Euthanasia for all

[Chinaski]

The idea that voluntary euthanasia, free at the point of request, no questions asked would, upon implementation, *not* have a knock-on effect on the wider society in terms of public services, healthcare is imo very naive. It would not be delivered as an act of compassion towards the depressed, it would see an increase in choices made which, whilst one would support their right to choose it, would be accompanied with a reasoning which need not be there. I don't want to see elderly people choose death due to a deficiency in social care provision, l don't want to see the sick choose death due to poor healthcare. I don't want to see the poorest choose death because of debt. These drivers to suicide currently exist, as do many more, and it should be agreed that a "compassionate" society ameliorates as many drivers of suicide as possible before it considers giving free euthanasia, which will be accepted more by the poorest than by the powerful, for reasons stated above.

The latter point is accurate in as much as l too would prefer a peaceful exit to a violent one. That's why I'm still here. Because l lack the necessary courage. It's not an invalidating notion to point out that many people do ctb each day, and yet we're here bickering because our respective governments won't provide it for us. And frankly, it's important that we admit this within ourselves imo, rather than turn fury outwards upon a society that doesn't provide it for us. Why should it?

Finally, this isn't the first time this discussion has reared, and each time what begins as FREE EUTHANASIA FOR ALL generally ends with various different caps, criteria, demands which often include the poster but exclude others. In this thread alone we've seen "psych assessment", which would presumably bar both of us from attaining our exit, and also "I don't want the govt to provide" or similar (l paraphrase, cba to find direct quote), thus suggesting private companies undertake it, presumably at a cost which would also bar both of us. These threads often begin with a fantasy concept of euthanasia which, a few pages in, ultimately becomes "what dignitas do", which is a prohibitively expensive option with an exclusive criteria which none of us here will pass.

I repeat, l agree with the broadening of assisted suicide criteria and its wider accessibility - l also do wish, like everyone in this thread, that someone would give me a comfy death in my sleep and l did not wake up tomorrow. However I've been quite clear as to why death on demand is imo a backward societal step and maintain that view, this does not invalidate anyone's right or ability, myself included, to ctb at any time of their choosing. What has not been made clear by this thread is an agreed notion of what this euthanasia would look like, who sets the criteria and what they are, what is the cost, who gets it, who does not. It's a broad, foggy notion with no concrete base beyond "I want to ctb and it's hard", yes it is, it is for me too.

 

[mlha]

I don't want to see elderly people choose death due to a deficiency in social care provision, l don't want to see the sick choose death due to poor healthcare. I don't want to see the poorest choose death because of debt. These drivers to suicide currently exist, as do many more, and it should be agreed that a "compassionate" society ameliorates as many drivers of suicide as possible before it considers giving free euthanasia,

Would you have a problem with free euthanasia in a utopia?

 

[Sunset Limited]

Why is an evaluation even necessary?

It may not actually be necessary. Perhaps the necessity of discussing whether the decision to commit suicide is rational should also be the choice of the requester. If someone wants, they can discuss this with a psychologist. You're right, it doesn't have to be necessary. No one has to give a reason.

 

[Chinaski]

Would you have a problem with free euthanasia in a utopia?

I don't have an issue with *free* euthanasia at all, in fact in my opinion euthanasia should be free, Dignitas currently prices out too many eligible candidates who should be allowed to access such a service at the point of established need.

As stated above, for all the chat about "euthanasia for all" each person then adds their own caveat to this. I personally feel the dignitas criteria should be widened and the bar lowered, l also think the required cost should not be a barrier, peaceful euthanasia from painful and debilitating conditions should not be the preserve of the wealthy. I am not anti-euthanasia, nor am l pro-life - l just think much of the "improve society by offering to euthanise everybody now, on demand" content is ill thought out and woolly, and does not make for a healthier society imho.

 

[deflationary]

l just think much of the "improve society by offering to euthanise everybody now, on demand" content is ill thought out and woolly, and does not make for a healthier society imho.

Why don't you think the same about the existence of this forum? It also makes suicide easier to achieve. Why shouldn't it be banned for the same reasons that you're concerned about excessively loose euthanasia regulations?

 

[Chinaski]

Why don't you think the same about the existence of this forum? It also makes suicide easier to achieve. Why shouldn't it be banned for the same reasons that you're concerned about excessively loose euthanasia regulations?

Does this website make suicide easier to achieve? Are you from the New York Times?

Anyway, silly question imo, this website is very different for a very obvious reason - the decision to come here is a rational one, not an impulsive one. As I've said in earlier posts, suicide is difficult for a reason. I do feel we're going around in circles now tbh, I've made my position very clear several times and the reality is it doesn't differ that much from anyone else's on this forum.

 

[deflationary]

Does this website make suicide easier to achieve?

Does it not? Wat. Of course better knowledge about methods makes it easier. If I didn't know about N and SN then I might have never gone through with it, simply because other methods seem unacceptably awful to me.

This is in no way a knock against this website. I think my eventual suicide will be the better outcome.

the decision to come here is a rational one, not an impulsive one

Who says?

I'm just pointing out that there are no sharp distinctions that your position rests on either. All the same kinds of arguments that can be made about looser access to drugs can also be made about looser access to information. Why are you drawing the line where you're drawing it?

Are you from the New York Times?

I see your complaints about being called pro-life were pure hypocrisy. :)

 

[Chinaski]

I don't know why the laser-focus remains on me when others in this thread have bellowed YAY EUTHANASIA FOR ALL (PROVIDED YOU MEET THE FINANCIAL COST AND PASS THE PSYCH ASSESSMENT), but I've made my position clear in earlier posts, numerous times. You're asking now for a distinct position as to where the line is drawn. Why? What does it matter? Surely it's best to ask those who are advocating euthanasia for all, then adding caveats and bolt-on measures, to be clearer about what they want, beyond "comfy ctb criteria that suits me".

My ideal method btw would be firearm. I can't get a firearm in this country. This is very inconvenient. Yet l still very much understand that it is probably not in the best interests of society as a whole for people to be able to buy firearms in their local supermarket. I feel similarly about the juvenile approach to euthanasia, no checks, no balances, just death on request is probably not healthy.

 

[deflationary]

Why? What does it matter?

Because you seem so confident in the correctness of your position. Shouldn't you have some great arguments for why the place you draw the line is the correct one, and everyone that draws the line in a different place is a 'whatever specific insult you used'?

I think euthanasia for all is a pretty clear position. There's not much more clarification to ask about that. For the record, I don't even know what my own position is, so I'm not saying yours is wrong. I just don't see why it's obviously correct.

Yet l still very much understand that it is probably not in the best interests of society as a whole for people to be able to buy firearms in their local supermarket.

In that case the argument can be made based on the safety of other people, just not would-be suicides.

 

[Chinaski]

That same argument could be made about any instant death. Again, my earlier posts make it clear, I'm not going to keep typing the same words just because you keep asking the same question I've already answered.

Is euthanasia, free at the point of need, on demand, no questions asked, a good thing for society as a whole? No. That's pretty much it, in summary - and most people in this thread are arguing against me whilst holding what is fundamentally the same position.

And yes, of course I'm confident in the correctness of my position. If l didn't believe my opinion was the correct one, l would not hold it.

 

[deflationary]

That same argument could be made about any instant death. Again, my earlier posts make it clear, I'm not going to keep typing the same words just because you keep asking the same question I've already answered.

Is euthanasia, free at the point of need, on demand, no questions asked, a good thing for society as a whole? No. That's pretty much it, in summary - and most people in this thread are arguing against me whilst holding what is fundamentally the same position.

And yes, of course I'm confident in the correctness of my position. If l didn't believe my opinion was the correct one, l would not hold it.

I feel like if someone gave you such a waffly answer then you wouldn't take it too kindly. You really didn't answer my question. But whatever.

 

[Chinaski]

Because I've already answered it much earlier in this godforsaken fucking hell hole of a tediously juvenile thread.

I have no authority to *draw the line*. My position is that euthanasia should be more accessible on numerous levels, but should not be given out on demand with zero checks and balances. This is in keeping with most people in this thread. So what exactly is your fucking problem? Ask the people who've shifted position from EUTHANASIA FOR ALL to EUTHANASIA BUT WITH APPROPRIATE MEASURES within one post what their position is exactly, mine is clear.

 

[PeacefulTonic]

@Chinaski man, you really do get held to a higher standard than everyone else here, it's kind of insane to see

 

[deflationary]

So what exactly is your fucking problem?

Why are you assuming I had a problem? I had no problem, I was just interested in how you draw the specific distinctions that you do. That's not saying that your position is wrong, and I explicitly said that.

@Chinaski man, you really do get held to a higher standard than everyone else here, it's kind of insane to see

I wasn't holding him or anyone else to any standard. I was just interested in his position and not interested in others.

 

[PeacefulTonic]

Why are you assuming I had a problem? I had no problem, I was just interested in how you draw the specific distinctions that you do. That's not saying that your position is wrong, and I explicitly said that.

I wasn't holding him or anyone else to any standard. I was just interested in his position and not interested in others.

It's not just this thread. And other people have the same opinion as him, yet you don't specifically call them out

 

[deflationary]

It's not just this thread. And other people have the same opinion as him, yet you don't specifically call them out

I'm pretty sure this is the only thread I've interacted with him in. If he gets held to a higher standard then maybe it's because he expresses himself so forcefully.

But I get that this thread has been a lot of people fighting against him so I guess I can see why he'd be defensive. So we don't need to continue the bickering.

 

[PeacefulTonic]

I'm pretty sure this is the only thread I've interacted with him in. If he gets held to a higher standard then maybe it's because he portrays himself as this bastion of rationality.

I meant that he gets specifically called out by other people in other threads

 

[mlha]

I don't have an issue with *free* euthanasia at all, in fact in my opinion euthanasia should be free, Dignitas currently prices out too many eligible candidates who should be allowed to access such a service at the point of established need.

As stated above, for all the chat about "euthanasia for all" each person then adds their own caveat to this. I personally feel the dignitas criteria should be widened and the bar lowered, l also think the required cost should not be a barrier, peaceful euthanasia from painful and debilitating conditions should not be the preserve of the wealthy. I am not anti-euthanasia, nor am l pro-life - l just think much of the "improve society by offering to euthanise everybody now, on demand" content is ill thought out and woolly, and does not make for a healthier society imho.

Do you care more about society or more about individuals?

If we had a utopia where robots do the work and they maintain themselves and people are just chilling and they can do their hobbies and then let's say there could be introduced euthanasia accessible for anyone, and in that case people would start ending their lives on a whim (not just because they're ill and can't be cured) and it would cascade, because bereaving people would follow. The society would be unhealthy. Would you be against the introduction?

 

[Chinaski]

Do you care more about society or more about individuals?

If we had a utopia where robots do the work and they maintain themselves and people are just chilling and they can do their hobbies and then let's say there could be introduced euthanasia accessible for anyone, and in that case people would start ending their lives on a whim (not just because they're ill and can't be cured) and it would cascade, because bereaving people would follow. The society would be unhealthy. Would you be against the introduction?

What if the robots were pro lifers, and it was like terminator but in reverse like they send a robot from the future to help you fight the pro life robots, you end up in a hideout with a total recall style freakish community of pro-choice rebels, and in the end once you've beaten the evil forces the good robot gives you your SN and jumps into molten larva, and because the microchip in the robots brain stores all the data that means no robots can ever be made in the future, thus saving the world from pro-life androids but inversely meaning society remains the same as it is now, no free euthanasia, an it's a double edged sword and how will the little total recall community cope now they've changed the future to their own detriment, and this question will remain unanswered until the sequel which will hopefully have better special effects

 

[mlha]

@Chinaski I just don't understand your position, that's why I'm talking about hypothetical scenarios. From your point of view if killing oneself is made too easy it harms society and I ask why an individual should suffer more even though it makes a healthier society. There's a subjective level of suffering which has to be exceeded so one kills oneself. You want to keep that level generally higher than it has to be so the society can be healthier, why would you make individuals suffer more?

 

[Chinaski]

@Chinaski I just don't understand your position, that's why I'm talking about hypothetical scenarios. From your point of view if killing oneself is made too easy it harms society and I ask why an individual should suffer more even though it makes a healthier society. There's a subjective level of suffering which has to be exceeded so one kills oneself. You want to keep that level generally higher than it has to be so the society can be healthier, why would you make individuals suffer more?

I don't think I've said, at any point, that l think suffering individuals should suffer more, you're placing an argument into my mouth that does not exist.

I don't know how many times l have to say this but a society which cares little for its citizens but *does* offer death on request is clearly not a healthy one. By that same token current legislature around euthanasia is imo far too restrictive. I have made this abundantly clear in all of my posts so far and that isn't going to be reviewed in light of a fresh science-fiction scenario.

 

[mlha]

I don't think I've said, at any point, that l think suffering individuals should suffer more, you're placing an argument into my mouth that does not exist.

That was just my impression and it was incorrect.

I don't know how many times l have to say this but a society which cares little for its citizens but *does* offer death on request is clearly not a healthy one.

How do you measure when society cares enough? So it can provide death on request and be healthy. Is it achievable or is it possible only in utopias?

More importantly, why does it matter if a society is healthy or not, provided there's the death on request so you can quite easily escape?

 

[SuicideRun]

Personally I believe that Euthanasia, especially in some cases, is the highest form of civilization that the human being can express.

 

[Chinaski]

More importantly, why does it matter if a society is healthy or not, provided there's the death on request so you can quite easily escape?

This pretty much summarises this thread imo - for all the talk of empathies and safe havens of understanding the arguments for unregulated euthanasia have always been of an ultimately selfish and immature underpinning imo, one of "why won't somebody kill me peacefully", it's couched in bullshit about how a "compassionate society" would just whimsically offer people death but the reality is their survival instinct is too strong, just like mine is atm. At least you're honest enough to say you're not bothered by the prospect of the society you leave behind being worse off, although again l find the nihilism in your post to be a bit off-colour. What's the point in *anything* if we're all going to die? What is the aim of asking me the same questions repeatedly in this thread when we could all be getting on with the serious business of ceasing to exist?

 

[mlha]

This pretty much summarises this thread imo - for all the talk of empathies and safe havens of understanding the arguments for unregulated euthanasia have always been of an ultimately selfish and immature underpinning imo, one of "why won't somebody kill me peacefully", it's couched in bullshit about how a "compassionate society" would just whimsically offer people death but the reality is their survival instinct is too strong, just like mine is atm. At least you're honest enough to say you're not bothered by the prospect of the society you leave behind being worse off, although again l find the nihilism in your post to be a bit off-colour. What's the point in *anything* if we're all going to die? What is the aim of asking me the same questions repeatedly in this thread when we could all be getting on with the serious business of ceasing to exist?

Of course, it's selfish in a sense that it's I who wants to be dead, but it's not immature, because I matured to this want.

There are three outcomes:

1. Society stabilizes and carries on
2. Society breaks down and humans become extinct
3. Society oscillates between primitive and sophisticated

Only the third outcome brings continuously more suffering than the status quo and in that case (re)introduction of death on request seems like a bad idea.

 

[Chinaski]

It is immature imo to demand that society implements something which will lead to many needless, unnecessary deaths because you yourself can't simply admit that yes, suicide is very difficult though achievable.

Any "free euthanasia for all on demand" will not be implemented because "compassion", nor will it ever come about because of the endless essays and YouTube clips on here. It will come about only when those who legislate decide a cull is necessary, and systemic coercion will follow. If you're okay with that because it gets what you want that's fine, in fact I'd be ahead of you in the queue, but that doesn't mean l think it's a *good thing for society*.

 

[mlha]

It should be enough that a death is wanted by that individual, not if it's necessary or needed. I admit that suicide is very difficult though achievable. If you make it more easier to end one's life, then there will be more deaths, but those deaths will still be wanted. I can't see a problem in this part.

How would that coercion look like? You want to cull a certain part of population while the other part is intact, if you provide free euthanasia for all you can't control who will use that option.

 

[Chinaski]

People consider suicide for various reasons. Socio-economic factors are often a contributor, for example it's not uncommon for people in the UK to commit suicide when they've had their benefits stopped, gotten into debt, struggle to access appropriate healthcare etc. For me I'd sooner strive to ameliorate those conditions than provide these folk with a hasty exit. This isn't a "pro life" position, it's the norm for someone who sympathises with the suicidal but sees suicide as a very last resort and not a first response, which is how it should be.

There are many people I've known who've been suicidal and gotten past it. They're grieving, their partner left, lost a job, whatever. For every one who is desperate for an immediate exit there are probably hundreds who are glad that suicide was too difficult. That, too, is how it should be.

Being pro-choice is about accepting the decision of an individual to ctb, it's not about creating a society which indulges, or even encourages, ctb as an option. Demanding a society which bends to your whim as a suicidal individual is selfish and adolescent. Yes l want to ctb easier and without fear, but l also wish cancer was less painful. It's far more honest to state "it's my own lack of courage holding me back" than it is to blame everyone else for not killing you imo.

"there should be nuance to protect the.... btw overpopulation, so yeah, kill the poor"

I've pasted an earlier post in here re systemic coercion, is above, no offence to you but as l keep saying, I've made my views perfectly clear throughout the thread.

It should be enough that a death is wanted by that individual, not if it's necessary or needed. I admit that suicide is very difficult though achievable. If you make it more easier to end one's life, then there will be more deaths, but those deaths will still be wanted. I can't see a problem in this part.

How would that coercion look like? You want to cull a certain part of population while the other part is intact, if you provide free euthanasia for all you can't control who will use that option.

Yeah, sorry, l can see a problem with this part, given that suicide is quite final. Obviously we disagree, but then there's no peaceful pill on demand, or robot-produced utopia, coming any time soon so we're both going to have to make do with what we have, but imo we need to look inward for the reasons why we're still here before we demand society bends to our will to please us.

 

[mlha]

Well I'm here, because I don't suffer to the degree that I'd ctb right now; however, I still want to be dead.

Wanting death is my criterion. So if someone is poor, divorced, etc. and they want to be dead and in case of death on demand they would be dead even though they would get better over time in case of status quo, then I'm ok with changing that status.

 

[Mixo]

I'm pretty sure many world governments would consider offering universal basic income before they'd adopt free and easy access to euthanasia. And that's saying a lot because UBI probably won't become a widespread thing, if not ever.