5 ms·

I dont think this perspective is valid in the context of a fully intentional and informed medically assisted suicide.

ninetyninenine 2y ago
It is valid. Euthanasia is suicide. If the bullet travels fast enough into the skull before the brain can register pain then there is no difference in experience from assisted suicide to eating a bullet. The only difference is the risk of a botched suicide but outside of that the two things are one and the same. I use extreme language here not to offend people but to illustrate that they are logically the same thing. If you think euthanasia is humane then so is putting a bullet in your own head. If you think putting a bullet in your own head is extreme, then so is euthanasia. Think logically. Also I love this idea of age being a marker for maturity and the ability to make your own decisions. If my daughter turns 18 at 12:00pm sharp then at 11:59am she is not mature enough to kill herself. But then one second later when she turns 18 she is now mature enough to kill herself in the same way trump and Elon musk are mature because they are past 18. Makes sense. I can assure you when I look at this world. Nobody is mature. The right and most mature action isn’t always apparent and people make mistakes all the time. For something like suicide I am happy that there are people who give a shit to intervene.
- sepositus 2y ago
  It seems like it's perhaps the natural progression of an extreme sense of individualism. In an age where individual choice is elevated to the highest level possible, it naturally follows that someone should have the option to end their lives whenever they want. I think this view falls short because it seems to count the chances of someone making an uninformed mistake as an acceptable consequence of preserving individual choice. Personally, I can't agree with this view. I often state that my desire is to protect and preserve life when it comes to suicide and am met with backlash over "inserting myself into other people's lives." When the reality is I've been close to several suicides (due to my community role) where the general community consensus was that the person was dealing with a complex mental health issue and the medical system more or less failed them. I don't propose to win anybody to my side, but I think the whole topic requires a lot of nuance and shouldn't be simplified.
  - Flimm 2y ago
    Really well said. It is an excruciating situation to be in. Thank you for sharing your perspective.
  - volemo 2y ago
    You say the whole topic requires a lot of nuance and shouldn't be simplified and I say (while agreeing with you in the general case) there is no nuance when it comes to relieving a person from suffering. I get you've witnessed suicides that shouldn't have happened [1], but I had to watch a close relative of mine be in a state of excruciating pain for weeks while slowly dying from cancer. No drugs would help her. She lay there, first screaming, then begging to die, then when the agony became unbearable she'd lie there in between consciousness and unconsciousness, unable to perceive so much of it. From time to time her mind would clear up and I'd see the immense pain in her eyes. The country I'm from doesn't allow euthanasia even in such extreme cases. In that moment, I hated the doctors so much — despite knowing their hands were tied. Even more, I resented the society that would prohibit helping someone in such a state due to its idealistic views of the value of life — views that had never been exposed to the horrors I'd seen. Perhaps you'd argue this too was a case of the medical system failing the person, but I believe that, lacking the knowledge or technology to truly help someone whose illness has progressed so far, we must help as much as we can, even if it means living with the thought of taking someone's life. Sorry for the stream of consciousness; I don't know how to wrap this up. [1]: I say as if there are suicides that should happen. ._\
    - sepositus 2y ago
      > there is no nuance when it comes to relieving a person from suffering What if the person is suffering from a mental health crisis that modern medicines can treat? I'm not trying to be obtuse, and I understand what you mean by suffering is akin to what you described, but my point is that written in that way, it's not clear. This is precisely why the conversation needs to have nuance, because we all have wildly different experiences with suicide, and we need to fully understand the various factors driving it before we open the gates to assisted suicide. > Perhaps you'd argue this too was a case of the medical system failing the person Why would I argue that? I think you misunderstood my argument. In cases where someone is attempting suicide because of a treatable mental health condition (i.e., a chemistry problem in the brain that can be relieved through modern medicine), I think we should be cautious about killing them without at least attempting to treat the underlying issue. One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is that, in many cases, suicide is not an individual act. A father of three with a family dependent on him who decides to commit suicide is very much impacting the lives of his family members. Again, nuance is warranted.
- kennysoona 2y ago
  > Think logically. That would entail considering the other differences between a bullet and assisted suicide other than risk of botching or pain experiences, which you are clearly not doing.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    It is trivial to think about the differences. It is rational and harder to think about how they are the same horrific act. Under your world at 18 every teenager can be immediately separated from their parents and taken to a suicide room where they have an option to choose between several different suicides each administrated by a professional who will guarantee a painless death. There's gas chamber, sharp shooter, decapitation and lethal injection. Every person the minute their 18 is offered this and forcefully walled off from their parents so their parents won't influence their individual freedom. Additionally there should be public suicide rooms where a person can walk in of their own free will and be instantly gassed to death. One on every corner because freedom. Imagine you had a depressed teenage son/daughter. He's depressed because his girlfriend just broke up with him. In several years he won't be depressed and he'll look back at his depression and see how stupid it was. But at 18 he has freedom, so I encourage him to go get his head blown off by a professional executioner. his parents were able to stop him at 17, but the minute he turns 18 they can't do shit and Now he's dead. Is this right? Is this total worship of individual freedom the correct thing to do? If you're not thinking rationally, which you CLEARLY aren't then you would be incapable of seeing this nuance because it is the LOGICAL consequence of what you support.
    - kennysoona 2y ago
      I don't think your argument here is so much logical as it is emotional. I'm not judging or criticizing for that, it's an emotional issue at its core. I think you could have a very, very high threshold for administering euthanasia though, which would be a long cry from having public suicide booths ala Futurama.
      - ninetyninenine 2y ago
- mariusor 2y ago
  Euthanasia is not suicide. The decision to end a life under most euthanasia or assisted suicide legislatures involve third party medical professionals and psychologists that ascertain the capability of the person to make the decision to end their life and the necessity of that fact in balance with their suffering. Suicide happens outside of society and one's immediate support group (family, friends, etc). Euthanasia is not that at all, family, friends even if possibly not at peace, at least they're forewarned and can intellectually understand there's a "why" of a person's need to die. I think it's very reductive and naive to equate the two. To deny a person's ability to end their life with dignity is, in my opinion, very inhumane.
  - blueflow 2y ago
    Its a matter of opinion where you draw the line between suicide or euthanasia. This implies that no one here has the high ground in calling the others idea of it "reductive" or "naive".
    - mariusor 2y ago
      In actuality it's a matter of law, not opinion.
      - blueflow 2y ago
        Which is derived from opinions using democratic processes.
- BrandoElFollito 2y ago
  Putting a bullet in your own head is simply impractical. You have to have a gun, then aom correctly. I would absolutely prefer to be sedated and killed medically but of I do not have this option I will jump in front of a train, or build my own azote based contraption. I want to choose for me, th1t's it. We have the way more difficult and impacting choice of having the ability yo have children, sucide is a personal thing.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    Hiring a professional costs a lot of money. Like euthanasia is only for rich people who can afford it. The ludicrous thing here is that you geniuses are actually discriminating saying only rich people should be allowed to off themselves. > I want to choose for me, th1t's it. We have the way more difficult and impacting choice of having the ability yo have children, suicide is a personal thing. So what if a child makes this personal choice? Should we stop it? No right? Is the reason because the child is not sane enough or mature enough to make the right decision? What criteria makes a person sane enough to make that personal choice? Is it an arbitrary age? Say 18?
    - BrandoElFollito 2y ago
      > Hiring a professional costs a lot of money. Like euthanasia is only for rich people who can afford it. I do not know where you maybe but my expectation is that everything health is free (except for some minor stuff). A medicalized euthanasia absolutely is in scope of that.
    - BrandoElFollito 2y ago
      > What criteria makes a person sane enough to make that personal choice? Is it an arbitrary age? Say 18? We collectively decided that 18 is an age when someone is fully responsible for their everyone (which is biologically incorrect). For lack of a better reference, yes 18.
moralestapia 2y ago
What a distasteful and ignorant comment. You do not know, at all, the circumstances surrounding GP's situation. If you're trying to make an argument for "the person involved was not terminally ill", which you obviously don't know, you are pushing aside everybody who has had emotional and mental health issues through their lives, even you. Depression is, by far, the leading cause behind suicide attempts. More than 90% of people who attempt to do it (or unfortunately succeed) are living with an underlying mental health condition. Choosing to ignore this is outstandingly idiotic.
- notesinthefield 2y ago
  I think the perspective on suicide, from third person is invalid - they arent the ones experiencing whatever it is driving one to take that route. The will and love of a parent is blinding and thats all I need to know and overwhelmingly I struggle to see how a categorically selfish want to keep a suffering person from not is helpful to anyone. To ignore that is, how you say, “outstandingly idiotic”

It is valid. Euthanasia is suicide. If the bullet travels fast enough into the skull before the brain can register pain then there is no difference in experience from assisted suicide to eating a bullet. The only difference is the risk of a botched suicide but outside of that the two things are one and the same. I use extreme language here not to offend people but to illustrate that they are logically the same thing. If you think euthanasia is humane then so is putting a bullet in your own head. If you think putting a bullet in your own head is extreme, then so is euthanasia. Think logically. Also I love this idea of age being a marker for maturity and the ability to make your own decisions. If my daughter turns 18 at 12:00pm sharp then at 11:59am she is not mature enough to kill herself. But then one second later when she turns 18 she is now mature enough to kill herself in the same way trump and Elon musk are mature because they are past 18. Makes sense. I can assure you when I look at this world. Nobody is mature. The right and most mature action isn’t always apparent and people make mistakes all the time. For something like suicide I am happy that there are people who give a shit to intervene.

sepositus 2y ago
It seems like it's perhaps the natural progression of an extreme sense of individualism. In an age where individual choice is elevated to the highest level possible, it naturally follows that someone should have the option to end their lives whenever they want. I think this view falls short because it seems to count the chances of someone making an uninformed mistake as an acceptable consequence of preserving individual choice. Personally, I can't agree with this view. I often state that my desire is to protect and preserve life when it comes to suicide and am met with backlash over "inserting myself into other people's lives." When the reality is I've been close to several suicides (due to my community role) where the general community consensus was that the person was dealing with a complex mental health issue and the medical system more or less failed them. I don't propose to win anybody to my side, but I think the whole topic requires a lot of nuance and shouldn't be simplified.
- Flimm 2y ago
  Really well said. It is an excruciating situation to be in. Thank you for sharing your perspective.
- volemo 2y ago
  You say the whole topic requires a lot of nuance and shouldn't be simplified and I say (while agreeing with you in the general case) there is no nuance when it comes to relieving a person from suffering. I get you've witnessed suicides that shouldn't have happened [1], but I had to watch a close relative of mine be in a state of excruciating pain for weeks while slowly dying from cancer. No drugs would help her. She lay there, first screaming, then begging to die, then when the agony became unbearable she'd lie there in between consciousness and unconsciousness, unable to perceive so much of it. From time to time her mind would clear up and I'd see the immense pain in her eyes. The country I'm from doesn't allow euthanasia even in such extreme cases. In that moment, I hated the doctors so much — despite knowing their hands were tied. Even more, I resented the society that would prohibit helping someone in such a state due to its idealistic views of the value of life — views that had never been exposed to the horrors I'd seen. Perhaps you'd argue this too was a case of the medical system failing the person, but I believe that, lacking the knowledge or technology to truly help someone whose illness has progressed so far, we must help as much as we can, even if it means living with the thought of taking someone's life. Sorry for the stream of consciousness; I don't know how to wrap this up. [1]: I say as if there are suicides that should happen. ._\
  - sepositus 2y ago
    > there is no nuance when it comes to relieving a person from suffering What if the person is suffering from a mental health crisis that modern medicines can treat? I'm not trying to be obtuse, and I understand what you mean by suffering is akin to what you described, but my point is that written in that way, it's not clear. This is precisely why the conversation needs to have nuance, because we all have wildly different experiences with suicide, and we need to fully understand the various factors driving it before we open the gates to assisted suicide. > Perhaps you'd argue this too was a case of the medical system failing the person Why would I argue that? I think you misunderstood my argument. In cases where someone is attempting suicide because of a treatable mental health condition (i.e., a chemistry problem in the brain that can be relieved through modern medicine), I think we should be cautious about killing them without at least attempting to treat the underlying issue. One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is that, in many cases, suicide is not an individual act. A father of three with a family dependent on him who decides to commit suicide is very much impacting the lives of his family members. Again, nuance is warranted.
kennysoona 2y ago
> Think logically. That would entail considering the other differences between a bullet and assisted suicide other than risk of botching or pain experiences, which you are clearly not doing.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  It is trivial to think about the differences. It is rational and harder to think about how they are the same horrific act. Under your world at 18 every teenager can be immediately separated from their parents and taken to a suicide room where they have an option to choose between several different suicides each administrated by a professional who will guarantee a painless death. There's gas chamber, sharp shooter, decapitation and lethal injection. Every person the minute their 18 is offered this and forcefully walled off from their parents so their parents won't influence their individual freedom. Additionally there should be public suicide rooms where a person can walk in of their own free will and be instantly gassed to death. One on every corner because freedom. Imagine you had a depressed teenage son/daughter. He's depressed because his girlfriend just broke up with him. In several years he won't be depressed and he'll look back at his depression and see how stupid it was. But at 18 he has freedom, so I encourage him to go get his head blown off by a professional executioner. his parents were able to stop him at 17, but the minute he turns 18 they can't do shit and Now he's dead. Is this right? Is this total worship of individual freedom the correct thing to do? If you're not thinking rationally, which you CLEARLY aren't then you would be incapable of seeing this nuance because it is the LOGICAL consequence of what you support.
  - kennysoona 2y ago
    I don't think your argument here is so much logical as it is emotional. I'm not judging or criticizing for that, it's an emotional issue at its core. I think you could have a very, very high threshold for administering euthanasia though, which would be a long cry from having public suicide booths ala Futurama.
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
mariusor 2y ago
Euthanasia is not suicide. The decision to end a life under most euthanasia or assisted suicide legislatures involve third party medical professionals and psychologists that ascertain the capability of the person to make the decision to end their life and the necessity of that fact in balance with their suffering. Suicide happens outside of society and one's immediate support group (family, friends, etc). Euthanasia is not that at all, family, friends even if possibly not at peace, at least they're forewarned and can intellectually understand there's a "why" of a person's need to die. I think it's very reductive and naive to equate the two. To deny a person's ability to end their life with dignity is, in my opinion, very inhumane.
- blueflow 2y ago
  Its a matter of opinion where you draw the line between suicide or euthanasia. This implies that no one here has the high ground in calling the others idea of it "reductive" or "naive".
  - mariusor 2y ago
    In actuality it's a matter of law, not opinion.
    - blueflow 2y ago
      Which is derived from opinions using democratic processes.
BrandoElFollito 2y ago
Putting a bullet in your own head is simply impractical. You have to have a gun, then aom correctly. I would absolutely prefer to be sedated and killed medically but of I do not have this option I will jump in front of a train, or build my own azote based contraption. I want to choose for me, th1t's it. We have the way more difficult and impacting choice of having the ability yo have children, sucide is a personal thing.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  Hiring a professional costs a lot of money. Like euthanasia is only for rich people who can afford it. The ludicrous thing here is that you geniuses are actually discriminating saying only rich people should be allowed to off themselves. > I want to choose for me, th1t's it. We have the way more difficult and impacting choice of having the ability yo have children, suicide is a personal thing. So what if a child makes this personal choice? Should we stop it? No right? Is the reason because the child is not sane enough or mature enough to make the right decision? What criteria makes a person sane enough to make that personal choice? Is it an arbitrary age? Say 18?
  - BrandoElFollito 2y ago
    > Hiring a professional costs a lot of money. Like euthanasia is only for rich people who can afford it. I do not know where you maybe but my expectation is that everything health is free (except for some minor stuff). A medicalized euthanasia absolutely is in scope of that.
  - BrandoElFollito 2y ago
    > What criteria makes a person sane enough to make that personal choice? Is it an arbitrary age? Say 18? We collectively decided that 18 is an age when someone is fully responsible for their everyone (which is biologically incorrect). For lack of a better reference, yes 18.

moralestapia 2y ago

What a distasteful and ignorant comment. You do not know, at all, the circumstances surrounding GP's situation. If you're trying to make an argument for "the person involved was not terminally ill", which you obviously don't know, you are pushing aside everybody who has had emotional and mental health issues through their lives, even you. Depression is, by far, the leading cause behind suicide attempts. More than 90% of people who attempt to do it (or unfortunately succeed) are living with an underlying mental health condition. Choosing to ignore this is outstandingly idiotic.

notesinthefield 2y ago
I think the perspective on suicide, from third person is invalid - they arent the ones experiencing whatever it is driving one to take that route. The will and love of a parent is blinding and thats all I need to know and overwhelmingly I struggle to see how a categorically selfish want to keep a suffering person from not is helpful to anyone. To ignore that is, how you say, “outstandingly idiotic”