4 ms·

Assisted suicide is one of those things that makes perfect logical sense, but is hamstrung by a common lizard brain reaction we all have. One of those things pe

Assisted suicide is one of those things that makes perfect logical sense, but is hamstrung by a common lizard brain reaction we all have. One of those things people don't like, or feels icky, and they have no idea why they feel that way.

gruez 2y ago
>but is hamstrung by a common lizard brain reaction we all have. One of those things people don't like, or feels icky, and they have no idea why they feel that way. You clearly missed all the discourse about MAID in Canada, where people accused the government/medical care system of pushing people into committing suicide so they'd be less of a burden on the medical system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_Canada#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_Canada#Criticism
- blueflow 2y ago
  This is not countering the lizard brain statement. People are are against assisted suicide even without knowing that Canada thing.
  - 0x1ceb00da 2y ago
    So the lizard brain was right after all.
    - costcopizza 2y ago
      What I immediately thought as well.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- OgsyedIE 2y ago
  With over 50,000 euthanasias carried out in Canada to date, has anybody assessed whether they are disproportionately prescribed to certain demographics or not? If they are equally distributed then it's unlikely to be coercive in nature but if there is coercion then the proportion of usage by demographic is unlikely to match those demographic's respective proportions in the total Canadian population.
  - gruez 2y ago
    The point isn't that assisted suicide as implemented in canada is objectively bad, it's that it's extremely ignorant and uncharitable to paint all opposition to assisted suicide as "common lizard brain reaction" and "people don't like, or feels icky, and they have no idea why they feel that way".
    - emptiestplace 2y ago
      That's most of it, though. Also, who cares about being charitable towards folks who would deny others compassionate care?
  - myrmidon 2y ago
    That does not sound viable to me at all. How would you distinguish between the government coercing a demographic into suicide and that demographic just having a higher-than-average predisposition for it? E.g. people with depression or chronic illness/pain.
  - bbor 2y ago
    Well that's where it gets tricky -- what variables are you allowed to control for in this analysis? Not to spoil anyone, but this is what Soylent Green is about: people on the edges of society aren't actively coerced into euthenasia, but the presence of a more abstract level of coercion is made clear. In terms of contemporary Canada, what if First Nations people end up using it much more often because they have much higher rates of poverty and drug abuse in their communities? On an individual bodily autonomy level that feels like fair game, but on a societal level the injustice is blatant.
- aliasxneo 2y ago
  Jordan Peterson recently did a pretty harrowing interview with Kelsi Sheren on this topic. You can see a clip of it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YYxOfwrsrU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YYxOfwrsrU. I say harrowing because silently being water-boarded to death sounds like one of the most awful ways to die.
  - BobaFloutist 2y ago
    Even if you, personally, find Jordan Peterson credible, surely you understand that most people won't? Are you using an extremely controversial source on purpose, to prove some sort of point, or are you genuinely unaware of his cultural position?
    - aliasxneo 2y ago
      Well, that's an interesting point. Have I committed a cultural taboo by posting a video of him here? I assumed HN was a place that talked about the content of a discussion, regardless of their opinion on the person running the interview. Have I misinterpreted this? Personally, I don't find myself not watching the content of someone just because they say things I disagree with or the world has tried to cancel them. Every now and then I'll watch Peterson's podcast if he's interviewing someone I'm interested in hearing from, but it's not like he takes up a large part of my attention. I'm still a little bit taken aback that I'm here on HN having to account for merely posting a YouTube link.
  - snakeyjake 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - aliasxneo 2y ago
      Unfortunately, you've not contributed much to furthering any knowledge here since it's all just speculation in a mocking and demeaning tone. I was slightly excited to see a lengthy response, hoping for some substantiated counter-arguments, but it appears to have just enraged you to the point of using very visceral and divisive language. Unfortunate. For what it's worth, I am a Christian and your choice of words come across as highly offensive. Contrary to your belief, I have no interest in inserting myself into your life. I'm apolitical at best and gave up on politics a long time ago. To respond to at least one point, I believe the point that she was making was a lack of awareness of the method of death. Her point has nothing to do with how people die of cancer, but that people agreeing to MAID did not have all of the necessary information to make that decision due to this being omitted. I'm happy to see some counter-evidence that she's lying and all of this is made up.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mensetmanusman 2y ago
You also see intelligent folks suffer from the curse of knowledge when discussing the topic. They assume that half the population isn’t below average when it comes to intelligence. It’s similar to the analogy that crime would go down if every human had a gun, but the analogy fails because of human flaws. Assisted suicide will always be abused; mentally ill will be killed; kids who want more tax savings will push the button, etc.
- acover 2y ago
  Why is assisting someone mentally ill wrong?
  - renewiltord 2y ago
    For the obvious reason that they may not be of sound mind to make the choice you’re “assisting” them with.
    - acover 2y ago
      Canada is planning on giving the mentally ill access to maid in 2027. Most mentally ill people are still perfectly capable of making decisions and you need the approval of 2 doctors.
      - mensetmanusman 2y ago
        Most mental illness is also temporary.
naming_the_user 2y ago
Chesterton's fence. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean there is no reason. Sometimes it's a vestigial evolutionary thing, sometimes it isn't. A lot of "intelligent" people get caught up in this way.
myrmidon 2y ago
I feel this is an unfair characterization; there are a lot of very good reasons to argue against assisted suicide and to avoid normalizing suicide in general: There is always the potential for those mechanisms to be abused, making it taboo instead is the best prevention you can have for this. There is also the problem that suicide is a very final decision; people regret their choices (often years later) all the time, opening the suicide-door would lead invariably to cases where people throw away the rest of their life even though it would've had immeasurable value to them later had they lived on. Normalizing suicide in general could also lead to societal changes where death is the expected/desired outcome, and people are basically compelled by group dynamics, even in situations where we would absolutely not see this as justified or desirable currently (i.e. people suiciding because they killed their child in an accident).
- hilux 2y ago
  > making it taboo instead is the best prevention I can see that you have never worked in suicide prevention.
  - svieira 2y ago
    Some act that is recognized as bad by society does not stop happening - it simply ensures that members of that society are aware of the badness of the act. This has a deterrent effect because people do not choose a bad act for its own sake while people will choose neutral or good acts for the sake of the act. Recognizing something as so bad as to be "out of the pale" does not mean that people will not talk about their desire to do it. That depends on a different societal measure - how willing are people to be open about who they really are and what they are experiencing in the moment.
  - eth0up 2y ago
    It's probably already extent, but this gives me the idea of an open source suicide prevention platform, where struggling people can reach out to a network of non governmental real humans that, differing from ther perceived rest of the world, have the time, genuine concern and willingness to try to help. There's an enormous deficit of kindness out there, else we're brilliant at making it appear so. And I think I agree with your comment. Making it taboo might among other unintended things, increase the allure through rebellion or breaking the rules of those who inspired the will to die.
nineplay 2y ago
But it also suffers from people who insist it makes perfect 'logical' sense though they've never been confronted with the situation and still have a notion of 'logical thinking as though there's some perfect Spock-like way of viewing the world. There is no 'logical/emotional' divide in the way humans make decisions and the belief is almost nonsensical.

gruez 2y ago

>but is hamstrung by a common lizard brain reaction we all have. One of those things people don't like, or feels icky, and they have no idea why they feel that way. You clearly missed all the discourse about MAID in Canada, where people accused the government/medical care system of pushing people into committing suicide so they'd be less of a burden on the medical system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_Canada#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_Canada#Criticism

blueflow 2y ago
This is not countering the lizard brain statement. People are are against assisted suicide even without knowing that Canada thing.
- 0x1ceb00da 2y ago
  So the lizard brain was right after all.
  - costcopizza 2y ago
    What I immediately thought as well.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
OgsyedIE 2y ago
With over 50,000 euthanasias carried out in Canada to date, has anybody assessed whether they are disproportionately prescribed to certain demographics or not? If they are equally distributed then it's unlikely to be coercive in nature but if there is coercion then the proportion of usage by demographic is unlikely to match those demographic's respective proportions in the total Canadian population.
- gruez 2y ago
  The point isn't that assisted suicide as implemented in canada is objectively bad, it's that it's extremely ignorant and uncharitable to paint all opposition to assisted suicide as "common lizard brain reaction" and "people don't like, or feels icky, and they have no idea why they feel that way".
  - emptiestplace 2y ago
    That's most of it, though. Also, who cares about being charitable towards folks who would deny others compassionate care?
- myrmidon 2y ago
  That does not sound viable to me at all. How would you distinguish between the government coercing a demographic into suicide and that demographic just having a higher-than-average predisposition for it? E.g. people with depression or chronic illness/pain.
- bbor 2y ago
  Well that's where it gets tricky -- what variables are you allowed to control for in this analysis? Not to spoil anyone, but this is what Soylent Green is about: people on the edges of society aren't actively coerced into euthenasia, but the presence of a more abstract level of coercion is made clear. In terms of contemporary Canada, what if First Nations people end up using it much more often because they have much higher rates of poverty and drug abuse in their communities? On an individual bodily autonomy level that feels like fair game, but on a societal level the injustice is blatant.
aliasxneo 2y ago
Jordan Peterson recently did a pretty harrowing interview with Kelsi Sheren on this topic. You can see a clip of it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YYxOfwrsrU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YYxOfwrsrU. I say harrowing because silently being water-boarded to death sounds like one of the most awful ways to die.
- BobaFloutist 2y ago
  Even if you, personally, find Jordan Peterson credible, surely you understand that most people won't? Are you using an extremely controversial source on purpose, to prove some sort of point, or are you genuinely unaware of his cultural position?
  - aliasxneo 2y ago
    Well, that's an interesting point. Have I committed a cultural taboo by posting a video of him here? I assumed HN was a place that talked about the content of a discussion, regardless of their opinion on the person running the interview. Have I misinterpreted this? Personally, I don't find myself not watching the content of someone just because they say things I disagree with or the world has tried to cancel them. Every now and then I'll watch Peterson's podcast if he's interviewing someone I'm interested in hearing from, but it's not like he takes up a large part of my attention. I'm still a little bit taken aback that I'm here on HN having to account for merely posting a YouTube link.
- snakeyjake 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - aliasxneo 2y ago
    Unfortunately, you've not contributed much to furthering any knowledge here since it's all just speculation in a mocking and demeaning tone. I was slightly excited to see a lengthy response, hoping for some substantiated counter-arguments, but it appears to have just enraged you to the point of using very visceral and divisive language. Unfortunate. For what it's worth, I am a Christian and your choice of words come across as highly offensive. Contrary to your belief, I have no interest in inserting myself into your life. I'm apolitical at best and gave up on politics a long time ago. To respond to at least one point, I believe the point that she was making was a lack of awareness of the method of death. Her point has nothing to do with how people die of cancer, but that people agreeing to MAID did not have all of the necessary information to make that decision due to this being omitted. I'm happy to see some counter-evidence that she's lying and all of this is made up.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mensetmanusman 2y ago

You also see intelligent folks suffer from the curse of knowledge when discussing the topic. They assume that half the population isn’t below average when it comes to intelligence. It’s similar to the analogy that crime would go down if every human had a gun, but the analogy fails because of human flaws. Assisted suicide will always be abused; mentally ill will be killed; kids who want more tax savings will push the button, etc.

acover 2y ago
Why is assisting someone mentally ill wrong?
- renewiltord 2y ago
  For the obvious reason that they may not be of sound mind to make the choice you’re “assisting” them with.
  - acover 2y ago
    Canada is planning on giving the mentally ill access to maid in 2027. Most mentally ill people are still perfectly capable of making decisions and you need the approval of 2 doctors.
    - mensetmanusman 2y ago
      Most mental illness is also temporary.

naming_the_user 2y ago

Chesterton's fence. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean there is no reason. Sometimes it's a vestigial evolutionary thing, sometimes it isn't. A lot of "intelligent" people get caught up in this way.

myrmidon 2y ago

I feel this is an unfair characterization; there are a lot of very good reasons to argue against assisted suicide and to avoid normalizing suicide in general: There is always the potential for those mechanisms to be abused, making it taboo instead is the best prevention you can have for this. There is also the problem that suicide is a very final decision; people regret their choices (often years later) all the time, opening the suicide-door would lead invariably to cases where people throw away the rest of their life even though it would've had immeasurable value to them later had they lived on. Normalizing suicide in general could also lead to societal changes where death is the expected/desired outcome, and people are basically compelled by group dynamics, even in situations where we would absolutely not see this as justified or desirable currently (i.e. people suiciding because they killed their child in an accident).

hilux 2y ago
> making it taboo instead is the best prevention I can see that you have never worked in suicide prevention.
- svieira 2y ago
  Some act that is recognized as bad by society does not stop happening - it simply ensures that members of that society are aware of the badness of the act. This has a deterrent effect because people do not choose a bad act for its own sake while people will choose neutral or good acts for the sake of the act. Recognizing something as so bad as to be "out of the pale" does not mean that people will not talk about their desire to do it. That depends on a different societal measure - how willing are people to be open about who they really are and what they are experiencing in the moment.
- eth0up 2y ago
  It's probably already extent, but this gives me the idea of an open source suicide prevention platform, where struggling people can reach out to a network of non governmental real humans that, differing from ther perceived rest of the world, have the time, genuine concern and willingness to try to help. There's an enormous deficit of kindness out there, else we're brilliant at making it appear so. And I think I agree with your comment. Making it taboo might among other unintended things, increase the allure through rebellion or breaking the rules of those who inspired the will to die.

nineplay 2y ago

But it also suffers from people who insist it makes perfect 'logical' sense though they've never been confronted with the situation and still have a notion of 'logical thinking as though there's some perfect Spock-like way of viewing the world. There is no 'logical/emotional' divide in the way humans make decisions and the belief is almost nonsensical.