I am not in favor of Government-Sanctioned Euthanasia (in spite of this forum)

[merlinghost]

It is more part of my personal philosophy that the plight of the suicidal should be there own. If one wants to make such an impactful decision to themselves and those around them, they should have to do it themselves.

 

[MyLifeisHell]

It's fair to be wary of that kind of involvement but the government already gets involved and strips people of their autonomy. This is just another side of the same coin.

 

[Bitch With An Apple]

I agree with you, but for different reasons. I don't think the government acts in the interest of the people, and I don't think it ever did. If state-sanctioned suicide was ever implemented (I did the thing O: ), it would not happen in such a way where it's in the broader interest of the population at large. I could imagine a slippery slope where it turns into something like Logan's Run; "productive obsolescence" or something like that would become the dominant criteria for selecting for people to commit suicide via whatever method the state provides. And all kinds of media mindfuckery would be employed to get people to unconsciously accept it (even if on the inside they don't, but we already know from lived experience that what's on the inside doesn't matter in this world). I mean, we already do that by forcing "unproductive" people into artificial states of deprivation, so I think it would naturally follow.

The machine would use it to make its own ruthlessness even more efficient.

 

[nunofyourbusiness]

I agree with you, but for different reasons. I don't think the government acts in the interest of the people, and I don't think it ever did. If state-sanctioned suicide was ever implemented (I did the thing O: ), it would not happen in such a way where it's in the broader interest of the population at large. I could imagine a slippery slope where it turns into something like Logan's Run; "productive obsolescence" or something like that would become the dominant criteria for selecting for people to commit suicide via whatever method the state provides. And all kinds of media mindfuckery would be employed to get people to unconsciously accept it (even if on the inside they don't, but we already know from lived experience that what's on the inside doesn't matter in this world). I mean, we already do that by forcing "unproductive" people into artificial states of deprivation, so I think it would naturally follow.

The machine would use it to make its own ruthlessness even more efficient.

Thinking that it's just laws like this that give governments a pass to get rid of anyone they consider unfit is, quite frankly, stupid. Even when abortion was illegal, some women were sterilized, without their consent, in the name of eugenics. Women didn't have the freedom of choice. The government did. Historically speaking, fascists and nazists never cared about laws or morality. We have plenty of fascist governments around the globe. If they all collectively decide that mentally ill, terminally ill, disabled, old, chronically ill people need to go, they won't care about what's illegal about that. They'll just do that. We won't have the option of a peaceful death because there's no law for that. But the government can still decide when our time comes, striping us of our bodily autonomy.

 

[avalon_]

What do you mean by "goverment sanctioned euthanasia"? I don't think the goverment ahould get involved either, they just need to make it possible to acquire N by legal means.

Also why ahould a suicidal person be on their own? They could make it a lot easier on their friends ans relatives if they didn't have to choose violent methods and could talk about it openly.

 

[itsgone2]

Can you clarify the meaning of this post?

I would just say that it strongly feel that suicide should be a legal option. Perhaps you could limit it to 18 and up, but that would be it.

I know some countries have this option if you have terminal illness, but I wouldn't put that on there. They should absolutely be included, but severe mental health problems are no different than physical illnesses

 

[HansaNull]

I believe euthanasia should be legal. Government involvement is in my view important to ensure strong safeguards so that the decision is made voluntary and protected from abuse. At the same time, access to it shouldn't be extremely difficult. While regulation is necessary, hard restrictions only prolong suffering.

Or as another commenter said, it could be easier to acquire N by legal means. But then again if you have to execute the 'deed' yourself, it should be legal to have someone by your side without them going to prison for 'assisted suicide'.

 

[U. A.]

See: Canada (especially Québec).

 

[Forever Sleep]

I also think the government shouldn't fund it. If they have one pot of money and can spend it on EITHER assisted suicide OR drug rehabilitation programes, disability support, housing allowance, medical research etc.- I don't trust them to make the more noble choice. I reckon they will simply pull (even) more funding away from those in society who need it most. Thereby making their lives even harder- to the point they will go willingly into the assisted suicide (homeless, diabled and criminal) slaughter facilities.

I absolutely do think they should legalise assisted suicide though. And I think private companies should run facilities- with tight regulations and price caps. They shouldn't be profiteering from death but, it would need to be sustainable for them.

I sort of understand. People should be making there own choices. It's maybe unwise to make it too easy, in case of impulsive attempts. But- that could be handled by giving candidates thorough assessments. Having a 6 month or longer waiting period. Informing families. Providing them with support. Providing them with options too. Knowing about their other options- benefits, new medicines and treatment.

I ironically think assisted suicide programmes would save lives! Some members here- including me- have had ideation for decades. Imagine the difference if we could have been open and honest with someone early on. If we'd started getting support way back then. This society encourages people to bottle these kinds of feelings up- till inevitably, we go pop!

As it stands- do we really have free choice? We only have the choice of sometimes brutal, unreliable methods. The more peaceful ones are illegal. Yes- we should absolutely give deep thought to the decision we make and all its implications. Should we be held captive here by the prospects of really hurting ourselves though? Maybe only maiming ourselves? What kind of 'choice' is that?



How great is it really for loved ones too? Would they really prefer to find or identify their loved one with their head blown off? Wouldn't they prefer to be holding their hand as they peacefully slipped away?

Do you think the presence of assisted suicide would make people give less of a shit about the impact on their families? I reckon- if they are that desperate to go, they'll do it anyway they can. Including being found dead and horribly mutilated.

I also think that legalising suicide would make it a more accetable choice in societies eyes- over time. Which I personally support. I tend to think the way it stands at the moment is:

People shouldn't commit suicide. No matter how much they are suffering. Instead of working out why they might be so unhappy, let's mostly focus on making suicide as brutal as possible so they are trapped here.

That isn't really allowing people a choice. It's more like a hostage situation! Sure- you can try sprinting past the guards (say- jumping off a bridge) but- we'll break most of the bones in your lower body. It's your 'choice' though.

 

[Pg.964]

The government should authorize it but ultimately this is a difficult decision that should be decided by the doctor and patient.
The US government has no problem sending weapons to isreal or sending boots of the ground to kill innocent civilians in many parts of the world. This isn't even comparable. It certainly shouldn't be given out like candy but I find their moral panics exhausting to listen to.

 

[XiaroX]

I agree with you, but for different reasons. I don't think the government acts in the interest of the people, and I don't think it ever did. If state-sanctioned suicide was ever implemented (I did the thing O: ), it would not happen in such a way where it's in the broader interest of the population at large. I could imagine a slippery slope where it turns into something like Logan's Run; "productive obsolescence" or something like that would become the dominant criteria for selecting for people to commit suicide via whatever method the state provides. And all kinds of media mindfuckery would be employed to get people to unconsciously accept it (even if on the inside they don't, but we already know from lived experience that what's on the inside doesn't matter in this world). I mean, we already do that by forcing "unproductive" people into artificial states of deprivation, so I think it would naturally follow.

The machine would use it to make its own ruthlessness even more efficient.

For some reason, I don't remember Logan's Run being about suicide - it was about people having no choice but to die at 30 (for the benefit of the world)? But I might have seen an old, not new version, and my memory might be crap. But, planned obsolescence is the way of the world, and yes, some people will always try to fight, but it applies not just to goods and services, but people. Like in the Tierro del Fuego days that Darwin commented on, old women still matter less than dogs.

 

[Bitch With An Apple]

Thinking that it's just laws like this that give governments a pass to get rid of anyone they consider unfit is, quite frankly, stupid. Even when abortion was illegal, some women were sterilized, without their consent, in the name of eugenics. Women didn't have the freedom of choice. The government did. Historically speaking, fascists and nazists never cared about laws or morality. We have plenty of fascist governments around the globe. If they all collectively decide that mentally ill, terminally ill, disabled, old, chronically ill people need to go, they won't care about what's illegal about that. They'll just do that. We won't have the option of a peaceful death because there's no law for that. But the government can still decide when our time comes, striping us of our bodily autonomy.

I mean yeah, I'll admit it's a bit of a fever dream. But to me the fact that governments are brazen enough to rely on active, explicit brutality to achieve their ends indicates that they would also exploit passive, less obvious, and less energy intensive opportunities to achieve those same ends. You don't have to bother with genociding a given population when they self select for it.

It could be that the freedoms gained from socially accepted suicide and suicide consciousness spiral out in the complete opposite direction. It would immediately benefit the usual person. I just think the state would immediately try to predate upon those freedoms and a very good thing could turn into a very bad thing if they succeed. But by doomsaying I'm not helping that process at all.

Also, I'm not sure if you saw it or not but I initially responded to this post with a much more hostile response. If you did, please know that I apologize for it.

For some reason, I don't remember Logan's Run being about suicide - it was about people having no choice but to die at 30 (for the benefit of the world)? But I might have seen an old, not new version, and my memory might be crap. But, planned obsolescence is the way of the world, and yes, some people will always try to fight, but it applies not just to goods and services, but people. Like in the Tierro del Fuego days that Darwin commented on, old women still matter less than dogs.

It wasn't individualized suicide but it was the kind I'm talking about state sponsored suicide potentially evolving into. They voluntarily undergo a socially sanctioned death ritual that they think is for their own benefit (I don't remember specifics but it had religious significance) and the benefit of their society. It was rare for anyone to not choose to do it because social pressures positively reinforced it. But on the rare occasion someone didn't, the law would get involved.

Also there's a great Star Trek episode about this with Lwaxana Troi (my favorite character and the ultimate filter because she's apparently polarizing xD). Half a Life. I wish I could post the whole thing right here right now!

 

[XiaroX]

Do you think the presence of assisted suicide would make people give less of a shit about the impact on their families? I reckon- if they are that desperate to go, they'll do it anyway they can. Including being found dead and horribly mutilated.{/QUOTE]

As far as my biological family, I could have died years ago, and they would never have known. I felt like they all thought I was doomed, but also, they're weird about death and mental illness. Weird is the wrong word, what I mean is in some kind of denial that prevents them from thinking deeply and compassionately.

I have one friend, and I do think my death would make an impact - but, I think he would feel a lot more peace if I could die peacefully, legally, not by some horrible method I might botch.

 

[Ramire_Artes]

This post is a bit ambiguous

 

[LetMeOut67]

I think we should push for it anyway as it makes the authorities look like complete bastards.
Which they are.
They might have to legalise it anyway if too many are killing themselves on railways , which they do in the UK where I am.
The recognition that life is a fate worse than death for an increasing number of people needs to be put front and centre.

My experiences of life have been so fucking agonising that I shudder that people have to go through such pain. No one should have to live like this. Chronic isolation , rejection, a slow path to insanity.