3 ms·

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 differen

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).
- anon291 4y ago
  No my question is 'how do you determine if you have your faculties?' For a variety of reasons I won't go into, 14- year old anon291 would think 30-year-old anon291 had lost his mind and was speaking gibberish... From my own perspective 16 years ago I'd be incapable of making decisions.
  - cogman10 4y ago
    > 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.
    - anon291 4y ago
      My point is that you are unnecessarily biased towards the choice of wanting to die, whereas the choice of remaining to live is also one, and people change their minds.
      - cogman10 4y ago
        Where did I say this would be a final choice? Where did I say this was something someone couldn't change their minds about? Your point lacks nuance. How would you address DNRs? Do you think they are wrong? Why or why not?
        anon291 4y ago
        Your point also lacks nuance. You claim there is some point at which people become incapable of making decisions, and then, without acknowledging the possibility of agency to potentially euthanise them. That point also lacks nuance. You claim I want to force people to live, but you seem to want to force people to die based on decisions they made prior to whatever point you deem as them losing agency. You said: > I would want to be euthanized if in my old age I lost who I am. I pointed out that, from my perspective 15 years ago, the man I am today has 'lost who I was'. Thus, if I were to apply this generally, 14-year-old me should probably want to kill myself. Now, perhaps at age 60 I say 'I want to die if I lose myself'. But then, as dementia sets in (if that happens, most old people do not necessarily experience it). Who exactly determines that? How do you know I don't have agency as a potentially dementia-stricken 90 year old? What if at 91, in my dementia, I say I don't want to die. Who do you go with? 60-year-old me that you've determined has 'agency'? Or the person standing in front of you, who may have changed his mind.
jelliclesfarm 4y ago
The problem with this kind of thinking is that even though it sounds benign, it takes away agency from individuals. It translates to: “We are all free to make decisions for ourselves, but not “you”..and not “that”..” At the end of the day, we can only live our lives. And can’t control others. We have to be consistent when it comes to the definition of ‘free’. It is not dissimilar to the idea of children choosing gender transition. Do I have an opinion? Yes. Does it matter? No. Ditto with reproductive rights. We have to define ‘freedom’ and stick to that definition. “My body, my choice” should fit to all bodies.
- anon291 4y ago
  You cannot pretend decisions made about yourself twenty, ten, or even a year ago, being made to apply to you today give you full 'agency'. That's my point
  - jelliclesfarm 4y ago
    Perhaps make it valid for only one year or a limited period or make it conditional. We do it for interest rates. I am sure we can do it for termination of life itself. It is an easy problem to resolve. If living is pain, physically or mentally..let them go. It is an act of compassion. We do it for animals all the time. Suffering is suffering.
    - anon291 4y ago
      > It is an easy problem to resolve. No it's not, and these sorts of reductive absolute statements completely turn me off against allowing any kind of euthanasia. This is an incredibly difficult problem that causes us to question the existence and causes of free will.
      - jelliclesfarm 4y ago
        Why does it turn you off? Because Freedom is a turn off? If freedom to make decisions about one’s own body is conditional, then it’s not ‘Freedom’. There ought to be another word for it.

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).

anon291 4y ago
No my question is 'how do you determine if you have your faculties?' For a variety of reasons I won't go into, 14- year old anon291 would think 30-year-old anon291 had lost his mind and was speaking gibberish... From my own perspective 16 years ago I'd be incapable of making decisions.
- cogman10 4y ago
  > 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.
  - anon291 4y ago
    My point is that you are unnecessarily biased towards the choice of wanting to die, whereas the choice of remaining to live is also one, and people change their minds.
    - cogman10 4y ago
      Where did I say this would be a final choice? Where did I say this was something someone couldn't change their minds about? Your point lacks nuance. How would you address DNRs? Do you think they are wrong? Why or why not?
      - anon291 4y ago
        Your point also lacks nuance. You claim there is some point at which people become incapable of making decisions, and then, without acknowledging the possibility of agency to potentially euthanise them. That point also lacks nuance. You claim I want to force people to live, but you seem to want to force people to die based on decisions they made prior to whatever point you deem as them losing agency. You said: > I would want to be euthanized if in my old age I lost who I am. I pointed out that, from my perspective 15 years ago, the man I am today has 'lost who I was'. Thus, if I were to apply this generally, 14-year-old me should probably want to kill myself. Now, perhaps at age 60 I say 'I want to die if I lose myself'. But then, as dementia sets in (if that happens, most old people do not necessarily experience it). Who exactly determines that? How do you know I don't have agency as a potentially dementia-stricken 90 year old? What if at 91, in my dementia, I say I don't want to die. Who do you go with? 60-year-old me that you've determined has 'agency'? Or the person standing in front of you, who may have changed his mind.

jelliclesfarm 4y ago

The problem with this kind of thinking is that even though it sounds benign, it takes away agency from individuals. It translates to: “We are all free to make decisions for ourselves, but not “you”..and not “that”..” At the end of the day, we can only live our lives. And can’t control others. We have to be consistent when it comes to the definition of ‘free’. It is not dissimilar to the idea of children choosing gender transition. Do I have an opinion? Yes. Does it matter? No. Ditto with reproductive rights. We have to define ‘freedom’ and stick to that definition. “My body, my choice” should fit to all bodies.

anon291 4y ago
You cannot pretend decisions made about yourself twenty, ten, or even a year ago, being made to apply to you today give you full 'agency'. That's my point
- jelliclesfarm 4y ago
  Perhaps make it valid for only one year or a limited period or make it conditional. We do it for interest rates. I am sure we can do it for termination of life itself. It is an easy problem to resolve. If living is pain, physically or mentally..let them go. It is an act of compassion. We do it for animals all the time. Suffering is suffering.
  - anon291 4y ago
    > It is an easy problem to resolve. No it's not, and these sorts of reductive absolute statements completely turn me off against allowing any kind of euthanasia. This is an incredibly difficult problem that causes us to question the existence and causes of free will.
    - jelliclesfarm 4y ago
      Why does it turn you off? Because Freedom is a turn off? If freedom to make decisions about one’s own body is conditional, then it’s not ‘Freedom’. There ought to be another word for it.