5 ms·

I would’ve expected at least a waiting period longer than a week after a traumatic event. Of course I don’t know all the circumstances around it.

fellowniusmonk 2y ago
A lot of equations and generally good advice for the younger set changes when you're in you 80s. I think unless you've had a pretty unstable life or have real serious mental illness you know yourself pretty damn well by that point.
caseyohara 2y ago
Who decides on the duration of the waiting period? Why can’t people be in charge of their own lives? Especially people in their 80s, they have earned the right to agency. It reminds me of OB/GYN providers that deny childless women sterilization procedures – even when they are in their 30s – ostensibly on the risk that the woman might change their mind about having children. Some people know things for certain and there is a 0% chance they are going to change their mind. Yes, irreversible decisions warrant deep consideration. But denying a full grown adult control over their life decisions is cruel and unduly authoritarian.
- aaplok 2y ago
  The thing is, someone has to. If you walk in very drunk asking to be euthanised, one would hope that they would have to wait until you are no longer drunk to confirm you really want to be euthanised. Then, who decides on the waiting period? Likewise if a traumatic event clouds your judgement (as some events can do), it's not unreasonable to make you wait until your judgement is sound. Then someone has to decide on the waiting period. Potentially this can be studied statistically. Just collect data regularly after an event (such as binge drinking event) to evaluate how quickly people's judgement stabilises. That way we may find that the death of a spouse doesn't cloud the judgement, in which case the waiting period is 0.
  - Boogie_Man 2y ago
    Convincing your drunk friend to go to the suicide clinic and kill himself is the absolute pinnacle of "thing that's the most hilarious thing in the world while you're smashed but is absolutely horrifying the second you wake up the next morning". Anecdotally, I've heard that there's a strong link between heavy boozing and suicide, especially via firearm. One wonders if it's determined people needing courage, or drunk people becoming determined.
    - lupire 2y ago
      It's that "free will" isn't as free as people think".
  - simonh 2y ago
    Is there any country in the world with laws allowing assisted dying that actually allows what you describe, or is it a fantasy that’s irrelevant to the actual policies we’re discussing?
    - bscphil 2y ago
      The user you're responding to is very clearly presenting a hypothetical argument, not something that actually exists. The GP asked "Who decides on the duration of the waiting period? Why can’t people be in charge of their own lives?" And the OP is making that point that (a) there must be someone in a position to make that decision, and that (b) there must be some waiting period. In fact, if as you imply there are no countries that allow walk-in assisted euthanasia, that's a point in favor of the OPs point, because it suggests that we do widely recognize that there have to be some limits to individual freedom in this area.
      - 8note 2y ago
        i dont think id characterize those as limits on individual freedom, as much as a requirement of individual freedom. you actually have to want it, vs a whim where you might be drunk and not make the choice you wanted
- karencarits 2y ago
  I guess there are many perspectives on this; these are questions that touches on many serious ethical and philosophical topics: health care, the value of life, death, autonomy, ... There is a tendency in our time to think about all issues in terms of economy. I think that's wrong, that we shouldn't think about life and death as economical questions, that it is a reductive discourse. Others might disagree, of course For example, is this really a question about being in charge of one's own life or about what services that should be offered in a society? I guess that's also a link to the OB/GYN example you give; at least some health care professionals might think it is unethical to damage an organ or body that's working: primum non nocere Others, who have another philosophical view on what health care is, may say that the society should offer the services that people want or need
- toasterlovin 2y ago
  > Why can’t people be in charge of their own lives? I think the obvious counterpoint is that MAID is about people enlisting others to help kill them, which is no longer merely "being in charge of their own lives".
  - christina97 2y ago
    The others are really not necessary from a technical pov, could have suicide pill vending machines around the place.
    - toasterlovin 2y ago
      Right, but if the vending machines with suicide pills are specifically for suicide, then the help of others is still very much necessary. And of course, you'd want to prevents kids and drunk people from using the machines, so you'd need some kind of a gatekeeper. And that point you've ended up right back at MAID.
    - davkan 2y ago
      Even with a pill machine every person involved in the process of setting is facilitating each suicide. This is not the same as recognizing that someone who hangs themselves has a right to do so. The question is just as much about us as it is about them.
- jl6 2y ago
  > Yes, irreversible decisions warrant deep consideration. I think you’ve answered your own question there. Deep consideration is not usually something done quickly, and arguably depth of consideration improves when others are involved to provide additional perspectives. “People should be in charge of their own lives” sounds superficially like an appealing principle, and in an abstract sense is a worthy one - but reality is messy at the edges, and we know that the concept of informed consent has nuances. There are many circumstances where it would be unethical to grant someone’s request even if they swear blind that it’s what they really want.
- Miraste 2y ago
  The same reason that pills come in blister packs and bridges have nets-if you add a delay to methods for ending one's life, a significant portion of people change their minds.
  - Supermancho 2y ago
    One is to prevent unsupervised actions from taking place. This is usually to empower younger people to reconsider. The other is supervised. This is usually to empower older to people to consider their options. We can agree to disagree on what supervision means, but a bridge net and a mandatory process without a (subjective) additional waiting period, are very different situations to me.
    - Miraste 2y ago
      Would you feel the same way if the waiting period were objective? Say a study was performed with varying wait periods, the percentage of people who changed their minds and opted out was tracked, and the final length was set somewhere on this curve to minimize both the delay and the number of people who may have changed their minds. There are ethical problems with that precise setup, but you get the idea. The human psyche is a frail and changeable thing-a pause in a long-held mental routine can lead to greater consideration at any age, not just for the young.
- pc86 2y ago
  Making sure someone has actually done the deep consideration necessary for an informed decision of a certain magnitude is not cruel, authoritarian, or denying anyone their agency. It's simply making sure they're actually using their agency. Requiring someone be of sound mind before making permanent decisions is reasonable and pretending it's not only makes it possible for people to make permanent -- and in this case, deadly -- mistakes because you don't want to inconvenience someone else. Like you said, if you're 100% clear headed and you know you want to die, you'll be able to do it in two weeks just the same as you could in one. If you're going to have euthanasia it's more important to me that it be absolutely clear the people doing it are capable of making that decision in that moment than making it as easy and quick as possible. If you're not of clear mind to make the decision in the first place, you're not of clear mind to make the decision not to. Whether you said six months or a year ago that you want to die when your wife dies is irrelevant, you don't have the mental faculties at that moment to confirm you want to do it. And this isn't choosing to end your life in isolation, this is asking someone else to kill you. They have the right to know that there is as little chance as possible you would regret this a week, month, or year from now if given the opportunity.
- hattmall 2y ago
  The issue is that every OB/GYN has seen patients that regret the decision. And for most they will have seen instances where that regret ultimately led to suicide. Do you really want to be the doctor that didn't press for more consideration for a patient that ultimately takes their own life? I get the idea of giving women control but as a doctor it's also their right to refuse a procedure to not bear that burden. It's similar to the theory of justice that states it's better for 99 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent person to be punished. It's easier to deal with a lot of angry patients vs one that commits suicide. At least with the euthanasia there's not really going to be any rebounding patient regret to deal with!
  - SamoyedFurFluff 2y ago
    How common is this, really? I think you would have to weigh the chances of someone going through multiple specialists (psych evaluation, obgyn, possible other referrals) over the course of months and then magically they come to regret the procedure well into their full adulthood? At that point you might as well say that people shouldn’t be allowed cosmetic surgery, lasik, or braces.
    - lazyasciiart 2y ago
      It’s not common at all - on the contrary, the majority of ob-gyns have never seen a patient return and express regret about their voluntary sterilization, let alone know of one who was driven to suicide by it. I don’t know how this commenter came up with the idea.
    - 71bw 2y ago
      >At that point you might as well say that people shouldn’t be allowed cosmetic surgery Indeed, they shouldn't. >lasik Which a lot of people report regretting and saying that has only made things worse...? Not a great example.
  - masterj 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - bongodongobob 2y ago
- jtbayly 2y ago
  Should the doctor have control over his life? Or just his patients? And how exactly is the doctor supposed to distinguish between those who have a “0%” chance of changing their mind and those who have a 1% or 5% or 10% chance of changing their mind?
- diddid 2y ago
  Grown adults are prevented from making decisions all the time. Wearing a seat belt for example. Why should it be OK to force someone to wear a seat belt all of the time, but not OK to have a waiting period if someone decides they want to die?
  - smitelli 2y ago
    Well, partially, because it’s hell on the first responders to have to clean up a fatal accident scene, which is made worse if the death(s) could have been prevented.
    - diddid 2y ago
      I don’t disagree, but you are making the case for regulating grown adults. For the parent post “who decides how long the waiting period should be?” The answer is society. Right now society says none, but it shouldn’t be looked upon in horror if that changes. If I had to choose, I’d choose seat belts optional over on-demand euthanasia.
      - lazyasciiart 2y ago
        Society doesn’t say “none”, if you are talking about Canadian MAID laws. It says “months and a pile of paperwork”.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  "It reminds me of OB/GYN providers that deny childless women sterilization procedures" This is complicated, because forcing doctors into doing things that they consider unethical isn't ideal either.
- darth_avocado 2y ago
  > But denying a full grown adult control over their life decisions is cruel and unduly authoritarian. You’re assuming a clear state of mind and perfect circumstances. Suicidal thoughts are very common in depression. I would say giving people with depression access to euthanasia is more cruel than forcing them to seek help. Suicidal thoughts are also common in people who are struggling financially or people who have curable ailments but no access to healthcare. I would also say letting people kill themselves because they are poor is also much more cruel than denying them euthanasia. Bodily autonomy is important but we still require you wear seatbelts when you drive.
  - lazyasciiart 2y ago
    It is horrifyingly cruel to deny someone the option of death without also solving the problem that made them want it.
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      It is completely impossible to deny anybody the option of death unless you have them imprisoned.
  - spauldo 2y ago
    Quite a few of us believe you shouldn't require seat belts for adults.
    - quacksilver 2y ago
      I believe that they should be mandatory if there is someone sitting in a seat in front of you (maybe to the side too). You made your decision which is fine, though through choice you are now an unrestrained heavy object that could hit the other occupants of the car. https://www.washington.edu/news/2004/01/20/unbelted-drivers-and-passengers-can-cause-fatal-injuries-to-others-who-ride-with-them/ https://www.washington.edu/news/2004/01/20/unbelted-drivers-...
- wang_li 2y ago
  Everyone should be in charge of their own lives. Except doctors, who should shut the fuck up and do as their told. And people with moral and religious objections who should shut the fuck up and keep paying for this. And people who’d like to sell a kidney, who should shut the fuck up and understand that it’ll be taken after they’re dead when it’s of no value to them.
  - spauldo 2y ago
    Nobody's forcing people to be doctors. Nobody's forcing people with religious or moral objections to commit suicide. If they object to paying for others to do so, then they can stand with the people who have similar objections to paying for a military. Or with the people wondering why the churches those religions people belong to aren't paying taxes. I don't even know where you're going with that kidney comment.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  I lost my wife at 46. I didn’t get to a place that dark, but my decision making process was compromised for several months.
- mensetmanusman 2y ago
  “Walks out of bar drunk - let me have the keys! How dare you wait!” Once you understand the neuro-chemical underpinnings of stress etc. time delays will make more sense.
- 627467 2y ago
  > who decides Well, any person involved in the process of making something real? And that would include doctors right? Why doesn't doctor/health professionals opinion matters if they are the ones actually executing the request? Full-grown adults in a society don't live alone - others opinion matters too.
groby_b 2y ago
>Of course I don’t know all the circumstances around it. And that's the point. The person expressing the wish (and expressing it before the death) did. People make choices. We should let them, wherever possible. Yes, there are consequences - but we also let people fly wingsuits and base jump, and those have known consequences as well. Would you also enjoin people from doing that after a traumatic event? What about mountain climbing? Diving? Crossing the street? If you apply the "no major choices after a traumatic event for a while" line of thought, we'd need to install temporary guardians for anybody who has a traumatic event. That doesn't work.
- karencarits 2y ago
  If someone became extremely risk taking after a traumatic event, putting their life at stake at several occasions, it's not unreasonable to believe that - at least in some countries - the person would be forced to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, possibly through a temporary involuntary commitment
  - respondo2134 2y ago
    one line that is crossed is putting others at risk or pulling them into their actions. I can't think of many scenarios where I'd support involuntary commitment when it was just the individual and their actions.
- margalabargala 2y ago
  Flying a wingsuit out of an airplane as part of a skydive is not particularly dangerous. It's the base jumping, wingsuit or no, that is extremely dangerous.
  - LorenPechtel 2y ago
    AFIAK you don't have a reserve when you're using a wingsuit.
    - margalabargala 2y ago
pinkmuffinere 2y ago
I don’t understand the confusion over the person’s express wishes, it sounds very reasonable, maybe even noble to me. I’m 30 and healthy (afaik), but if my main community is my spouse and they die when I’m 80, I’d like euthanasia as well. I don’t even need the cancer background, that just sounds horrible. Maybe my mind will change when I’m actually 80? But I doubt it
cardanome 2y ago
Longer waiting time also means longer suffering. It is a trade-of to consider. One week seems a bit short but honestly not like he has that many years left anyway so the best he can hope for is going out on his on terms. I am super critical on euthanasia for younger people. I think it should only be allowed for cases when it is absolutely medically certain that they will die soon. But 80+, if you lived that long you probably know yourself pretty well at this point and are unlikely to change your mind. Aging, when coupled with mental decline, is horrific. It is good to allow them to go in a humane way. I had multiple relatives with dementia die and I have always felt a sense of relieve that their suffering had finally ended.
LorenPechtel 2y ago
IIRC they do have a waiting period longer than a week. But they do permit contingencies. I would assume he went through the application process before she died.

fellowniusmonk 2y ago

A lot of equations and generally good advice for the younger set changes when you're in you 80s. I think unless you've had a pretty unstable life or have real serious mental illness you know yourself pretty damn well by that point.

caseyohara 2y ago

Who decides on the duration of the waiting period? Why can’t people be in charge of their own lives? Especially people in their 80s, they have earned the right to agency. It reminds me of OB/GYN providers that deny childless women sterilization procedures – even when they are in their 30s – ostensibly on the risk that the woman might change their mind about having children. Some people know things for certain and there is a 0% chance they are going to change their mind. Yes, irreversible decisions warrant deep consideration. But denying a full grown adult control over their life decisions is cruel and unduly authoritarian.

aaplok 2y ago
The thing is, someone has to. If you walk in very drunk asking to be euthanised, one would hope that they would have to wait until you are no longer drunk to confirm you really want to be euthanised. Then, who decides on the waiting period? Likewise if a traumatic event clouds your judgement (as some events can do), it's not unreasonable to make you wait until your judgement is sound. Then someone has to decide on the waiting period. Potentially this can be studied statistically. Just collect data regularly after an event (such as binge drinking event) to evaluate how quickly people's judgement stabilises. That way we may find that the death of a spouse doesn't cloud the judgement, in which case the waiting period is 0.
- Boogie_Man 2y ago
  Convincing your drunk friend to go to the suicide clinic and kill himself is the absolute pinnacle of "thing that's the most hilarious thing in the world while you're smashed but is absolutely horrifying the second you wake up the next morning". Anecdotally, I've heard that there's a strong link between heavy boozing and suicide, especially via firearm. One wonders if it's determined people needing courage, or drunk people becoming determined.
  - lupire 2y ago
    It's that "free will" isn't as free as people think".
- simonh 2y ago
  Is there any country in the world with laws allowing assisted dying that actually allows what you describe, or is it a fantasy that’s irrelevant to the actual policies we’re discussing?
  - bscphil 2y ago
    The user you're responding to is very clearly presenting a hypothetical argument, not something that actually exists. The GP asked "Who decides on the duration of the waiting period? Why can’t people be in charge of their own lives?" And the OP is making that point that (a) there must be someone in a position to make that decision, and that (b) there must be some waiting period. In fact, if as you imply there are no countries that allow walk-in assisted euthanasia, that's a point in favor of the OPs point, because it suggests that we do widely recognize that there have to be some limits to individual freedom in this area.
    - 8note 2y ago
      i dont think id characterize those as limits on individual freedom, as much as a requirement of individual freedom. you actually have to want it, vs a whim where you might be drunk and not make the choice you wanted
karencarits 2y ago
I guess there are many perspectives on this; these are questions that touches on many serious ethical and philosophical topics: health care, the value of life, death, autonomy, ... There is a tendency in our time to think about all issues in terms of economy. I think that's wrong, that we shouldn't think about life and death as economical questions, that it is a reductive discourse. Others might disagree, of course For example, is this really a question about being in charge of one's own life or about what services that should be offered in a society? I guess that's also a link to the OB/GYN example you give; at least some health care professionals might think it is unethical to damage an organ or body that's working: primum non nocere Others, who have another philosophical view on what health care is, may say that the society should offer the services that people want or need
toasterlovin 2y ago
> Why can’t people be in charge of their own lives? I think the obvious counterpoint is that MAID is about people enlisting others to help kill them, which is no longer merely "being in charge of their own lives".
- christina97 2y ago
  The others are really not necessary from a technical pov, could have suicide pill vending machines around the place.
  - toasterlovin 2y ago
    Right, but if the vending machines with suicide pills are specifically for suicide, then the help of others is still very much necessary. And of course, you'd want to prevents kids and drunk people from using the machines, so you'd need some kind of a gatekeeper. And that point you've ended up right back at MAID.
  - davkan 2y ago
    Even with a pill machine every person involved in the process of setting is facilitating each suicide. This is not the same as recognizing that someone who hangs themselves has a right to do so. The question is just as much about us as it is about them.
jl6 2y ago
> Yes, irreversible decisions warrant deep consideration. I think you’ve answered your own question there. Deep consideration is not usually something done quickly, and arguably depth of consideration improves when others are involved to provide additional perspectives. “People should be in charge of their own lives” sounds superficially like an appealing principle, and in an abstract sense is a worthy one - but reality is messy at the edges, and we know that the concept of informed consent has nuances. There are many circumstances where it would be unethical to grant someone’s request even if they swear blind that it’s what they really want.
Miraste 2y ago
The same reason that pills come in blister packs and bridges have nets-if you add a delay to methods for ending one's life, a significant portion of people change their minds.
- Supermancho 2y ago
  One is to prevent unsupervised actions from taking place. This is usually to empower younger people to reconsider. The other is supervised. This is usually to empower older to people to consider their options. We can agree to disagree on what supervision means, but a bridge net and a mandatory process without a (subjective) additional waiting period, are very different situations to me.
  - Miraste 2y ago
    Would you feel the same way if the waiting period were objective? Say a study was performed with varying wait periods, the percentage of people who changed their minds and opted out was tracked, and the final length was set somewhere on this curve to minimize both the delay and the number of people who may have changed their minds. There are ethical problems with that precise setup, but you get the idea. The human psyche is a frail and changeable thing-a pause in a long-held mental routine can lead to greater consideration at any age, not just for the young.
pc86 2y ago
Making sure someone has actually done the deep consideration necessary for an informed decision of a certain magnitude is not cruel, authoritarian, or denying anyone their agency. It's simply making sure they're actually using their agency. Requiring someone be of sound mind before making permanent decisions is reasonable and pretending it's not only makes it possible for people to make permanent -- and in this case, deadly -- mistakes because you don't want to inconvenience someone else. Like you said, if you're 100% clear headed and you know you want to die, you'll be able to do it in two weeks just the same as you could in one. If you're going to have euthanasia it's more important to me that it be absolutely clear the people doing it are capable of making that decision in that moment than making it as easy and quick as possible. If you're not of clear mind to make the decision in the first place, you're not of clear mind to make the decision not to. Whether you said six months or a year ago that you want to die when your wife dies is irrelevant, you don't have the mental faculties at that moment to confirm you want to do it. And this isn't choosing to end your life in isolation, this is asking someone else to kill you. They have the right to know that there is as little chance as possible you would regret this a week, month, or year from now if given the opportunity.
hattmall 2y ago
The issue is that every OB/GYN has seen patients that regret the decision. And for most they will have seen instances where that regret ultimately led to suicide. Do you really want to be the doctor that didn't press for more consideration for a patient that ultimately takes their own life? I get the idea of giving women control but as a doctor it's also their right to refuse a procedure to not bear that burden. It's similar to the theory of justice that states it's better for 99 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent person to be punished. It's easier to deal with a lot of angry patients vs one that commits suicide. At least with the euthanasia there's not really going to be any rebounding patient regret to deal with!
- SamoyedFurFluff 2y ago
  How common is this, really? I think you would have to weigh the chances of someone going through multiple specialists (psych evaluation, obgyn, possible other referrals) over the course of months and then magically they come to regret the procedure well into their full adulthood? At that point you might as well say that people shouldn’t be allowed cosmetic surgery, lasik, or braces.
  - lazyasciiart 2y ago
    It’s not common at all - on the contrary, the majority of ob-gyns have never seen a patient return and express regret about their voluntary sterilization, let alone know of one who was driven to suicide by it. I don’t know how this commenter came up with the idea.
  - 71bw 2y ago
    >At that point you might as well say that people shouldn’t be allowed cosmetic surgery Indeed, they shouldn't. >lasik Which a lot of people report regretting and saying that has only made things worse...? Not a great example.
- masterj 2y ago
  [flagged]
- bongodongobob 2y ago
jtbayly 2y ago
Should the doctor have control over his life? Or just his patients? And how exactly is the doctor supposed to distinguish between those who have a “0%” chance of changing their mind and those who have a 1% or 5% or 10% chance of changing their mind?
diddid 2y ago
Grown adults are prevented from making decisions all the time. Wearing a seat belt for example. Why should it be OK to force someone to wear a seat belt all of the time, but not OK to have a waiting period if someone decides they want to die?
- smitelli 2y ago
  Well, partially, because it’s hell on the first responders to have to clean up a fatal accident scene, which is made worse if the death(s) could have been prevented.
  - diddid 2y ago
    I don’t disagree, but you are making the case for regulating grown adults. For the parent post “who decides how long the waiting period should be?” The answer is society. Right now society says none, but it shouldn’t be looked upon in horror if that changes. If I had to choose, I’d choose seat belts optional over on-demand euthanasia.
    - lazyasciiart 2y ago
      Society doesn’t say “none”, if you are talking about Canadian MAID laws. It says “months and a pile of paperwork”.
inglor_cz 2y ago
"It reminds me of OB/GYN providers that deny childless women sterilization procedures" This is complicated, because forcing doctors into doing things that they consider unethical isn't ideal either.
darth_avocado 2y ago
> But denying a full grown adult control over their life decisions is cruel and unduly authoritarian. You’re assuming a clear state of mind and perfect circumstances. Suicidal thoughts are very common in depression. I would say giving people with depression access to euthanasia is more cruel than forcing them to seek help. Suicidal thoughts are also common in people who are struggling financially or people who have curable ailments but no access to healthcare. I would also say letting people kill themselves because they are poor is also much more cruel than denying them euthanasia. Bodily autonomy is important but we still require you wear seatbelts when you drive.
- lazyasciiart 2y ago
  It is horrifyingly cruel to deny someone the option of death without also solving the problem that made them want it.
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    It is completely impossible to deny anybody the option of death unless you have them imprisoned.
- spauldo 2y ago
  Quite a few of us believe you shouldn't require seat belts for adults.
  - quacksilver 2y ago
    I believe that they should be mandatory if there is someone sitting in a seat in front of you (maybe to the side too). You made your decision which is fine, though through choice you are now an unrestrained heavy object that could hit the other occupants of the car. https://www.washington.edu/news/2004/01/20/unbelted-drivers-and-passengers-can-cause-fatal-injuries-to-others-who-ride-with-them/ https://www.washington.edu/news/2004/01/20/unbelted-drivers-...
wang_li 2y ago
Everyone should be in charge of their own lives. Except doctors, who should shut the fuck up and do as their told. And people with moral and religious objections who should shut the fuck up and keep paying for this. And people who’d like to sell a kidney, who should shut the fuck up and understand that it’ll be taken after they’re dead when it’s of no value to them.
- spauldo 2y ago
  Nobody's forcing people to be doctors. Nobody's forcing people with religious or moral objections to commit suicide. If they object to paying for others to do so, then they can stand with the people who have similar objections to paying for a military. Or with the people wondering why the churches those religions people belong to aren't paying taxes. I don't even know where you're going with that kidney comment.
Spooky23 2y ago
I lost my wife at 46. I didn’t get to a place that dark, but my decision making process was compromised for several months.
mensetmanusman 2y ago
“Walks out of bar drunk - let me have the keys! How dare you wait!” Once you understand the neuro-chemical underpinnings of stress etc. time delays will make more sense.
627467 2y ago
> who decides Well, any person involved in the process of making something real? And that would include doctors right? Why doesn't doctor/health professionals opinion matters if they are the ones actually executing the request? Full-grown adults in a society don't live alone - others opinion matters too.

groby_b 2y ago

>Of course I don’t know all the circumstances around it. And that's the point. The person expressing the wish (and expressing it before the death) did. People make choices. We should let them, wherever possible. Yes, there are consequences - but we also let people fly wingsuits and base jump, and those have known consequences as well. Would you also enjoin people from doing that after a traumatic event? What about mountain climbing? Diving? Crossing the street? If you apply the "no major choices after a traumatic event for a while" line of thought, we'd need to install temporary guardians for anybody who has a traumatic event. That doesn't work.

karencarits 2y ago
If someone became extremely risk taking after a traumatic event, putting their life at stake at several occasions, it's not unreasonable to believe that - at least in some countries - the person would be forced to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, possibly through a temporary involuntary commitment
- respondo2134 2y ago
  one line that is crossed is putting others at risk or pulling them into their actions. I can't think of many scenarios where I'd support involuntary commitment when it was just the individual and their actions.
margalabargala 2y ago
Flying a wingsuit out of an airplane as part of a skydive is not particularly dangerous. It's the base jumping, wingsuit or no, that is extremely dangerous.
- LorenPechtel 2y ago
  AFIAK you don't have a reserve when you're using a wingsuit.
  - margalabargala 2y ago

pinkmuffinere 2y ago

I don’t understand the confusion over the person’s express wishes, it sounds very reasonable, maybe even noble to me. I’m 30 and healthy (afaik), but if my main community is my spouse and they die when I’m 80, I’d like euthanasia as well. I don’t even need the cancer background, that just sounds horrible. Maybe my mind will change when I’m actually 80? But I doubt it

cardanome 2y ago

Longer waiting time also means longer suffering. It is a trade-of to consider. One week seems a bit short but honestly not like he has that many years left anyway so the best he can hope for is going out on his on terms. I am super critical on euthanasia for younger people. I think it should only be allowed for cases when it is absolutely medically certain that they will die soon. But 80+, if you lived that long you probably know yourself pretty well at this point and are unlikely to change your mind. Aging, when coupled with mental decline, is horrific. It is good to allow them to go in a humane way. I had multiple relatives with dementia die and I have always felt a sense of relieve that their suffering had finally ended.

LorenPechtel 2y ago

IIRC they do have a waiting period longer than a week. But they do permit contingencies. I would assume he went through the application process before she died.