Discussion If voluntary euthanasia isn't available in our lifetimes...

[TAW122]

This is an idea that came to my mind. The question (too long for the title) is:
"If voluntary euthanasia isn't available in our lifetimes, do you think people will try to access death with dignity by getting into situations that allows them to qualify for such services?"

I think this may even be a potentially realistic scenario in the future of humanity, but I'll just keep it hypothetical because no one can predict the future and things are always subject to change. Anyways, I believe if voluntary euthanasia isn't available, but instead, physician assisted suicide, medical aid in dying, and expansion of death with dignity in various places that already have those processes and practices in place, then perhaps people who want to die badly would lead lives that would lead to those conditions (terminal illnesses, severe and/or chronic health problems, other, etc.) to qualify for such services where legal.

I remember someone IRL who lead an unhealthy life (mainly smoking and drinking excessively) claimed that doing so was sort of slow suicide, and that person isn't wrong in that sense due to the fact that health factors (damage to the liver, alcohol poisoning, cancer, etc.) will eventually lead to death, just not imminent.

Facts:

• No human being lives indefinitely and generally, barring health, natural disaster, accidents, and illnesses, will eventually all die. The life expectancy of the US citizen is about 79-80 years old (depending on the source).
• Voluntary euthanasia is not available in our lifetimes (at least not in the 21st century, but near the end of it/beginning of the 22nd century (2100 and beyond)).
• As it currently stands (as of the writing of this thread) there are few places with legalized assisted suicide or active euthanasia, but has very strict and narrow criteria to be met before it is accessible.
• *Quality of life as well as world events and problems remain unsolved, deteriorated past the point of no return, and becomes untenable, the vast majority of humanity suffering horrendously.

*(This is something that may/not happen but it is an interesting fact to include for discussion purposes).

With all those facts in mind and given the scenario, do you think that people may try to get into a situation where then they would be able to access it? Perhaps this may even be a passive method to gain access to a peaceful and dignified death altogether that is going in the long haul/playing the long game of exiting suffering? What do you think?

 

[jodes2]

I don't think it's that easy to choose an illness. Smoking and alcohol cause any number of illnesses and it would be pot luck if you got one which qualified you for assisted dying. On the plus side, Pegasos don't require that you have any illness to be accepted for VAD, I don't know if it's the only one of its kind, but I iirc others that are like that don't accept euthanasia tourism

 

[hamvil]

I think it is really hard to voluntary get a terminal disease on purpose. With alchol and drugs you would probably get many other problems, some even deadly possibly. However, if I should follow this way I would probably chose the death by eating too much.

 

[foreverfalling]

If enough people do it then the assholes would just treat it as a loophole to close, and make you prove that you got the terminal illness 'naturally', otherwise you do not qualify. All the rules are arbitrary, why not just allow anyone the right?

 

[TAW122]

If enough people do it then the assholes would just treat it as a loophole to close, and make you prove that you got the terminal illness 'naturally', otherwise you do not qualify. All the rules are arbitrary, why not just allow anyone the right?

The burden of proof would lie on the pro-lifers and professionals and I believe it would be hard to prove whether someone "intentionally" led a dangerous life to further their long term goal of CTB'ing unless said person willingly admit it openly. The pro-lifers won't be able to prove it without infringing on people's rights even more than they do and I believe past a certain point some lines aren't legally crossed to prevent a direct violation of someone's civil rights.

As for allowing anyone the right, yes that's ultimately what we will support as pro-choicers, but of course we know it's highly unlikely that that would be a reality in our lifetimes let alone into the future (not saying it's impossible, but just highly highly improbable).

 

[wljourney]

I think some people may already be doing that - consciously or unconsciously.
Refusing medical care in the case of a life threatening illness until it can't be treated anymore isn't unheard of.

Like others have mentioned - it's a bit of a gamble to chain smoke and hope for lung cancer just to qualify for assisted dying. But I know that people use all kinds of unhealthy coping mechanisms that are essentially a form of self harm, fully accepting that it MAY kill them.

Canada currently excludes people from medical assistance in dying if they only suffer from mental health illnesses. (This restriction is removed next year, but we don't know yet how assessments will take place and who will qualify for MAID).

AFAIK there have been a handful of cases in the last 2 years who had both, mental health issues as well as physical illnesses which qualified them for MAID and they have chosen to go through with it.

 

[FuneralCry]

Maybe some people might try to do this, but I do agree that it would be hard to purposely get an illness that would qualify. If someone tried to ctb that way it would likely take a long time to get into a situation (like they live an unhealthy lifestyle for a long period of time) that could mean that they qualify. Many people are likely very desperate to leave and I think that they would rather just find a way to ctb themselves.