4 ms·

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 ha

by 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.
  - defrost 3y ago
    You mean Medically Supervised Injecting Centres ? https://www.uniting.org/community-impact/uniting-medically-supervised-injecting-centre--msic https://www.uniting.org/community-impact/uniting-medically-s... These exist in a number of countries and are seen to have favourable outcomes: https://adf.org.au/insights/medically-supervised-injecting-centres/ https://adf.org.au/insights/medically-supervised-injecting-c... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC314055/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC314055/
    - arkey 3y ago
      Right, so the answer to my question apparently is yes.
  - akie 3y ago
    Why would you think it's preferable to withhold medical services from someone who explicitly requested it, is sound of mind, has unbearable suffering (again, confirmed by two independent doctors whose actions are from the outset considered a criminal offence unless proven otherwise), and where there is no long term improvement possible? Why do you want to withhold medical services in that situation? I read your argument and it seems like you're not actually considering the point of view from the woman who no longer wants to live.
    - arkey 3y ago
      Because "medical services" is an euphemism for killing, in this case. You can read my other replies for more context, but what I see as a problem here is that all this will normalise death. By enabling it, we're one step closer of people resorting to this more easily, and having people that could recover just giving up early. And yes, my stance is biased, I don't trust doctors that much.
      - akie 3y ago
        But... it's not killing. Words matter. It's asking someone to help you die. And the doctors who help you are guilty by default, until proven innocent. No one healthy and of sound mind will choose to die. It isn't called "survival instinct" for nothing. This will not normalise death, it will not become a fad to die just because it's easy to do so. Despite the US having a very widely available and quick way to commit suicide (guns), the suicide rate in the US is not so much higher than in Germany - where it's more difficult to obtain guns. I think legalising euthanasia is an act of love. It prevents unnecessary suffering for those who suffer the most, but only if those who suffer explicitly request it and under extremely strict regulations - like they do in the Netherlands. I think your position about this is typical, but it's also (I think) primarily reasoned from the perspective of society, and not from the perspective of someone who is suffering.
      - trogdor 3y ago
        >this will normalise death Death is normal. You are going to die. I am going to die. We are all going to die.
phantomathkg 3y ago
Yes, I personally think we should enable, but with sufficient difficulty. If we look at it from a utilitarian angle. Euthanasia - The one who apply to euthanasia get what one want - Those who assists get paid to do what that person sign up to do. Other way - The one who commit suicide other way get what they want. - Those who witness got shocked. - Those who "clean up" get paid to do what that person sign up to do, but less amused than those who assist euthanasia. I am not saying enabling euthanasia for all and granting access to it easily. However, for those who suffer so badly it could be one of the escape hatches.

by arkey 3y ago

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.
- defrost 3y ago
  You mean Medically Supervised Injecting Centres ? https://www.uniting.org/community-impact/uniting-medically-supervised-injecting-centre--msic https://www.uniting.org/community-impact/uniting-medically-s... These exist in a number of countries and are seen to have favourable outcomes: https://adf.org.au/insights/medically-supervised-injecting-centres/ https://adf.org.au/insights/medically-supervised-injecting-c... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC314055/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC314055/
  - arkey 3y ago
    Right, so the answer to my question apparently is yes.
- akie 3y ago
  Why would you think it's preferable to withhold medical services from someone who explicitly requested it, is sound of mind, has unbearable suffering (again, confirmed by two independent doctors whose actions are from the outset considered a criminal offence unless proven otherwise), and where there is no long term improvement possible? Why do you want to withhold medical services in that situation? I read your argument and it seems like you're not actually considering the point of view from the woman who no longer wants to live.
  - arkey 3y ago
    Because "medical services" is an euphemism for killing, in this case. You can read my other replies for more context, but what I see as a problem here is that all this will normalise death. By enabling it, we're one step closer of people resorting to this more easily, and having people that could recover just giving up early. And yes, my stance is biased, I don't trust doctors that much.
    - akie 3y ago
      But... it's not killing. Words matter. It's asking someone to help you die. And the doctors who help you are guilty by default, until proven innocent. No one healthy and of sound mind will choose to die. It isn't called "survival instinct" for nothing. This will not normalise death, it will not become a fad to die just because it's easy to do so. Despite the US having a very widely available and quick way to commit suicide (guns), the suicide rate in the US is not so much higher than in Germany - where it's more difficult to obtain guns. I think legalising euthanasia is an act of love. It prevents unnecessary suffering for those who suffer the most, but only if those who suffer explicitly request it and under extremely strict regulations - like they do in the Netherlands. I think your position about this is typical, but it's also (I think) primarily reasoned from the perspective of society, and not from the perspective of someone who is suffering.
    - trogdor 3y ago
      >this will normalise death Death is normal. You are going to die. I am going to die. We are all going to die.

phantomathkg 3y ago

Yes, I personally think we should enable, but with sufficient difficulty. If we look at it from a utilitarian angle. Euthanasia - The one who apply to euthanasia get what one want - Those who assists get paid to do what that person sign up to do. Other way - The one who commit suicide other way get what they want. - Those who witness got shocked. - Those who "clean up" get paid to do what that person sign up to do, but less amused than those who assist euthanasia. I am not saying enabling euthanasia for all and granting access to it easily. However, for those who suffer so badly it could be one of the escape hatches.