3 ms·

It is very dishonest to frame it as the suggestion that "your family members should get a lethal injection like the USA gives to criminals", as it strongly impl

It is very dishonest to frame it as the suggestion that "your family members should get a lethal injection like the USA gives to criminals", as it strongly implies a lack of agency and consent on their part. What's happening here, to put it in the same terms, is that "your family members should be allowed to choose to be administered a lethal injection, like the ones that are given to criminals in the USA, as a medical procedure, if and only if a doctor determines that this is a reasonable way to put an end to their physical or mental suffering". Turns out it's not really that shocking and horrifying unless you choose to be dishonest about it.

1123581321 4y ago
Perhaps ask why the doctor shouldn’t react with horror at being asked to consider proactively ending someone’s life the way we kill criminals, if the family is a stumbling block. (I realize by positioning “determines that this is a reasonable way to put an end to their physical or mental suffering” as the greatest and only consideration, you have a prior commitment to ending the lives of others when you like the sound of it. I will still try, though.)
- sdiacom 4y ago
  The doctor should not react with horror in any case, because the doctor is a medical professional, not a paid actor in a pro-life advertisement, and I would certainly hope for him to behave as such. I'm not sure what your fixation with how criminals die is about -- there is no "nice" way to die, just more painful and less painful ones, more prolonged and less prolonged ones. Euthanasia gives us a choice that, speaking purely of the physical experience, is on the often-preferred end of the spectrum. The doctor should consider it to be an acceptable measure under a limited set of circumstances, and should consider it not to be acceptable in almost all other circumstances. In all cases, the decision is only to be taken by the person whose life is going to end. All the doctor can do is authorize or deny that decision, never to make it on their behalf. Family should often be consulted by the doctor in order to make that decision in an informed manner, but family doesn't get a vote. Your family does not own you or your body. I don't have any prior commitment to "ending the lives of others", and to say so is to willfully misinterpret what I have said to an absurd extreme. My only commitment is to others, and myself, being able to decide how to end our own lives, and no one else's lives but our own, in a dignified manner, when our very existence entails suffering. It does not matter whether I "like the sound of it" or not. I am not currently seeking euthanasia, and I am not a doctor for someone who is, so rest assured that nobody is asking for my opinion. What matters is if the person whose life is going to end does, given that they are of sound mind to make such a judgement. I'm glad you will still try. We should always try to make others' lives better, to provide better lives instead of easier deaths. But sometimes we won't be able to.
  - barry-cotter 4y ago
    > The doctor should not react with horror in any case, because the doctor is a medical professional, not a paid actor in a pro-life advertisement, and I would certainly hope for him to behave as such. Indeed, and in 1910 progressives were saying similar things about sterilising the feeble minded. This is why the education system is so important. If you control the education system you get to decide what a professional should think. If there are professionals who disagree there’s always disbarment.
    - sdiacom 4y ago
      A key distinction, though, between euthanasia and forced sterilisation or eugenics, is consent. The latter are, almost always, decisions taken or considered based on the externalities -- they're not done for the benefit of the person that the procedure is applied to. While a dystopian society could consider choosing to kill people based on their externalities (such as, for example, as we currently do by putting criminals in death row) advocates of assisted suicide put the wishes of the person undergoing the procedure first and foremost. Euthanasia should never be something that is done to you without your explicit, self-driven, sound-of-mind consent. And indeed, morality judgements are always influenced by the context of their time. Eugenics was a somewhat popular idea around that time, but it's important to note that this does not mean that early 20th century people were less moral than we are. Families required the labor of all of their members to survive, and an unproductive member of the family that required extensive care carried a very clear cost in opportunity and quality of life to the family, often one that permanently impacted the life of the mother. It was seen as a moral good to somehow use science to figure out a way to "spare" families, and especially women, from what was seen as an arbitrary misfortune, an "act of god". One of the reasons why eugenics is not nearly as popular today is that society takes on a more collective approach to supporting and caring for disabled people. While there's still a long, long way to go, there are schools for children with special needs, there are disability payments, there are ways through which society organizes to help those who care for others, alternatives to what was often a very tough choice for mothers, between abandonment, murder or misery. Eugenics didn't change. Morality didn't change. Society changed, and in doing so, it shifted the balance, and it is no longer seen as the moral choice to engineer humanity so that Jerry doesn't exist, because the alternative to that no longer is to make his mother's life untenable. By having better options, we are enabled to make better choices.

1123581321 4y ago

Perhaps ask why the doctor shouldn’t react with horror at being asked to consider proactively ending someone’s life the way we kill criminals, if the family is a stumbling block. (I realize by positioning “determines that this is a reasonable way to put an end to their physical or mental suffering” as the greatest and only consideration, you have a prior commitment to ending the lives of others when you like the sound of it. I will still try, though.)

sdiacom 4y ago
The doctor should not react with horror in any case, because the doctor is a medical professional, not a paid actor in a pro-life advertisement, and I would certainly hope for him to behave as such. I'm not sure what your fixation with how criminals die is about -- there is no "nice" way to die, just more painful and less painful ones, more prolonged and less prolonged ones. Euthanasia gives us a choice that, speaking purely of the physical experience, is on the often-preferred end of the spectrum. The doctor should consider it to be an acceptable measure under a limited set of circumstances, and should consider it not to be acceptable in almost all other circumstances. In all cases, the decision is only to be taken by the person whose life is going to end. All the doctor can do is authorize or deny that decision, never to make it on their behalf. Family should often be consulted by the doctor in order to make that decision in an informed manner, but family doesn't get a vote. Your family does not own you or your body. I don't have any prior commitment to "ending the lives of others", and to say so is to willfully misinterpret what I have said to an absurd extreme. My only commitment is to others, and myself, being able to decide how to end our own lives, and no one else's lives but our own, in a dignified manner, when our very existence entails suffering. It does not matter whether I "like the sound of it" or not. I am not currently seeking euthanasia, and I am not a doctor for someone who is, so rest assured that nobody is asking for my opinion. What matters is if the person whose life is going to end does, given that they are of sound mind to make such a judgement. I'm glad you will still try. We should always try to make others' lives better, to provide better lives instead of easier deaths. But sometimes we won't be able to.
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  > The doctor should not react with horror in any case, because the doctor is a medical professional, not a paid actor in a pro-life advertisement, and I would certainly hope for him to behave as such. Indeed, and in 1910 progressives were saying similar things about sterilising the feeble minded. This is why the education system is so important. If you control the education system you get to decide what a professional should think. If there are professionals who disagree there’s always disbarment.
  - sdiacom 4y ago
    A key distinction, though, between euthanasia and forced sterilisation or eugenics, is consent. The latter are, almost always, decisions taken or considered based on the externalities -- they're not done for the benefit of the person that the procedure is applied to. While a dystopian society could consider choosing to kill people based on their externalities (such as, for example, as we currently do by putting criminals in death row) advocates of assisted suicide put the wishes of the person undergoing the procedure first and foremost. Euthanasia should never be something that is done to you without your explicit, self-driven, sound-of-mind consent. And indeed, morality judgements are always influenced by the context of their time. Eugenics was a somewhat popular idea around that time, but it's important to note that this does not mean that early 20th century people were less moral than we are. Families required the labor of all of their members to survive, and an unproductive member of the family that required extensive care carried a very clear cost in opportunity and quality of life to the family, often one that permanently impacted the life of the mother. It was seen as a moral good to somehow use science to figure out a way to "spare" families, and especially women, from what was seen as an arbitrary misfortune, an "act of god". One of the reasons why eugenics is not nearly as popular today is that society takes on a more collective approach to supporting and caring for disabled people. While there's still a long, long way to go, there are schools for children with special needs, there are disability payments, there are ways through which society organizes to help those who care for others, alternatives to what was often a very tough choice for mothers, between abandonment, murder or misery. Eugenics didn't change. Morality didn't change. Society changed, and in doing so, it shifted the balance, and it is no longer seen as the moral choice to engineer humanity so that Jerry doesn't exist, because the alternative to that no longer is to make his mother's life untenable. By having better options, we are enabled to make better choices.