7 ms·

There is no "we". There are people and their bodies and their wishes. And authoritarians who want a say on it. Doesn't matter if nice sounding words like law an

by afh1 2y ago

There is no "we". There are people and their bodies and their wishes. And authoritarians who want a say on it. Doesn't matter if nice sounding words like law and democracy are used to describe the tyranny.

PittleyDunkin 2y ago
"tyranny" also seems like a concept mostly unrelated to the topic at hand. Practically speaking, nobody can really prevent you from taking your own life.
- Retric 2y ago
  If only that were true. Someone unable to move is unable to take their own life without assistance. A surprisingly large percentage of people go through some horrific experiences before their bodies completely fail.
  - bluefirebrand 2y ago
    This is a vanishingly small percent of cases Someone who is unable to move is probably also unable to unambiguously communicate their wish to be euthanized as well so I really don't think it's that relevant
    - Retric 2y ago
      Bed sores are a reasonable proxy for people being unable to move and they are a common enough risk to be a significant concern. If you can’t even roll over then you’re at the mercy of whatever people are willing to bring you even if you can speak or use a TV remote just fine.
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    > Someone unable to move is unable to take their own life without assistance. Denying this assistance isn't really "tyranny", though, even if you do accept that suicide is a right.
    - Retric 2y ago
      > Denying this assistance isn't really "tyranny" Actively preventing someone from providing assistance is. There’s a big difference between not doing something yourself and actively preventing someone else from providing assistance.
      - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
        > Actively preventing someone from providing assistance is. Sure, but this happens with legalization, too. Only licensed physicians can assist in suicide. Other attempts to assist will result in state violence. Most people trying to provide assistance won't be licensed physicians. Which is a completely different effort than the one intended to execute those undesirable to the market. God forbid we support people with anything other than a suicide implement.
        Retric 2y ago
        Providing assistance isn’t limited to handing someone pills, making the appropriate calls is assistance and a tough moral choice for many. Also, as a purely practical matter physicians can provide both humane options and a clearer separation between direct assistance and murder. Though obviously there’s other possibilities, it’s a tricker issue than it might at first appear.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
gspencley 2y ago
I share your view, but it gets crazy complicated when you're dealing with homicide (I'm using this word to mean it's literal definition: 'death caused by another person', not to mean a crime occurred necessarily). Euthanasia is controversial for a lot of reasons. Some people worry that authoritarians will use it as a way to "purge" or, such as here in Canada, as a way to "reneg" on health care obligations that tax payers are paying for. Others worry that family members and care providers will abuse the law for financial gain ("legal murder" for inheritance etc.). Then you have cases like this one: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-maid-father-daughter-court-injunction-judicial-review-decision-1.7154794 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-maid-father-d... It's complicated because we're not talking about an elderly person with terminal cancer. We're talking about a 27 year-old high functioning adult who sought, and was granted, medical assistance in dying due to a mental illness. When you dive into that story, even if you agree that the courts made the right decision and that the 27 year-old had the right to decide her own fate, your heart can't not break thinking about the father. Morally, I agree that every [adult] individual has the right to commit suicide by any means of their choosing (as long as they're not infringing upon the rights of others in the process). That doesn't mean that there aren't valid reasons for people to debate whether or not ehutanasia should be legal and under what circumstances.
- thijson 2y ago
  I'm reminded of this guy each time this topic comes up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4NU_84eCKI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4NU_84eCKI https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/in-2000-walkerton-s-poisoned-water-ruined-his-life-he-decided-it-was-time-to/article_9da32b4c-fbc3-5f98-a72f-5410983e1152.html https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/in-2000-walkerton-s-pois...
- themaninthedark 2y ago
  I agree it's a difficult subject. To your point about "Some people worry that authoritarians will use it as a way to "purge" or, such as here in Canada, as a way to "reneg" on health care obligations that tax payers are paying for." In another thread the Canadian poster talked about someone who decided to go through with ending their life and one of the things they mentioned was "They had to drive 100km to the nearest dialysis clinic."
mp05 2y ago
Yep that's one side of the argument and it's valid and I sympathize with it. The other side is when you're hearing stories of people being told that, in lieu of the procedure they're about to undergo, they can surely sign up to receive state-approved death. "Are you sure you don't want to just die? This is gonna hurt a lot!" Ghoulish.
- drjasonharrison 2y ago
  How often does this occur? Citations? Elderly cancer patients who have a recurrence of cancer often know exactly how uncomfortable another round of chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery will be. At the same time they may already be suffering neurological pain, pleural effusion (fluids building up in the chest), etc. In this context the statement might be: "This treatment, as you know, is going to be very unpleasant, has little hope of curing you, and you could live your life while the cancer progresses. We could slow it down and let you decide how you want to live your life."
mensetmanusman 2y ago
Authoritarians that want to force doctors to provide death as a service?
- resoluteteeth 2y ago
  There are concerns about assisted suicide being pushed on marginalized people who don't have terminal illnesses in Canada. I don't know if that is being driven by "authoritarians" but implying that the issue is just doctors providing death as a service (i.e. to people who are specifically requesting it unprompted) may not be completely accurate.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    I'm not worried about anyone "pushing" it. I'm worried about groups being put at the back of the line for other forms of care because the decision makers know that "worst case" more of them will off themselves and find that to be a fine outcome.
    - JohnBooty 2y ago
      That is a danger for sure, but every single path we as a society here take can be exploited by people with ill intentions. The pharma companies and hospitals have a financial incentive to keep people alive indefinitely, even despite horrible suffering. The folks paying for the treatment (government, insurance, etc) have a financial incentive to terminate lives prematurely. Family members with ill intentions may have various nefarious reasons to push for either outcome. So the question with which we should begin is, "what is the right thing?" and build safeguards around that. We cannot let "fear of corrupting influences" be the primary guiding principle here because every possible choice as a society here because there's a pretty strong financial incentive to corrupt these choices in either direction.
      - mensetmanusman 2y ago
        Natural death is the nash equilibrium, everything else is politics.
bluefirebrand 2y ago
Reality is much messier than "There are people and their bodies and their wishes." There are whole categories of people who we consider not well enough to make good choices about their bodies and lives, for a variety of reasons Children are not emotionally mature or responsible enough to make such choices Mentally ill people are sometimes in an altered state of mind where they are not making good decisions that are consistent with their regular state of mind Some people are very suggestible and will more or less agree with anything that someone else is telling them to do, even if it is not in their best interest. People who have just received bad news (like a scary medical diagnosis) can easily fall into this, and just agree with whatever someone tells them It's all well and good to want to respect people's wishes for their lives, but society does have some responsibility to ensure they aren't being pressured by outside forces into acting against their will or against their own interests That's not authoritarian, it is pro-social
- darth_avocado 2y ago
  Mental health is one I can relate to. There were times when my loved ones struggling with mental health would absolutely go through with assistance euthanasia if they had it available. Years later they are living a much better life but at that point in time, euthanasia would’ve ended it. I think bodily autonomy is necessary but not everyone is able to make the right decisions at all times. Legislation needs to account for that.
- reverendsteveii 2y ago
  The fun part of the mentally-ill categorization is that being mentally ill also has a tendency to lead to poverty and homelessness which in turn will increase the likelihood that someone will opt for MAID but could be solved by other social means.
  - eru 2y ago
    Is that actually true? Are people who choose MAID poorer than the average? The article suggests that they are whiter than the average Canadian. Make of that what you will.

by afh1 2y ago

PittleyDunkin 2y ago

"tyranny" also seems like a concept mostly unrelated to the topic at hand. Practically speaking, nobody can really prevent you from taking your own life.

Retric 2y ago
If only that were true. Someone unable to move is unable to take their own life without assistance. A surprisingly large percentage of people go through some horrific experiences before their bodies completely fail.
- bluefirebrand 2y ago
  This is a vanishingly small percent of cases Someone who is unable to move is probably also unable to unambiguously communicate their wish to be euthanized as well so I really don't think it's that relevant
  - Retric 2y ago
    Bed sores are a reasonable proxy for people being unable to move and they are a common enough risk to be a significant concern. If you can’t even roll over then you’re at the mercy of whatever people are willing to bring you even if you can speak or use a TV remote just fine.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  > Someone unable to move is unable to take their own life without assistance. Denying this assistance isn't really "tyranny", though, even if you do accept that suicide is a right.
  - Retric 2y ago
    > Denying this assistance isn't really "tyranny" Actively preventing someone from providing assistance is. There’s a big difference between not doing something yourself and actively preventing someone else from providing assistance.
    - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
      > Actively preventing someone from providing assistance is. Sure, but this happens with legalization, too. Only licensed physicians can assist in suicide. Other attempts to assist will result in state violence. Most people trying to provide assistance won't be licensed physicians. Which is a completely different effort than the one intended to execute those undesirable to the market. God forbid we support people with anything other than a suicide implement.
      - Retric 2y ago
        Providing assistance isn’t limited to handing someone pills, making the appropriate calls is assistance and a tough moral choice for many. Also, as a purely practical matter physicians can provide both humane options and a clearer separation between direct assistance and murder. Though obviously there’s other possibilities, it’s a tricker issue than it might at first appear.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

gspencley 2y ago

I share your view, but it gets crazy complicated when you're dealing with homicide (I'm using this word to mean it's literal definition: 'death caused by another person', not to mean a crime occurred necessarily). Euthanasia is controversial for a lot of reasons. Some people worry that authoritarians will use it as a way to "purge" or, such as here in Canada, as a way to "reneg" on health care obligations that tax payers are paying for. Others worry that family members and care providers will abuse the law for financial gain ("legal murder" for inheritance etc.). Then you have cases like this one: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-maid-father-daughter-court-injunction-judicial-review-decision-1.7154794 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-maid-father-d... It's complicated because we're not talking about an elderly person with terminal cancer. We're talking about a 27 year-old high functioning adult who sought, and was granted, medical assistance in dying due to a mental illness. When you dive into that story, even if you agree that the courts made the right decision and that the 27 year-old had the right to decide her own fate, your heart can't not break thinking about the father. Morally, I agree that every [adult] individual has the right to commit suicide by any means of their choosing (as long as they're not infringing upon the rights of others in the process). That doesn't mean that there aren't valid reasons for people to debate whether or not ehutanasia should be legal and under what circumstances.

thijson 2y ago
I'm reminded of this guy each time this topic comes up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4NU_84eCKI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4NU_84eCKI https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/in-2000-walkerton-s-poisoned-water-ruined-his-life-he-decided-it-was-time-to/article_9da32b4c-fbc3-5f98-a72f-5410983e1152.html https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/in-2000-walkerton-s-pois...
themaninthedark 2y ago
I agree it's a difficult subject. To your point about "Some people worry that authoritarians will use it as a way to "purge" or, such as here in Canada, as a way to "reneg" on health care obligations that tax payers are paying for." In another thread the Canadian poster talked about someone who decided to go through with ending their life and one of the things they mentioned was "They had to drive 100km to the nearest dialysis clinic."

mp05 2y ago

Yep that's one side of the argument and it's valid and I sympathize with it. The other side is when you're hearing stories of people being told that, in lieu of the procedure they're about to undergo, they can surely sign up to receive state-approved death. "Are you sure you don't want to just die? This is gonna hurt a lot!" Ghoulish.

drjasonharrison 2y ago
How often does this occur? Citations? Elderly cancer patients who have a recurrence of cancer often know exactly how uncomfortable another round of chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery will be. At the same time they may already be suffering neurological pain, pleural effusion (fluids building up in the chest), etc. In this context the statement might be: "This treatment, as you know, is going to be very unpleasant, has little hope of curing you, and you could live your life while the cancer progresses. We could slow it down and let you decide how you want to live your life."

mensetmanusman 2y ago

Authoritarians that want to force doctors to provide death as a service?

resoluteteeth 2y ago
There are concerns about assisted suicide being pushed on marginalized people who don't have terminal illnesses in Canada. I don't know if that is being driven by "authoritarians" but implying that the issue is just doctors providing death as a service (i.e. to people who are specifically requesting it unprompted) may not be completely accurate.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  I'm not worried about anyone "pushing" it. I'm worried about groups being put at the back of the line for other forms of care because the decision makers know that "worst case" more of them will off themselves and find that to be a fine outcome.
  - JohnBooty 2y ago
    That is a danger for sure, but every single path we as a society here take can be exploited by people with ill intentions. The pharma companies and hospitals have a financial incentive to keep people alive indefinitely, even despite horrible suffering. The folks paying for the treatment (government, insurance, etc) have a financial incentive to terminate lives prematurely. Family members with ill intentions may have various nefarious reasons to push for either outcome. So the question with which we should begin is, "what is the right thing?" and build safeguards around that. We cannot let "fear of corrupting influences" be the primary guiding principle here because every possible choice as a society here because there's a pretty strong financial incentive to corrupt these choices in either direction.
    - mensetmanusman 2y ago
      Natural death is the nash equilibrium, everything else is politics.

bluefirebrand 2y ago

Reality is much messier than "There are people and their bodies and their wishes." There are whole categories of people who we consider not well enough to make good choices about their bodies and lives, for a variety of reasons Children are not emotionally mature or responsible enough to make such choices Mentally ill people are sometimes in an altered state of mind where they are not making good decisions that are consistent with their regular state of mind Some people are very suggestible and will more or less agree with anything that someone else is telling them to do, even if it is not in their best interest. People who have just received bad news (like a scary medical diagnosis) can easily fall into this, and just agree with whatever someone tells them It's all well and good to want to respect people's wishes for their lives, but society does have some responsibility to ensure they aren't being pressured by outside forces into acting against their will or against their own interests That's not authoritarian, it is pro-social

darth_avocado 2y ago
Mental health is one I can relate to. There were times when my loved ones struggling with mental health would absolutely go through with assistance euthanasia if they had it available. Years later they are living a much better life but at that point in time, euthanasia would’ve ended it. I think bodily autonomy is necessary but not everyone is able to make the right decisions at all times. Legislation needs to account for that.
reverendsteveii 2y ago
The fun part of the mentally-ill categorization is that being mentally ill also has a tendency to lead to poverty and homelessness which in turn will increase the likelihood that someone will opt for MAID but could be solved by other social means.
- eru 2y ago
  Is that actually true? Are people who choose MAID poorer than the average? The article suggests that they are whiter than the average Canadian. Make of that what you will.