1) First of all I think it's good that you openly talk about this. Talking with society is much better than immersing himself in this bitter misantrophy as it's done very often in this forum, which I find very annoying to be honest. Nobody speaks up but yet demands politician to read our minds and change politics as we wish. And if they don't read our minds and do what we want, they claim, it's because we are all slaves and not allowed to die! So I am very happy that you believe in a form of dialogue and speak up this way.
Thank you, yeah the Carter vs Canada case proved that it's not like it's "us vs the world" because there are people in power who agree with reason. And I truly believe that those of us who believe in the right to die are being reasonable.
2) Secondly, there is already a "right-to-suicide" in a lot of countries. Hanging for example is legal in Canada, as it is in Germany. Suicide is partly criminalized because you can get "imprisoned" during the suicide process, but it's not the same as it was once, when suicide attempts were punishable by court.
Yeah you make a good point here. If someone decided to starve themselves or hang themselves, who's going to stop them? I think we both understand the problems with this though - like how far past your limits do you have to be pushed before you're willing to end your life in a brutal, risky, and inhumane fashion? In addition to that, what if you are pushed so far past your limits that you would be willing to harm others prior to ending your life in such a way? I could be wrong here, but I believe that if people had access to a peaceful and painless way to escape from their lives, there just might be one or two bombings or shootings prevented from occurring in the first place.
So... if we talk about "right-to-die", what we all actually mean is the right to get restricted drugs. If we demand "right to die" or "decriminilization of suicide", politicians will say: "You already have it. Go hang yourself, why bother the state? Why bother a doctor? Why wish that the state engages in policies supporting suicide instead of preventing it?". This needs to be addressed.
Yes this is an argument I bring up with myself from time to time and it's a difficult one to deal with. I remember dealing with this style of arguments maybe 10 or 15 years ago but in recent years, this angle of argument has been very rare (for me to run into anyways). I'm prepared for someone to bring this argument up and I can tackle it from a couple of different directions. My favorite is to tell a story about a skydiver. It would take a long time to type it out but maybe in the future I can tell it. Additionally, in my video I talk about the automatic reactions that occur from an increase in carbon dioxide in a bag over your head, and how it triggers a panic response that is outside of your control, and how you can bypass it with helium or nitrogen. <-- that right there touches upon the problems with this idea that you're free to kill yourself, but only in brutal and inhumane fashions. ... as odd as it may sound, this is one of my favorite subjects to argue about (this particular argument you're bringing up here), because it gets into some really interesting things like free will and automatic impulses that we have no control over.
3) A few weeks ago, a court in Germany ruled exactly about this question. A couple wanted to suicide with the help of Nembutal - legally - but without having the state or another doctor being involved. Just getting and sipping down Nembutal is enough and no third party needs to be directly involved in a peaceful suicide. They lost the case
- because the court decided that drugs are restricted for the protection of life
- that the state can not be forced to be involved in a suicide
- and that they are free to suicide with other means. As you see... it's not only about suicide, which is called a basic right in my country, it's about the topic of legalization of drugs as well!
Oh that's very unfortunate. This makes it clear that any of us that go to court over this subject needs to be prepared with compelling arguments in case the judge or jury think this way. Another analogy that comes to my mind, and a simpler one, is like being trapped in a house party. You've been dragged into a house party, but you want to leave early. The host of the party, and the owner of the house, is very insecure about people leaving, because then if one person leaves early, maybe more will follow. So they lock the doors with a padlock, and say if you want to leave, you're free to jump out the third story window. But before you leave, try taking some drugs and talking to sally on the couch. Try playing some monopoly with everyone else at the table. Try x, y, or z, and surely one of these things will make you change your mind and want to leave the party when the party's "natural" end has come!
This high court actually followed the opinion of the society: Which strongly supports suicide/euthanasia WHEN it's for severly sick people about to die. There is no discussion about whether groups outside of this criteria should get access to euthanasia drugs. You are one of the few who bring it up!
I am?
I'm surprised.
4) Are you sure that helium is mixed with oxygen to prevent people from suiciding this way? Because (deadly 99%) nitrogen is available and the government hasn't done anything against it. That's why I think the industry mixing helium with oxygen is purely for economic reasons.
Hmm I don't know. That's good to know though!
You are very articulate. I enjoyed the video and agree with what you said.
My favorite part is about "natural death in the reasonable foreseeable future." We can all satisfy this requirement. It's just human nature to live in complete denial of this.
The segment you wanted to add to the end of the video also got uploaded at the beginning of the video, which was confusing. I would suggest starting with short bullet points of what you'll discuss in the video. A 45 min video sounds daunting and I think people will TL;DR.
Thank you for your feedback. I wanted to cram as much as I could into the video. And yeah the beginning/end are copied because I learned in a speech class that it's good to tie the beginning and end together. Kind of like how comedians will start their show with a joke and finish the show with a joke that ties into the beginning. But yeah, you're right, bullet points would be a good way to do things and I might even be able to put time stamps on them so people can click on them to get straight to that part.
In regards to "natural death in the reasonably foreseeable future" - I've contacted a number of politicians about this: the federal minister of justice, the provincial minister of justice, and one member of parliament. Unfortunately, I didn't get very far with any of them. But I don't consider those conversations to be failures because it takes many conversations again and again to eventually make the change.
Amazing video. I would love to discuss this more with you. I really agree with what you have said and appreciate the large amount of work you put into this.
Thank you. Well I am here on the forums now so if you want to discuss it with me, feel free to share your thoughts or questions :)
The focus should be:
- access to prohibited drugs for a peaceful and humane death
- including those with mental illness
Okay that sounds good. I can bring those points closer to the forefront of my next video. I remember a young man here in Canada drew a lot of attention because he wanted access to medical assisted death, but he was denied. He argued that there is such a thing as a "rational suicide" and then he ended his life on his own. I remember someone told me that I have a "disease of the mind" when I was suicidal. I should say now that I am not suicidal now, but I still believe people deserve ->the right to die a peaceful and painless death<- so maybe next time I will make sure to be careful with how I choose my words and always include "a peaceful and painless death" right after I say "the right to die" because it's not enough to simply give someone a rope and say "go ahead and hang yourself" when there are far better options that exist. That's like locking someone in a cell without clean water and saying they're free to drink, they just have to drink the water from the toilet bowl.
