Assisted Dying isn't as great as you think.

[karmaisabitch]

Some states do for terminally ill

I wonder how we can go by requesting that?

 

[divinemistress36]

I wonder how we can go by requesting that?

We would have to have an illness that would kill us. Depression is slowly killing people though

 

[DoubleUp8]

California and Oregon for sure and I think maybe 1 or 2 other states

 

[dggtscccvfd]

California and Oregon for sure and I think maybe 1 or 2 other states

10 US states plus DC allow euthanasia, but only for terminally ill not irredeemable suffering!

Oregon's doctor-assisted suicides jumped 21% to 367 in 2023

The state's annual report on its Death with Dignity Act, as procedures are known, comes as ever-more US states consider letting the terminally ill end their lives with lethal doses of prescribed drugs.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Adûnâi]

irst 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.

I literally don't understand this paragraph. Am I dumb? Or do I need to be able to do the necessary mental gymnastics? So many buzzwords, like "socialist" - only the USSR was socialist. And the rest is economics which is really difficult for me to wrap my head around.

 

[dggtscccvfd]

I literally don't understand this paragraph. Am I dumb? Or do I need to be able to do the necessary mental gymnastics? So many buzzwords, like "socialist" - only the USSR was socialist. And the rest is economics which is really difficult for me to wrap my head around.

When the writer refers to 'socialist healthcare' they actually mean tax-funded healthcare! It's just a euphemism.

 

[Coconut blue]

i think what op wrote is true. i cant find the article now but there was a woman in canada who applied for assisted suicide bc she had a disability and couldnt pay rent, and her application went thrustill in life ppl do things for selfish reasons 99.9% of the time, those whose interests in dying align with the selfish motives of their govt are still more lucky than ppl without access to the option of assisted suicide

 

[Confront4283]

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

Well that's the crux of everything in modern society. It's all hidden behind empathy when in reality the aim is just for governments to keep their wagies working. Everything in life is geared towards you making money for whatever country you live in. So is assisted dying going to be any different? Of course not. It doesn't matter however, everything in society is going to have this angle to it.

 

[cygnines]

we're just pawns for the govt to extort for wages and taxes. when we prove to be less than functional/useful, the cheaper solution is to euthanize rather than put up systems to support "defective" nonworkers. i don't think any amount of finagling with the systems will change the production/wealth-orientated nature of human society, we just have to accept that greed and it's associated apathy slips into everything--even ''mercy''.

even if it's predatory, it's still better than letting people suffer, imho. even if the hypothetical alternatives would be an improvement, it's still necessary right now.

 

[theboy]

You contradict the title of your thread with your description.

 

[timetodie24]

It definitely becomes complicated when it's based on suffering rather than just terminal cases.
If UK had it, I could see disabled people being offered it and choosing it because lack of health and social care. it was clear what the government thinks of disabled people during the pandemic when many patients had a DNR put on their record without consent or were pressured into one simply for having a disability (regardless of whether it was significantly life limiting or not). I've also heard cases of patients with anorexia being pushed into palliative care despite not being offered all treatments (not talking about patients who choose it after long suffering. But in some cases the patient wants to live but services have very strict criteria and turn down anyone who is too ill or not ill enough so put people on the pathway without a choice)
I agree with assisted dying as no one should live a life of suffering if they don't want to . In an ideal world though people would be given the options of comprehensive health and social care before AD . So that no one was choosing it if they want to live but don't have the right support. And that's really unrealistic in the current state of affairs . So people should be allowed to choose it, even if things could improve with support because its not their fault that they can't access it.

 

[Install-Gentoo]

When the writer refers to 'socialist healthcare' they actually mean tax-funded healthcare! It's just a euphemism.

I guess I should have said that, yeah. Sorry. Some people call it socialist or "socialized" or single-payer. But you get the idea.

 

[Install-Gentoo]

Hmm...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/medically-assisted-death-could-save-millions-1.3947481

 

[Kavka]

I have so many mixed feelings when it comes to assisted dying for mental health problems. I'm one of the most progressive people I know, I've always been strongly in favour of assisted dying (including a long-time membership of a relevant NGO) and I'd really like to have this option available for myself.

I recently became more ambivalent about it though, after looking into it a bit more and reading a bunch of public case reports. These reports are summarised and anonymised, so it's not really fair to make a judgement based on these reports alone, but I don't know, they (unexpectedly) kinda rubbed me the wrong way.

I got the feeling that some people wouldn't be there if there were more resources available and society was more understanding, supportive and accommodating. Even though there is no official treatment left or available, for example when it comes to autism.

Please don't get me wrong, nobody got assisted dying for autism alone and I don't doubt the judgement or morals of the physicians involved. I think they do great work because the alternative is probably people committing suicide alone.

I just feel like society is letting people down. I know the slippery slope argument is often a fallacy and I am a bit surprised at myself for writing this, but I feel like there is a real risk there.

 

[4everHeartBroken]

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?

You have a good heart.

 

[Tommen Baratheon]

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.

1. I don't think you've got a clue how healthcare in those countries work. The fact that you describe their healthcare as 'socialist' (which is a negative term if you're an American) speaks for itself.

It doesn't work at all like you say. In Belgium we're obligated to be a (paid) member of a sick fund. You're also obligated to have a hospital insurance. How it basically works is: the healthy (working) support the sick. But healthcare isn't 100% free for the patient, not at all, for instance, dental implants will cost me 1.000 euro for each tooth.

2. Only a cost-saving measure? That's harsh. If that were the case it would a lot easier for people to ask for euthanasia. Procedures have to be followed. And there's no ads from the government to motivate people to get euthanasia, so they would save money on healthcare. The government doesn't promote this. In fact, euthanasia in Belgium isn't even a right. Doctors can refuse if they want and if they would think for a second that they're NOT doing it out of compassion, but only to save costs? You wouldn't find even one doctor to do it.

 

[Justnotme]

I had no doubt about it.
According to the same scheme, viruses are created that painfully kill the elderly, but these viruses do not touch the young.
Similarly, cars that work with water have not been released, although smart people have long come up with such developments. But they were killed or threatened because other scum want money and for our lungs to die in agony from gasoline.

We're in hell.

 

[alltoomuch2]

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.

You don't know that. I think anyone who has had someone close suffer before they die would support assisted dying for the same reasons as us. I'm a veterinarian, and so many people, when I'm helping their pet to pass peacefully, say they wish the same peaceful release could have been given to someone close to them who was forced to suffer before they died. Their pov comes from a humane perspective