4 ms·

The article reads like it is written by someone who does not agree with euthanasia to begin with, and who is trying to use classism as a tactic to quash it. Wh

The article reads like it is written by someone who does not agree with euthanasia to begin with, and who is trying to use classism as a tactic to quash it. While it is interesting to think about how intractible problems for the poor can be minor issues to the rich, and how that affects one's decision to be euthanized, ultimately, it isn't the right to choose to die that should be taken away. There are real cases where euthanasia is a compassionate choice. Outlawing it just forces people to suffer needlessly. The authors appeal that the government is a uncaring cost optimizer pushing death on the poor misses (or misrepresents) the point. The issue isn't euthanasia, it is that living conditions of the poor are untenable. The solution shouldn't be to force them to live a long life through government enforced misery, should it?

barrysteve 4y ago
- davidgrenier 4y ago
  Try steelmaning instead of strawmanning his position next time.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - barrysteve 4y ago
    - dang 4y ago
      If you continue to post abusive comments like this or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32923132 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32923132, we will ban you. Flamewar comments are not ok generally, so please stop posting those. We've already warned you once. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
- mda 4y ago
  Misery can be ameliorated? This actually sounds weird with the unimaginable suffering so many people has to endure without any hope for any improvement.
- JulianChastain 4y ago
  A right to death is not mutually exclusive to aiding the poor/reducing misery. I don't understand your critique about making money at all. I broadly agree with the comment you responded to, and my motivation is purely wanting to leave life on my own terms. It seems strange to accuse the commenter of having some ulterior financial motive. There certainly needs to be provisions preventing marginalized people from being pressured to kill themselves. But this is also not exclusive to a right to death.
  - barrysteve 4y ago
    >I don't understand your critique about making money at all. Because the poor are hounded. Read the article. Then Re-read my comment. This stuff is straight evil. The global north has lost it's mind. >my motivation is purely wanting to leave life on my own terms. "As long as I get mine, it doesn't matter what happens otherwise". People are straight evil.
rini17 4y ago
That's incredibly poor takeaway from the article. I couldn't see how it would be written differently by someone supporting euthanasia - would you be okay with handwaving that despite all these cases of abuse listed, it's all fine? Of course the solution is proper social net.
- gorjusborg 4y ago
  That is a poor takeaway from my comment. > Of course the solution is a proper social net My point exactly. The real issue is not euthanasia, but the author is trying to had to make it seem like it. As for the abuses, of course they should be addressed, directly. Not indirectly by outlawing euthanasia.
  - rini17 4y ago
    But it is nowhere proposing to outlaw euthanasia, do I miss something?
    - gorjusborg 4y ago
      > was forced into euthanasia > applied to die > resorted to euthanasia The article paints euthanasia as a negative. The implication is that it must be solved. Oh, and it recently became legal. What's the obvious solution? The author doesn't write the words 'Outlaw Euthanasia', but do they really need to? For someone making the case for strengthening social support for people who are choosing to die due to poverty, they are focusing on euthanasia a whole lot.
      - rini17 4y ago
        Manipulating or outright coercion of people in dire situation toward euthanasia is abuse, full stop. They could do something else and help them but now that the legal avenue opened, they do this instead. We must not criticize this? Regardless whether euthanasia itself is negative or neutral or positive.
ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
You are misstating the issue, as are most people who talk about euthanasia. It is not a matter of having "the right to die". First of all, we are not talking about just letting people exercise this right by killing themselves, we are talking about suggesting they do and assisting them in the process. It's much less benign. Second, it's not a matter of having the right or not, it's about defining the worth of a human life. We do not as a matter of policy, condone suicide. On the contrary we are invested in keeping people from committing suicide, with suicide hotlines, suicide prevention efforts, mental health initiatives and so on. So it should be self-evident that the crux of the issue is not self-determination, it's categorizing which people should be helped to die and which should be prevented from dying. When you frame it like this, it becomes a much harder question, and it raises some grave concerns with regards to the cultural and institutional value frameworks that will go into making these decisions. No one who has seriously thought about euthanasia is surprised by what is going on in Canada, it's something we've been talking about for years.
- data_maan 4y ago
  This! Right to die != Nudging people to make use of that right.
- gorjusborg 4y ago
  You are doing the same thing the author of the article is doing, trying to pretend there is one issue, combine them all into one, and say, 'look how bad (abortion, ahem, I mean) euthanasia is'. If people are being coerced into dying, that is already illegal under coercion laws. If people are opting into dying rather than live under a dystopian torture chamber, perhaps consider letting them out first? Having the choice of death isn't a real issue here, despite what the article wants you to think.
  - ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
    If you read anything about abortion in my comment I'd really recommend trying to take a few steps back from the red & blue dichotomies because that's properly unhinged. Yes, euthanasia is a two-fold problem and a strong social net would alleviate some of these issues. But that's insufficient for two reasons. First because some of these issues are cultural, e.g the value (or lack thereof) we put on the lives of the elderly and the disabled in the west, which is not solely driven by economic considerations. Second because euthanasia laws are being implemented right now and the social nets are not there, we are not discussing the theory of euthanasia we are talking about what's happening today and in the following decades for other western nations that will put it into effect. This is why we need to discuss the legal framework and its implementation. Euthanizing the poor is not acceptable, I don't think it needs to be said, and the solution is not to deny the problem and say "this is fine because euthanasia is important".
monocultured 4y ago
>The solution shouldn't be to force them to live a long life through government enforced misery, should it? This misrepresents the original article, which argues that the legalizing euthanasia was predicted to cause people who couldn't afford proper care to kill themselves – be it by coercion or choice – a prediction which seemingly has been proven right here. There are no pro/con "right to death" arguments being made in the article, only that these consequences are grim and indeed promotes behaviour of an "uncaring cost optimizer pushing death on the poor".
makeitdouble 4y ago
> The issue isn't euthanasia, it is that living conditions of the poor are untenable. The solution shouldn't be to force them to live a long life through government enforced misery, should it? What about the solution where poor people also have a somewhat liveable life with no government enforced misery ? Should the poor live untenable lives is the fundamental disagreement between you and the author I think.

barrysteve 4y ago

davidgrenier 4y ago
Try steelmaning instead of strawmanning his position next time.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- barrysteve 4y ago
  - dang 4y ago
    If you continue to post abusive comments like this or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32923132 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32923132, we will ban you. Flamewar comments are not ok generally, so please stop posting those. We've already warned you once. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
mda 4y ago
Misery can be ameliorated? This actually sounds weird with the unimaginable suffering so many people has to endure without any hope for any improvement.
JulianChastain 4y ago
A right to death is not mutually exclusive to aiding the poor/reducing misery. I don't understand your critique about making money at all. I broadly agree with the comment you responded to, and my motivation is purely wanting to leave life on my own terms. It seems strange to accuse the commenter of having some ulterior financial motive. There certainly needs to be provisions preventing marginalized people from being pressured to kill themselves. But this is also not exclusive to a right to death.
- barrysteve 4y ago
  >I don't understand your critique about making money at all. Because the poor are hounded. Read the article. Then Re-read my comment. This stuff is straight evil. The global north has lost it's mind. >my motivation is purely wanting to leave life on my own terms. "As long as I get mine, it doesn't matter what happens otherwise". People are straight evil.

rini17 4y ago

That's incredibly poor takeaway from the article. I couldn't see how it would be written differently by someone supporting euthanasia - would you be okay with handwaving that despite all these cases of abuse listed, it's all fine? Of course the solution is proper social net.

gorjusborg 4y ago
That is a poor takeaway from my comment. > Of course the solution is a proper social net My point exactly. The real issue is not euthanasia, but the author is trying to had to make it seem like it. As for the abuses, of course they should be addressed, directly. Not indirectly by outlawing euthanasia.
- rini17 4y ago
  But it is nowhere proposing to outlaw euthanasia, do I miss something?
  - gorjusborg 4y ago
    > was forced into euthanasia > applied to die > resorted to euthanasia The article paints euthanasia as a negative. The implication is that it must be solved. Oh, and it recently became legal. What's the obvious solution? The author doesn't write the words 'Outlaw Euthanasia', but do they really need to? For someone making the case for strengthening social support for people who are choosing to die due to poverty, they are focusing on euthanasia a whole lot.
    - rini17 4y ago
      Manipulating or outright coercion of people in dire situation toward euthanasia is abuse, full stop. They could do something else and help them but now that the legal avenue opened, they do this instead. We must not criticize this? Regardless whether euthanasia itself is negative or neutral or positive.

ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago

You are misstating the issue, as are most people who talk about euthanasia. It is not a matter of having "the right to die". First of all, we are not talking about just letting people exercise this right by killing themselves, we are talking about suggesting they do and assisting them in the process. It's much less benign. Second, it's not a matter of having the right or not, it's about defining the worth of a human life. We do not as a matter of policy, condone suicide. On the contrary we are invested in keeping people from committing suicide, with suicide hotlines, suicide prevention efforts, mental health initiatives and so on. So it should be self-evident that the crux of the issue is not self-determination, it's categorizing which people should be helped to die and which should be prevented from dying. When you frame it like this, it becomes a much harder question, and it raises some grave concerns with regards to the cultural and institutional value frameworks that will go into making these decisions. No one who has seriously thought about euthanasia is surprised by what is going on in Canada, it's something we've been talking about for years.

data_maan 4y ago
This! Right to die != Nudging people to make use of that right.
gorjusborg 4y ago
You are doing the same thing the author of the article is doing, trying to pretend there is one issue, combine them all into one, and say, 'look how bad (abortion, ahem, I mean) euthanasia is'. If people are being coerced into dying, that is already illegal under coercion laws. If people are opting into dying rather than live under a dystopian torture chamber, perhaps consider letting them out first? Having the choice of death isn't a real issue here, despite what the article wants you to think.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
  If you read anything about abortion in my comment I'd really recommend trying to take a few steps back from the red & blue dichotomies because that's properly unhinged. Yes, euthanasia is a two-fold problem and a strong social net would alleviate some of these issues. But that's insufficient for two reasons. First because some of these issues are cultural, e.g the value (or lack thereof) we put on the lives of the elderly and the disabled in the west, which is not solely driven by economic considerations. Second because euthanasia laws are being implemented right now and the social nets are not there, we are not discussing the theory of euthanasia we are talking about what's happening today and in the following decades for other western nations that will put it into effect. This is why we need to discuss the legal framework and its implementation. Euthanizing the poor is not acceptable, I don't think it needs to be said, and the solution is not to deny the problem and say "this is fine because euthanasia is important".

monocultured 4y ago

>The solution shouldn't be to force them to live a long life through government enforced misery, should it? This misrepresents the original article, which argues that the legalizing euthanasia was predicted to cause people who couldn't afford proper care to kill themselves – be it by coercion or choice – a prediction which seemingly has been proven right here. There are no pro/con "right to death" arguments being made in the article, only that these consequences are grim and indeed promotes behaviour of an "uncaring cost optimizer pushing death on the poor".

makeitdouble 4y ago

> The issue isn't euthanasia, it is that living conditions of the poor are untenable. The solution shouldn't be to force them to live a long life through government enforced misery, should it? What about the solution where poor people also have a somewhat liveable life with no government enforced misery ? Should the poor live untenable lives is the fundamental disagreement between you and the author I think.