3 ms·

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

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.
  - reverendsteveii 2y ago
    I mean, it's plainly evident that mental illness is associated with poverty, which is itself associated with homelessness. Here (https://care.org.uk/news/2024/10/poor-lonely-and-homeless-opting-for-assisted-death-in-canada https://care.org.uk/news/2024/10/poor-lonely-and-homeless-op...) is an article that references a report that says that people are opting for MAID for non-terminal illnesses and that those who do so are disproportionately likely to be from poorer areas. It also mentions at least one person who specifically mentioned lack of access to housing when opting for MAID. Granted, CARE is blatantly against MAID but the cherries they're picking are in the tree to be picked.
    - eru 2y ago
      Thanks for digging that up. It's a big country, so I suspect you'll find individual examples of just about anything.
wruza 2y ago
It is pro-social if you can separate objectively. And even then, who is that “social” to decide it? Some people aren’t social. If the separation line gets drawn across questionable cases, then it’s authoritarian for them. As usual, any scalable implementation will look like a very jagged asterisk-shaped circle and some financial or political interest around it, acting far away from the real needs of people. And those who pick edge cases on its less certain side will push the whole setup further until it stops making sense. Systems like this are inherently vague, which is prone to “oh, we had another case, must regulate more”. I’ll rephrase myself from the previous thread about suicides: the “society” keeps a blind eye on the fact that it is it who drives people to end their life and then puts a big “dying is prohibited and offensive” sign at the end of this road. If “society” wants to keep “healthy but confused” (subjectively to it) people from leaving, it should look to the root of the problem, not put a barrier at the end. Ofc teens should be kept away from this for obvious biological reasons.
- f154hfds 2y ago
  > Ofc teens should be kept away from this for obvious biological reasons. Why of course? Is the reason this is obvious to you unique to teenagers? When they turn 18 (or 20) do the reasons to restrict their freedoms immediately go away? Is there no possibility the 'obvious' reason in your mind couldn't occur for a different person in a different age bracket?
  - wruza 2y ago
    Yes, they go away. 18 is a safe age of autonomy, not median. Normal procedures still apply, e.g. are you being coerced, does society physically demand too much from you (e.g. in a form of debt, pain, lack of sleep), etc. If they pass, they are free to die. To reiterate, fix the problem, not the gate. All statements above are only valid as a whole.

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.
- reverendsteveii 2y ago
  I mean, it's plainly evident that mental illness is associated with poverty, which is itself associated with homelessness. Here (https://care.org.uk/news/2024/10/poor-lonely-and-homeless-opting-for-assisted-death-in-canada https://care.org.uk/news/2024/10/poor-lonely-and-homeless-op...) is an article that references a report that says that people are opting for MAID for non-terminal illnesses and that those who do so are disproportionately likely to be from poorer areas. It also mentions at least one person who specifically mentioned lack of access to housing when opting for MAID. Granted, CARE is blatantly against MAID but the cherries they're picking are in the tree to be picked.
  - eru 2y ago
    Thanks for digging that up. It's a big country, so I suspect you'll find individual examples of just about anything.

wruza 2y ago

It is pro-social if you can separate objectively. And even then, who is that “social” to decide it? Some people aren’t social. If the separation line gets drawn across questionable cases, then it’s authoritarian for them. As usual, any scalable implementation will look like a very jagged asterisk-shaped circle and some financial or political interest around it, acting far away from the real needs of people. And those who pick edge cases on its less certain side will push the whole setup further until it stops making sense. Systems like this are inherently vague, which is prone to “oh, we had another case, must regulate more”. I’ll rephrase myself from the previous thread about suicides: the “society” keeps a blind eye on the fact that it is it who drives people to end their life and then puts a big “dying is prohibited and offensive” sign at the end of this road. If “society” wants to keep “healthy but confused” (subjectively to it) people from leaving, it should look to the root of the problem, not put a barrier at the end. Ofc teens should be kept away from this for obvious biological reasons.

f154hfds 2y ago
> Ofc teens should be kept away from this for obvious biological reasons. Why of course? Is the reason this is obvious to you unique to teenagers? When they turn 18 (or 20) do the reasons to restrict their freedoms immediately go away? Is there no possibility the 'obvious' reason in your mind couldn't occur for a different person in a different age bracket?
- wruza 2y ago
  Yes, they go away. 18 is a safe age of autonomy, not median. Normal procedures still apply, e.g. are you being coerced, does society physically demand too much from you (e.g. in a form of debt, pain, lack of sleep), etc. If they pass, they are free to die. To reiterate, fix the problem, not the gate. All statements above are only valid as a whole.