11 ms·

The whole argument against MAID feels ridiculously like the anti-abortion position. The other option to providing it is having them end their life in a way that

The whole argument against MAID feels ridiculously like the anti-abortion position. The other option to providing it is having them end their life in a way that might be risky or fail to succeed in a way that leaves them painfully scarred for life or suffering more than they had to. Why are people forced to live if they don't want to?

bjt2n3904 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
bloaf 4y ago
I think it is more analogous to the laws prohibiting people from selling their own organs. The problem isn't that organ transplants are immoral, the problem is that allowing it can create perverse incentives especially for disadvantaged groups. If you squint at MAID one way, you can see all the good it does for people who really need it. If you squint another way, you can see the medical system just killing off the people it failed.
bmelton 4y ago
I am sympathetic to those who wish for assisted suicide to prevent pain for diseases or illnesses they've succumbed to. I agree with your thesis that death may be preferential to suffering, and should be available to those who seek it. On the other hand, there are articles like this[1], wherein the main factor for the requested euthanasia is income. "But until recently, he was able to live comfortably, sharing his modest home in Medicine Hat, Alberta, with his service dog. Changes to his state benefits when he turned 65 in May meant his income was cut and he's now left with around $120 per month after paying for medical bills and essentials." The bogeyman against a state monopoly on medical care has long been that the state will seek cost effectiveness over quality of care, and this adds the additional paranoia of worrying over whether other social safety net programs may lean into the notion that perhaps it isn't as beneficial to fund those who are less productive members of society due to age or inability when it is easier to put them down. I don't have a particular dog in the fight either way, but where I want medical assisted euthanasia to exist as an option against suffering, I have some concern that it could become encouraged for what I consider less appropriate ailments, like poverty. [1] - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11516989/Canadian-man-doctors-approval-euthanasia-despite-admitting-POVERTY-main-factor.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11516989/Canadian-m...
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  When the state pays for your healthcare, your health will never be the top priority.
  - grecy 4y ago
    When a for-profit company pays for your {healthcare, education, prisons} the quality of that service will never be top priority. Profit will. Always. One only needs to look at how high profits are in those sectors in the USA compared to other OECD countries, and then look at the quality of those services compared to other OECD countries. Spolier: Americans pay the most, and get the worst. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/us-healthcare-most-expensive-and-worst-performing/372828/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/us-health...
  - idontwantthis 4y ago
    Is privatization a better alternative then? In the US, private hospitals spent years cutting staff so they were entirely unable to deal with Covid numbers.
    - bhawks 4y ago
      The US Healthcare system is shamelessly intertwined with the state to limit supply and extract rent. Try to open a hospital and you will run into certificate of need laws who's primary objective flys in the face of supply and demand: > A primary objective of state CON laws is to control health care costs by avoiding unnecessary expansion or duplicative services within an area. Or simply try becoming a doctor in America; also known as assuming half a million dollars in debt and 8 years of college education and another 4 years of 'residency' a program where you work yourself to the bone for peanuts. All this courtesy of the professional organizations getting in bed with the state to limit competition and enrich themselves. Let's not even discuss the pharma industry :). Any discussion of bettering healthcare in the US that doesn't take on the rot at the core of the system is dead on arrival. Switching to a public solution tomorrow would just further enrich the cronies at the cost of the general public - and health outcomes would be largely unchanged. https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/con-certificate-of-need-state-laws.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/con-certificate-of-need... https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/why-does-the-us-make-it-so-hard-to-be-a-doctor/622065/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/why-does-t...
dbt00 4y ago
I don't have a problem with people getting MAID, but I do have a problem with medical practitioners pushing it on people who want to live but can't get basic resources to deal with very manageable disabilities.
- kannanvijayan 4y ago
  I have a modest proposal. We ensure that there are thousands more of them, promote them, and ensure that they are rewarded for denying health care to as many people as possible (after collecting money from the victims). We'd need to do a bit of branding on the whole thing, of course. We would first want to ensure that they are not medical professionals making these decisions. "Adjusters" has a nice ring to it. We could build an entire industry out of this. And I think if we did all of that, many people's problems with euthanasia would be ameliorated.
- FpUser 4y ago
  >"but I do have a problem with medical practitioners pushing it on people who want to live but can't get basic resources" Same here. This fucking abomination of a doctor should be screaming bloody hell and knocking on government doors to have them address the problem. Here we are: rich developed democratic country basically telling our poor to go fuck themselves and die.
  - mjjjjjjj 4y ago
    Why aren’t you doing this exact thing?
    - FpUser 4y ago
      And you know this how?
stubish 4y ago
Euthanasia is a decision you will never regret. We force people to live if they don't want to because of other people's feelings. Per the article, 'many people are choosing euthanasia because they’re not getting the “supports and cares” they need.'. On one hand, someone ends their suffering and stops caring about any 'what if' scenarios. On the other hand, a lot of people feel bad and look bad because they were involved in creating and supporting or failing to support the system that failed to provide the support and care the deceased needed. And the surviving friends and relatives who do care about the lost potential.
throwawaymaths 4y ago
There are cases where people do want to live but are counseled into suicide.
- voisin 4y ago
  Being counselled to suicide should be ineffective if they want to live, no? This isn’t a 30 hour police interrogation without food, water, or sleep. Options are presented, and in some cases living with the debilitating sickness is worse than suicide. I think if they want to live, it is likely they want to live if the debilitating illness wasn’t there, but given that fact they choose death.
  - bjt2n3904 4y ago
    - WoodenChair 4y ago
      And the fact that your comment was getting downvoted is also stunning. The lack of empathy in these comment threads is astounding. From the general tone, it feels like there are many people who have never dealt with anyone who is severely depressed and just don't know how on the edge that position really is. It doesn't take much to convince someone who is severely depressed to finish it off. A doctor even bringing up the option may be enough to cause ideation, and yes it's much worse if the suggestion comes from an authority figure or someone who is ostensibly there for "your health."
    - dang 4y ago
      Would you please stop posting ideological flamewar comments to HN, regardless of how right you are or feel you are? You're welcome to be on either side of this issue, but your comments are standing out in this thread as particularly inflammatory and battle-modey. That's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: we've had to warn you about this already more than once, such as here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25787944 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25787944 (Jan 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25201510 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25201510 (Nov 2020) Moreover, it looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle, or perilously close thereto. That's one line at which we ban accounts (see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...). If you'd please stop doing that, we'd appreciate it. We want curious conversation here.
smitty1e 4y ago
> Why are people forced to live if they don't want to? As with abortion, why must I cheerfully pay taxes for policy affecting individuals that's morally objectionable?
- mmastrac 4y ago
  I have bad news for you. You will never gain the ability to pick and choose what your taxes fund, and the other people paying taxes have entirely different sets of important things that they wish to fund, and different sets of things that they are horrified that their taxes are supporting.
  - ArtemZ 4y ago
    I'm actually kind of able to pick where my taxes are going. By moving to other countries. Surely, Canada is not going to be on the list.
    - FpUser 4y ago
      Last time I checked with some exceptions especially for very rich people can't just go and land in a country of their choice. It is a rather long process that often does not lead to desired outcome.
    - labster 4y ago
      Bye Felicia
      - smitty1e 4y ago
        Missing the reference, sorry.
  - smitty1e 4y ago
    Sure, but isn't influencing policy the whole point of the Federalist Scoiety, and a half-century of effort spent to overthrow a pagan, immoral ruling?
  - 4y ago
rayiner 4y ago
> Why are people forced to live if they don't want to? Because we live in a society, not some libertarian utopia of sovereign citizens. Your life doesn’t belong only to yourself, but it belongs to all of us. Your parents, your kids, your friends, your acquaintances. We are all affected by what you do to yourself and, concomitantly, get a say in it.
- mmastrac 4y ago
  Bodily autonomy is not a libertarian -only ideal, and the way you've phrased it comes across as some sort of extreme collectivism. I'm curious if anyone has a name for this philosophy.
  - subradios 4y ago
    Degrees. The reason why abortion and suicide are considered fair game for regulation by some people is that it has potentially drastic impacts on the future of everyone around you and theoretically society as a whole. There is a nanny state to some degree in all societies, and if we are obligated to put cancer warnings on cigarettes I think preventing incentives loops that lead to medically encouraged suicide is also fair game.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    No, your position is extreme individualism. Most societies have taboos on suicide. Attempted suicide was illegal in most of Europe and in America, and is still illegal in many countries ranging from India to Singapore. Assisted suicide remains illegal except in a handful of pathologically individualistic western countries.
- x86x87 4y ago
  hah. no. your life belongs to you. the options to end it on your own terms is IMHO an act of ultimate freedom. the same way where you should be free to do whatever you want as long as your actions don't impair the freedom of someone else.
- ptttr 4y ago
  If a person belongs to the society, then sick, suffering people are not a value but a cost and killing them becomes net gain for society. It's very dangerous to give away body autonomy freedom to the collective as it could be potentially weaponised to target not only sick, old and poor but political opponents as well.

bjt2n3904 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

bloaf 4y ago

I think it is more analogous to the laws prohibiting people from selling their own organs. The problem isn't that organ transplants are immoral, the problem is that allowing it can create perverse incentives especially for disadvantaged groups. If you squint at MAID one way, you can see all the good it does for people who really need it. If you squint another way, you can see the medical system just killing off the people it failed.

bmelton 4y ago

I am sympathetic to those who wish for assisted suicide to prevent pain for diseases or illnesses they've succumbed to. I agree with your thesis that death may be preferential to suffering, and should be available to those who seek it. On the other hand, there are articles like this[1], wherein the main factor for the requested euthanasia is income. "But until recently, he was able to live comfortably, sharing his modest home in Medicine Hat, Alberta, with his service dog. Changes to his state benefits when he turned 65 in May meant his income was cut and he's now left with around $120 per month after paying for medical bills and essentials." The bogeyman against a state monopoly on medical care has long been that the state will seek cost effectiveness over quality of care, and this adds the additional paranoia of worrying over whether other social safety net programs may lean into the notion that perhaps it isn't as beneficial to fund those who are less productive members of society due to age or inability when it is easier to put them down. I don't have a particular dog in the fight either way, but where I want medical assisted euthanasia to exist as an option against suffering, I have some concern that it could become encouraged for what I consider less appropriate ailments, like poverty. [1] - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11516989/Canadian-man-doctors-approval-euthanasia-despite-admitting-POVERTY-main-factor.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11516989/Canadian-m...

nonethewiser 4y ago
When the state pays for your healthcare, your health will never be the top priority.
- grecy 4y ago
  When a for-profit company pays for your {healthcare, education, prisons} the quality of that service will never be top priority. Profit will. Always. One only needs to look at how high profits are in those sectors in the USA compared to other OECD countries, and then look at the quality of those services compared to other OECD countries. Spolier: Americans pay the most, and get the worst. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/us-healthcare-most-expensive-and-worst-performing/372828/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/us-health...
- idontwantthis 4y ago
  Is privatization a better alternative then? In the US, private hospitals spent years cutting staff so they were entirely unable to deal with Covid numbers.
  - bhawks 4y ago
    The US Healthcare system is shamelessly intertwined with the state to limit supply and extract rent. Try to open a hospital and you will run into certificate of need laws who's primary objective flys in the face of supply and demand: > A primary objective of state CON laws is to control health care costs by avoiding unnecessary expansion or duplicative services within an area. Or simply try becoming a doctor in America; also known as assuming half a million dollars in debt and 8 years of college education and another 4 years of 'residency' a program where you work yourself to the bone for peanuts. All this courtesy of the professional organizations getting in bed with the state to limit competition and enrich themselves. Let's not even discuss the pharma industry :). Any discussion of bettering healthcare in the US that doesn't take on the rot at the core of the system is dead on arrival. Switching to a public solution tomorrow would just further enrich the cronies at the cost of the general public - and health outcomes would be largely unchanged. https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/con-certificate-of-need-state-laws.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/con-certificate-of-need... https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/why-does-the-us-make-it-so-hard-to-be-a-doctor/622065/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/why-does-t...

dbt00 4y ago

I don't have a problem with people getting MAID, but I do have a problem with medical practitioners pushing it on people who want to live but can't get basic resources to deal with very manageable disabilities.

kannanvijayan 4y ago
I have a modest proposal. We ensure that there are thousands more of them, promote them, and ensure that they are rewarded for denying health care to as many people as possible (after collecting money from the victims). We'd need to do a bit of branding on the whole thing, of course. We would first want to ensure that they are not medical professionals making these decisions. "Adjusters" has a nice ring to it. We could build an entire industry out of this. And I think if we did all of that, many people's problems with euthanasia would be ameliorated.
FpUser 4y ago
>"but I do have a problem with medical practitioners pushing it on people who want to live but can't get basic resources" Same here. This fucking abomination of a doctor should be screaming bloody hell and knocking on government doors to have them address the problem. Here we are: rich developed democratic country basically telling our poor to go fuck themselves and die.
- mjjjjjjj 4y ago
  Why aren’t you doing this exact thing?
  - FpUser 4y ago
    And you know this how?

stubish 4y ago

Euthanasia is a decision you will never regret. We force people to live if they don't want to because of other people's feelings. Per the article, 'many people are choosing euthanasia because they’re not getting the “supports and cares” they need.'. On one hand, someone ends their suffering and stops caring about any 'what if' scenarios. On the other hand, a lot of people feel bad and look bad because they were involved in creating and supporting or failing to support the system that failed to provide the support and care the deceased needed. And the surviving friends and relatives who do care about the lost potential.

throwawaymaths 4y ago

There are cases where people do want to live but are counseled into suicide.

voisin 4y ago
Being counselled to suicide should be ineffective if they want to live, no? This isn’t a 30 hour police interrogation without food, water, or sleep. Options are presented, and in some cases living with the debilitating sickness is worse than suicide. I think if they want to live, it is likely they want to live if the debilitating illness wasn’t there, but given that fact they choose death.
- bjt2n3904 4y ago
  - WoodenChair 4y ago
    And the fact that your comment was getting downvoted is also stunning. The lack of empathy in these comment threads is astounding. From the general tone, it feels like there are many people who have never dealt with anyone who is severely depressed and just don't know how on the edge that position really is. It doesn't take much to convince someone who is severely depressed to finish it off. A doctor even bringing up the option may be enough to cause ideation, and yes it's much worse if the suggestion comes from an authority figure or someone who is ostensibly there for "your health."
  - dang 4y ago
    Would you please stop posting ideological flamewar comments to HN, regardless of how right you are or feel you are? You're welcome to be on either side of this issue, but your comments are standing out in this thread as particularly inflammatory and battle-modey. That's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: we've had to warn you about this already more than once, such as here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25787944 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25787944 (Jan 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25201510 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25201510 (Nov 2020) Moreover, it looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle, or perilously close thereto. That's one line at which we ban accounts (see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...). If you'd please stop doing that, we'd appreciate it. We want curious conversation here.

smitty1e 4y ago

> Why are people forced to live if they don't want to? As with abortion, why must I cheerfully pay taxes for policy affecting individuals that's morally objectionable?

mmastrac 4y ago
I have bad news for you. You will never gain the ability to pick and choose what your taxes fund, and the other people paying taxes have entirely different sets of important things that they wish to fund, and different sets of things that they are horrified that their taxes are supporting.
- ArtemZ 4y ago
  I'm actually kind of able to pick where my taxes are going. By moving to other countries. Surely, Canada is not going to be on the list.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    Last time I checked with some exceptions especially for very rich people can't just go and land in a country of their choice. It is a rather long process that often does not lead to desired outcome.
  - labster 4y ago
    Bye Felicia
    - smitty1e 4y ago
      Missing the reference, sorry.
- smitty1e 4y ago
  Sure, but isn't influencing policy the whole point of the Federalist Scoiety, and a half-century of effort spent to overthrow a pagan, immoral ruling?
- 4y ago

rayiner 4y ago

> Why are people forced to live if they don't want to? Because we live in a society, not some libertarian utopia of sovereign citizens. Your life doesn’t belong only to yourself, but it belongs to all of us. Your parents, your kids, your friends, your acquaintances. We are all affected by what you do to yourself and, concomitantly, get a say in it.

mmastrac 4y ago
Bodily autonomy is not a libertarian -only ideal, and the way you've phrased it comes across as some sort of extreme collectivism. I'm curious if anyone has a name for this philosophy.
- subradios 4y ago
  Degrees. The reason why abortion and suicide are considered fair game for regulation by some people is that it has potentially drastic impacts on the future of everyone around you and theoretically society as a whole. There is a nanny state to some degree in all societies, and if we are obligated to put cancer warnings on cigarettes I think preventing incentives loops that lead to medically encouraged suicide is also fair game.
- rayiner 4y ago
  No, your position is extreme individualism. Most societies have taboos on suicide. Attempted suicide was illegal in most of Europe and in America, and is still illegal in many countries ranging from India to Singapore. Assisted suicide remains illegal except in a handful of pathologically individualistic western countries.
x86x87 4y ago
hah. no. your life belongs to you. the options to end it on your own terms is IMHO an act of ultimate freedom. the same way where you should be free to do whatever you want as long as your actions don't impair the freedom of someone else.
ptttr 4y ago
If a person belongs to the society, then sick, suffering people are not a value but a cost and killing them becomes net gain for society. It's very dangerous to give away body autonomy freedom to the collective as it could be potentially weaponised to target not only sick, old and poor but political opponents as well.