7 ms·

It doesn't seem pleasant for the person themself either. Constant frustration, gaps in your memory growing ever larger, disorientation, loss — periodically augm

It doesn't seem pleasant for the person themself either. Constant frustration, gaps in your memory growing ever larger, disorientation, loss — periodically augmented by brief flickers of recollection of what you used to be — and yet no one can legally end your misery, because you can likely no longer unequivocally consent to euthanasia or assisted suicide, even if you explicitly signed a declaration that you did not want to end up like this — legally, the current husk of your former self must consent, and it can't.

firesteelrain 1y ago
It’s still absurd despite what you say that we are implying that we should euthanize another human because they have become difficult to manage due to illness. Where do we draw the line?
- stavros 1y ago
  I think the implication was more "people should be free, when they're of sound mind, to choose euthanasia if they lose that sound mind".
- cwillu 1y ago
  You can quite easily draw a line that society does not get to force someone to live a tormented existence in spite of their prior declaration that they do not want to be tormented. “It shouldn't be that way” is not an excuse to torture people through your moralizing indifference to the fact that it is that way.
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    I've wondered about this for my hypothetical future self. Currently? I'd say that I wouldn't want to live with dementia, but what if my "demented self" (kinda hate the phrasing, sorry) in the future wants to live, or doesn't remember they don't want to live? Do I have a say over the life of someone who doesn't remember they were me?
    - tirant 1y ago
      You don’t have a say over your future you because your future you is not the same person as you.
      - rkomorn 1y ago
        That's what I lean towards, too.
  - dotnet00 1y ago
    The entire issue they're pointing to is that deciding that someone's existence is sufficiently tormented is difficult and morally fraught.
    - pantalaimon 1y ago
      If you visit an elderly care home you'll find plenty of people who express their wish that they don't want to live any longer. It's not getting better for them - they are just waiting for the day to come, often in agony.
      - account42 1y ago
        And don't you think the solution to that should be to not ship your parents to a care home rather than finishing the job by euthanizing them?
        cwillu 1y ago
        Stop conflating “I don't want to live” with “I don't want my parents to live”.
  - Noaidi 1y ago
    But do people who have dementia or say a mental illness have the capacity to make that decision? It sounds like Daniel Kahneman was suffering from depression after his wife's death and all he saw in the rest of his life was sadness. He had no hope. What day was the best day to die? What if the next day his hope came back?
    - lukan 1y ago
      "What if the next day his hope came back?" What if he tried that, but every day just got worse than the last day? And people don't get any younger. My grandmother is 98. She hates her life since she could not go out anymore. But she is catholic and suicide would be a mortal sin. So she waits till gods take her. And suffers till then. I would make a different choice for sure. If life is hell and no one depends on me, why should I continue the suffering? (At the cost of others, if I would need help?) But my plan is of course to reach 120+ in good health. But if I decide I had enough, it will be my decision.
      - Noaidi 1y ago
        > What if he tried that, but every day just got worse than the last day? Anyone can say that about their life right now, can't they? How many people struggling today think that their life will get no better? Look at all those who made it through slavery, what hope did they have? Their hope came from their faith. Suffering has a purpose, this is something your grandmother understands through her faith. Buddhists understand this as well. Maybe the problem is not our suffering, but our lack of faith in others and in in something bigger than ourselves.
        lukan 1y ago
        Well, but what if I ain't a christian nor a buddhist and don't think suffering as a normal living condition is necessary? (Can you proof it is? Also I don't think all christians/buddhists share that believe) So sure, suffering and pain are part of life. And accepting that helps a lot to not get stuck in that condition by avoiding painful things, you cannot avoid. "Anyone can say that about their life right now, can't they?" So no, not anyone is saying that. Only those with a death wish. And I don't consider having a death wish as a mental condition. It can of course result of a illness, but it can also be a consciouss wish and then finally a decision. And if other people decide they may not do this, but have to remain in their state of living hell, then this is just torture to me.
- Freak_NL 1y ago
  I am not implying that at all. People should be free to choose when to die, and people should be free to set conditions for their future wherein they no longer wish to live even if they could not express that at point. That's a personal choice. Anyone not interested in that won't have to do anything and can just wait for the end.
  - account42 1y ago
    It's not that simple. Once the option is there, there is incentive to encourage people to take it when their continued existence would be a burden.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- teiferer 1y ago
  > we should euthanize another human You are shiftinf the topic. This is about self-euthanization, assisted suicide. Not others. > Where do we draw the line? As written elsewhere, having to draw a line does not mean that the only reasonable conclusion is to make it illegal in general. It's a hard topic without easy answers. "Don't allow it" is an easy answer that doesn't do justice to the topics complexity. A good friend of mine passed away a year ago with an incurable disease, diagnosed 3 months before his death, and it was essentially guaranteed that he'd have to endure unbelievable suffering during the last weeks of those months. He didn't have the choice to end it early. It was heartbreaking. I for my part hope that I can choose myself when the time has come.
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    It is not really a shift. The slippery slope is the heart of the debate. Once assisted suicide is allowed, the line between respecting autonomy and others making that decision blurs. Safeguards may help, but asking where to draw the line is the central problem.
    - dxdm 1y ago
      I'm not arguing either side, but I'd like to note that human societies have been drawing various lines dealing with the legal and ethical issues surrounding the death of other people in various stages of age, competency and guilt, usually without descending into a free-for-all killing frenzy. When things get bad, it was usually not the drawing of lines that did it, but the intention and underlying stance on the rights and indeed humanity of others. The line is not what makes the slope slippery, but a pervasive lack of empathy seems to do it. We also know that bad actors do not care about lines much. So I think that slippery slope is not a powerful argument on its own.
    - LorenPechtel 1y ago
      Where do we have an example of the medical community engaging in any sort of slippery slope in this regard? The politicians, yes. Auschwitz may return but it won't be voluntary.
- notanastronaut 1y ago
  Apparently where the line currently is leads to a whole lot of pain and suffering for everybody involved, for the sufferer and their family, because bad actors exist. I tell you this now in good faith, any human being can choose when to end it. That is without question. I can go get in my car and drive into the nearest body of water, if desired, and no law could stop me. Even under supervision 24/7, it is still possible to do it. We are a determined species. The only thing in debate is if they can be ethically assisted in the task, with compassion. You say no, someone might pressure Nana into dying to pass her inheritance. Well, the same people might very well put a pillow over her face when no one is looking. A bad actor is a bad actor and murder is illegal but people do it anyways and moral hand-wringing doesn't exactly stop it from happening. From where I stand you're just unknowingly advocating for extra pain and suffering. Perhaps you'd change your mind if you were in the shoes of someone losing their marbles or worse, someone who has to care for them.
  - cindyllm 1y ago
    [dead]
LorenPechtel 1y ago
Some places permit consent in advance, the person specifies the conditions but hands the evaluation of whether they have been met to the doctor.

firesteelrain 1y ago

It’s still absurd despite what you say that we are implying that we should euthanize another human because they have become difficult to manage due to illness. Where do we draw the line?

stavros 1y ago
I think the implication was more "people should be free, when they're of sound mind, to choose euthanasia if they lose that sound mind".
cwillu 1y ago
You can quite easily draw a line that society does not get to force someone to live a tormented existence in spite of their prior declaration that they do not want to be tormented. “It shouldn't be that way” is not an excuse to torture people through your moralizing indifference to the fact that it is that way.
- rkomorn 1y ago
  I've wondered about this for my hypothetical future self. Currently? I'd say that I wouldn't want to live with dementia, but what if my "demented self" (kinda hate the phrasing, sorry) in the future wants to live, or doesn't remember they don't want to live? Do I have a say over the life of someone who doesn't remember they were me?
  - tirant 1y ago
    You don’t have a say over your future you because your future you is not the same person as you.
    - rkomorn 1y ago
      That's what I lean towards, too.
- dotnet00 1y ago
  The entire issue they're pointing to is that deciding that someone's existence is sufficiently tormented is difficult and morally fraught.
  - pantalaimon 1y ago
    If you visit an elderly care home you'll find plenty of people who express their wish that they don't want to live any longer. It's not getting better for them - they are just waiting for the day to come, often in agony.
    - account42 1y ago
      And don't you think the solution to that should be to not ship your parents to a care home rather than finishing the job by euthanizing them?
      - cwillu 1y ago
        Stop conflating “I don't want to live” with “I don't want my parents to live”.
- Noaidi 1y ago
  But do people who have dementia or say a mental illness have the capacity to make that decision? It sounds like Daniel Kahneman was suffering from depression after his wife's death and all he saw in the rest of his life was sadness. He had no hope. What day was the best day to die? What if the next day his hope came back?
  - lukan 1y ago
    "What if the next day his hope came back?" What if he tried that, but every day just got worse than the last day? And people don't get any younger. My grandmother is 98. She hates her life since she could not go out anymore. But she is catholic and suicide would be a mortal sin. So she waits till gods take her. And suffers till then. I would make a different choice for sure. If life is hell and no one depends on me, why should I continue the suffering? (At the cost of others, if I would need help?) But my plan is of course to reach 120+ in good health. But if I decide I had enough, it will be my decision.
    - Noaidi 1y ago
      > What if he tried that, but every day just got worse than the last day? Anyone can say that about their life right now, can't they? How many people struggling today think that their life will get no better? Look at all those who made it through slavery, what hope did they have? Their hope came from their faith. Suffering has a purpose, this is something your grandmother understands through her faith. Buddhists understand this as well. Maybe the problem is not our suffering, but our lack of faith in others and in in something bigger than ourselves.
      - lukan 1y ago
        Well, but what if I ain't a christian nor a buddhist and don't think suffering as a normal living condition is necessary? (Can you proof it is? Also I don't think all christians/buddhists share that believe) So sure, suffering and pain are part of life. And accepting that helps a lot to not get stuck in that condition by avoiding painful things, you cannot avoid. "Anyone can say that about their life right now, can't they?" So no, not anyone is saying that. Only those with a death wish. And I don't consider having a death wish as a mental condition. It can of course result of a illness, but it can also be a consciouss wish and then finally a decision. And if other people decide they may not do this, but have to remain in their state of living hell, then this is just torture to me.
Freak_NL 1y ago
I am not implying that at all. People should be free to choose when to die, and people should be free to set conditions for their future wherein they no longer wish to live even if they could not express that at point. That's a personal choice. Anyone not interested in that won't have to do anything and can just wait for the end.
- account42 1y ago
  It's not that simple. Once the option is there, there is incentive to encourage people to take it when their continued existence would be a burden.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
teiferer 1y ago
> we should euthanize another human You are shiftinf the topic. This is about self-euthanization, assisted suicide. Not others. > Where do we draw the line? As written elsewhere, having to draw a line does not mean that the only reasonable conclusion is to make it illegal in general. It's a hard topic without easy answers. "Don't allow it" is an easy answer that doesn't do justice to the topics complexity. A good friend of mine passed away a year ago with an incurable disease, diagnosed 3 months before his death, and it was essentially guaranteed that he'd have to endure unbelievable suffering during the last weeks of those months. He didn't have the choice to end it early. It was heartbreaking. I for my part hope that I can choose myself when the time has come.
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  It is not really a shift. The slippery slope is the heart of the debate. Once assisted suicide is allowed, the line between respecting autonomy and others making that decision blurs. Safeguards may help, but asking where to draw the line is the central problem.
  - dxdm 1y ago
    I'm not arguing either side, but I'd like to note that human societies have been drawing various lines dealing with the legal and ethical issues surrounding the death of other people in various stages of age, competency and guilt, usually without descending into a free-for-all killing frenzy. When things get bad, it was usually not the drawing of lines that did it, but the intention and underlying stance on the rights and indeed humanity of others. The line is not what makes the slope slippery, but a pervasive lack of empathy seems to do it. We also know that bad actors do not care about lines much. So I think that slippery slope is not a powerful argument on its own.
  - LorenPechtel 1y ago
    Where do we have an example of the medical community engaging in any sort of slippery slope in this regard? The politicians, yes. Auschwitz may return but it won't be voluntary.
notanastronaut 1y ago
Apparently where the line currently is leads to a whole lot of pain and suffering for everybody involved, for the sufferer and their family, because bad actors exist. I tell you this now in good faith, any human being can choose when to end it. That is without question. I can go get in my car and drive into the nearest body of water, if desired, and no law could stop me. Even under supervision 24/7, it is still possible to do it. We are a determined species. The only thing in debate is if they can be ethically assisted in the task, with compassion. You say no, someone might pressure Nana into dying to pass her inheritance. Well, the same people might very well put a pillow over her face when no one is looking. A bad actor is a bad actor and murder is illegal but people do it anyways and moral hand-wringing doesn't exactly stop it from happening. From where I stand you're just unknowingly advocating for extra pain and suffering. Perhaps you'd change your mind if you were in the shoes of someone losing their marbles or worse, someone who has to care for them.
- cindyllm 1y ago
  [dead]

LorenPechtel 1y ago

Some places permit consent in advance, the person specifies the conditions but hands the evaluation of whether they have been met to the doctor.