Assisted Dying isn't as great as you think.

[Install-Gentoo]

Well, if you get approved and you can go through it, it's good. But my point is that the motivations behind it are not about "human rights" or anything of the sort. Countries with assisted dying programs don't offer it due to compassion or empathy or respect for autonomy or any of that. It's done as a cost-saving measure.
First off: these policies are almost always implemented in countries with socialist healthcare systems. These systems rely on a limited government budget. If a procedure is expensive to perform, they do not benefit from the price paid by the patient, because the patient does not pay for their treatment. Rather, costly procedures put a dent in the government's budget, and are thus not important unless a greater tax revenue can be made off of saving that person.
This is why elderly people will, in America, spend their entire life's savings to live an extra 6 months. They don't see much value in their money anymore, but the medical companies do, so they're happy to perform whatever treatments they can. However, in these other countries, the same type of elderly patient would be recommended medical assistance in dying, because the input cost is not worth the tiny tax revenue.
This is why only those who are chronically ill "non-contributors" in society are recommended or approved for assisted dying. Because they would otherwise be a tax burden on society with routine hospital visits or drug prescription. So the government benefits from killing these people.

Anyway, my point is: assisted dying is great and it should be available in a less predatory form. But presently, the methods of assisted dying aren't supported by moral arguments.

 

[Dark Window]

We should still try to find a way to make it work though.

Assisted dying is good, it just depends on why it's set up and how it's run.

 

[DoubleUp8]

In California and Oregon if 2 different doctors approve you can get a prescription that is supposed to result in death. It's a liquid barbiturate cocktail you're supposed to drink. This is the only approved method. The problem with it is an alarming 9-11 percent failure rate which means for about 1 in 10 people it's not gonna work and when it doesn't work, it's supposed to be hellish. Chemical burns on your throat and vocal cords and fucks up your digestive system etc.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

As long as I get to peacefully die via assisted suicide, I don't care what the reasons or morals behind the assisted suicide were to begin with

 

[dggtscccvfd]

Well, if you get approved and you can go through it, it's good. But my point is that the motivations behind it are not about "human rights" or anything of the sort. Countries with assisted dying programs don't offer it due to compassion or empathy or respect for autonomy or any of that. It's done as a cost-saving measure.
First off: these policies are almost always implemented in countries with socialist healthcare systems. These systems rely on a limited government budget. If a procedure is expensive to perform, they do not benefit from the price paid by the patient, because the patient does not pay for their treatment. Rather, costly procedures put a dent in the government's budget, and are thus not important unless a greater tax revenue can be made off of saving that person.
This is why elderly people will, in America, spend their entire life's savings to live an extra 6 months. They don't see much value in their money anymore, but the medical companies do, so they're happy to perform whatever treatments they can. However, in these other countries, the same type of elderly patient would be recommended medical assistance in dying, because the input cost is not worth the tiny tax revenue.
This is why only those who are chronically ill "non-contributors" in society are recommended or approved for assisted dying. Because they would otherwise be a tax burden on society with routine hospital visits or drug prescription. So the government benefits from killing these people.

Anyway, my point is: assisted dying is great and it should be available in a less predatory form. But presently, the methods of assisted dying aren't supported by moral arguments.

Why is saving money morally wrong? Surely it's better governments spend money on eliminating child poverty than benefits and healthcare for people who want to die anyway. I'm a case in point: I get 750 pounds of benefits each month. I have a physical health condition and don't want to live, why not let me die and spend the money on poor children?

 

[Dot]

Well, if you get approved and you can go through it, it's good. But my point is that the motivations behind it are not about "human rights" or anything of the sort. Countries with assisted dying programs don't offer it due to compassion or empathy or respect for autonomy or any of that. It's done as a cost-saving measure.
First off: these policies are almost always implemented in countries with socialist healthcare systems. These systems rely on a limited government budget. If a procedure is expensive to perform, they do not benefit from the price paid by the patient, because the patient does not pay for their treatment. Rather, costly procedures put a dent in the government's budget, and are thus not important unless a greater tax revenue can be made off of saving that person.
This is why elderly people will, in America, spend their entire life's savings to live an extra 6 months. They don't see much value in their money anymore, but the medical companies do, so they're happy to perform whatever treatments they can. However, in these other countries, the same type of elderly patient would be recommended medical assistance in dying, because the input cost is not worth the tiny tax revenue.
This is why only those who are chronically ill "non-contributors" in society are recommended or approved for assisted dying. Because they would otherwise be a tax burden on society with routine hospital visits or drug prescription. So the government benefits from killing these people.

Anyway, my point is: assisted dying is great and it should be available in a less predatory form. But presently, the methods of assisted dying aren't supported by moral arguments.

Intrstng opinn bt slf wld argu tht thse cntries whch hve soclst helth-cre systms hve thm in 1st plce bcse thy r mre progressve - & assistd dyng = cnsidrd a mre progressve treatmnt -- s/ wld mke snse tht = thse plces whch wld offr tht altern8tve

Also mny plces whch offr assistd dyng wll only covr terminlly ill ppl - & thse ppl wll hve finite amnt of tme 2 liv rathr thn sme1 wth chronc helth conditn whch wll requre treatmnt fr 20/30/40 yrs wh/ wld caus mch highr csts t/ thse helth systms

S/ thnk tht thre r prbbly dffrnt wys 2 lk @ tht subjct tbf

 

[Forveleth]

If the government were doing this to save money, there wouldn't be a stringent application process with limited acceptance. They would be offing people left and right. Also, as Dot said, counties with nationalized healthcare tend to be more progressive in general, meaning they are more likely to offer things like assisted suicide.

You say that elderly people I'm those could tries would be recommended suicide. I would like to see some factual support showing assisted suicide instead of treatment or EOL care is the policy.

 

[Rubypie41]

Not quite sure this is true. I don't think anyone is recommended assisted dying, rather the request comes from the patient themselves. You have to submit a request and state your reasons why you want an assisted death and it has to be proved that you are of sound mind, not being influenced by anyone etc.

 

[UmbraDweller]

I would still rather allow goverment to make profit off of me in exchange of 100% risk free exit rather than a random ukraian guy who makes his living via SN and knows damn well how is it being used. There's minimal compassion in most of things people do, it's always merely motivation of money. Someone will profit off of death in any case, funeral services at minimal. I don't really care about assisted suicides true intentions as long as they deliver. Entire healthcare is profiting off of peoples ilnesses also, it's not to morally ease anyone either. When they sell you bunch of pills theres no empathy involved, just bussiness. Everything revolves around money, its not any surprising.

 

[Install-Gentoo]

Not quite sure this is true. I don't think anyone is recommended assisted dying, rather the request comes from the patient themselves. You have to submit a request and state your reasons why you want an assisted death and it has to be proved that you are of sound mind, not being influenced by anyone etc.

I've seen news stories to the contrary, especially in Canada. It's unfortunate, really. But i don't think it's as common as my original post made it out to be.

Some people here are correct that these countries are more "progressive"-thinking, so I guess that makes sense. However, in a true free market, with minimal government intervention and companies have zero lobbying power for laws, I can imagine there being some "end-of-life planning" companies which would let you customize how you die and under what conditions. I guess it might work like a form of life insurance, where you sign up long in advance "just in case something bad happens" and then when circumstances get bad enough (like you lose brain capacity or something) then you can be euthanized. Idk, I'm just making up ideas.

 

[Rubypie41]

I've seen news stories to the contrary, especially in Canada. It's unfortunate, really. But i don't think it's as common as my original post made it out to be.

Propaganda. Very very unlikely a doctor would recommend assisted dying. Not saying it hasn't happend, but it's highly unlikely and goes against assisted dying safeguards. At the end of the day it's the choice of the patient and they have to formally request for assisted dying which goes through a rigorous process.

 

[Install-Gentoo]

Propaganda. Very very unlikely a doctor would recommend assisted dying. Not saying it hasn't happend, but it's highly unlikely and goes against assisted dying safeguards. At the end of the day it's the choice of the patient and they have to formally request for assisted dying which goes through a rigorous process.

Okay, fair. But are you saying this as a foreigner or a Canadian? It makes sense that these countries would be hard on foreigners, because after all, foreigners pay no taxes.

 

[suizsuicide]

I can see the american government trying to make a profit off assisted dying. Over price everything so wether you want to live or die the only thing your worth is in dollars.
But american is too pro life and capitalist to give a shit. Life is cruel and unfair unless you can afford to buy happiness.
If assisted dying was legal everywhere everyone would be signing up for it.

 

[Jorms_McGander]

Your ignorance is showing, American. Why don't you come up here and say that about socialism lol

 

[Rubypie41]

Okay, fair. But are you saying this as a foreigner or a Canadian? It makes sense that these countries would be hard on foreigners, because after all, foreigners pay no taxes.

It doesn't matter if I'm saying it as a foreigner or a Canadian, the MAID process has strict safeguards in place and is a rigorous process. That's just facts. You almost have to jump through hoops to get approval. It's not like doctors can just start saying I recommend you die and the patient says OK then. Simply does not work that way.

 

[Install-Gentoo]

Your ignorance is showing, American. Why don't you come up here and say that about socialism lol

I don't want to get in a huge argument, but I don't like the American system any more than you do. I think profiteering companies control too much legal power. However I think it could be changed in a different direction than socialism. If you're interested, read Human Action by the Austrian economist Hans Hermann Hoppe, and if you're really math-minded, check out some of Milton Friedman's work. On the topic of insurance and healthcare, "Fraternal Societies and Social Services" by David Beito is a good read. In a free market system (i.e. not the corporate lobbyist system in America), there is probably an even greater chance to have access to assisted dying, since there wouldn't be a government-sponsored one-size-fits-all solution.
Anyway, my main point is that everyone simply acts on incentives. The State doesn't necessarily work for the benefit of the people, it works for the benefit of the State. It just so happens that there's enough mutually beneficial overlap that citizens can co-exist with the State.
I respect your opinion, because it's true that "free" healthcare can be pretty great. But I think that competition among healthcare systems, individualized plans, and private social services might provide for a greater quality of life (and death).

 

[Jorms_McGander]

I don't want to get in a huge argument

Neither, and you're spreading disinformation regarding a medical program in a country you have nothing to do with, so y'know, I just want to point out that what you're saying is wack

 

[Install-Gentoo]

I can see the american government trying to make a profit off assisted dying. But american is too pro life and capitalist to give a shit.

"Capitalism is when the government does stuff". The technical term is corporatism, but yes, you have a point. I entirely agree with you, which is why I think neither system is perfect.

 

[J&L383]

In California and Oregon if 2 different doctors approve you can get a prescription that is supposed to result in death. It's a liquid barbiturate cocktail you're supposed to drink. This is the only approved method. The problem with it is an alarming 9-11 percent failure rate which means for about 1 in 10 people it's not gonna work and when it doesn't work, it's supposed to be hellish. Chemical burns on your throat and vocal cords and fucks up your digestive system etc.

Originally in Oregon they used seconal or nembutal, but thanks to the capital punishment industry, those are now impossible to get so they had to go with the five ingredient cocktail. Death used to take place within minutes now it can take hours.

 

[Install-Gentoo]

Neither, and you're spreading disinformation regarding a medical program in a country you have nothing to do with, so y'know, I just want to point out that what you're saying is wack

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I conceded that these countries probably are not recommending death. My only statement is that the incentive exists to do so, in order to save tax budget. If it doesn't happen that much, great. But again, the incentive is there and I want people to think about incentives behind action.
According to incentives, socialized healthcare would allow people to die if it saves money, because it works on a limited budget and prefers quick and permanent solutions. Whereas corporatist healthcare forces people to live because it profits from recurring revenue and takes advantage of desperate people.
I appreciate efforts proving me wrong, though. My statements about other countries are speculation based on understanding of human incentives, not based on statistical evidence. So I accept that my expectations can be wrong about those countries.

Originally in Oregon they used seconal or nembutal, but thanks to the capital punishment industry, those are now impossible to get so they had to go with the five ingredient cocktail. Death used to take place within minutes now it can take hours.

That blows.

 

[J&L383]

Neither, and you're spreading disinformation regarding a medical program in a country you have nothing to do with, so y'know, I just want to point out that what you're saying is wack

Agreed, there's nothing OP cited to support the arguments. I don't have the cites to the contrary, either, but from what I've read this is not the case. I would agree that in the United States many seniors liquidate their savings to live a couple years or more. (If they have it - otherwise they're relegated to nursing homes, a fate worse than death in my view.)

 

[Install-Gentoo]

Agreed, there's nothing OP cited to support the arguments. I don't have the cites to the contrary, either, but from what I've read this is not the case. I would agree that in the United States many seniors liquidate their savings to live a couple years or more. (If they have it - otherwise they're relegated to nursing homes, a fate worse than death in my view.)

Canadian health provider offers assisted suicide to healthy patients

A shocking slideshow was sent out by one of the top healthcare providers in British Columbia, Canada, last week pushing people receiving their pension packages to consider medically assisted suicide.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Canadian doctors encouraged to bring up medically assisted death before their patients do

Guidance from Canada’s providers of medically assisted death states that doctors have a professional obligation to bring up MAID. Read more

nationalpost.com

There's definitely a few sensationalist articles about this. But I think they're all confusing "informing people that this option exists" with "recommending that it be done". So this doesn't really work as evidence in my favor. :)

 

[Jorms_McGander]

My only statement is that the incentive exists to do so

Not in any real-world practical situation, it does not. Consider the outrage already occurring because some people have merely considered the possibility. That is a practical reality, which nullifies such a likelihood.

This is like when people are "just asking questions"; it is disinformation and it is not an innocent act. Do as you will, but take responsibility.

Canadian health provider offers assisted suicide to healthy patients

A shocking slideshow was sent out by one of the top healthcare providers in British Columbia, Canada, last week pushing people receiving their pension packages to consider medically assisted suicide.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Canadian doctors encouraged to bring up medically assisted death before their patients do

Guidance from Canada’s providers of medically assisted death states that doctors have a professional obligation to bring up MAID. Read more

nationalpost.com

There's definitely a few sensationalist articles about this. But I think they're all confusing "informing people that this option exists" with "recommending that it be done". So this doesn't really work as evidence in my favor. :)

Yes those are very emotionally reactionary sources. It infuriates me to no end that people will do anything except consider taking responsibility to cope with their own emotions.

 

[Hotsackage]

Trust me, there is no form of eugenics, it's more like we can't help you, so here take a pill

 

[martinso67]

Well, if you get approved and you can go through it, it's good. But my point is that the motivations behind it are not about "human rights" or anything of the sort. Countries with assisted dying programs don't offer it due to compassion or empathy or respect for autonomy or any of that. It's done as a cost-saving measure.
First off: these policies are almost always implemented in countries with socialist healthcare systems. These systems rely on a limited government budget. If a procedure is expensive to perform, they do not benefit from the price paid by the patient, because the patient does not pay for their treatment. Rather, costly procedures put a dent in the government's budget, and are thus not important unless a greater tax revenue can be made off of saving that person.
This is why elderly people will, in America, spend their entire life's savings to live an extra 6 months. They don't see much value in their money anymore, but the medical companies do, so they're happy to perform whatever treatments they can. However, in these other countries, the same type of elderly patient would be recommended medical assistance in dying, because the input cost is not worth the tiny tax revenue.
This is why only those who are chronically ill "non-contributors" in society are recommended or approved for assisted dying. Because they would otherwise be a tax burden on society with routine hospital visits or drug prescription. So the government benefits from killing these people.

Anyway, my point is: assisted dying is great and it should be available in a less predatory form. But presently, the methods of assisted dying aren't supported by moral arguments.

Me personally, I don't care about making assisted dying legal. I only want to be able to access the peaceful lethal medication like N and the recommended potents/additional medications.(like Anti-emetic Meto...). So I don't need to go to far away developing countries like I South America, to buy all that stuff in a somewhat shady place.

What these organizations like Pegasus told me is that they prepare the death medication and it's performed by the doctor. Also they decide if I am approved. So this means that I am not really the one that decided and is killing himself. That decision to die is in the hands of these doctors and their bureaucratic systems. So they are low key and somewhat the ones who are killing me. It's not really suicide. On your own.

 

[Little_Suzy]

I can see the american government trying to make a profit off assisted dying. Over price everything so wether you want to live or die the only thing your worth is in dollars.
But american is too pro life and capitalist to give a shit. Life is cruel and unfair unless you can afford to buy happiness.
If assisted dying was legal everywhere everyone would be signing up for it.

That assisted dying bill is just the beginning! 100 people can easily profit from a single death.

Death, is like a wedding! The funeral industry encompasses a wide range of services, including fancy attire, makeup artistry, flowers, candles, religious trinkets, limousines, horse carriages, photographers, ushers, musicians, choirs, parties, entertainers,security, catering, booze, flights, hotels, funeral director fees, clergy, embalming, unlimited Kleenex, smelling salts, cremation, cemetery plots, patriotic celebrations, and more.

Then there are insurance agents, lawyers, probate courts, lawsuits, secret children contesting the will, fraud investigators, hidden assets, creditors, IRS, banks, widows' pensions, and so on.

 

[LaughingGoat]

I mean here in the US, 10 states have assisted suicide as well as the capital, Washington D.C. It's an interesting thought but not supported by any data or argument besides conjecture.

 

[BardBarrie]

I'd still rather have it than not.

 

[karmaisabitch]

In California and Oregon if 2 different doctors approve you can get a prescription that is supposed to result in death. It's a liquid barbiturate cocktail you're supposed to drink. This is the only approved method. The problem with it is an alarming 9-11 percent failure rate which means for about 1 in 10 people it's not gonna work and when it doesn't work, it's supposed to be hellish. Chemical burns on your throat and vocal cords and fucks up your digestive system etc.

I never heard of that! We don't have assisted suicide in America

 

[divinemistress36]

I never heard of that! We don't have assisted suicide in America

Some states do for terminally ill