3 ms·

Pets are legally property. You may love your pet, but it’s not human. The risk with allowing humans to do this is that it’s possible for someone not of sound m

by koolba 1y ago

Pets are legally property. You may love your pet, but it’s not human. The risk with allowing humans to do this is that it’s possible for someone not of sound mind to come to this conclusion.

MiscIdeaMaker99 1y ago
What constitutes a sound mind?
- swat535 1y ago
  Isn’t this what we have psychologists for ? Surely you don’t think an 18 year old claiming to be endlessly suffering due to failing a math test sound enough to terminate his life?
EvanAnderson 1y ago
People who aren't of sound mind can come to this conclusion regardless of the law. Giving people who are of sound mind a way to control their death with dignity (and in a minimally burdensome way for those who they leave behind) is the point.
qualeed 1y ago
>The risk with allowing humans to do this is that it’s possible for someone not of sound mind to come to this conclusion. It seems like lots of people think you can just go to your doctor and be prescribed a cocktail of death because you feel down today. That's not what assisted death programs are like, at all. There's waiting periods, evaluations by independent doctors and psychiatrists, interviews, etc. to determine your capacity and understanding of the decision. Someone who is not of sound mind is not getting approval for assisted death. Anyone sufficiently determined enough is going to find a way to die, regardless of what laws or programs are there. These programs don't change that, and they aren't meant to.
- koolba 1y ago
  > Someone who is not of sound mind is not getting approval for assisted death. For many of us, this is a classic catch-22 as requesting such approval demonstrates the lack of a sound mind.
  - ty6853 1y ago
    IMO it's purely a liability debate. The other concerns are philosophically interesting but on a practical basis mooted: anyone of sound or almost anyone of unsound mind and two nickels to rub together can reliably off themselves without asking anyone for approval.
  - qualeed 1y ago
    >requesting such approval demonstrates the lack of a sound mind. This is wild to me. I watched my father, who had a life expectancy measured in months, live in unbearable pain 24 hours a day. And you believe that him wishing to end that nightmare demonstrates a lack of sound mind? The sound decision, in your opinion, is to suffer in pain, knowing that there is no treatment nor cure coming, just pain for some number of months until death's release? I find it particularly cruel that you (seemingly?) think that he should have had to continue to suffer. And, by extension, myself and the rest of my family, should have had to continue to watch him suffer. (Before we get too far into it, I will say upfront, there's not much in way of argument that will sway me from this opinion. I am certainly open to hearing your opinion, though.)
  - avgDev 1y ago
    Please remember this if you ever get diagnosed with a painful terminal illness.
  - lurking_swe 1y ago
    tell me you haven’t been around old suffering people without telling me. I literally think your comment is crazy. Like batshit crazy. Go into a nursing home in the U.S. sometime and walk the halls. Tell me if you think the majority of those people are waking up with something to look forward to? Some of them are sitting in their own shit for hours because the nurses are too short staffed. I’d rather be dead than sit in my own shit for hours while being in chronic pain, and abandoned in a nursing home. There are other reasons to choose death too of course. But i digress. I’m not in the mood to make an exhaustive list. If you’re old and in okay-ish health, and have _something_ to look forward to (hobby, seeing grandkids, reading, etc), then it’s a different story.
phoe-krk 1y ago
Yes, it is indeed a risk. It is much better to only allow people "not of sound mind" to kill themselves the way they currently do - via brutal, goresome, and unexpected methods, which also often endanger others as well. /s
wat10000 1y ago
Why isn't it considered a risk that someone not of sound mind might decide on a course of action that causes them to live in agony for months with an incurable condition? Why is the argument always "what if a particular death is bad?" and never "what if a particular staying alive is bad?"
scotty79 1y ago
> someone not of sound mind We are already risking someone not of sound mind owning a gun or operating heavy machinery and ludicrous speeds in public places. Do we really think the benefit doesn't outweigh the risk in case of medically assisted death?
wizzwizz4 1y ago
No, the actual risk is that there are larger bureaucratic barriers to treatment than to the assisted dying programme, so it's easier for somebody suffering to die than to get treatment, when effective treatment is available and (in the absence of those daunting bureaucratic barriers) preferable. Assisted dying is a horrifying, but probably overall good idea; however, we need to reform our medical bureaucracies before it's something that they can ethically provide.
- tpm 1y ago
  And on that note, it always amazes me we have plenty of people dying of depression or anorexia, conditions they have for many years and their treatments don't work (in these cases) and yet they are not offered psychedelic therapy because it's still forbidden in many countries (it's changing, slowly). I'm not saying it's a panacea - far from it - just if someone is not responding to other treatments or the treatments is making things worse (like the risk of suicide goes up for some antidepressant medications) then why not try a different option. As you say, bureaucratic barriers.

by koolba 1y ago

Pets are legally property. You may love your pet, but it’s not human. The risk with allowing humans to do this is that it’s possible for someone not of sound mind to come to this conclusion.

MiscIdeaMaker99 1y ago

What constitutes a sound mind?

swat535 1y ago
Isn’t this what we have psychologists for ? Surely you don’t think an 18 year old claiming to be endlessly suffering due to failing a math test sound enough to terminate his life?

EvanAnderson 1y ago

People who aren't of sound mind can come to this conclusion regardless of the law. Giving people who are of sound mind a way to control their death with dignity (and in a minimally burdensome way for those who they leave behind) is the point.

qualeed 1y ago

>The risk with allowing humans to do this is that it’s possible for someone not of sound mind to come to this conclusion. It seems like lots of people think you can just go to your doctor and be prescribed a cocktail of death because you feel down today. That's not what assisted death programs are like, at all. There's waiting periods, evaluations by independent doctors and psychiatrists, interviews, etc. to determine your capacity and understanding of the decision. Someone who is not of sound mind is not getting approval for assisted death. Anyone sufficiently determined enough is going to find a way to die, regardless of what laws or programs are there. These programs don't change that, and they aren't meant to.

koolba 1y ago
> Someone who is not of sound mind is not getting approval for assisted death. For many of us, this is a classic catch-22 as requesting such approval demonstrates the lack of a sound mind.
- ty6853 1y ago
  IMO it's purely a liability debate. The other concerns are philosophically interesting but on a practical basis mooted: anyone of sound or almost anyone of unsound mind and two nickels to rub together can reliably off themselves without asking anyone for approval.
- qualeed 1y ago
  >requesting such approval demonstrates the lack of a sound mind. This is wild to me. I watched my father, who had a life expectancy measured in months, live in unbearable pain 24 hours a day. And you believe that him wishing to end that nightmare demonstrates a lack of sound mind? The sound decision, in your opinion, is to suffer in pain, knowing that there is no treatment nor cure coming, just pain for some number of months until death's release? I find it particularly cruel that you (seemingly?) think that he should have had to continue to suffer. And, by extension, myself and the rest of my family, should have had to continue to watch him suffer. (Before we get too far into it, I will say upfront, there's not much in way of argument that will sway me from this opinion. I am certainly open to hearing your opinion, though.)
- avgDev 1y ago
  Please remember this if you ever get diagnosed with a painful terminal illness.
- lurking_swe 1y ago
  tell me you haven’t been around old suffering people without telling me. I literally think your comment is crazy. Like batshit crazy. Go into a nursing home in the U.S. sometime and walk the halls. Tell me if you think the majority of those people are waking up with something to look forward to? Some of them are sitting in their own shit for hours because the nurses are too short staffed. I’d rather be dead than sit in my own shit for hours while being in chronic pain, and abandoned in a nursing home. There are other reasons to choose death too of course. But i digress. I’m not in the mood to make an exhaustive list. If you’re old and in okay-ish health, and have _something_ to look forward to (hobby, seeing grandkids, reading, etc), then it’s a different story.

phoe-krk 1y ago

Yes, it is indeed a risk. It is much better to only allow people "not of sound mind" to kill themselves the way they currently do - via brutal, goresome, and unexpected methods, which also often endanger others as well. /s

wat10000 1y ago

Why isn't it considered a risk that someone not of sound mind might decide on a course of action that causes them to live in agony for months with an incurable condition? Why is the argument always "what if a particular death is bad?" and never "what if a particular staying alive is bad?"

scotty79 1y ago

> someone not of sound mind We are already risking someone not of sound mind owning a gun or operating heavy machinery and ludicrous speeds in public places. Do we really think the benefit doesn't outweigh the risk in case of medically assisted death?

wizzwizz4 1y ago

No, the actual risk is that there are larger bureaucratic barriers to treatment than to the assisted dying programme, so it's easier for somebody suffering to die than to get treatment, when effective treatment is available and (in the absence of those daunting bureaucratic barriers) preferable. Assisted dying is a horrifying, but probably overall good idea; however, we need to reform our medical bureaucracies before it's something that they can ethically provide.

tpm 1y ago
And on that note, it always amazes me we have plenty of people dying of depression or anorexia, conditions they have for many years and their treatments don't work (in these cases) and yet they are not offered psychedelic therapy because it's still forbidden in many countries (it's changing, slowly). I'm not saying it's a panacea - far from it - just if someone is not responding to other treatments or the treatments is making things worse (like the risk of suicide goes up for some antidepressant medications) then why not try a different option. As you say, bureaucratic barriers.