6 ms·

This! People feel like they cannot live alone or they cannot want that someone else be caused hardship (time or money) because of their difficulty. I feel like

This! People feel like they cannot live alone or they cannot want that someone else be caused hardship (time or money) because of their difficulty. I feel like I will get downvoted to oblivion just because people vehemently disagree, but THIS CANNOT be the meaning and choice behind death. It is simply immature, arrogant, and selfish. But more plainly, it is suicidal / self-relentment.

mjevans 2y ago
My sample size as an adult is still small, but I've seen this in pets and I've seen this in humans. The downward slope quickens faster than any would like once it starts. The body or the mind slips away, leaving someone either trapped in a shell that doesn't work, or momentary fragments of the person who was among a sea of futile vapid existence. Our medical technology is not there and shows little sign of being close to resolving either issue. Rather than slowly wasting away I too would rather have the option to twist to the side off the cliff rather than the long slow painful stair tumble down the hill.
- nashashmi 2y ago
  You might be narrowing the definition of life to mean "body and mind fully active; useful spirited existence; painless existence". But ask the senile when they are no longer senile, or the once-despressed, or the ones who live in pain (sickle-cell anemic?) if death is better.
Freak_NL 2y ago
Who are you to judge whether someone who has lived for over seven decades should go on living or not? If they feel their life is done, have nothing left to live for, and fear degenerating into a husk of their former selves (dementia) stuck inside a broken brain for as long as their body holds out, than why should they hang on? It's arrogant and selfish to force people to live on for as long as doctors can keep their body alive. No euthanasia just means more messy suicides.
- nashashmi 2y ago
  > Who are you to judge whether someone who has lived for over seven decades should go on living or not? When an old man claims this, that is arrogant. > to force people to live I don't think anyone can force another to live beyond their ill-fated death.
kerkeslager 2y ago
Immature, arrogant, and selfish is a good description of a person who demands other people stay alive despite immense suffering, just so you can feel morally superior and not have to experience loss.
- karencarits 2y ago
  I agree that we should avoid such terms in general in this forum as it degrades the discussion. I think we can all agree that these are complex ethical questions where several values are at stake and there isn't one obviously superior ethical stand. What I read from your comment, is that you think peoples fear of loss impacts the discussion to much and shouldn't be given much weight in the question?
  - nicoburns 2y ago
    Not the OP, but I think fear of loss is part of it. But a lot of it is just an entrenched/assumed (and IMO not particularly justified) moral valuation of life above all else. My own view is that a happy life has value. Death is neutral (for the person who dies - it's affect on others may be either positive or negative). And that (all else being equal), causing someone to live an unhappy life has negative moral value. That latter bit seems to be something that many people not only disagree with, but don't even give proper consideration. Perhaps due to stigma around devaluing of life, so evolutionary bias towards life, or perhaps because their own life is good enough that they find it hard to empathise with those for whom life is an overall negatige experience.
shkkmo 2y ago
I'm partially with you, in that I do see tragedy in these choices. I see tragedy that we lack the cultural and economic institutions to support peope towards the end of life in ways (especially ones that don't make them feel like a burden.) However, I don't think the solution to that tragedy to to make people suffer through. I think the solution is more and better institutions that reduce that suffering so fewer people are pushed to make the choice to end it.
- taylorius 2y ago
  Forgive me, but your last sentence seems like a platitude. What would such institutions look like, and how might they reduce the suffering of someone with, say, advanced dementia? I'm not trying to have a go btw - it genuinely seems an intractable problem to me.
  - joshfee 2y ago
    I think the idea is that there are many factors that might motivate somebody's decision that their life is not worth living any longer. Each individual will have a different threshold for that, but if there are institutions that can alleviate the reasons for the people on the fringe, then there will be net fewer people that choose death when they otherwise may have. Someone with advanced dementia may be too far from that threshold to change the decision for them, but that doesn't mean that better institutions wouldn't move the needle.
  - shkkmo 2y ago
    I think dementia and euthanasia is already legally and morally very complicated so not sure that is the best example. I do think that dementia often causes problems due to strain on caregivers and cost of outside help. If you have systems of support and resources for these caregivers, then fewer people would be inclined to end their lives to avoid becoming such a huge burden. If you legalize euthanasia and have good frameworks for people to use to determine where their limit is, then people who don't want to become a burden aren't pushed to kill themselves while they still have time. There are lots of ways we can change systems and institutions to change the choices people make and I see good people working to make that happen. I guess it is a kind of a platitude. I'm not trying to claim that such changes are easy, simple, fast, or even obvious (though some may be.)
groby_b 2y ago
You know what? Yes, I make selfish decisions about my life. So does everybody else. We do not exist to satisfy the needs of other people. The choice behind death is that it's preferable to the alternative. Before we had medically assisted options, people would do it in more painful ways, but they'd still do it. Many cultures had the idea of "walking off into the wilderness" when your time was there. When that time is is a personal choice. By all means, let's put some non-gatekeeping hurdles in the way (e.g. mandate a conversation or three with a therapist), but ultimately, we should all be in charge of our own life.
- nashashmi 2y ago
  Most honest gloomful comment so far, and need I say selfish.
Fauntleroy 2y ago
Let's loop back around on this comment when you're in your 80s, alone, and dying a slow death.
- nashashmi 2y ago
  I would be in the same state as when I was depressed. The only people to prevent you from making such mistakes are the people around you.
- Yeul 2y ago
  "The only moral assisted suicide is my own assisted suicide".
itishappy 2y ago
> It is simply immature, arrogant, and selfish. How is the desire to avoid burdening others selfish? "You can't choose to kill yourself because that would be suicide" is a tautology, not an argument. What's the basis for these beliefs?
- nashashmi 2y ago
  I will define it for you: immature: "I know what life means and this is not the meaning of life" OR "we should not burden others with our remorse and pain and so share nothing with anyone lest it cause them pain too." (I hope I don't have to elaborate how this is immature.) arrogant: "who knows better what I need than me? I know it well enough that no one else matters" selfish: "If I am the one who wants something, why can't I have it? who are you to say I can't have what I want?" suicide is a mental disease and a psychological imbalance. The suicidal need a redefinition of what life means.
  - itishappy 2y ago
    Thanks for the clarification. I'm curious how you can reconcile your beliefs with those definitions, which I feel apply equally well to your own arguments: immature: "I know what life means and that is not the meaning of life." or "Suffering cannot be unbearable, can always be improved by sharing it, and everyone has a robust support network ready and willing to share their pain." arrogant: "15 thousand suffering people, their families, and their doctors and support staff all need to redefine life as I see it." selfish: "I know what's best for everyone. Differing opinions are mental disorders and psychological conditions and should be discarded out of hand." What makes your opinion the only privileged one here? Honest question, I just feel like we're operating under different frameworks and there must be something else I'm missing. Can I ask your opinion on the soul and afterlife?
    - nashashmi 2y ago
      In order to play a reverse uno card, you would have to at least use established reasons. Instead you chose libertarianisms: “dont tell me what to do; I will decide what is best for me” I don’t operate under libertarian principles.
steve_adams_86 2y ago
I'm well-aligned with Seneca, the Stoic philosopher who said death is an open door. If you want to die, do it. However, if you choose not to go through that door, your must live your life with purpose and conviction. There's no shame in going through that door if you no longer have the capacity to live purposefully, though. In these cases, I'm not sure these people had the agency and capacity to continue living in a way that makes sense as human beings. I gauge much of my value and purpose in life based on how I can serve my family and community. I don't really exist for me in a sense, and I can't exist without other people. I'm part of something a lot bigger than I am. If at any point it comes to be that I'm not serving a purpose in this great network, well, I'm not sure I'd see a point in carrying on. I may still be breathing, blood still pumping, but I'd be functionally dead as a part of a community.
- nashashmi 2y ago
  hear hear! in line with another comment I made: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42402703 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42402703 Choosing death is literally gambling that the purpose is over despite never knowing the future.
  - steve_adams_86 2y ago
    > gambling that the purpose is over despite never knowing the future I guess we're on the same page to some degree. If the future might hold some meaningful potential, wait it out. But we disagree about grandma, in this case. If grandma doesn't have the emotional and general psychological capacity to offer care, concern, stories, or heart, then she shouldn't be expected to anymore. There are limits to humans. It's why we die in the first place; we're not immortal, and we aren't supernatural. In situations where I've seen this play out, I think it's actually quite unfair and cruel that we expect grandma to continue offering her humanity to those around her when she has clearly lost most of it, and is barely hanging on anymore. If her life hurts her, we should not expect her to extend herself so we can hopefully gain something for ourselves despite her suffering. We have to ask ourselves: do we want these people to live for themselves, or for us? Is this a reciprocal, mutual desire we have for them, or does it fit a narrative or convention that's more suitable to us and our own wants and comforts? Is letting someone die too scary and uncomfortable for us? Are we attuned to how much they actually suffer and how little their future really holds? I suppose at some point we have to admit it doesn't make sense to lament not knowing the future. For example, when my mom died it took her 7 years, 3 of which were absolutely awful for her, 2 of which were spent in relative confusion or outright senility. It was all downhill, no turning around, no improving, just a steady descent into pain and madness. Saying "I can't predict the future" at that point is kind of insane. She'd lost her mind. She was enduring kinds of pain I came to understand as being indescribable and unbearable. Hoping for a turn around so I could hear her voice, her care, more stories, etc... No, that's for me, and she's already gone. Why make her suffer more? For what it's worth, I don't eat animals because I despise the idea of needless suffering. I won't intentionally cause suffering of a sentient creature because it's one of the most needless, unnecessary, overtly harmful things I know of in the universe. I can't bring myself to have an animal suffer because I want to enjoy eating its meat, and likewise, I can't expect a human to suffer because I want to (hopefully) enjoy their presence or some function they serve for me. No, that's a bizarre pressure or expectation to put on someone. Especially if it's for my own fleeting gratification. That doesn't enrich our relationship or deepen our connection. It's just me and what I want. Who cares what I want, when someone is in the throes of dying?
nashashmi 2y ago
Because it is downvoted to oblivion: > This! People feel like they cannot live alone or they cannot want that someone else be caused hardship (time or money) because of their difficulty. > I feel like I will get downvoted to oblivion just because people vehemently disagree, but THIS CANNOT be the meaning and choice behind death. It is simply immature, arrogant, and selfish. But more plainly, it is suicidal / self-relentment.

mjevans 2y ago

My sample size as an adult is still small, but I've seen this in pets and I've seen this in humans. The downward slope quickens faster than any would like once it starts. The body or the mind slips away, leaving someone either trapped in a shell that doesn't work, or momentary fragments of the person who was among a sea of futile vapid existence. Our medical technology is not there and shows little sign of being close to resolving either issue. Rather than slowly wasting away I too would rather have the option to twist to the side off the cliff rather than the long slow painful stair tumble down the hill.

nashashmi 2y ago
You might be narrowing the definition of life to mean "body and mind fully active; useful spirited existence; painless existence". But ask the senile when they are no longer senile, or the once-despressed, or the ones who live in pain (sickle-cell anemic?) if death is better.

Freak_NL 2y ago

Who are you to judge whether someone who has lived for over seven decades should go on living or not? If they feel their life is done, have nothing left to live for, and fear degenerating into a husk of their former selves (dementia) stuck inside a broken brain for as long as their body holds out, than why should they hang on? It's arrogant and selfish to force people to live on for as long as doctors can keep their body alive. No euthanasia just means more messy suicides.

nashashmi 2y ago
> Who are you to judge whether someone who has lived for over seven decades should go on living or not? When an old man claims this, that is arrogant. > to force people to live I don't think anyone can force another to live beyond their ill-fated death.

kerkeslager 2y ago

Immature, arrogant, and selfish is a good description of a person who demands other people stay alive despite immense suffering, just so you can feel morally superior and not have to experience loss.

karencarits 2y ago
I agree that we should avoid such terms in general in this forum as it degrades the discussion. I think we can all agree that these are complex ethical questions where several values are at stake and there isn't one obviously superior ethical stand. What I read from your comment, is that you think peoples fear of loss impacts the discussion to much and shouldn't be given much weight in the question?
- nicoburns 2y ago
  Not the OP, but I think fear of loss is part of it. But a lot of it is just an entrenched/assumed (and IMO not particularly justified) moral valuation of life above all else. My own view is that a happy life has value. Death is neutral (for the person who dies - it's affect on others may be either positive or negative). And that (all else being equal), causing someone to live an unhappy life has negative moral value. That latter bit seems to be something that many people not only disagree with, but don't even give proper consideration. Perhaps due to stigma around devaluing of life, so evolutionary bias towards life, or perhaps because their own life is good enough that they find it hard to empathise with those for whom life is an overall negatige experience.

shkkmo 2y ago

I'm partially with you, in that I do see tragedy in these choices. I see tragedy that we lack the cultural and economic institutions to support peope towards the end of life in ways (especially ones that don't make them feel like a burden.) However, I don't think the solution to that tragedy to to make people suffer through. I think the solution is more and better institutions that reduce that suffering so fewer people are pushed to make the choice to end it.

taylorius 2y ago
Forgive me, but your last sentence seems like a platitude. What would such institutions look like, and how might they reduce the suffering of someone with, say, advanced dementia? I'm not trying to have a go btw - it genuinely seems an intractable problem to me.
- joshfee 2y ago
  I think the idea is that there are many factors that might motivate somebody's decision that their life is not worth living any longer. Each individual will have a different threshold for that, but if there are institutions that can alleviate the reasons for the people on the fringe, then there will be net fewer people that choose death when they otherwise may have. Someone with advanced dementia may be too far from that threshold to change the decision for them, but that doesn't mean that better institutions wouldn't move the needle.
- shkkmo 2y ago
  I think dementia and euthanasia is already legally and morally very complicated so not sure that is the best example. I do think that dementia often causes problems due to strain on caregivers and cost of outside help. If you have systems of support and resources for these caregivers, then fewer people would be inclined to end their lives to avoid becoming such a huge burden. If you legalize euthanasia and have good frameworks for people to use to determine where their limit is, then people who don't want to become a burden aren't pushed to kill themselves while they still have time. There are lots of ways we can change systems and institutions to change the choices people make and I see good people working to make that happen. I guess it is a kind of a platitude. I'm not trying to claim that such changes are easy, simple, fast, or even obvious (though some may be.)

groby_b 2y ago

You know what? Yes, I make selfish decisions about my life. So does everybody else. We do not exist to satisfy the needs of other people. The choice behind death is that it's preferable to the alternative. Before we had medically assisted options, people would do it in more painful ways, but they'd still do it. Many cultures had the idea of "walking off into the wilderness" when your time was there. When that time is is a personal choice. By all means, let's put some non-gatekeeping hurdles in the way (e.g. mandate a conversation or three with a therapist), but ultimately, we should all be in charge of our own life.

nashashmi 2y ago
Most honest gloomful comment so far, and need I say selfish.

Fauntleroy 2y ago

Let's loop back around on this comment when you're in your 80s, alone, and dying a slow death.

nashashmi 2y ago
I would be in the same state as when I was depressed. The only people to prevent you from making such mistakes are the people around you.
Yeul 2y ago
"The only moral assisted suicide is my own assisted suicide".

itishappy 2y ago

> It is simply immature, arrogant, and selfish. How is the desire to avoid burdening others selfish? "You can't choose to kill yourself because that would be suicide" is a tautology, not an argument. What's the basis for these beliefs?

nashashmi 2y ago
I will define it for you: immature: "I know what life means and this is not the meaning of life" OR "we should not burden others with our remorse and pain and so share nothing with anyone lest it cause them pain too." (I hope I don't have to elaborate how this is immature.) arrogant: "who knows better what I need than me? I know it well enough that no one else matters" selfish: "If I am the one who wants something, why can't I have it? who are you to say I can't have what I want?" suicide is a mental disease and a psychological imbalance. The suicidal need a redefinition of what life means.
- itishappy 2y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. I'm curious how you can reconcile your beliefs with those definitions, which I feel apply equally well to your own arguments: immature: "I know what life means and that is not the meaning of life." or "Suffering cannot be unbearable, can always be improved by sharing it, and everyone has a robust support network ready and willing to share their pain." arrogant: "15 thousand suffering people, their families, and their doctors and support staff all need to redefine life as I see it." selfish: "I know what's best for everyone. Differing opinions are mental disorders and psychological conditions and should be discarded out of hand." What makes your opinion the only privileged one here? Honest question, I just feel like we're operating under different frameworks and there must be something else I'm missing. Can I ask your opinion on the soul and afterlife?
  - nashashmi 2y ago
    In order to play a reverse uno card, you would have to at least use established reasons. Instead you chose libertarianisms: “dont tell me what to do; I will decide what is best for me” I don’t operate under libertarian principles.

steve_adams_86 2y ago

I'm well-aligned with Seneca, the Stoic philosopher who said death is an open door. If you want to die, do it. However, if you choose not to go through that door, your must live your life with purpose and conviction. There's no shame in going through that door if you no longer have the capacity to live purposefully, though. In these cases, I'm not sure these people had the agency and capacity to continue living in a way that makes sense as human beings. I gauge much of my value and purpose in life based on how I can serve my family and community. I don't really exist for me in a sense, and I can't exist without other people. I'm part of something a lot bigger than I am. If at any point it comes to be that I'm not serving a purpose in this great network, well, I'm not sure I'd see a point in carrying on. I may still be breathing, blood still pumping, but I'd be functionally dead as a part of a community.

nashashmi 2y ago
hear hear! in line with another comment I made: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42402703 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42402703 Choosing death is literally gambling that the purpose is over despite never knowing the future.
- steve_adams_86 2y ago
  > gambling that the purpose is over despite never knowing the future I guess we're on the same page to some degree. If the future might hold some meaningful potential, wait it out. But we disagree about grandma, in this case. If grandma doesn't have the emotional and general psychological capacity to offer care, concern, stories, or heart, then she shouldn't be expected to anymore. There are limits to humans. It's why we die in the first place; we're not immortal, and we aren't supernatural. In situations where I've seen this play out, I think it's actually quite unfair and cruel that we expect grandma to continue offering her humanity to those around her when she has clearly lost most of it, and is barely hanging on anymore. If her life hurts her, we should not expect her to extend herself so we can hopefully gain something for ourselves despite her suffering. We have to ask ourselves: do we want these people to live for themselves, or for us? Is this a reciprocal, mutual desire we have for them, or does it fit a narrative or convention that's more suitable to us and our own wants and comforts? Is letting someone die too scary and uncomfortable for us? Are we attuned to how much they actually suffer and how little their future really holds? I suppose at some point we have to admit it doesn't make sense to lament not knowing the future. For example, when my mom died it took her 7 years, 3 of which were absolutely awful for her, 2 of which were spent in relative confusion or outright senility. It was all downhill, no turning around, no improving, just a steady descent into pain and madness. Saying "I can't predict the future" at that point is kind of insane. She'd lost her mind. She was enduring kinds of pain I came to understand as being indescribable and unbearable. Hoping for a turn around so I could hear her voice, her care, more stories, etc... No, that's for me, and she's already gone. Why make her suffer more? For what it's worth, I don't eat animals because I despise the idea of needless suffering. I won't intentionally cause suffering of a sentient creature because it's one of the most needless, unnecessary, overtly harmful things I know of in the universe. I can't bring myself to have an animal suffer because I want to enjoy eating its meat, and likewise, I can't expect a human to suffer because I want to (hopefully) enjoy their presence or some function they serve for me. No, that's a bizarre pressure or expectation to put on someone. Especially if it's for my own fleeting gratification. That doesn't enrich our relationship or deepen our connection. It's just me and what I want. Who cares what I want, when someone is in the throes of dying?

nashashmi 2y ago

Because it is downvoted to oblivion: > This! People feel like they cannot live alone or they cannot want that someone else be caused hardship (time or money) because of their difficulty. > I feel like I will get downvoted to oblivion just because people vehemently disagree, but THIS CANNOT be the meaning and choice behind death. It is simply immature, arrogant, and selfish. But more plainly, it is suicidal / self-relentment.