6 ms·

France starts a debate on legalising assisted dying

46 points by Jimmc414 4y ago

Jimmc414 4y ago
https://archive.vn/runDV https://archive.vn/runDV
drc37 4y ago
'Assisted suicide' I believe is the term.
- soVeryTired 4y ago
  The BMJ draws a distinction between the terms assisted dying, assisted suicide, and euthanasia. It depends on the health of the person dying, and who’s administering the drugs: https://www.bmj.com/assisted-dying https://www.bmj.com/assisted-dying
  - seti0Cha 4y ago
    I understand that assisted suicide is inaccurate, but assisted dying sounds like a too broadly applicable euphemism. We might say we assist criminals on death row with dying, for instance. However, a euphemism is necessary in these circumstances because the obvious non-euphemistic way of expressing it is "killing the patient' or maybe the more gentle "consensual execution."
lp4vn 4y ago
It's a huge mistake the politic polarization and the abstract moral debate that there is over this subject. I see it much more like a matter of a right that's going to concern privately the majority of us in a few decades in the best case. I can't even imagine how hard it must be to have an incurable, debilitating illness and be obliged to endure it without any easy way out.
- pseudo0 4y ago
  An underappreciated side effect of the second amendment is that an awful lot of Americans have an extremely effective means of "assisted dying" at their fingertips. It will be interesting to see how the public debate handles that fact, as currently they are considered gun deaths (bad) rather than morally necessary access to assisted death (in the near future, good?).
  - polski-g 4y ago
    Every country has bridges people can jump off.
    - NeutralForest 4y ago
      There's a big leap between knowing that and actually doing it. People should be able to go as they wish, it's bodily autonomy.
      - masklinn 4y ago
        > There's a big leap between knowing that and actually doing it. Which is mostly a good thing, as it leaves some room for relenting. > People should be able to go as they wish, it's bodily autonomy. There's a difference between being able to go as you wish, and being able to go as an impulse you can't take back.
        NeutralForest 4y ago
        Agreed and if people are able to reach out when they want to end it, it'll help us provide a structure to point people at either mental health resources or genuine end of life care; depending on the situation.
      - cogman10 4y ago
        > People should be able to go as they wish, it's bodily autonomy. Your right to "go how you wish" ends when it impacts others. For example, if you jump off a building there's a good chance you could kill a person you land on. Then there's emotional trama. If you feed yourself to the lions at the zoo, you've harmed the onlookers and likely given people/children PTSD.
paulcole 4y ago
I understand the arguments against legally assisted dying but I strongly believe that any person who asks for assistance in dying should be given it — no qualifications for terminal disease, sound mind/body, etc. Perhaps some qualification like a waiting period in some cases, but I’m not firm in that belief. Those who choose to die should be allowed to make that choice in a way that’s safe, painless, and that minimizes the effects on others as much as is possible.
- spritefs 4y ago
  > Those who choose to die should be allowed to make that choice in a way that’s safe, painless, and that minimizes the effects on others as much as is possible. But should doctors (or anyone else) be allowed to suggest it to patients, and at what point does that suggestion become coercion? Through what means will the patient learn about euthanasia as an option?
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    Through what means would I (as a lay patient) learn about any given medication X or procedure Y? I think my doctor(s) should be able to advise me on any relevant medical matters, not just those that prolong life.
  - paulcole 4y ago
    > But should doctors (or anyone else) be allowed to suggest it to patients Yes > Through what means will the patient learn about euthanasia as an option You’d learn about it because your 90-year old grandpa did it when he got cancer or when your 45-year old aunt did it because she was sick of living. It would just be part of life. > and at what point does that suggestion become coercion? Impossible for me to say for sure. I’d rather there be some cases of coercion than people who want to die being denied the chance.
    - chrisbaker98 4y ago
      > I’d rather there be some cases of coercion than people who want to die being denied the chance. No-one is "denied the chance" to die if they wait long enough and I'd much rather let a few more people die natural deaths if the alternative is coercing people into suicide.
spritefs 4y ago
> But human rights advocates say the country’s regulations lack necessary safeguards, devalue the lives of disabled people and are prompting doctors and health workers to suggest the procedure to those who might not otherwise consider it.[0] My problem with euthanasia is how do you know if the patient actually wanted it, or if they were pressured into it by medical personnel in order to cut costs? In Canada, the health care system is publicly funded. There's an incentive for euthanasia because it cuts costs In the USA, we don't have a public health care system, so there's an incentive to drag people along, run up the bill, and not euthanize them What I find most interesting about this euthanasia thing is I only see it really getting taken seriously in jurisdictions where the health care system is public. If a public healthcare system introduces this nasty dynamic of disabled, debilitated people getting put down "for the public good", I don't want a public health care system [0] https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-toronto-7c631558a457188d2bd2b5cfd360a867 https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-toronto-7c63...
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  There are a few US states with medically assisted suicide options. >My problem with euthanasia is how do you know if the patient actually wanted it, or if they were pressured into it by medical personnel in order to cut costs? It does not take a genius to figure out that expensive end of life care paid with taxpayer funds and the country’s labor resources could instead be going towards things like education or infrastructure. >In the USA, we don't have a public health care system, What is Medicare? Medicaid? Who pays the hospital when someone with no means to pay walks in and EMTALA requires them to receive healthcare?
  - seti0Cha 4y ago
    > It does not take a genius to figure out that expensive end of life care paid with taxpayer funds and the country’s labor resources could instead be going towards things like education or infrastructure. And there are a great many people that cost society more than they're worth, so the potential savings are enormous! I bet we can save even more if we practice selective sterilization.
  - 4y ago
grujicd 4y ago
I immediately remembered one of us, Pieter Hintjens (ZeroMQ) and his “Protocol for dying" http://hintjens.com/blog:115 http://hintjens.com/blog:115 He was lucky to be Belgian resident and thus had a choice to go peacefuly without horrors of those last weeks and days when there’s no hope, just suffering and pain. After seeing how it looks first hand, I think veryone should have an option for euthanasia.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  This is one of those subjects where people have all kinds of fantastic reasons why it should be forbidden until it concerns them or a loved one.
  - chrisbaker98 4y ago
    On the other hand, I have a loved one who struggled with suicidal thoughts for years and told me that if they'd lived somewhere like Switzerland where euthanasia is easily accessible, they would almost certainly have used it. Now they're no longer suicidal and are very happy that they're still alive (as am I!) That's the kind of personal experience that makes me feel much less in favour of legalisation.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      It's not that easily accessible.
      - chrisbaker98 4y ago
        It's accessible in that you don't need to be terminally ill or get your doctor's permission. If you want Dignitas to kill you, they will.
        grujicd 4y ago
        It's very different in Belgium for non-terminal patients, quoting Pieter: "I am, finally, so glad I never quit Belgium. This country allows for death on demand, for patients who are terminal or have a bad enough quality of life. *It takes three doctors and a psychiatrist, in the second case, and four weeks' waiting period.* In the first case, it takes one doctor's opinion."
1letterunixname 4y ago
In the US, "nitrogen homebrewing equipment" is the dual-use dog whistle for AS supplies. Similar to abortion and organ donation, this matter is about body autonomy. It's immoral to force someone to do something they don't want to do.
- chrisbaker98 4y ago
  > It's immoral to force someone to do something they don't want to do. It's trivially easy to think of counterexamples to this statement.
  - simongr3dal 4y ago
    Please present them instead of coming with a (bad-faith) shallow dismissal. I'm sure many here would find value in the perspective, even if only to try and find flaws in the argument.
    - seneca 4y ago
      Using "bad faith" like this destroys any and all meaning in the phrase. It also directly violates the hacker news guide lines.
    - rocket_surgeron 4y ago
      I don't want to not kill you. I don't want to safely dispose of this industrial waste because that is too expensive and time consuming. I don't want to feed my children. I don't want to drive the speed limit. I don't want to pay for that. I don't want limit my amplifier's output to 1500 watts on the amateur radio bands. (edit: 500 watts on HF in France!) I don't want to provide the good or service I have been paid for and I don't want to return the money. I don't want to add to this list anymore....
    - chrisbaker98 4y ago
      The blanket statement is obviously untrue. For example: people are forced to obey the law. But if you only want to talk about suicide: we already "force" suicidal people to stay alive via suicide prevention measures (nets under bridges, restrictions on drug purchases etc.) that make it harder or less convenient to kill yourself. These measures reduce suicide rates and I'd say they're moral. Okay, so what if we're only talking about "assisted" suicide? If someone really wants to die, should we let them? I get where you're coming from, but let's not pretend it's always this simple. Suicidal people aren't famous for thinking rationally, and just because someone says they want to die that doesn't mean we should take it at face value. There are already cases in Canada of people seeking euthanasia not because they're terminally ill but because they're poor, and see suicide as preferable to poverty/homelessness: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-canada-euthanising-the-poor/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-canada-euthanisin... There's the "slippery slope" we were warned about. PS I'm not sure what you think "bad faith" means, but my post was not written in bad faith.
ur-whale 4y ago
https://archive.ph/runDV https://archive.ph/runDV
a_techwriter_00 4y ago
As an example of this, Oregon's had the 'Death With Dignity Act' since 1997. It allows a process for terminally ill people with a prognosis of less than 6 months to live to see a doctor and be prescribed a lethal dose. There are numerous safeguards (you have to ask, wait 15 days, and ask again; the doctor can refer you to psychiatric care if they think your judgment is impaired; and others). The state government of Oregon has a FAQ about the law at: https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/providerpartnerresources/evaluationresearch/deathwithdignityact/pages/faqs.aspx https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/providerpartnerresources/evalu...
prottog 4y ago
I hope they debate a bit more vigorously than they did in Canada, where they no longer require a person to be terminally ill or even be a legal adult.
michaelsbradley 4y ago
There exists in contemporary culture a certain Promethean attitude which leads people to think that they can control life and death by taking the decisions about them into their own hands. What really happens in this case is that the individual is overcome and crushed by a death deprived of any prospect of meaning or hope. We see a tragic expression of all this in the spread of euthanasia-disguised and surreptitious, or practised openly and even legally. As well as for reasons of a misguided pity at the sight of the patient's suffering, euthanasia is sometimes justified by the utilitarian motive of avoiding costs which bring no return and which weigh heavily on society. Thus it is proposed to eliminate malformed babies, the severely handicapped, the disabled, the elderly, especially when they are not self-sufficient, and the terminally ill. Nor can we remain silent in the face of other more furtive, but no less serious and real, forms of euthanasia. These could occur for example when, in order to increase the availability of organs for transplants, organs are removed without respecting objective and adequate criteria which verify the death of the donor. We are in fact faced by an objective "conspiracy against life", involving even international Institutions, engaged in encouraging and carrying out actual campaigns to make contraception, sterilization and abortion widely available. Nor can it be denied that the mass media are often implicated in this conspiracy, by lending credit to that culture which presents recourse to contraception, sterilization, abortion and even euthanasia as a mark of progress and a victory of freedom, while depicting as enemies of freedom and progress those positions which are unreservedly pro-life. The State is no longer the "common home" where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenceless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part. The appearance of the strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when the laws permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result of a ballot in accordance with what are generally seen as the rules of democracy. Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations: "How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations practised: some individuals are held to be deserving of defence and others are denied that dignity?" When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun. To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34). — John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (1995), https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/d...
sschueller 4y ago
In Switzerland we literally have ads hanging in trams for assisted suicide like for the organisation called Exit. Some people are not too happy about it being advertised like that in public [1] since it really is only for people that are suffering or at the end of their life. However assisted suicide is considered a "basic" right and that will not change. [1] https://www.20min.ch/story/exit-wirbt-im-berner-tram-fuer-freitod-pendler-ist-darueber-sprachlos-319577966773 https://www.20min.ch/story/exit-wirbt-im-berner-tram-fuer-fr...
andrewinardeer 4y ago
In my state assisted suicide is legal after check and balances from medical professionals have occurred. There is basically no push back in the wider society on this. For someone who has a long term debilitating disease the right to die with dignity is available. Yet after watching my 99 year old grandmother die last year in the final seven days before she passed it became increasingly obvious she was in significant amount of pain. The assisted suicide laws are irrelevant in this scenario and it became more obvious that giving her a massive dose of morphine to end it all was, in my opinion, the mericful and right course of action to prevent the needless suffering the final five days gave her. Medical professional ethics of course prevented that happening which I thought was borderline cruel. If I am ever in that position I have told my family to give me a 'hot shot' mixed with LSD to make my end of life timeframe as painless as possible. It's a shame that we couldn't have a quiet word with the doctor to over administer medication to her. In the final words she spoke a few days prior to passing she said she just wanted to go.
BrandoElFollito 4y ago
We are a complete and utter failure in that aspect (I am French). We had a law in the 2000's (law Leonetti) which was ridiculously weak. It is now going to take uears and several elections to have progress there. Fortunately we have reasonable neighbors where you are free to dispose of your life. This together with the squatting laws are a disgrace.
AUDDIN123 4y ago
https://krilex.net/invite/213434063 https://krilex.net/invite/213434063

46 points by Jimmc414 4y ago

Jimmc414 4y ago

https://archive.vn/runDV https://archive.vn/runDV

drc37 4y ago

'Assisted suicide' I believe is the term.

soVeryTired 4y ago
The BMJ draws a distinction between the terms assisted dying, assisted suicide, and euthanasia. It depends on the health of the person dying, and who’s administering the drugs: https://www.bmj.com/assisted-dying https://www.bmj.com/assisted-dying
- seti0Cha 4y ago
  I understand that assisted suicide is inaccurate, but assisted dying sounds like a too broadly applicable euphemism. We might say we assist criminals on death row with dying, for instance. However, a euphemism is necessary in these circumstances because the obvious non-euphemistic way of expressing it is "killing the patient' or maybe the more gentle "consensual execution."

lp4vn 4y ago

It's a huge mistake the politic polarization and the abstract moral debate that there is over this subject. I see it much more like a matter of a right that's going to concern privately the majority of us in a few decades in the best case. I can't even imagine how hard it must be to have an incurable, debilitating illness and be obliged to endure it without any easy way out.

pseudo0 4y ago
An underappreciated side effect of the second amendment is that an awful lot of Americans have an extremely effective means of "assisted dying" at their fingertips. It will be interesting to see how the public debate handles that fact, as currently they are considered gun deaths (bad) rather than morally necessary access to assisted death (in the near future, good?).
- polski-g 4y ago
  Every country has bridges people can jump off.
  - NeutralForest 4y ago
    There's a big leap between knowing that and actually doing it. People should be able to go as they wish, it's bodily autonomy.
    - masklinn 4y ago
      > There's a big leap between knowing that and actually doing it. Which is mostly a good thing, as it leaves some room for relenting. > People should be able to go as they wish, it's bodily autonomy. There's a difference between being able to go as you wish, and being able to go as an impulse you can't take back.
      - NeutralForest 4y ago
        Agreed and if people are able to reach out when they want to end it, it'll help us provide a structure to point people at either mental health resources or genuine end of life care; depending on the situation.
    - cogman10 4y ago
      > People should be able to go as they wish, it's bodily autonomy. Your right to "go how you wish" ends when it impacts others. For example, if you jump off a building there's a good chance you could kill a person you land on. Then there's emotional trama. If you feed yourself to the lions at the zoo, you've harmed the onlookers and likely given people/children PTSD.

paulcole 4y ago

I understand the arguments against legally assisted dying but I strongly believe that any person who asks for assistance in dying should be given it — no qualifications for terminal disease, sound mind/body, etc. Perhaps some qualification like a waiting period in some cases, but I’m not firm in that belief. Those who choose to die should be allowed to make that choice in a way that’s safe, painless, and that minimizes the effects on others as much as is possible.

spritefs 4y ago
> Those who choose to die should be allowed to make that choice in a way that’s safe, painless, and that minimizes the effects on others as much as is possible. But should doctors (or anyone else) be allowed to suggest it to patients, and at what point does that suggestion become coercion? Through what means will the patient learn about euthanasia as an option?
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Through what means would I (as a lay patient) learn about any given medication X or procedure Y? I think my doctor(s) should be able to advise me on any relevant medical matters, not just those that prolong life.
- paulcole 4y ago
  > But should doctors (or anyone else) be allowed to suggest it to patients Yes > Through what means will the patient learn about euthanasia as an option You’d learn about it because your 90-year old grandpa did it when he got cancer or when your 45-year old aunt did it because she was sick of living. It would just be part of life. > and at what point does that suggestion become coercion? Impossible for me to say for sure. I’d rather there be some cases of coercion than people who want to die being denied the chance.
  - chrisbaker98 4y ago
    > I’d rather there be some cases of coercion than people who want to die being denied the chance. No-one is "denied the chance" to die if they wait long enough and I'd much rather let a few more people die natural deaths if the alternative is coercing people into suicide.

spritefs 4y ago

> But human rights advocates say the country’s regulations lack necessary safeguards, devalue the lives of disabled people and are prompting doctors and health workers to suggest the procedure to those who might not otherwise consider it.[0] My problem with euthanasia is how do you know if the patient actually wanted it, or if they were pressured into it by medical personnel in order to cut costs? In Canada, the health care system is publicly funded. There's an incentive for euthanasia because it cuts costs In the USA, we don't have a public health care system, so there's an incentive to drag people along, run up the bill, and not euthanize them What I find most interesting about this euthanasia thing is I only see it really getting taken seriously in jurisdictions where the health care system is public. If a public healthcare system introduces this nasty dynamic of disabled, debilitated people getting put down "for the public good", I don't want a public health care system [0] https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-toronto-7c631558a457188d2bd2b5cfd360a867 https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-toronto-7c63...

lotsofpulp 4y ago
There are a few US states with medically assisted suicide options. >My problem with euthanasia is how do you know if the patient actually wanted it, or if they were pressured into it by medical personnel in order to cut costs? It does not take a genius to figure out that expensive end of life care paid with taxpayer funds and the country’s labor resources could instead be going towards things like education or infrastructure. >In the USA, we don't have a public health care system, What is Medicare? Medicaid? Who pays the hospital when someone with no means to pay walks in and EMTALA requires them to receive healthcare?
- seti0Cha 4y ago
  > It does not take a genius to figure out that expensive end of life care paid with taxpayer funds and the country’s labor resources could instead be going towards things like education or infrastructure. And there are a great many people that cost society more than they're worth, so the potential savings are enormous! I bet we can save even more if we practice selective sterilization.
- 4y ago

grujicd 4y ago

I immediately remembered one of us, Pieter Hintjens (ZeroMQ) and his “Protocol for dying" http://hintjens.com/blog:115 http://hintjens.com/blog:115 He was lucky to be Belgian resident and thus had a choice to go peacefuly without horrors of those last weeks and days when there’s no hope, just suffering and pain. After seeing how it looks first hand, I think veryone should have an option for euthanasia.

jacquesm 4y ago
This is one of those subjects where people have all kinds of fantastic reasons why it should be forbidden until it concerns them or a loved one.
- chrisbaker98 4y ago
  On the other hand, I have a loved one who struggled with suicidal thoughts for years and told me that if they'd lived somewhere like Switzerland where euthanasia is easily accessible, they would almost certainly have used it. Now they're no longer suicidal and are very happy that they're still alive (as am I!) That's the kind of personal experience that makes me feel much less in favour of legalisation.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    It's not that easily accessible.
    - chrisbaker98 4y ago
      It's accessible in that you don't need to be terminally ill or get your doctor's permission. If you want Dignitas to kill you, they will.
      - grujicd 4y ago
        It's very different in Belgium for non-terminal patients, quoting Pieter: "I am, finally, so glad I never quit Belgium. This country allows for death on demand, for patients who are terminal or have a bad enough quality of life. *It takes three doctors and a psychiatrist, in the second case, and four weeks' waiting period.* In the first case, it takes one doctor's opinion."

1letterunixname 4y ago

In the US, "nitrogen homebrewing equipment" is the dual-use dog whistle for AS supplies. Similar to abortion and organ donation, this matter is about body autonomy. It's immoral to force someone to do something they don't want to do.

chrisbaker98 4y ago
> It's immoral to force someone to do something they don't want to do. It's trivially easy to think of counterexamples to this statement.
- simongr3dal 4y ago
  Please present them instead of coming with a (bad-faith) shallow dismissal. I'm sure many here would find value in the perspective, even if only to try and find flaws in the argument.
  - seneca 4y ago
    Using "bad faith" like this destroys any and all meaning in the phrase. It also directly violates the hacker news guide lines.
  - rocket_surgeron 4y ago
    I don't want to not kill you. I don't want to safely dispose of this industrial waste because that is too expensive and time consuming. I don't want to feed my children. I don't want to drive the speed limit. I don't want to pay for that. I don't want limit my amplifier's output to 1500 watts on the amateur radio bands. (edit: 500 watts on HF in France!) I don't want to provide the good or service I have been paid for and I don't want to return the money. I don't want to add to this list anymore....
  - chrisbaker98 4y ago
    The blanket statement is obviously untrue. For example: people are forced to obey the law. But if you only want to talk about suicide: we already "force" suicidal people to stay alive via suicide prevention measures (nets under bridges, restrictions on drug purchases etc.) that make it harder or less convenient to kill yourself. These measures reduce suicide rates and I'd say they're moral. Okay, so what if we're only talking about "assisted" suicide? If someone really wants to die, should we let them? I get where you're coming from, but let's not pretend it's always this simple. Suicidal people aren't famous for thinking rationally, and just because someone says they want to die that doesn't mean we should take it at face value. There are already cases in Canada of people seeking euthanasia not because they're terminally ill but because they're poor, and see suicide as preferable to poverty/homelessness: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-canada-euthanising-the-poor/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-canada-euthanisin... There's the "slippery slope" we were warned about. PS I'm not sure what you think "bad faith" means, but my post was not written in bad faith.

ur-whale 4y ago

https://archive.ph/runDV https://archive.ph/runDV

a_techwriter_00 4y ago

As an example of this, Oregon's had the 'Death With Dignity Act' since 1997. It allows a process for terminally ill people with a prognosis of less than 6 months to live to see a doctor and be prescribed a lethal dose. There are numerous safeguards (you have to ask, wait 15 days, and ask again; the doctor can refer you to psychiatric care if they think your judgment is impaired; and others). The state government of Oregon has a FAQ about the law at: https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/providerpartnerresources/evaluationresearch/deathwithdignityact/pages/faqs.aspx https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/providerpartnerresources/evalu...

prottog 4y ago

I hope they debate a bit more vigorously than they did in Canada, where they no longer require a person to be terminally ill or even be a legal adult.

michaelsbradley 4y ago

There exists in contemporary culture a certain Promethean attitude which leads people to think that they can control life and death by taking the decisions about them into their own hands. What really happens in this case is that the individual is overcome and crushed by a death deprived of any prospect of meaning or hope. We see a tragic expression of all this in the spread of euthanasia-disguised and surreptitious, or practised openly and even legally. As well as for reasons of a misguided pity at the sight of the patient's suffering, euthanasia is sometimes justified by the utilitarian motive of avoiding costs which bring no return and which weigh heavily on society. Thus it is proposed to eliminate malformed babies, the severely handicapped, the disabled, the elderly, especially when they are not self-sufficient, and the terminally ill. Nor can we remain silent in the face of other more furtive, but no less serious and real, forms of euthanasia. These could occur for example when, in order to increase the availability of organs for transplants, organs are removed without respecting objective and adequate criteria which verify the death of the donor. We are in fact faced by an objective "conspiracy against life", involving even international Institutions, engaged in encouraging and carrying out actual campaigns to make contraception, sterilization and abortion widely available. Nor can it be denied that the mass media are often implicated in this conspiracy, by lending credit to that culture which presents recourse to contraception, sterilization, abortion and even euthanasia as a mark of progress and a victory of freedom, while depicting as enemies of freedom and progress those positions which are unreservedly pro-life. The State is no longer the "common home" where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenceless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part. The appearance of the strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when the laws permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result of a ballot in accordance with what are generally seen as the rules of democracy. Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations: "How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations practised: some individuals are held to be deserving of defence and others are denied that dignity?" When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun. To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34). — John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (1995), https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/d...

sschueller 4y ago

In Switzerland we literally have ads hanging in trams for assisted suicide like for the organisation called Exit. Some people are not too happy about it being advertised like that in public [1] since it really is only for people that are suffering or at the end of their life. However assisted suicide is considered a "basic" right and that will not change. [1] https://www.20min.ch/story/exit-wirbt-im-berner-tram-fuer-freitod-pendler-ist-darueber-sprachlos-319577966773 https://www.20min.ch/story/exit-wirbt-im-berner-tram-fuer-fr...

andrewinardeer 4y ago

In my state assisted suicide is legal after check and balances from medical professionals have occurred. There is basically no push back in the wider society on this. For someone who has a long term debilitating disease the right to die with dignity is available. Yet after watching my 99 year old grandmother die last year in the final seven days before she passed it became increasingly obvious she was in significant amount of pain. The assisted suicide laws are irrelevant in this scenario and it became more obvious that giving her a massive dose of morphine to end it all was, in my opinion, the mericful and right course of action to prevent the needless suffering the final five days gave her. Medical professional ethics of course prevented that happening which I thought was borderline cruel. If I am ever in that position I have told my family to give me a 'hot shot' mixed with LSD to make my end of life timeframe as painless as possible. It's a shame that we couldn't have a quiet word with the doctor to over administer medication to her. In the final words she spoke a few days prior to passing she said she just wanted to go.

BrandoElFollito 4y ago

We are a complete and utter failure in that aspect (I am French). We had a law in the 2000's (law Leonetti) which was ridiculously weak. It is now going to take uears and several elections to have progress there. Fortunately we have reasonable neighbors where you are free to dispose of your life. This together with the squatting laws are a disgrace.

AUDDIN123 4y ago

https://krilex.net/invite/213434063 https://krilex.net/invite/213434063