legalize euthanasia

[eremito]

why do you think the most countries prohibits medical euthanasia? Is it because they seek to appease their theocratic lobbies and fanatics present in any population? Or do they want to squeeze shitty pennies of us? If my vibration and energy are low, I will not deliver a lot of financial outcome and will be of little use in economic terms. Do they need the victims, to live on their energy and misery?

Do they want to additionally punish us?

Why are there so few countries which have legalized this solution?

 

[Darkover]

well i never had a job and i'm 36 lived off benefits all my life, i get about £18,000 per year for rent bills food and recreational stuff so the state better off legalize euthanasia they save a lot of money because i would go to be euthanasiaized better than living like this, it's not enough money to live how i would want too, crappy life anyway.

 

[befree]

They don't want to lose too many of their slaves who work for them, pay taxes and give them a comfortable life. We are slaves of this f****ing system. They don´t care about our lifes and our suffering.

 

[wljourney]

Well, first of all I recommend not calling it "euthanasia" because that term itself includes involuntary death.
We don't want to legalize killing people because they are sick.

I suggest "medical assistance in dying" (MAID)

We want to legalize the CHOICE of a competent human being to decide when they have reached a point of suffering that is too much and they VOLUNTARILY choose death and require support.

Anyhow.

Governments have a financial interest to the extent that

1. A young person who is considered "treatable" and potentially able to participate in society in the future should be refused to die because their productivity in the future is higher than the cost of treating them now.

2. someone who chooses medical assistance in dying and is older, someone who is not going to get back to work in the future and whose suffering can't be mitigated will cost the collective more in treatment and social benefits. The loss of Potential productivity is smaller based on age and likelihood of recovery.

So yes, they need to keep those around who are still contributing to society.
Even if that just means consuming (not producing) products and services of an economy. I.e. pay rent, buy food, pay doctors.

 

[ollo]

Once AI takes over all of the obselete jobs and works and AI decides what decision to be made, I think then human value goes down, then death will be only option for most people. Hope Jeff and Musk get there as soon as possible.

 

[Rational man]

Well, first of all I recommend not calling it "euthanasia" because that term itself includes involuntary death.
We don't want to legalize killing people because they are sick.

I suggest "medical assistance in dying" (MAID)

We want to legalize the CHOICE of a competent human being to decide when they have reached a point of suffering that is too much and they VOLUNTARILY choose death and require support.

Anyhow.

Governments have a financial interest to the extent that

1. A young person who is considered "treatable" and potentially able to participate in society in the future should be refused to die because their productivity in the future is higher than the cost of treating them now.

2. someone who chooses medical assistance in dying and is older, someone who is not going to get back to work in the future and whose suffering can't be mitigated will cost the collective more in treatment and social benefits. The loss of Potential productivity is smaller based on age and likelihood of recovery.

So yes, they need to keep those around who are still contributing to society.
Even if that just means consuming (not producing) products and services of an economy. I.e. pay rent, buy food, pay doctors.

The UK will legalise assistance in dying in the future. Probably for terminal people like me. How for this extends remains to be seen. My time is running out, thats guaranteed but I believe PEOPLE who are wishing to exit this world should have a choice i f quality of life is poor.

 

[FuneralCry]

I think that euthanasia is not legal as the society wants us to suffer. Legalizing euthanasia would shatter the delusion that many people hold that life is always worth living. If suicide was accepted, then people would begin to realise how meaningless life is, and many would possibly begin to see their lives as not being worth living which would be negative for the society as they need workers.

I believe that euthanasia should be legalised everywhere for everyone. We all deserve the option of a peaceful exit and it is cruel to expect people to suffer for decades against their wishes. Life is so meaningless after all, and we will all die eventually someday.

 

[Sunset Limited]

If it was legal for everyone, many people would want to do it at a bad time in their life. That would be a huge blame for society and the system. On television, people talk about why people choose death. The system doesn't want to face it.

 

[may13]

Where's Thanos when we need him?

 

[wljourney]

The UK will legalise assistance in dying in the future. Probably for terminal people like me. How for this extends remains to be seen. My time is running out, thats guaranteed but I believe PEOPLE who are wishing to exit this world should have a choice i f quality of life is poor.

Yes exactly. I think assistance in dying should be a legal option just like any other healthcare treatment for people who are able and competent to make that decision.
I am sorry this may not happen in your lifetime.
People who suffer irremediably should be allowed a peaceful death. Able to be be surrounded by people who care.

 

[DynamicDepression]

If it was legal for everyone, many people would want to do it at a bad time in their life. That would be a huge blame for society and the system. On television, people talk about why people choose death. The system doesn't want to face it.

I highly doubt that legalizing assisted suicide would increase the number of suicides at all. All it would do is reduce the number of suicide attempts, as anyone is free to die with dignity instead of having to resort to dangerous and fallible methods.

 

[wljourney]

I highly doubt that legalizing assisted suicide would increase the number of suicides at all. All it would do is reduce the number of suicide attempts, as anyone is free to die with dignity instead of having to resort to dangerous and fallible methods.

I think it depends on the framework put in place.

IF it was available to anyone without boundaries, people who are in a momentary crisis would probably use it more. I don't think that's what we want.

However IF safeguards are in place then I agree, we wouldn't see more deaths overall. We also would see fewer people severely harming themselves by failed attempts.

Data from the Netherlands shows this too. Most people who choose assisted death are terminally ill, meaning they would die soon anyway (ie not resulting in more deaths).

The number of people who are NOT terminally ill and choose assisted deaths are minuscule.

Also: Many (about 50%) who are approved for assisted death actually carry on living for longer than they expected. Mostly because having the OPTION of dying peacefully is enough to give them strength and assurance.

 

[Sunset Limited]

I highly doubt that legalizing assisted suicide would increase the number of suicides at all. All it would do is reduce the number of suicide attempts, as anyone is free to die with dignity instead of having to resort to dangerous and fallible methods.

I live in a shitty Asian country. In the country where I live, workers work 12-14 hours a day. They make less than $300 a month. If euthanasia were legal for everyone here, the incidence of suicide would increase at least 10 times. I'm sure everyone here is thinking about suicide, but they're scared.

 

[nixdeath]

A few reasons. Mainly because they know that the pro lifers will freak out. There is a lot of "mental health" groups, made up with parents who never supported their children in life, but now want to wash their hands of the guilt, that will fight against it at any cost. The psychiatry/therapy industry wants more clients, and has a dogma that all problems can be fixed with therapy and their (expensive) services. Most religions believe that your life inherently serves a purpose for their gonna, and feels that all life is inherently useful (they don't upfront say this often, but it slips at times) and this will be enforced by force.

 

[wljourney]

A few reasons. Mainly because they know that the pro lifers will freak out. There is a lot of "mental health" groups, made up with parents who never supported their children in life, but now want to wash their hands of the guilt, that will fight against it at any cost. The psychiatry/therapy industry wants more clients, and has a dogma that all problems can be fixed with therapy and their (expensive) services. Most religions believe that your life inherently serves a purpose for their gonna, and feels that all life is inherently useful (they don't upfront say this often, but it slips at times) and this will be enforced by force.

You may be on to something…

 

[Rational man]

A.doctor once said that life is sanctimonious, even in the face of terminal illness. People will therefore suffer until the end.

 

[The Disinherited]

Well, first of all I recommend not calling it "euthanasia" because that term itself includes involuntary death.
We don't want to legalize killing people because they are sick.

I suggest "medical assistance in dying" (MAID)

We want to legalize the CHOICE of a competent human being to decide when they have reached a point of suffering that is too much and they VOLUNTARILY choose death and require support.

Anyhow.

Governments have a financial interest to the extent that

1. A young person who is considered "treatable" and potentially able to participate in society in the future should be refused to die because their productivity in the future is higher than the cost of treating them now.

2. someone who chooses medical assistance in dying and is older, someone who is not going to get back to work in the future and whose suffering can't be mitigated will cost the collective more in treatment and social benefits. The loss of Potential productivity is smaller based on age and likelihood of recovery.

So yes, they need to keep those around who are still contributing to society.
Even if that just means consuming (not producing) products and services of an economy. I.e. pay rent, buy food, pay doctors.

When you talk terminology why not distinguish between assisted suicide and euthanasia? Imo Euthanasia ought to only be applicable to those who want to die but can't do it themselves (the paralysed for example) but can still signal that they've changed their mind right up to the point of the lethal injection / cocktail, which is a tiny percentage, assisted suicide can be as impersonal as getting a prescription from a doctor, going to a pharmacy and then drinking or injecting the poison alone at home, this is much more fair on medical professionals who don't want any blood on their hands and in my opinion ought to be accessible to all.

 

[come to dust]

Once AI takes over all of the obselete jobs and works and AI decides what decision to be made, I think then human value goes down, then death will be only option for most people. Hope Jeff and Musk get there as soon as possible.

It's funny how the more powerful technology gets, the more humans will suffer and die.

 

[MementoMori81]

I wrote a reply to a similar question, elsewhere on SS, but I feel it's an important topic, so I'll do another reply to this one. I think there are a lot of people who are worried that, should MARS legislation (Medically Assisted Rational Suicide) be put into place on a wider scale, that there would be this huge surge of people queuing up for self deliverance. I also feel that many people, especially of the pro-life lobby, worry that such legislation could be taken advantage of by, for example, people trying to rid themselves of an elderly relative in order to secure inheritance and so on.
They're wrong, of course, as we can see in the countries who do have legislation in place for PAS/MARS. Strict checks are in place to ensure PAS/MARS isn't abused in such a manner.

That said, we do have to take their concerns seriously. After all, they're human beings with legitimate worries about the implications that come with MARS/PAS legislation, and the only way we'll ever actually get it put in place (wherever we all may be) is by having an honest and open discourse with those who are concerned about it. In closing, however, I absolutely believe MARS is the right of any individual.
To that end, I feel it fitting to close off my reply with the words of the utterly brilliant English writer and philosopher, John Stuart Mill, who wrote most succinctly;

"Over one's self, over one's own body and mind, the individual is sovereign"

 

[hankbank3928]

If it was legal for everyone, many people would want to do it at a bad time in their life. That would be a huge blame for society and the system. On television, people talk about why people choose death. The system doesn't want to face it.

That's the real reason right there. The system can't handle it.