4 ms·

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 p

by 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.

by rr888 4y ago

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.