3 ms·

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

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.
  - cogman10 4y ago
    > Who exactly determines that? Probably an uninterested 3rd party like a doctor with family consent. > How do you know I don't have agency as a potentially dementia-stricken 90 year old? I assume you've never even met someone with dementia. It's beyond obvious. > What if at 91, in my dementia, I say I don't want to die. Fine, revoke the order. However, had you ever met someone with dementia you'd know that's not something they'd come up with. > Who do you go with? You keep trying to make this a "the decision was made years past controlling today" argument, but what you go with is the most recent decision. Even erring on the side of "well, they may or may not be lucid when they rescinded their death wish so just to be safe we won't follow through". > 60-year-old me that you've determined has 'agency'? WTF are you talking about? I never said that "60 year old me has immutable decision making capability!" You keep trying to make that argument, but again, that's a strawman. What decision do you go with? Well, just like DNRs or organ donation, you go with the most recent decision made. Every day you have a "death wish" order you have the option to revoke it, so present day you ALWAYS has the option to revoke it. In otherwords, this isn't a decision controlled by 60 year old you, but instead controlled by the daily choice to keep or eliminate it. In otherwords, 90 yo you with all your faculties by doing nothing continues to approve of the order. If you don't approve of it, you can terminate it at any time. And again, because it is exactly analogous but you continue to dodge answering the question: How do you feel about DNRs? What if the person after an accident changes their minds and they do want medical intervention. What happens? It's a simple answer, medical intervention is given. Strawman: That I'm arguing such directives can't be changed. My argument, that such directives are completely changeable at any point in time. That is the nuance you ignore and avoid with your silly "14-year-old me decision". 14 year old you can decide to be a firefighter, 15 year old you can change that decision. 60 year old you can decide to die if they get dementia, 70 year old you can undo that decision. It's not complicated and we handle this sort of thing all the time in medicine and life.

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.
- cogman10 4y ago
  > Who exactly determines that? Probably an uninterested 3rd party like a doctor with family consent. > How do you know I don't have agency as a potentially dementia-stricken 90 year old? I assume you've never even met someone with dementia. It's beyond obvious. > What if at 91, in my dementia, I say I don't want to die. Fine, revoke the order. However, had you ever met someone with dementia you'd know that's not something they'd come up with. > Who do you go with? You keep trying to make this a "the decision was made years past controlling today" argument, but what you go with is the most recent decision. Even erring on the side of "well, they may or may not be lucid when they rescinded their death wish so just to be safe we won't follow through". > 60-year-old me that you've determined has 'agency'? WTF are you talking about? I never said that "60 year old me has immutable decision making capability!" You keep trying to make that argument, but again, that's a strawman. What decision do you go with? Well, just like DNRs or organ donation, you go with the most recent decision made. Every day you have a "death wish" order you have the option to revoke it, so present day you ALWAYS has the option to revoke it. In otherwords, this isn't a decision controlled by 60 year old you, but instead controlled by the daily choice to keep or eliminate it. In otherwords, 90 yo you with all your faculties by doing nothing continues to approve of the order. If you don't approve of it, you can terminate it at any time. And again, because it is exactly analogous but you continue to dodge answering the question: How do you feel about DNRs? What if the person after an accident changes their minds and they do want medical intervention. What happens? It's a simple answer, medical intervention is given. Strawman: That I'm arguing such directives can't be changed. My argument, that such directives are completely changeable at any point in time. That is the nuance you ignore and avoid with your silly "14-year-old me decision". 14 year old you can decide to be a firefighter, 15 year old you can change that decision. 60 year old you can decide to die if they get dementia, 70 year old you can undo that decision. It's not complicated and we handle this sort of thing all the time in medicine and life.