6 ms·

I am terrified of the thought of legally killing people and this article has made me feel quite odd, even slightly sick I would say. My gut just screams at me:

I am terrified of the thought of legally killing people and this article has made me feel quite odd, even slightly sick I would say. My gut just screams at me: this is wrong. And I cannot help. The rational arguments do not convince me at all. Call me old fashioned or whatever but this is how I feel about it, and since there is an article about this I imagine that there might be certain interest in this being out of the ordinary.

tafox 3y ago
Maybe if we weren't treated like de facto slaves for the rich life would be worth living.
- dietr1ch 3y ago
  Yeah, all the productivity improvements could be used to make everyone's lives better, but hey, some people really need yatchs, cars they can't really drive, multiple houses and more.
xeornet 3y ago
Totally agree. It also begs the question, are the people in these situations even mentally fit enough to make the decision rationally? With the limited context I have, I don’t think so. There’d also a lot of reliance on the doctor’s “its never going to get better” - yet time and time again with physical ailments we hear of the impossibility of recovery yet many do recover.
- xeornet 3y ago
  If the downvoters would like to explain their opinion to the contrary, that would be great.
- phantomathkg 3y ago
  > It also begs the question, are the people in these situations even mentally fit enough to make the decision rationally? With the limited context I have, I don’t think so. Without euthanasia. A person in that situation can and will choose other means to kill himself/herself.
  - xeornet 3y ago
    Any citations for this? That’s an assumption.
    - phantomathkg 3y ago
      Why would this could be assumption? There are suicide cases daily.
      - xeornet 3y ago
        That's one statistic - do we have any statistics around those that would take euthanasia if available but end up not committing suicide? No, we likely don't have those statistics but they are equally important to the equation here.
bvrmn 3y ago
I hope you equally fill bad for tens of thousands of civilians dying without any consent because some "leader" decided to play a war.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ranguna 3y ago
My gut reaction is actually the opposite of yours, I feel a bit relieved knowing there's one less human living in unbearable pain. Life is complex and it is not within me to fully comprehend everything that everyone around me is feeling, all I can do is help to the best of my abilities and respect others decisions. As for the reason why this is an article, it's probably because this is quite new for a lot of people, like when antibiotics was first found. At first it was the news of the century and was advertised on the news, now it's just common practice and you don't even know when doctors use it on another human.
rschiavone 3y ago
If a person has tried every other option and there is still no end to their pain, either physical or psychological, they would sooner or later try to end their life anyway. It is in the best interest of everybody to offer assisted suicide at a set time and date instead of taking the matter into their own hands and leaving family, friends and first responders with the trauma of discovering a body.
- arrowsmith 3y ago
  Except it won't stop with people who are truly living with unsolvable pain. You're painfully naive if you can't see that. What's the limiting principle here exactly? If we normalize the idea that suicide is a solution to any problem, it's inevitably going to start being used as a "solution" for more and more problems: treatable illness, poverty, old age, disability, dependence on those who'd rather not shoulder the burden of caring for you. It's already happening.
  - rschiavone 3y ago
    I do not advocate for taking the "easy" way out (I feel terrible for phrasing it this way). What I say is that, for those cases where professionals have reasonable suspicion that it would happen anyway, offering a more humane option is the right thing to do. It shouldn't be an option to be offered lightly to anyone.
  - Jach 3y ago
    Consent seems like a sufficient limiting principle.
    - arrowsmith 3y ago
      Not to me it doesn't. For example, here's the story of a disabled Canadian man who "consented" to euthanasia because he thought it was his only alternative to homelessness: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canada-euthansia-maid-gofundme-homeless-b2228890.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canada-eut... In this case he withdrew his "consent" after strangers helped him out financially, but I'm sure there are other cases that didn't end so luckily. As suicide gets normalised you can expect the concept of "consent" to get expanded even further beyond the bounds of decency.
arrowsmith 3y ago
The ultimate endgame of euthanasia is that you'll be offed once you no longer have any economic value to the state. I don't see how anyone can look at what's happening now in Canada, for example, and deny the existence of the slippery slope.
phantomathkg 3y ago
I feel sorry for her decision as well, but this is not wrong. Think about it for the moment. - She can schedule an euthanasia. - She can throw herself in front of a train. - She can hang herself somewhere. - Many many other "traditional" way. The difference here is, if she schedule euthanasia, the people provide the service will have to finish everything up for her, and they should be less traumatise compare to the train driver in the hypothetical example. We surely shouldn't take this lightly, but this is not wrong at all.
- arkey 3y ago
  So we should go about enabling the "better" committing of wrong acts? A killer set on killing will kill anyway, so maybe we could pair them up and have both happy? The "they will do it anyway" argument is as absurd as it is dangerous. Heh, it's not like it backfired in the past at all, is it?
  - akie 3y ago
    Why do you think it's "wrong" that someone wants to die? Isn't it her life to begin with? It's hers to decide what she wants to do with it, and if she wants to die because of unbearable suffering (which is the legal threshold in the Netherlands, and needs to be confirmed by two independent doctors) she should be free to do so.
    - arkey 3y ago
      If that's your position, there's no use in us arguing. I differ, considering life as sacred, and worried though not surprised of how we're moving as a society from holding life as sacred, at least in appearance, to overtly disregarding it in this manner. On the other hand, as I mentioned in a different reply, I have a big difficulty trusting doctors and their "nothing else to be done".
    - arkey 3y ago
      Also, I'd like to constructively challenge the idea of "enabling" something that someone is free to do. You're free to kill yourself, yes, nothing anyone can do about it. But is it good to help enabling it? If yes, then we should have places where one can go and absolutely get destroyed by meth or fentanyl or whatever's your choice. I'm afraid the only difference between both cases is the economic burden they cause or not. The one with drugs increases it, while euthanasia decreases it. That makes me suspicious.
jusssi 3y ago
For someone who is physically functional, opting out is a "natural right" in the sense that it can't be removed: they can always find a way. Removing nicer options just means they'll go for messier ones, potentially causing more damage to the society, and to the individuals who have to witness the event or it's results.
felsokning 3y ago
>...there might be certain interest in this being out of the ordinary. I think, maybe, you weren't aware of it's legality; especially, in the Netherlands[1]? [1] - https://www.government.nl/topics/euthanasia/euthanasia-assisted-suicide-and-non-resuscitation-on-request https://www.government.nl/topics/euthanasia/euthanasia-assis...
bluescrn 3y ago
There's quite a difference between actually killing somebody and allowing them to kill themselves in a painless/peaceful manner - e.g. providing them access to drugs/devices that they have to choose to use themselves.
- arrowsmith 3y ago
  And that difference is "semantics".

tafox 3y ago

Maybe if we weren't treated like de facto slaves for the rich life would be worth living.

dietr1ch 3y ago
Yeah, all the productivity improvements could be used to make everyone's lives better, but hey, some people really need yatchs, cars they can't really drive, multiple houses and more.

xeornet 3y ago

Totally agree. It also begs the question, are the people in these situations even mentally fit enough to make the decision rationally? With the limited context I have, I don’t think so. There’d also a lot of reliance on the doctor’s “its never going to get better” - yet time and time again with physical ailments we hear of the impossibility of recovery yet many do recover.

xeornet 3y ago
If the downvoters would like to explain their opinion to the contrary, that would be great.
phantomathkg 3y ago
> It also begs the question, are the people in these situations even mentally fit enough to make the decision rationally? With the limited context I have, I don’t think so. Without euthanasia. A person in that situation can and will choose other means to kill himself/herself.
- xeornet 3y ago
  Any citations for this? That’s an assumption.
  - phantomathkg 3y ago
    Why would this could be assumption? There are suicide cases daily.
    - xeornet 3y ago
      That's one statistic - do we have any statistics around those that would take euthanasia if available but end up not committing suicide? No, we likely don't have those statistics but they are equally important to the equation here.

bvrmn 3y ago

I hope you equally fill bad for tens of thousands of civilians dying without any consent because some "leader" decided to play a war.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ranguna 3y ago

My gut reaction is actually the opposite of yours, I feel a bit relieved knowing there's one less human living in unbearable pain. Life is complex and it is not within me to fully comprehend everything that everyone around me is feeling, all I can do is help to the best of my abilities and respect others decisions. As for the reason why this is an article, it's probably because this is quite new for a lot of people, like when antibiotics was first found. At first it was the news of the century and was advertised on the news, now it's just common practice and you don't even know when doctors use it on another human.

rschiavone 3y ago

If a person has tried every other option and there is still no end to their pain, either physical or psychological, they would sooner or later try to end their life anyway. It is in the best interest of everybody to offer assisted suicide at a set time and date instead of taking the matter into their own hands and leaving family, friends and first responders with the trauma of discovering a body.

arrowsmith 3y ago
Except it won't stop with people who are truly living with unsolvable pain. You're painfully naive if you can't see that. What's the limiting principle here exactly? If we normalize the idea that suicide is a solution to any problem, it's inevitably going to start being used as a "solution" for more and more problems: treatable illness, poverty, old age, disability, dependence on those who'd rather not shoulder the burden of caring for you. It's already happening.
- rschiavone 3y ago
  I do not advocate for taking the "easy" way out (I feel terrible for phrasing it this way). What I say is that, for those cases where professionals have reasonable suspicion that it would happen anyway, offering a more humane option is the right thing to do. It shouldn't be an option to be offered lightly to anyone.
- Jach 3y ago
  Consent seems like a sufficient limiting principle.
  - arrowsmith 3y ago
    Not to me it doesn't. For example, here's the story of a disabled Canadian man who "consented" to euthanasia because he thought it was his only alternative to homelessness: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canada-euthansia-maid-gofundme-homeless-b2228890.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canada-eut... In this case he withdrew his "consent" after strangers helped him out financially, but I'm sure there are other cases that didn't end so luckily. As suicide gets normalised you can expect the concept of "consent" to get expanded even further beyond the bounds of decency.

arrowsmith 3y ago

The ultimate endgame of euthanasia is that you'll be offed once you no longer have any economic value to the state. I don't see how anyone can look at what's happening now in Canada, for example, and deny the existence of the slippery slope.

phantomathkg 3y ago

I feel sorry for her decision as well, but this is not wrong. Think about it for the moment. - She can schedule an euthanasia. - She can throw herself in front of a train. - She can hang herself somewhere. - Many many other "traditional" way. The difference here is, if she schedule euthanasia, the people provide the service will have to finish everything up for her, and they should be less traumatise compare to the train driver in the hypothetical example. We surely shouldn't take this lightly, but this is not wrong at all.

arkey 3y ago
So we should go about enabling the "better" committing of wrong acts? A killer set on killing will kill anyway, so maybe we could pair them up and have both happy? The "they will do it anyway" argument is as absurd as it is dangerous. Heh, it's not like it backfired in the past at all, is it?
- akie 3y ago
  Why do you think it's "wrong" that someone wants to die? Isn't it her life to begin with? It's hers to decide what she wants to do with it, and if she wants to die because of unbearable suffering (which is the legal threshold in the Netherlands, and needs to be confirmed by two independent doctors) she should be free to do so.
  - arkey 3y ago
    If that's your position, there's no use in us arguing. I differ, considering life as sacred, and worried though not surprised of how we're moving as a society from holding life as sacred, at least in appearance, to overtly disregarding it in this manner. On the other hand, as I mentioned in a different reply, I have a big difficulty trusting doctors and their "nothing else to be done".
  - arkey 3y ago
    Also, I'd like to constructively challenge the idea of "enabling" something that someone is free to do. You're free to kill yourself, yes, nothing anyone can do about it. But is it good to help enabling it? If yes, then we should have places where one can go and absolutely get destroyed by meth or fentanyl or whatever's your choice. I'm afraid the only difference between both cases is the economic burden they cause or not. The one with drugs increases it, while euthanasia decreases it. That makes me suspicious.

jusssi 3y ago

For someone who is physically functional, opting out is a "natural right" in the sense that it can't be removed: they can always find a way. Removing nicer options just means they'll go for messier ones, potentially causing more damage to the society, and to the individuals who have to witness the event or it's results.

felsokning 3y ago

>...there might be certain interest in this being out of the ordinary. I think, maybe, you weren't aware of it's legality; especially, in the Netherlands[1]? [1] - https://www.government.nl/topics/euthanasia/euthanasia-assisted-suicide-and-non-resuscitation-on-request https://www.government.nl/topics/euthanasia/euthanasia-assis...

bluescrn 3y ago

There's quite a difference between actually killing somebody and allowing them to kill themselves in a painless/peaceful manner - e.g. providing them access to drugs/devices that they have to choose to use themselves.

arrowsmith 3y ago
And that difference is "semantics".