5 ms·

> Today, thousands of people who could live for many years are applying—successfully—to kill themselves. If someone is living in suffering, it is better to giv

> Today, thousands of people who could live for many years are applying—successfully—to kill themselves. If someone is living in suffering, it is better to give them the option to end their life if they want, than to insist that they keep on living just because they “could” continue to live for many years more.

okasaki 4y ago
It's not really clear that that is true. It may be true in some situations, but there's a big cost to having a legal framework where people can choose to die (and who can claim they haven't at some point in their lives?) and others can kill them without punishment (and even get paid to do it)
- mrkeen 4y ago
  If you already have doctors and anaesthesiologists, why would there be excessive costs on the legal side of things? I can only imagine big expenses if there were a lengthy legal battle every time (like death row inmates in the US).
gedy 4y ago
> If someone is living in suffering, it is better to give them the option to end their life if they want, than to insist that they keep on living Problem with statements like that is defining "suffering" such that inappropriate situation like a depressed teenager isn't allowed to happen.
tsimionescu 4y ago
If you read many examples, it would be even better to actually fix the simple causes of their suffering, such as a few hundred dollars per month. This seems like carte blanche to slowly take away all complex social care programs, and just have the resulting suffering people kill themselves.
- aksss 4y ago
  Or just reduce the number of customers. It’s working the demand side of the situation, hence them trumpeting the annual cost savings. Underneath all of this society is messaging that it has too many people, particularly a growing body of people not contributing in a substantial way to the well-being of that society. Some people are worth more dead than alive to government actuaries.
- mrkeen 4y ago
  > it would be even better This is you indirectly imposing your choice onto other people (e.g. you vote for a government which does the imposition on your behalf.) I'm all for social programs (or whatever the equivalent of "few hundred dollars per month is"). But why not let the individual decide on whether to die or not?
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    That's OK, but it should always be treated as a last resort, lest perverse incentives creep in. Ideally, state programs would not see any cost reduction from losing someone to (state-assisted) suicide to avoid such incentives - perhaps they should be forced to continue paying the same amount they would have payed to the living person into some other fund or something of the same kind. No one should be confronted with the choice of whether to take their own life to make things simpler for others - living for your own sake, no matter how much of a burden you may be on others, is a basic right that assisted suicide programs can easily start infringing if not implemented very carefully.
quantified 4y ago
Societally we only value quantity of life. Quality is completely secondary. When you consider that dying of Covid was considered to be a fine sacrifice to make to keep the economy flowing, you realize there isn't really even a principled objection to dying under your own terms.
- prottog 4y ago
  > dying of Covid was considered to be a fine sacrifice to make to keep the economy flowing What you call "the economy" is actually people living normal lives, trying their best to make joy in a finite lifetime. It is exactly quality of life. Covid shutdowns exactly prioritized quantity over quality. If as a society we cannot permit the risk dying of Covid or indeed any other risk in life, we may as well stick people in a pod a la battery cells in The Matrix so that they live maximally safe lives.
  - throwaway049 4y ago
    In a thread about moral choices I think it's notable that some people who wished to isolate and minimize their risk of disease were not financially able to do so. Their choice, though frustrated, would be just as valid as those who preferred to choose to take a risk.
    - SoftTalker 4y ago
      No, a normal life isn't risk-free. If you want to live a maximally safe life by spending it in a cocoon and having others provide what you need, that's on you to pay for.
      - throwaway049 4y ago
        Or to put that another way, other people have to take risks that they are unhappy with in other to satisfy your risk preference and requirement for restaurant service etc.
  - quantified 4y ago
SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
Why, in that framework, should MAiD not be offered to someone in a major depressive episode who genuinely believes that life is pain and they’d like to end it? I understand the intuitive appeal of what you’re saying from a secular perspective, but I don’t see how this could possibly lead to a functional standard beyond a free for all.

okasaki 4y ago

It's not really clear that that is true. It may be true in some situations, but there's a big cost to having a legal framework where people can choose to die (and who can claim they haven't at some point in their lives?) and others can kill them without punishment (and even get paid to do it)

mrkeen 4y ago
If you already have doctors and anaesthesiologists, why would there be excessive costs on the legal side of things? I can only imagine big expenses if there were a lengthy legal battle every time (like death row inmates in the US).

gedy 4y ago

> If someone is living in suffering, it is better to give them the option to end their life if they want, than to insist that they keep on living Problem with statements like that is defining "suffering" such that inappropriate situation like a depressed teenager isn't allowed to happen.

tsimionescu 4y ago

If you read many examples, it would be even better to actually fix the simple causes of their suffering, such as a few hundred dollars per month. This seems like carte blanche to slowly take away all complex social care programs, and just have the resulting suffering people kill themselves.

aksss 4y ago
Or just reduce the number of customers. It’s working the demand side of the situation, hence them trumpeting the annual cost savings. Underneath all of this society is messaging that it has too many people, particularly a growing body of people not contributing in a substantial way to the well-being of that society. Some people are worth more dead than alive to government actuaries.
mrkeen 4y ago
> it would be even better This is you indirectly imposing your choice onto other people (e.g. you vote for a government which does the imposition on your behalf.) I'm all for social programs (or whatever the equivalent of "few hundred dollars per month is"). But why not let the individual decide on whether to die or not?
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  That's OK, but it should always be treated as a last resort, lest perverse incentives creep in. Ideally, state programs would not see any cost reduction from losing someone to (state-assisted) suicide to avoid such incentives - perhaps they should be forced to continue paying the same amount they would have payed to the living person into some other fund or something of the same kind. No one should be confronted with the choice of whether to take their own life to make things simpler for others - living for your own sake, no matter how much of a burden you may be on others, is a basic right that assisted suicide programs can easily start infringing if not implemented very carefully.

quantified 4y ago

Societally we only value quantity of life. Quality is completely secondary. When you consider that dying of Covid was considered to be a fine sacrifice to make to keep the economy flowing, you realize there isn't really even a principled objection to dying under your own terms.

prottog 4y ago
> dying of Covid was considered to be a fine sacrifice to make to keep the economy flowing What you call "the economy" is actually people living normal lives, trying their best to make joy in a finite lifetime. It is exactly quality of life. Covid shutdowns exactly prioritized quantity over quality. If as a society we cannot permit the risk dying of Covid or indeed any other risk in life, we may as well stick people in a pod a la battery cells in The Matrix so that they live maximally safe lives.
- throwaway049 4y ago
  In a thread about moral choices I think it's notable that some people who wished to isolate and minimize their risk of disease were not financially able to do so. Their choice, though frustrated, would be just as valid as those who preferred to choose to take a risk.
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    No, a normal life isn't risk-free. If you want to live a maximally safe life by spending it in a cocoon and having others provide what you need, that's on you to pay for.
    - throwaway049 4y ago
      Or to put that another way, other people have to take risks that they are unhappy with in other to satisfy your risk preference and requirement for restaurant service etc.
- quantified 4y ago

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago

Why, in that framework, should MAiD not be offered to someone in a major depressive episode who genuinely believes that life is pain and they’d like to end it? I understand the intuitive appeal of what you’re saying from a secular perspective, but I don’t see how this could possibly lead to a functional standard beyond a free for all.