6 ms·

This is where voluntary euthanasia, as is being practiced in Canada, would be suitable option. I wouldn't want to continue living if I was a burden on society

This is where voluntary euthanasia, as is being practiced in Canada, would be suitable option. I wouldn't want to continue living if I was a burden on society and my family.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
How do you think this would play out systemically? ie: what are the second-order systems-level changes that would occur if it was heterogenously applied?
ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
There are plenty of ways to go peacefully without the help of the state if you feel that way. I wouldn't look at Canada as a role model for euthanasia when not two weeks ago the program was in the news for inappropriately pushing it on vets.
verisimi 4y ago
Just as long as its voluntary... but how can you ever assure that? That there's no coercion, temporary depression, etc. So, you can't assure that... The real question is why are governments so keen to legalise euthanasia? My view is its about population management. It eases the expenses, clears out the dead wood, etc. Governments really do think it is right that they should choose how long their citizens are around for, even if they say otherwise - its about control. I don't even think it's the only strategy they have to manage the population, nor even the most common one.
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  My view is that nobody wants to prosecute someone for helping their terminally ill, seriously suffering parent/child/sister for ending their life.
  - lthornberry 4y ago
    That's not what the Canadian system is, though. The state kills people, and not just the terminally ill. There is lots of room for coercion, and more than a few disabled people have stories of someone trying to persuade them to consider MAiD even though they have never expressed any interest.
    - lazyasciiart 4y ago
      The system having flaws does not make me believe that politicians created it as population management.
cogman10 4y ago
I think the problem is one of consent. I would want to be euthanized if in my old age I lost who I am. That is, severe dementia or Alzheimer's. The moment I can't remember who my kid is, that's when I'd want to be euthanized because at that point, it's a living death. (I saw my mother go through this with her mother). However, at that point, I'll have lost the ability to consent to be euthanized. Heck, I might even fight someone trying to put me down.
- anon291 4y ago
  If I were to apply this notion generally, the results would be absurd. The person who I was at age 14 is dead. The 30-year-old me is someone completely different. 14-year-old me would likely be aghast at the 30-year-old I've become, and would likely declare me insane and probably would have thought it better to die than to become who I am. Yet... here I am. The idea of making such a 'death wish' as a middle age person for your old age seems fine now. But the 80 year old you will be a different person than the 30-year-old, 40-year-old, 50-year-old, 60-year-old, and even 70-year-old you.
  - cogman10 4y ago
    Which is why I did not say you should apply this notion generally. Nor that you should allow a 14 year old make a death wish. There is such a thing as nuance in the world and we can use that to decide when a death wish could be executed. In fact, we already have some limited forms of such death wishes in the form of DNRs. That hasn't caused the extinction of humanity from 14yo fantasies and most people don't see it as some terrible slippery slope. If I had such a directive on myself I could revoke it at 50, 60, 70, or 80 while I still have my faculties. That moots the "I'm a different person" argument. But, I should point out how horrible dementia is. It's a disease with no cure that causes you to be a different person, one with partial memories of the world that is constantly upset and confused because nothing makes sense or lines up. Imagine constantly wandering out into the street trying to head back to your childhood home or trying to find a long dead spouse or childhood friend and wondering why you never see them anymore. Imagine constantly reliving the death of a spouse if someone can't redirect the questioning. Imagine waking up old and not remembering how you aged. Imagine not recognizing yourself in the mirror. Now imagine your child crying at your bedside because you don't remember them. (all stuff that happened to my grandmother). Yup, if I get dementia I'd be a different person, one that is in constant pain and confusion and causes constant pain to the ones I loved the most. I'll choose in that scenario for the rest of my life to be put down (even though I know it's not something I could necessarily choose).
rr888 4y ago
I completely would like the option of voluntary euthanasia myself, but I'm against legalizing it except for people with terminal diseases. Normalizing it puts people in a horrible position. If you're say 70 relatively healthy but maybe partially disabled and needs some care for 10-30 years. Maybe your kids love you but are working and have kids themselves so isn't easy to look after you. How about grandma takes the pill and eases the burden?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- _carbyau_ 4y ago
  Yeah, you can put rules around consent but society will make up it's own "expectations and societal pressures".
- CaptArmchair 4y ago
  I live in a country where this is fully legal for many years now. Access is non-trivial and there's a formal procedure with checks and balances. You don't need to be terminally ill, but you do need 3 doctors to agree that you are in a state where you're suffering can't readily be solved. There are also waiting periods as well as a psychological screening. Afterwards, each case is also reviewed by a national board. Most importantly: even to the very last second, the patient's decision matters and is final. And procedure requires to iterate reminding patient's agency over and over again. Having that moral debate out of the way, far more interesting is that euthanasia only ever has a place in a functioning healthcare system and social security system that puts the person's interests in the center. That is, by the time an elderly person do becomes eligible, it's never because they are a "burden" to their families or society. In fact, it's extended to psychiatric patients as well. People with severe clinical mental illness can be eligible. Paradoxically, it's been observed that a sizable chunk of patients do have the paperwork, but actually don't go through with it. Just the mere thought that it's a non-controversial, accepted option which negates taking matters in your own hands is enough for them to keep going. Again, it's not a "get out of jail free" card. You do need to go through a lengthy procedure with many evaluations, and only after all other options are exhausted, before you become eligible.

This is where voluntary euthanasia, as is being practiced in Canada, would be suitable option. I wouldn't want to continue living if I was a burden on society and my family.

kelseyfrog 4y ago

How do you think this would play out systemically? ie: what are the second-order systems-level changes that would occur if it was heterogenously applied?

ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago

There are plenty of ways to go peacefully without the help of the state if you feel that way. I wouldn't look at Canada as a role model for euthanasia when not two weeks ago the program was in the news for inappropriately pushing it on vets.

verisimi 4y ago

Just as long as its voluntary... but how can you ever assure that? That there's no coercion, temporary depression, etc. So, you can't assure that... The real question is why are governments so keen to legalise euthanasia? My view is its about population management. It eases the expenses, clears out the dead wood, etc. Governments really do think it is right that they should choose how long their citizens are around for, even if they say otherwise - its about control. I don't even think it's the only strategy they have to manage the population, nor even the most common one.

lazyasciiart 4y ago
My view is that nobody wants to prosecute someone for helping their terminally ill, seriously suffering parent/child/sister for ending their life.
- lthornberry 4y ago
  That's not what the Canadian system is, though. The state kills people, and not just the terminally ill. There is lots of room for coercion, and more than a few disabled people have stories of someone trying to persuade them to consider MAiD even though they have never expressed any interest.
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    The system having flaws does not make me believe that politicians created it as population management.

cogman10 4y ago

I think the problem is one of consent. I would want to be euthanized if in my old age I lost who I am. That is, severe dementia or Alzheimer's. The moment I can't remember who my kid is, that's when I'd want to be euthanized because at that point, it's a living death. (I saw my mother go through this with her mother). However, at that point, I'll have lost the ability to consent to be euthanized. Heck, I might even fight someone trying to put me down.

anon291 4y ago
If I were to apply this notion generally, the results would be absurd. The person who I was at age 14 is dead. The 30-year-old me is someone completely different. 14-year-old me would likely be aghast at the 30-year-old I've become, and would likely declare me insane and probably would have thought it better to die than to become who I am. Yet... here I am. The idea of making such a 'death wish' as a middle age person for your old age seems fine now. But the 80 year old you will be a different person than the 30-year-old, 40-year-old, 50-year-old, 60-year-old, and even 70-year-old you.
- cogman10 4y ago
  Which is why I did not say you should apply this notion generally. Nor that you should allow a 14 year old make a death wish. There is such a thing as nuance in the world and we can use that to decide when a death wish could be executed. In fact, we already have some limited forms of such death wishes in the form of DNRs. That hasn't caused the extinction of humanity from 14yo fantasies and most people don't see it as some terrible slippery slope. If I had such a directive on myself I could revoke it at 50, 60, 70, or 80 while I still have my faculties. That moots the "I'm a different person" argument. But, I should point out how horrible dementia is. It's a disease with no cure that causes you to be a different person, one with partial memories of the world that is constantly upset and confused because nothing makes sense or lines up. Imagine constantly wandering out into the street trying to head back to your childhood home or trying to find a long dead spouse or childhood friend and wondering why you never see them anymore. Imagine constantly reliving the death of a spouse if someone can't redirect the questioning. Imagine waking up old and not remembering how you aged. Imagine not recognizing yourself in the mirror. Now imagine your child crying at your bedside because you don't remember them. (all stuff that happened to my grandmother). Yup, if I get dementia I'd be a different person, one that is in constant pain and confusion and causes constant pain to the ones I loved the most. I'll choose in that scenario for the rest of my life to be put down (even though I know it's not something I could necessarily choose).

rr888 4y ago

I completely would like the option of voluntary euthanasia myself, but I'm against legalizing it except for people with terminal diseases. Normalizing it puts people in a horrible position. If you're say 70 relatively healthy but maybe partially disabled and needs some care for 10-30 years. Maybe your kids love you but are working and have kids themselves so isn't easy to look after you. How about grandma takes the pill and eases the burden?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
_carbyau_ 4y ago
Yeah, you can put rules around consent but society will make up it's own "expectations and societal pressures".
CaptArmchair 4y ago
I live in a country where this is fully legal for many years now. Access is non-trivial and there's a formal procedure with checks and balances. You don't need to be terminally ill, but you do need 3 doctors to agree that you are in a state where you're suffering can't readily be solved. There are also waiting periods as well as a psychological screening. Afterwards, each case is also reviewed by a national board. Most importantly: even to the very last second, the patient's decision matters and is final. And procedure requires to iterate reminding patient's agency over and over again. Having that moral debate out of the way, far more interesting is that euthanasia only ever has a place in a functioning healthcare system and social security system that puts the person's interests in the center. That is, by the time an elderly person do becomes eligible, it's never because they are a "burden" to their families or society. In fact, it's extended to psychiatric patients as well. People with severe clinical mental illness can be eligible. Paradoxically, it's been observed that a sizable chunk of patients do have the paperwork, but actually don't go through with it. Just the mere thought that it's a non-controversial, accepted option which negates taking matters in your own hands is enough for them to keep going. Again, it's not a "get out of jail free" card. You do need to go through a lengthy procedure with many evaluations, and only after all other options are exhausted, before you become eligible.