this course until euthanasia becomes preferable option?
      - jpambrun 4y ago
        Euthanasia can be favorable from both the individual and from society's perspective. I see no problem with that. We keep expanding life expectancy without asking ourselves if it's a good or desirable thing. I certainly wasn't asked and would like the option to opt out. I also don't want lack a ressources be put forward as a justification to limit desired euthanasia making forced living even more unbearable..
      - LorenPechtel 4y ago
        Yeah, this is the problem. Euthanasia should be an option when treatment has failed, but the treatment should be tried first. This isn't a problem with euthanasia, it's a problem with the medical system. UHC systems remain popular so long as most people are happy--but most people don't need the expensive, ongoing care and thus it can become pretty poor for the patients that actually need it.
  - prirun 4y ago
    It's your opinion that reading a book and watching grandchildren is enough to make your life enjoyable, which is fine. That doesn't mean it is enough to make my life enjoyable, especially considering whatever difficulties I may be wrestling with, whether medical, emotional, financial, etc. And no, more government resources may not always be able to mitigate my suffering. IMO it is horrible that we require a person to take their own life by violence (which is always allowed and cannot be prevented) rather than helping them take it in an easier way. A personal story: my mother was 74 and developed a respiratory infection overnight. I was with her Friday night watching TV, but Saturday morning she didn't answer the phone. We went to her house and she was too weak to get out of bed and couldn't go to the bathroom. She said she just wanted to stay in bed but my sister talked her into letting us call 911. When they came, they said her oxygen level was 55, and that it would not be unusual for a person to die with that level. She was put on oxygen at the hospital and they took an X-ray to confirm pneumonia. They wanted to do a bunch of tests but she refused. They said without the tests, she would probably die. She was okay with that. Why would a 74-y/o who watched TV with her son the night before want to die? I'll tell you why: she had been in the medical system for the last 40 years with rheumatoid arthritis. She was on a walker because her last hip surgery didn't go well: they told her she would be driving within 2 weeks after the surgery, but instead, she was on a walker the rest of her life because her bones were unable to heal. The hospital said she'd have to drag an oxygen tank around the rest of her life. She could barely get around on a walker, so dragging around a tank would have been impossible. This is just the tip of the iceberg of her daily challenges. I'm sure someone has "solutions" to all of her problems. But just because that would be acceptable to you and make your life worth living doesn't mean it is acceptable to others. Whether a life is worth living is a personal decision: the state or a bunch of "do gooders" cannot make this decision for a person. I'm a firm believer that people should have the right to outline the circumstances ahead of time where they would prefer to die so that in the event they become unable to make this decision, they can die a dignified death. And if they are not incapacitated, people should have the right to make this decision for any reason, just like they can take their life by violence for any reason. I am not opposed to requiring a few counseling sessions to make sure they have considered all their options, but the outcome of counseling should not be used to decide for that person whether they should be allowed to commit suicide in a humane way. A person should always have that right, whether others agree with their decision or not.
  - ksaj 4y ago
    A dog has the capacity to absolutely enjoy life by laying down and napping in front of their favourite dirty tennis ball.
- rnd0 4y ago
  The difference is that your dog isn't a member of a vulnerable population that the government and society has a political, social and economic incentive to kill. Living in the US I can easily imagine our lawmakers and business people reading about this and staring longingly out the window at the homeless camps, wondering how to implement this here. Particularly in Seattle and San Francisco (which are already low-key at "war" with the homeless).
blooalien 4y ago
> "I object to a system in which my dog is practically guaranteed a better end than I am." I would upvote this statement a million times if I could.

ksaj 4y ago

Exactly this. When we do it for our beloved pets, it is compassionate. When we do it for someone who specifically asked for it, under entirely similar conditions? Where is the difference?

toomuchtodo 4y ago
People are getting hung up on their own issues around mortality, death, and autonomy around euthanasia and projecting onto others. Safeguards are mandatory but so is free will.
AzzieElbab 4y ago
Your dog doesn’t have the capacity to enjoy life by simply reading a book or watching grandchildren play.
- jpambrun 4y ago
  This is not something I would like. I want to be able to choose, for myself, when the enjoyment I get out of life is outweighed by the suffering of illness or other afflictions.
  - AzzieElbab 4y ago
    Me too but what we have here in Canada is the situation where healthcare is denied and delayed. 1500 died in Ontario while waiting for surgeries in 2021 for example. Keep this course until euthanasia becomes preferable option?
    - jpambrun 4y ago
      Euthanasia can be favorable from both the individual and from society's perspective. I see no problem with that. We keep expanding life expectancy without asking ourselves if it's a good or desirable thing. I certainly wasn't asked and would like the option to opt out. I also don't want lack a ressources be put forward as a justification to limit desired euthanasia making forced living even more unbearable..
    - LorenPechtel 4y ago
      Yeah, this is the problem. Euthanasia should be an option when treatment has failed, but the treatment should be tried first. This isn't a problem with euthanasia, it's a problem with the medical system. UHC systems remain popular so long as most people are happy--but most people don't need the expensive, ongoing care and thus it can become pretty poor for the patients that actually need it.
- prirun 4y ago
  It's your opinion that reading a book and watching grandchildren is enough to make your life enjoyable, which is fine. That doesn't mean it is enough to make my life enjoyable, especially considering whatever difficulties I may be wrestling with, whether medical, emotional, financial, etc. And no, more government resources may not always be able to mitigate my suffering. IMO it is horrible that we require a person to take their own life by violence (which is always allowed and cannot be prevented) rather than helping them take it in an easier way. A personal story: my mother was 74 and developed a respiratory infection overnight. I was with her Friday night watching TV, but Saturday morning she didn't answer the phone. We went to her house and she was too weak to get out of bed and couldn't go to the bathroom. She said she just wanted to stay in bed but my sister talked her into letting us call 911. When they came, they said her oxygen level was 55, and that it would not be unusual for a person to die with that level. She was put on oxygen at the hospital and they took an X-ray to confirm pneumonia. They wanted to do a bunch of tests but she refused. They said without the tests, she would probably die. She was okay with that. Why would a 74-y/o who watched TV with her son the night before want to die? I'll tell you why: she had been in the medical system for the last 40 years with rheumatoid arthritis. She was on a walker because her last hip surgery didn't go well: they told her she would be driving within 2 weeks after the surgery, but instead, she was on a walker the rest of her life because her bones were unable to heal. The hospital said she'd have to drag an oxygen tank around the rest of her life. She could barely get around on a walker, so dragging around a tank would have been impossible. This is just the tip of the iceberg of her daily challenges. I'm sure someone has "solutions" to all of her problems. But just because that would be acceptable to you and make your life worth living doesn't mean it is acceptable to others. Whether a life is worth living is a personal decision: the state or a bunch of "do gooders" cannot make this decision for a person. I'm a firm believer that people should have the right to outline the circumstances ahead of time where they would prefer to die so that in the event they become unable to make this decision, they can die a dignified death. And if they are not incapacitated, people should have the right to make this decision for any reason, just like they can take their life by violence for any reason. I am not opposed to requiring a few counseling sessions to make sure they have considered all their options, but the outcome of counseling should not be used to decide for that person whether they should be allowed to commit suicide in a humane way. A person should always have that right, whether others agree with their decision or not.
- ksaj 4y ago
  A dog has the capacity to absolutely enjoy life by laying down and napping in front of their favourite dirty tennis ball.
rnd0 4y ago
The difference is that your dog isn't a member of a vulnerable population that the government and society has a political, social and economic incentive to kill. Living in the US I can easily imagine our lawmakers and business people reading about this and staring longingly out the window at the homeless camps, wondering how to implement this here. Particularly in Seattle and San Francisco (which are already low-key at "war" with the homeless).

blooalien 4y ago

> "I object to a system in which my dog is practically guaranteed a better end than I am." I would upvote this statement a million times if I could.