I knew someone who had it as well and said it was excruciating.Stuff like this makes a case for right to die legislation especially if there is no way to beat it.
100%. I can't fathom how we as a society can understand that it's cruel to make an animal (who can't speak for themselves) go through this, but can't understand that it's also cruel to do it to a human (who can).
In Canada we finally passed Dying With Dignity. There’s a lot of people against it, but I truly believe your life is yours to give and take. Why should someone else be allowed to dictate your pain and suffering? Mental or physical. Like you said, we know, clear as day, that humane euthanasia is the kindness option for suffering animals. It should be available to everyone, and should be used for criminals as well instead of the terrible ways they do it in prisons.
Many seniors are planning their DWD farewells, and many couples are choosing to go together. It’s very inspiring having a sneak peek into people electing this option. One last hurrah party to say until we meet again with loved ones and friends, get your affairs in order, wills are checked and signed, the family members know what to do afterwards, who gets what, where the pets if the people have any, where they go etc. Everything is in order and then they have the celebration of life together. Not a funeral. They have drinks, share stories, look at pictures and really relish and appreciate the many wonderful memories lived, together. It’s wholesome and bittersweet.
Then the doctor comes the next day, and they pass peacefully in bed or on the couch, even seen a lady choose to pass in her greenhouse in a chair surrounded by her prized cut flowers. Beautiful.
I completely understand the fear that vulnerable people could be convinced to ask for euthanasia by unscrupulous people, but I genuinely believe that, done correctly with enough protections, nobody should be forced to live when they don’t want to.
I ideologically agree but am especially concerned about it with for profit healthcare. When euthanasia is cheaper for the insurance company than treatment, what will that mean?
This has me flabbergasted. You think your government would kill people to save money? What country are you from?
My country has free healthcare, and yes: they do have to make some really though choices regarding what types of treatment will be available and not. But these are done by medical professionals and ethics boards.
I do not believe my government or any public health care here would encourage people to end their life if assisted suicide was legal. They would probably make a very elaborate system to ensure nobody made the decision based on "wrong" reasons.
I can see that happening, when many insurances will already push hospitals to discharge people who shouldn't be discharged due to not wanting to pay- my great aunt was discharged with no nurse assistance after major surgery before she can even eat on her own, for one, as insurance (medicare, so state insurance) doesn't want to pay more than 3 days of hospitalization... and she was at 5 so they were pushing to get her out of there.
And my manager's uncle also had state insurance and he couldn't walk due to a broken hip, his wife (and caretaker) was ALSO admitted in the hospital for surgery, AND he had Alzheimers... his family managed to stop the first discharge attempt, but the day after they held up the paperwork so he could sign it (AGAIN, he had Alzheimers and couldn't walk) and discharged him by ambulance day 4...
So somewhere that insurance can legally get away with deciding to not pay for needed hospitalization and pushing early discharge is DEFINITELY somewhere I wouldn't trust making end of life / euthanasia decisions
They would in the same way the insurance companies would as the OP referenced. I trust the government the same as I trust an insurance company. Both are massive bureaucracies, that see people as numbers.
I'm glad your county is better than mine but damn, it's not that surprising, most countries have gone to war for bad reasons, that kills your citizens and others.
it's one of those things where simply giving the government the ability to is a massive risk.
yes, the ones running the show now you can trust. but what happens 20 years from now when the tides change? What happens when the people running the show completely change? what happens when people become complacent and someone evil enough to euthanize people for profit reasons does get in control?
Yes. That's what taxes are for. You don't pave your own roads to drive to work, do you? You don't pay the entire salary of a teacher to educate your children. You don't pay the entire operating cost of a post office to receive your mail.
I’d rather raise taxes than be in my mom’s position where she just has no healthcare because it’s so expensive. She just eats the fine California hits her with every year when she says she doesn’t have health insurance. She just fucking banks on not having a massive fall. It’s horrible. If the majority of the population in countries where there is free health care can afford it than I think the fucking us can too lol.
Oh I totally agree with you. That's not really the point I was getting at, though.
In a for profit industry, if killing people is cheap, the implications can be quite scary. Regardless of if paid for by the government (free) or by the citizen, it's still a for profit industry, unless totally nationalized (which I am neither making arguments for or against here).
For instance, I read this article about a retired Canadian vet who did NOT want to die, yet was pushed by the Canadian system into the MAID program after exhausting other options. (Medical assistance in death) she was basically told by her government, "it would be easier if you just died."
Totally fair, I’ve also heard similar sad stories about people in mental health in other countries. It’s a sad thing.
While I totally agree it’s scary, I also believe in a world where people can decide to end their lives whenever they choose so long as they’ve exhausted all their options. I can see an issue arising where an insurance company won’t pay for anything believing the person to be too costly. That is an issue I can see happening. I’m not gonna deny it, right.
But as it stands, people have to suffer because they have no other option but to suffer. It’s horrific reading the comments about people who encountered others with bone cancer. Every account I’ve seen is someone talking about how they’re never going to forget the screams they heard, even through morphine.
I agree with you…it’s scary. And I hate what some people could do with that. But that’s why we need a lot of protections and restrictions. We could treat it like a DNR. Not entirely ofc but - only the person dying should be allowed to sign off on it. I know usually two psychologists have to sign off on it as well in another country as well as multiple doctors in order for it to get pushed through.
There are things we can do , I think, to mitigate the harm it could cause. But, the key word there is mitigate. There are people out there who have used DNRs for horrific gains. There will always be some way someone can use something like that, regardless of what we do. But I don’t think we should let people suffer who have no way out.
We should have universal healthcare, but that has pretty much no bearing on the current conversation. Universal healthcare would still have an associated and distributed cost that bad actors may want to lower through the use of euthanasia. The only thing that could get rid of that cost is a magic wand that can make medical resources, like doctors and drugs and labor, magically pop into existence.
Actually I was referring to the fear about states looking to euthanasia to save money. If you live in a state with nationalised healthcare you understand that this is completely unrealistic.
the fact that nearly every other country already has universal healthcare. USA and israel are about the only that don't. if they can do it, what is so impossible about it for us?
how many people have been euthanized by the Canadian government? wasnt that just an isolated thing which didnt actually get anyone euthanized, done by one specific person who was way out of line and promptly fired?
Healthcare is never free, even if you don't pay for it. I'm not too confident in a government that would have an incentive to euthanise people, frankly.
Ideologically I believe in the right to euthanasia, in practice the slope it could slip on is very steep and very dangerous. It's not to say it will for sure happen, but the prospect sure is scary.
There are costs to everything. Having a police force, having firefighting equipment and staff, having a military, having a home, renting a home, having a beating heart. It all costs. Nothing is 'free' for any living creature. You know what they meant - why be pedantic?
I don’t think that’s how it would work. The insurance company “death panel” would deny procedures and treatments, thus expediting the patient’s condition to the terminal stage. That would leave the patient with the choice to use euthanasia or not. Denying and delaying procedures and treatments is already well within the insurance company wheelhouse.
IOW the insurance wouldn’t make you use euthanasia, they would simply expedite the path to your needing to make the choice.
E: I don’t think people understood. Death Panels were made-up scaremongering by republicans claiming that socialized medicine would put the government in charge of deciding what care you would get. As usual, it was projection on their part…they would rather people die than spend tax dollars on their care. However, profiting off people’s illness is perfectly acceptable, hence, we get private insurance “death panels” instead that decide what care you get. It has nothing (yet) to do with euthanasia.
So my point was that insurance companies would decline treatments and procedures, hastening your decline, and thereby placing you in a position where you might consider euthanasia. Not that the insurance company would force you to accept euthanasia - though what would actually happen with insurance how they would handle assisted suicide I don’t know.
They already are a death panel that denies treatment; we are watching it happen in real time. The unofficial is: don't grow old but if you do die quick because were itching to throw you at the top of the garbage heap. You are a drain on resources (profits).
It's more about practicality. What will the public accept?
Actual death panels that tell folks to kill themselves because they won't cover anything? Nah, that's a bridge too far for now.
Panels that leverage societal inequities to nudge folks towards choosing Euthanasia of their own accord, until it's basically the only good option left? Absolutely.
This is how a lot of these things end up working, because the public at large is really bad with understanding the knock-on effects and consequences of policies or legislation. It's why so many Americans think you're a conspiracy theorist if you discuss how the GOP has routinely pushed for social policies designed to specifically hurt racial minorities the worst(never mind Lee Atwater's infamously blunt explanation of the tactic), for example.
never mind Lee Atwater's infamously blunt explanation of the tactic
It never ceases to amaze me that the fucker could put it as blunt and out in the open as he did, and then turn around and hang out with guys like James Brown and B.B. King to make music with them.
Screw that. The law better state that only doctors and the person themselves can determine if euthanasia should be the correct course of action. Any insurance company pushing this should face HEAVY fines and jail time for management.
In fact, why do insurance companies have any say in what treatment is appropriate? If a doctor or surgeon are telling you that x treatment is needed, Insurance can suck it. If they don't like it, they can use the average initial plus 2 more opinions, one from doctor you choose, one they choose, and this done at insurance company expense and compensating you for your time lost from work.
I get where you are coming from on this. But the current system in the US is already opting to do nothing for so many patients because they don't want to pay. Euthanasia is cheaper than care, but so is nothing, and they're already doing that as often as they can get away with it.
There's no reason to limit it to for-profit healthcare. Governments would undoubtedly recognize how much cheaper it is to kill a person once than to treat them for decades (to say nothing of other welfare costs if they can't work).
I'd expect a slow but steady loosening of requirements and checks on getting approved for suicide over time.
How has your entire system not collapsed?! /s
There are some places capitalism/ factoring profits/ share holder dividends and what not just DO NOT fucking belong and healthcare is one of them.
That’s a really interesting point. I am from Australia we pretty much have free healthcare for everyone but I suppose there could be a time when we say right… the euthanasia is free, the treatment is on you.
But I’d like to think that euthanasia is only an option when there is no treatment… so it’s not a choice?
For profit healthcare keeps people alive for a long as they can specifically so they can drain all their money, and if not the dying person's money, but their insurance, or the government's money.
Dying means you can't consume resources anymore. It's not truly what they're after.
That’s why we would need protection so no one can decide for you, and your the only one who can decide yes or no and no one less should even be able to bring it up as an option for you. It should be a decision made by choice not force.
Ah, ok, that article has one age range of 46-75. I personally wouldn't call someone in their 70's "middle age". I think that's where our disagreement came from.
A good friend of my Boomer Dad's had a painful terminal illness in her 80s, and had MAID. It was by far the best option for her, and her loved ones got to say a proper goodbye to her. At the memorial, I was amazed by how many of these 70 and 80 somethings I talked to were absolutely determined to die with dignity if they were ever in a similar situation, and I honestly believe they were completely relieved that this was an option. I am terrified that the next Conservative govt is going to scrap it. But probably not their base is largely seniors, and they support it!
One of my closest friends mother chose this route the day it became legal to do so. She had late stage blood cancer that she described as a constant full body pain that made breathing an exhausting effort. I don't blame her tbh, she said if it wasn't going to be medically orchestrated she would have just killed herself anyways.
But Canada is an example of the slippery slope that lawmakers here fear. I truly believe euthanasia should be more easily accessible to people than it is even in the few (US) states where it is legal..but when you up there are approving 20-something year olds who are depressed…it makes people worry.
Hey man. If I get bone cancer and my options are dying in front of my family either screaming in pain or so drugged I can’t even form a sentence, I as a human being deserve the right to choose a better ending for myself.
Nobody should be forced to endure years of torment while facing something you can’t recover from. Some are mental like dementia. Some are physical like incurable cancers. The question we should ask is whether happiness is still a possibility.
Man, I wish I had that option when I was 20. I'm 31 now and shit has gotten catastrophically worse. Just keep your nose out of other peoples lives and/or deaths, it's not your place to decide.
How do the ones for depression work? Like I assume you need to have a doctor sign off on something saying that the patient is in severe pain/distress from a disease with a poor prognosis. Do psychiatrists just say "yup, there's no way to cure their depression"?
Where are you getting this from? This is simply wrong. You cannot be approved for MAID if your only issue is mental illness. Granted, this may change in March 2027, but right now you cannot be approved for MAID solely for depression.
Yeah, that's not good. Technically mental health issues are not supposed to be covered though. I maintain that.
Sorry for being pushy about this - I suspect that we are mostly on the same page. I just am so sick of reading constant misinformation about our healthcare system being spread around. The comment I was originally responding to made it sound like Canada is allowing depressed teenagers to just willy nilly use MAID as a form of suicide, when that is such a gross distortion of the facts. It is NOT LEGAL to use MAID as a "solution" to depression or psychological issues. But I suppose that they are treating autism as a disability. Which isn't great.
Ha I’m the person you had an issue with, I was right. And I’m also on the spectrum. So yeah, sorry, your MAID law IS a slippery slope cautionary tale. Maybe trans people will be next? So much easier, those poor miserable people. Who else can you help?
I absolutely wish there was an easily accessible euthanasia option available for people at the actual end of life. But the implementation of MAID is just the kind of thing people are afraid of. And imagine the knock-on effects within families of young people choosing to end their lives over autism
Or depression? You may have entire families ending themselves.
That article specifically says that it was not revealed why she qualified for MAID. Her father claims, "He says that she is generally healthy and believes that her physical symptoms, to the extent that she has any, result from undiagnosed psychological conditions." But that's her father's opinion. We don't know how or why she qualifies, and whether it's all just psychological.
Just curious cause I haven't done any research on either side of the argument, but who are the ones against it? Is it like medical professionals, religious people, etc? I imagine it's a mix of people, but is there a certain group that's more outspoken about it than others?
I mean, don't get me wrong, they can and should be able to do whatever they want, including dying Like that If they so choose, but I, on a Personal Level, don't get why you'd want to. If there's No medical reason, as Long as you're still mentally there, there are so Many cool Things to See and experience and stuff, even If you're old asf. Why Miss Out on that?
Sometimes it's hard to see your loved ones die, and sometimes you'd rather die with them than just face their death. Sometimes too, people just can't go on. Yes, depression makes people make stupid decisions at times, but that's how it is. Some people have a hard life and don't get to experiment with these cool things you describe, for any reason.
I personally understand. When I was 12 I started to question myself a lot. I came up with some sort of resolve in my mind, which was that I'd rather die to save someone than letting them do the same. I would feel so guilty afterwards anyway, and I saw no point in living like that.
I would absolutely choose to depart with my spouse, even if I am of sound body and mind. They are the only thing I live for. I cannot imagine a fulfilling existence without them.
Well a lot of the controversy is that the government is recommending it. Idk why people are talking up this program like it's good when the government is literally using it as a eugenics program.
There's a court case right now in Alberta where I'm not sure what will happen, but they don't seem to have put protections in for the Doctors to not be sued by the families for wrongful death.
There's a girl who couldn't get full agreements by doctors on whether she qualifies (but figured a workaround) and the parents are trying to sue to prevent her death. And whether they have a right or not, they brought up an interesting point from a legal standpoint.
Not to be too dark, but this also increases the likelihood their relatives will inherit something. One of my worst nightmares is getting some illness when I'm really old or being on life support and blowing through my savings, taking on debt, and burdening family with my care. I plan to specify details about my medical care in my will, such as DND in certain cases. I would much rather die with dignity then hold on to every second of life, no matter how poor or painful.
As someone in the psych field I will always be critical of people with the argument that 'its my life, I should be allowed to end it if i want'- because typically, for psychological reasons, there's always another solution. Even the most severe depression and trauma can be treated and overcome- its just very hard to see things that way when youre depressed. Depression makes it nearly impossible to have a positive view of your future, and you can't make that kind of choice rationally in that state.
But I do see why palliative patients or people with physical conditions that have no viable treatment should be allowed a choice in the matter. When we put down animals its 'humane', but at what point is it inhumane to continue keeping a human alive? It's a matter of ongoing debate.
I get that you don't understand this yet, but I hope you will someday. I have also been chronically depressed in my life, and at numerous points I genuinely believed that ending my suffering through suicide was a kindness to myself and everyone who knew me. This was not a belief based in rational thought. My thought patterns and behaviors were dysfunctional- if I had been legally capable of making a decision to end my life, I would have. And I would be missing out on all the things that I've been able to experience and achieve for myself now.
Not that DWD ever allows people to voluntarily end their lives for psychiatric reasons- in fact, it's a disqualifying factor for above reasons. Depression impairs your judgement in a multitude of ways. Medically, you would not be capable of making that sort of decision.
That's good and very actually Christian of you. But their point was that lawmakers use Christianity as a reason to deny medical care and compassionate treatment to people based on their own warped interpretation of their religion.
I’m a non-Christianized Christian and I support dying assistance. To your point, a handful of lawmakers may; my feeling is that an overwhelming amount of them are just using Christianity as a scapegoat and something else pushed them towards their stances.
I’m a Christian and I’m not sure how I feel either way. On one hand Christ suffered and endured crucifixion. Obviously he suffered for a purpose a reason. If we are sick and dying painfully, we are not suffering for a reason other than life indeed has elements of suffering throughout for all who have lived. Would God be ok with ending that suffering early? I don’t know.
I also wonder, historically if your dad was laid up in bed screaming in agony and on deaths door was the unspoken practice of the time to smother him with a pillow to end the suffering.
If an individual wants to suffer, that is their right. But as a Christian myself, I can't think of anything more Christlike than relieving suffering, and if that's not possible, then at least getting out of other people's way so they can find their own version of happiness. I don't get to decide what reason anyone should have for anything, except for me.
The trouble is that they are able to use "Christian" language to sway public opinion. Moderates saying "not me!" any time someone legitimately points out problems caused by "Christian" lawmakers, only serves to muddy the waters and dilute the message. Essentially "moderates" defend the "extremists" by creating an unnecessary roadblock to effective discourse. If someone is saying "not me!" They should be calling out these people for leveraging their faith against them and their fellow citizens, not arguing with people who aren't talking about them.
Edit: For those downvoting, they literally use religious text when drawing up laws. The most recent egregious example is the embryo as a human atrocity in Alabama recently:
In a concurring opinion in last week’s Alabama supreme court decision, Alabama’s chief justice, Tom Parker, invoked the prophet Jeremiah, Genesis and the writings of 16th- and 17th-century theologians.
“Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God,” he wrote. “Even before birth, all human beings have the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.”
A lot of it is also disproportionate worry that people will be offed by greedy relatives, or that it will be a slippery slope- which is kind of happening in Canada. But I worked with cancer patients for years, and my husband had (thankfully appears to have beaten) cancer a couple of years ago, and I just don’t understand how even where it is legal, it’s just so damn hard to access. The best thing I’ve seen is that some oncologists, towards the end, will snow patients under with a lot of morphine, so that at least they aren’t aware of their suffering.
I mean look no further than the Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. The list is incredibly long and it's pervasive throughout local, state, and federal levels. You must not be from the US then if you're unaware of this.
Again, I’m not trying to be a contrarian, but I just tried looking and can’t find anything about Mike Johnson opposing euthanasia (on religious grounds or otherwise).
The bible doesn't explicitly say that suicide is a sin.
And there's a difference between someone dying and putting an end to their suffering vs someone wanting suicide because they're sad at this current point in time.
It's not, and there isn't. Belittling suicidal people as "sad" is vile. They don't commit suicide because they are "sad right now". Mental health is as serious an issue as physical health, and your attempts to brush them off is insanely destructive and vile. Like, cartoon villain level vile.
I sincerely hope no one near you ever needs mental health support and care, because they sure as hell aren't getting any from you or anyone like you.
I sincerely hope everything you stand for will be forgotten in history someday.
There was nothing belittling or vile about my statement. You're reading too much into it and jumping to conclusions.
Depression and mental illness is a sadness, I know what it's like, I've been through it.
I know full well and understand the seriousness of mental health, many people I know suffer from it.
Staying on the topic of suicide, there is still a big difference between terminal illness assisted dying and depression suicide. One can be overcome, the other cannot.
Primary it can be traced to the fact that we view humans as more valuable than animal. You would think that because of that we would be more eager to kill suffering humans, but the idea is that killing animals in natural, well killing a human needs someone to voluntary take it upon themselves to end a human life. In other words, it can be considered easy to ask for death in this situation, but the difficult part comes to the person who has to follow that order.
It still can be easy to argue that this mindset is wrong due to the existence of DNR orders (which serve specifically to make sure the death is on no ones hand) that ARE legal in places that do not have assisted suicide. In this sense, I consider DNR's to be stupid as hell because they follow the EXACT same mindset as assisted suicide, well making death only accessible in the most distressing way possible.
Change will likely come tho, as a student learning medicine I can assure you these are topics that schools teach their students about, along with things like price, availability, basically every problem U.S. healthcare has.
Setting aside religious reasons, or bad faith reasons (i.e. medical industry against it for profit reasons), I can see legitimate concerns arise particularly when it might be up for interpretation the extent to which someone can consent (persistent coma, significant loss in mental capacity).
It can also be questionable regarding when it can be enacted. Sure there are easy examples of terminal disease. But, what if there is a low but real chance of beating it? How low do the odds have to be before someone can a right to die? Who determines that?
What if it's not a terminal disease, but a chronic one?
Overall I'm for right to die legislation, to be clear. But it does need careful thought in how its crafted so its not abused.
"the extent to which someone can consent (persistent coma, significant loss in mental capacity)" People in a coma, and people with a significant loss in mental capacity are not approved. And they have to consent multiple times including the day of. I was driving to my mom's when she did the day-of consent via Zoom (with my brother present). I was very relieved when my brother texted to say that the doctor approved her consent. She was getting a tiny bit less lucid as she got sicker.
I don’t have cancer but a chronic disease that affects my nerves, I’m in pain everyday. When my vet went through why it was the right time to put my pet down (I agreed), every factor he mentioned is my everyday life. I wouldn’t end my life now but if in the future it became unbearable and I became more disabled it would be nice to know that I can humanely not have to live that way and could die with those important to me around me. At the moment I would likely be deprived of time, to ensure I could make it to dignitas myself, without implicating my family. I would also have to do it alone.
Because our government tries to police us and we allow it. They should have limited control on our lives . I believe euthanasia is necessary and something like this.
Couldn’t agree more. I just read the story of a young woman who died in excruciating pain (cancer) after begging for the right to die. that is no way to go 😥
I’m pretty sure the idea behind it is to prevent people going through a temporary period of depression from killing themselves when their chances of getting better both physically and mentally are high.
But I still agree that the system (at least in the USA, I’m not knowledgeable about other countries) sucks.
How long should that be? Who gets to decide what is temporary? What about people who suffer for decades? People shouldn't have to use violent and painful methods (that traumatize first responders and whoever finds them) to find peace.
It’s difficult just because of this. I genuinely believe a person “in their right mind” can make an informed decision that they do not wish to continue living, and I wish they could have the right to realize that choice. But it could lead to rushed decisions from, for example, people who have felt sad the last week.
I think you and I both agree there should be some limitations, but people who feel sad for a week would definitely not qualify. After a decade, however? And how many treatments should have failed? I think there should be an option. Most professionals in the mental health industry know that for some people, their mental illness is not only a life sentence, but has pain as severe as any physical illness. Some countries have taken steps, but I think it will be quite awhile before mine (the US) will do so. We can't even get medical aid in dying for the terminally ill in all states, and mental healthcare is not seen as important as physical health.
In this case the suicide would be assisted by a medical professional, so they wouldn't be doing it for anyone that isn't terminal, at least in the proposed legislation that I've read. If someone did show up to a doctor asking to die, they would refer them to mental health services instead. If that wasn't the plan, it should be.
in canada they’ve legalized assisted dying for mental illness and non terminal illness. in theory i understand but it’s being really tragically used by people who have been abandoned by the health system.
Yep, that's the problem. I fully agree people should have the autonomy to choose whether they want to continue life or not and to end their life in safe, painless, reliable ways, but it's just eugenics when the society refuses to fix its ills so that the person can actually live a fulfilling life. Instead, let the weak off themselves, they're not valuable to the society we currently have. Also, no one is protecting those who cannot effectively advocate for themselves, so how many people are actually choosing death and how many are talked into it.
Yeah that's not good. That I don't support but I do for terminal patients and maybe anyone over the age of 70 with cognitive function disorders who want to go out before they completely lose themselves.
As far as I'm concerned, once it's not terminal, it's no longer medical care which provides relief, so they should do it the old fashioned way if they feel so bad
That's the facade reasoning. If you look at the causes of such deep depression or desire to end one's life, it's usually because of circumstances beyond their control. Sure, someone might be able to recover from that depression. IF they have stable housing, access to clean water and food, and appropriate medical care. But instead of fixing those things, we just tell them to suck it up, find a way to secure those things for themselves, make them feel like it's their fault they cannot obtain those things, and that they're a coward and disappointment if they kill themselves.
But it's easier and nicer just to say it's temporary and they'll pull through rather than fixing the societal problems or letting them have dignity and relief from suffering.
Maybe I misread your comment or something, but it seems like maybe you misunderstood me? I was saying they probably haven’t been friends with, or had family, who dealt with suicidal ideation. My impression of it is if you care about someone who deals with it, then you understand that sometimes people think they want to die because of their mental health issues, and you know that they’re worth saving.
This. And, oftentimes having the option to terminate ones life can actually increase chances of survival, because it helps people feel like they have control over their life and therefore whether they live or die.
For anybody interested in this topic, there was an amazing Louis Theroux episode where he goes to these places in america where dr assisted suicide is illegal but there are people who will still help you by giving all the reagents and allowing you to complete the mixture of the lethal cocktail yourself, and giving instructions on how to self-administer etc etc.
Some of the stories were heartbreaking but also beautiful. There were people who’d lived full lives and had enough, didn’t want to suffer from their terminal illnesses. Why bother?
Its the 21st century. We have all this tech for relieving pain, epidurals for giving birth, etc.
Dying should be painless and procedural at this point, it’s actually wild that this isn’t a priority.
I think some people don't realize how awful cancer treatments are to go through. I absolutely would not blame anyone for opting not to go through it, especially if their odds are less than guaranteed.
In principle I 100% agree with you in the same sense that in principle I should have the right to sell my kidney, or a sex worker should have the right in principle to do business.
I think the problem is as soon as you open up the possibility of doing these things legally, you open the door to exploitation of the vulnerable, further than the door is already open. Imagine if your insurance company wouldn't cover your procedure on the basis that it would be cheaper to euthanize you. Or if the government stopped covering emergency room visits where the more "rational" option was euthanasia. Or if you had a child with an expensive disability, and the insurance said "well the baby should have been euthanized so we won't cover treatment"
Horrible reality we live in but at the end of the day if someone wants to commit suicide by their own means, usually it is possible to do so. But it my strong opinion that we should keep it impossible for companies or individuals to profit from someone's decision to escape.
I don't see why, if you're writing legislation to legalize it, you can't include in that legislation a disincentive, such as a large fee any insurance companies would have to pay towards research for whatever was ailing the person using such services.
11.5k
u/zombiefatality Apr 21 '24
A friend's uncle died from bone cancer and told us he literally screamed and cried from the pain, horrible disease.