> I don't see any evidence [...] I think that's the wrong standard for this - "visible evidence of failure", or "fully convincing rational". The burden of proo

> I don't see any evidence [...] I think that's the wrong standard for this - "visible evidence of failure", or "fully convincing rational". The burden of proof should be that we stop it unless we can show continual strong evidence of proportionality. The point isn't that this is horrible now, it's that it doesn't seem to have the type of guidelines we'd posited that would keep it from getting horrible. > it's far more important and relevant to establish [...] occurring with regularity I don't know how many disabled veterans they've offed, but even offering it to the one shows a stunning lack of ability to judge need and a heinous disregard for that person's life. Having a doctor recommend you kill yourself is likely to be somewhat devastating and have its own consequences even if you don't follow through. > You could make criticisms of nearly any law if the bar for criticism is just that it's possible to push edge case X or Y. It's not just possible, it's economically incentivized. Both at the individual and systemic level.