Discussion Euthanasia and demographic problems

[Versailles]

Secretary Javier Darío Marulanda expressed his concern after seeing a growing wave of requests for euthanasia in that Colombia.
Recently in the country, two cases of success in carrying out euthanasia were known, such as that of Martha Sepúlveda and Víctor Escobar, which could have influenced this increase in requests.

The official stated that as a result of this, requests have been arriving at the medical centers with the aim of carrying out the same procedure, but with the argument that they suffer from "depression and economic" problems.
The health secretary made it clear that "we cannot reach that extreme or we will have a massive euthanasia for these problems; We are reviewing very well the reason for the despair, to be able to generate support from here."

I recently had a discussion with an official who is against euthanasia and the right to die, and he explained to me that both things are inconceivable, since, according to him, this implies the evasion of responsibilities and also that it will result in demographic problems, The latter is a pretty strong argument for pro-lifers, and they can use this argument to push back the progress that has been made on the right to die.

 

[Al Cappella]

You're right there'd be a demographics problem—those trampled underfoot would check out, leaving the ones up top with no one to do their labour for next to nothing.

The solution is not to deny euthanasia, rather it's economic reform and compassionate redistribution of wealth to where everyone has a chance at support. Included would be free health care and education and childcare. Let's start with that.

 

[openclosed]

What are the main tenets of the pro-life argument anyway? Or is it pretty varied?

To me, it seems like so much of it is focused around the individual level of saying stuff like "Oh, you have so much to live for!", "That's really selfish of you!", "People will miss you!" and those kinds of arguments. But when asked about it for society as a whole, the answers line up more with "Yeah, so actually that'd be really bad for the economy," which has nothing to do with any of the earlier reasons (unless they're also really talking about things from a monetary standpoint). I can't feasibly see the demographics argument being made in countries that don't really enact policy around that kind of thing, but for others it could definitely be a concern.

At a certain point, I can agree that using it as an evasion of responsibilities would be a bad thing, but it depends on what those responsibilities are.

You're right there'd be a demographics problem—those trampled underfoot would check out, leaving the ones up top with no one to do their labour for next to nothing.

The solution is not to deny euthanasia, rather it's economic reform and compassionate redistribution of wealth to where everyone has a chance at support. Included would be free health care and education and childcare. Let's start with that.

Yeah, if people are requesting access to euthanasia on a country-wide level, there's probably a bigger problem that should be addressed.

 

[june]

Interesting read

 

[Zzzzz]

The official stated that as a result of this, requests have been arriving at the medical centers with the aim of carrying out the same procedure, but with the argument that they suffer from "depression and economic" problems.
The health secretary made it clear that "we cannot reach that extreme or we will have a massive euthanasia for these problems; We are reviewing very well the reason for the despair, to be able to generate support from here."

They should Give universal basic income and then they can say they are doing something about the economic crisis. Massive self- euthanasia is 10x better than massive poverty. People who are forced to suffer. Who fucking cares if tons of people choose to euthanize themselves. Who fucking cares. Life has no objective purpose.its purpose is completely subjective .If society is so shitty that so many people would self -euthanize if it was legal then society doesn't fucking deserve to have all of these people who are suffering and not getting the help that they need and would rather opt out.

You're right there'd be a demographics problem—those trampled underfoot would check out, leaving the ones up top with no one to do their labour for next to nothing.

The solution is not to deny euthanasia, rather it's economic reform and compassionate redistribution of wealth to where everyone has a chance at support. Included would be free health care and education and childcare. Let's start with that.

Exactly

 

[Red Scare]

The solution is not to deny euthanasia, rather it's economic reform and compassionate redistribution of wealth to where everyone has a chance at support. Included would be free health care and education and childcare. Let's start with that.

Fat chance of that ever happening. Poverty is not seen as an important enough problem to solve, and people don't care enough about the poor's suffering to allow euthanasia either, so they'll just be expected to remain largely invisible and suffer in silence.

 

[Versailles]

rather it's economic reform and compassionate redistribution of wealth

But these kinds of things are so complex and difficult to achieve that it almost always fails.

I can agree that using it as an evasion of responsibilities would be a bad thing,

This argument is quite difficult for me to accept, because although we have responsibilities that we must take care of due to the fact that we consciously adopt them, there are other responsibilities that we cannot escape and that have been imposed on us in a deliberate way. spontaneously and without our consent, people should have the right to evade such responsibilities