Euthanasia for all

[Musketeer]

and we wonder why suicide tourism is a thing.

 

[ddd1234]

and we wonder why suicide tourism is a thing.

the problem is that clinics don't provide their services for foreigners with depression.

 

[PeacefulTonic]

That's pro-life bullshit. If I'm not wrong you have probably N yourself and you don't want other people to have it. Put yourself in other people's shoes a little bit.
Your argument is that making N less accessible would reduce suicide rates, which is the EXACT same argument used by ft26 with SN.
They say that making SN less accessible would reduce suicide rates.

I say it frankly, I think you're not pro-choice at all.

I don't think he's a pro-lifer, I think he's trying to say that having euthanasia on demand without restrictions would be a terrible idea.

For example, some 15 year old with teen angst gets dumped by their girlfriend and impulsively wants to ctb. That would be a disaster

 

[Chinaski]

I don't think he's a pro-lifer, I think he's trying to say that having euthanasia on demand without restrictions would be a terrible idea.

For example, some 15 year old with teen angst gets dumped by their girlfriend and impulsively wants to ctb. That would be a disaster

Would add to this that the main thrust of my argument was "euthanasia would ultimately replace social care and this is definitely fucking bad", personally I'm very much against culling the poor, the infirm, the elderly etc, that's not going to change just because some on here think not advocating for eugenics somehow makes you "pro life"

 

[wanttogetonthebus]

I think I'll use my lifetime savings just to go to Switzerland and professionally put an end to this madness. Probably just need to make a little more. It seems like a fitting way to go out. Not breaking any laws, not leaving a traumatic mess, standing my ground, and doing the right thing for myself, not something for anyone else like I've been doing almost my entire existence.

 

[rationalis]

Would add to this that the main thrust of my argument was "euthanasia would ultimately replace social care and this is definitely fucking bad", personally I'm very much against culling the poor, the infirm, the elderly etc, that's not going to change just because some whiny pricks on here think not advocating for eugenics somehow makes you "pro life".

Nobody wants to cull the poor, inform or elderly. Society, at least America, wants to monetize them. As long as somebody pays the nursing home bill, someone is glad to warehouse anyone.

 

[Chinaski]

Nobody wants to cull the poor, inform or elderly. Society, at least America, wants to monetize them. As long as somebody pays the nursing home bill, someone is glad to warehouse anyone.

Mate, come on, we're still in the middle of a global pandemic which has illustrated perfectly fucking well who is expendable and who isn't. Your own post says "as long as somebody pays the bill" which kind of proves my point - what happens to people who *can't pay the bill*?

 

[Buffy5120]

This is exactly why it should be opposed. The folk most likely to utilise such an option would be, frankly, the poorest in society. The political implications of such a measure are immense and boil down to eugenics dressed as compassion. Suicide is an agonising decision, the biggest step of all, and it should not be doled out whimsically.

You guys are making it very complicated and this is why the people that truly need AS never get it. It should be simple. AS should be legal for people that have diseases that have not gotten better minimum 1 year. This will fix the divide between people that are only having temporary issues, versus those who have debilitating chronic illnesses that probably will never get better even after exhausting all options.

 

[Pluto]

AS should be legal for people that have diseases that have not gotten better minimum 1 year.

Mental illness is a grey area.

 

[deflationary]

I kinda agree that having N readily available for everyone might make society worse off overall. But I also can't get over how none of us asked to be here and how we all already have mountains of pro-life bias within us inherently. Trying to make death even more difficult than it already is is being pro-life. Even everyone on this forum has an inborn pro-life bias. That's why suicide is so difficult even if you can rationally see how it would be the best option. Almost no one has a pro-death bias. So society adding even more weight on the pro-life side doesn't sit right with me either.

It just goes to show how every option is terrible and barbaric. Because life itself is terrible and barbaric.

 

[rationalis]

Mate, come on, we're still in the middle of a global pandemic which has illustrated perfectly fucking well who is expendable and who isn't. Your own post says "as long as somebody pays the bill" which kind of proves my point - what happens to people who *can't pay the bill*?

BRUH rich people are not growing food and operating power plants. Poor people keep the economy moving and create most jobs. Especially during the pandemic.

I kinda agree that having N readily available for everyone might make society worse off overall. But I also can't get over how none of us asked to be here and how we all already have mountains of pro-life bias within us inherently. Trying to make death even more difficult than it already is is being pro-life. Even everyone on this forum has an inborn pro-life bias. That's why suicide is so difficult even if you can rationally see how it would be the best option. Almost no one has a pro-death bias. So society adding even more weight on the pro-life side doesn't sit right with me either.

It just goes to show how every option is terrible and barbaric. Because life itself is terrible and barbaric.

Yes, I am surprised by the huge pro life bias. Rules for thee and not for me. People appear to be inherently biased and hypocritical.

Mate, come on, we're still in the middle of a global pandemic which has illustrated perfectly fucking well who is expendable and who isn't. Your own post says "as long as somebody pays the bill" which kind of proves my point - what happens to people who *can't pay the bill*?

People who can't pay the bill move into subsidized housing, funded by taxpayers, making a real estate developer rich. Or become homeless, helped by charities funded by the government.

 

[The Disinherited]

I agree with Chinaski that going and crying to the State for an easy means to suicide will only lead to a bleak society.

I also have a high threshold for name calling so that doesn't bother me, it's sadly ironic that a pro - choice site like this should be filled with people with such thin skin who try to restrict other people's speech. I, and I'm sure everyone else contemplating suicide seriously, have been through much worse than being called nasty things.

However, at this point in time society seems fucked either way so I can't see why we shouldn't legalise the drugs needed for a fast and painless end.

 

[rationalis]

I agree with Chinaski that going and crying to the State for an easy means to suicide will only lead to a bleak society.

I also have a high threshold for name calling so that doesn't bother me, it's sadly ironic that a pro - choice site like this should be filled with people with such thin skin who try to restrict other people's speech. I, and I'm sure everyone else contemplating suicide seriously, have been through much worse than being called nasty things.

However, at this point in time society seems fucked either way so I can't see why we shouldn't legalise the drugs needed for a fast and painless end.

An easy means to suicide already exists. Nobody needs the state to provide it.

The government actually prohibits it.

 

[Amumu]

All in all, my position is that everyone should have access to N at a cheap price, like it was the case before the 1970s and the war on drugs;

That's my definition of being pro-choice.

 

[Sunset Limited]

If someone, after the necessary psychological evaluation, still wishes to end their life, they should be allowed access to chemicals. No one can have a valid reason to decide whether someone lives or dies. It's just that person's decision. No one can be condemned to live so as not to hurt the feelings of others.

 

[LucieInTheDark]

I wish I lived in the Netherlands so I could follow the steps of Aurelia Brouwers and request euthanasia due to mental anguish

 

[Chinaski]

If someone, after the necessary psychological evaluation, still wishes to end their life, they should be allowed access to chemicals. No one can have a valid reason to decide whether someone lives or dies. It's just that person's decision. No one can be condemned to live so as not to hurt the feelings of others.

That's, uh, the case now, literally.

The issue is what does the evaluation consist of, where is the bar set, who decides and on what basis?

What's the cost? Who pays? Is it free at the point of request or will there be a cost which is prohibitive?

There's lots of meaningless chat on here about how convenient it would be if someone would just inject us with blissful death and whilst l too would find this personally advantageous it isn't going to happen (and if it did, it would not be for the greater societal benefit).

 

[Chinaski]

A psychologist assesses his mental health. This is the same as an assessment for anything else. With this decision, a physician prescribes pentobarbital, the person who wants CTB buys it.

"the same as the assessment for anything else" like what? This is a) too vague and unconvincing, and b) clearly going to end up preventing, rather than facilitating, the desired outcome for anyone showing even the slightest sign of diagnosable mental illness.

As always with this circular argument, ultimately the answer is "someone please set the criteria for me, one individual, to be peacefully euthanized, and here is the unworkable plan outlined in the vaguest possible terms".

 

[9BBN]

This is a ridiculous circular argument that crops up on here every other week tbh - l do not want a hyper-capitalist society to essentially pressurise the poor, the sick, the aged etc into an unnecessary death under a phoney veneer of compassion.

This is an admirable stance, but OP's argument is only circular if they also supported a hyper-capitalist society. Just because we live in one doesn't mean OP supports it. I actually don't think anyone here supports it, and yet you brought it up.

I have a question for you, Chinaski: in a hyper-capitalist society, is it better or worse to legalize euthanasia? If I understand you correctly, you don't support more liberal euthanasia unless society was less capitalistic. I think amumu and others missed this nuance about capitalism, which lead to amumu believing you were simply anti-poor.

Maybe instead of writing condescending posts about how paraphrasing yourself is futile, you can either paraphrase yourself or disengage? I can understand how you were provoked when members misunderstood your arguments and even "accused" you of being pro-life. But since I see your posts around here complaining about tantrums, please hold yourself to the same standard. Sometimes people won't understand you, so deal with it nicely, because this is a suicide forum.

All in all, my position is that everyone should have access to N at a cheap price, like it was the case before the 1970s and the war on drugs;

That's my definition of being pro-choice.

Unfortunately, that's not the universal definition of pro-choice. According to the principles of SS:

We accept that suicide is a personal, ethical choice, that may be considered in extreme situations (such as by a person in terminal pain) as long as they are in a rational, non-impulsive state.

There are many ways to be pro-choice, so be careful when you hold other people to your narrower standard and call them fake.

 

[Amumu]

Good luck with preventing people from considering suicide in an irrational, impulsive state.

 

[ayb]

This is exactly why it should be opposed. The folk most likely to utilise such an option would be, frankly, the poorest in society. The political implications of such a measure are immense and boil down to eugenics dressed as compassion. Suicide is an agonising decision, the biggest step of all, and it should not be doled out whimsically.

This was a common concern by opponents in the Netherlands who objected to assisted-suicide because they feared that the poor or more marginalized people would utilize it disproportionately. Instead the studies on this topic found that the people who utilize physicial-assisted suicide are more likely to be educated and middle or upper-middle class people.

 

[OnlyTheWind]

... for all and goodnight.

 

[Pluto]

As always with this circular argument, ultimately the answer is "someone please set the criteria for me, one individual, to be peacefully euthanized, and here is the unworkable plan outlined in the vaguest possible terms".

Some of the irrationality or impracticality of the euthanasia arguments here could perhaps be attributed to a deep frustration at the lack of open discussion in our media and political systems regarding euthanasia. It appears to me that this website's consensus of 'euthanasia for all' is a livid, reactionary inversion of the mainstream attitude of 'euthanasia for none'.

Genuine solutions that account for all valid viewpoints and the various challenges and nuances would come as a product of intelligent political debate and accountable administrative processes. We do not yet have this quality discourse due to the extreme stigmatisation of suicide in society, including the dominance of religious interest groups.

As another example, we have to decide how much to tax people. Extreme leftists who demand 100% taxation to fund a Communist utopia, or far right activists pushing for a Wild West of zero taxation/zero government may produce entertaining rants, but nothing sensible. Once the grown-ups have engaged on the issue, we always seem to come up with an ever-changing approximation of the perfect balance of taxation. Some day, this will need to happen for euthanasia as well.

(PS. It is equally impractical to aspiring to a society in which the poor and disenfranchised are properly cared for using unspecified funding, such that their vulnerability to suicide would be averted. But noble nonetheless.)

 

[motel rooms]

Unfortunately, that's not the universal definition of pro-choice. According to the principles of SS:

We accept that suicide is a personal, ethical choice, that may be considered in extreme situations (such as by a person in terminal pain) as long as they are in a rational, non-impulsive state.

What's your definition of pro-choice?

Maybe instead of writing condescending posts about how paraphrasing yourself is futile, you can either paraphrase yourself or disengage? I can understand how you were provoked when members misunderstood your arguments and even "accused" you of being pro-life. But since I see your posts around here complaining about tantrums, please hold yourself to the same standard. Sometimes people won't understand you, so deal with it nicely, because this is a suicide forum.

I couldn't agree more. So much unnecessary unpleasantness...

 

[9BBN]

What's your definition of pro-choice?

My definition of pro-choice is supporting informed, non-impulsive decisions, while respecting the right to life and death. There are many ways to hold this view. You can take amumu's position, or Chinaski's position, for example.

My pro-choice position is that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental human right, regardless of justification. My only concession is that it requires informed consent when informed consent is possible. For example, informed consent is not possible in infants, patients with certain "mental illnesses", and non-human animals. In these cases, when informed consent is impossible, voluntary euthanasia is allowed. For example, if a mother volunteers abortion, a pet owner volunteers pet euthanasia, or a "mentally ill" patient volunteers suicide.

I'm sympathetic to Chinaski's view that it would be better to have laws like this in a less capitalist society, where the poor don't have to be the prey. If @dou is right about the Netherlands, then it might not need to be a huge concern. Personally I see the pro-choice movement as a long haul where it will naturally be accepted only when we are in a sufficiently less capitalist society, so I try to avoid arguing about what else has to happen in society first.

 

[Chinaski]

So forget it, discussion is dead, I've made myself clear enough earlier in the thread anyway.

This was a common concern by opponents in the Netherlands who objected to assisted-suicide because they feared that the poor or more marginalized people would utilize it disproportionately. Instead the studies on this topic found that the people who utilize physicial-assisted suicide are more likely to be educated and middle or upper-middle class people.

Well yeah, because Dignitas is prohibitively expensive and depends on rigorous assessment which nobody in this thread would pass. Comparing the assisted suicide in Switzerland with the foggy notion of "euthanasia for all" in this thread is an absolutely false equivalence.

I agree, fwiw, that assisted suicide as it currently exists should be widened and made more accessible (cheaper). I also think nobody is going to euthanise anybody in this thread on request. If you want to ctb you'll have to do it yourself, just like l have to.

 

[Death is beautiful]

What is the problem at all? Why can't N be made more accessible, people are already successfully killing themselves. SN is available to anyone and costs a little, the only thing that holds back those who want to commit suicide is the instinct of self-preservation, in general, it's enough for them to buy a rope, throw themselves off a high building and the like, so if you make N accessible to everyone, I doubt that everyone will run to buy it

 

[mlha]

Modern society should favor individuality and acknowledge all worldviews which don't violate human rights, which includes the right to die, even to the detriment of a civilization. One such worldview is that life is suffering, because of that the society shouldn't actively remove means to a peaceful ending of one's life. If these means were in demand for whatever reason, they should be inexpensive.

If that concludes the collapse of our civilization so be it, the ideal that modern society increasingly favors individuality shouldn't be curtailed.

 

[Superdeterminist]

If someone, after the necessary psychological evaluation, still wishes to end their life, they should be allowed access to chemicals. No one can have a valid reason to decide whether someone lives or dies. It's just that person's decision. No one can be condemned to live so as not to hurt the feelings of others.

Why is an evaluation even necessary?

 

[RainAndSadness]

This is a ridiculous circular argument that crops up on here every other week tbh - l do not want a hyper-capitalist society to essentially pressurise the poor, the sick, the aged etc into an unnecessary death under a phoney veneer of compassion. Yes l wish suicide could be less bothersome for me personally, but death is often unpleasant. Nobody makes suicide "painful" or "violent", it just is.

I would also add that if the only thing preventing anyone from ctb is the fact that their govt is not merciful enough to give them a peaceful pill on request then they're not *that* suicidal. That's kind of the point - it's literally life or death, you have to definitely want it to get it.

Except nobody made that argument. It's about choice, not force. And giving people the choice to leave if they don't want to participiate in a system that neglects them because they're poor, sick or aged is just as valid as many other reasons I could think of. Everyone has their own reasons as to why they reject life. And capitalism is a very harsh and cruel system and it's the reason why many of us suffer. I'm very close to poverty myself and it's adds quite a lot to my daily suicide ideation. And right now there is no solution to that system that's the embodiment of exploitation of human lives. Nobody cares about improving peoples lives, we're not gonna get rid of these socio-economic factors that cause suffering on a large scale. If anything, the conditions to live on this planet are slowly getting worse. So we have to provide alternatives and one of that alternative is the peaceful pill, in my opinion.

Regarding your second point, I think that's quite an invalidating notion. The only reason why I even turned 20 is because I didn't have access to a peaceful method. Without access to reliable painless methods I was basically forced to live because I could never take my life in a violent way. Being desperate for a way out doesn't necessarly mean you're going to do stupid things, such as jumping in front of a train or hanging yourself in the closet just because we're thirsty for relief. I know there are people out there that are gonna exercise their right to die, no matter what, but that's not the whole picture. Many of us want a safe, reliable method that gives us a peaceful way out. And that's a human right. We want a dignified death. I believe that we deserve that. But right now, the goverment doesn't provide that. We have every right to demand that "peaceful pill".