Sanctioned or free-for-all suicide?

[JustSwingingTheD]

"Exit International, the publisher of the Peaceful Pill Handbook, was granted admission to the World Federation of Right to Die societies by 2018 but not without some opposition. Within just a few years it had decided not to renew its membership.

Tensions appear to lie between societies that advance all options to a reliable, peaceful and painless death such as Exit International and Right to Die Society Canada for example, and most other member societies that only advocate for a medical model regulated by legislation with restrictive eligibility criteria. In keeping with the declared human right that all should have access to assisted dying, the former argue for greater inclusiveness of all persons seeking this remedy even if not gravely ill, while also noting the limitations and exclusions under limited medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in all jurisdictions where it has evolved. Persons preferring not to involve doctors and other professionals in this personal, final act should similarly not be denied knowledge and support without threats of criminal prosecution." (from wikipedia)

_____________________________________________________________________________

What is your take on the issue? I can guess that most people here are for legal assisted suicide for everyone. I certainly am myself, I think that there are really no good arguments against it. Nobody except the individual themselves can really determine when their life has become just pointless suffering and when not. However, it's clear that not everyone shares this opinion, as came clear from the article posted above. I think it might somewhat be more about differences in strategical thinking, than about genuine ideological differences. Assisted dying for everyone is a much larger step that is much harder to sell to the general public, than the much more limited form is.

I think the point of view to consider here is what is more realistic: That in the near future all people living in the western countries can legally get help with assisted dying? Or that just the already sick and dying people get this right?

I tend to think that all change happens slowly. In some cases, it might seem like it comes overnight, but there are many things that happen unseen, inside the system, a lot of heads have to be turned before anything real happens. I think that promoting active euthanasia for the sick and dying is the natural first step to take on a way to a world where anyone and everyone have the legal right to a easy, painless death. Once this is reality, it's easier to take the next step. We can then ask the questions: "Who are they to determine who gets to live and who gets to die? Who are they to determine who is suffering and who is not?"

I guess we have to discuss the slippery slope since someone is going to bring it up anyways. Some people argue that legalizing assisted suicide would mean that soon we would have societies which would use that to promote eugenics and get rid of people too old to work etc. I fail to see how this is even a distant possibility. It's not like the democratic, human-rights respecting "western" societies we are living in, and which form the basis for such a legislation to happen in the first place, would just magically dissappear and we would suddenly find ourselves living in Russia/China. By the way, neither of these countries dont even have passive euthanasia legalized, surprise surprise.

 

[obafgkm]

I think the medical model is very wrong. It assumes that life is only biological. It is not worth living only when the body is damaged to a certain point.

But life is more that. People seek enlightenment, self-realization, financial and political freedoms, friendship, marriage, and other things. Everyone has different values. Health is not the only important factor in life. People participate in extreme sports with full knowledge of the risk. Some people like to travel. Being trapped in their own home due to lockdown is worse than death.

I think when people find their current situation unbearable, and they have evaluated all options and scenarios but still find no way out, and it is not temporary, they should be entitled to euthanasia. In other word, they are "terminal" in some parameters of their own choice. Those parameters can be medical or not.

 

[Suicidebydeath]

Realistically 'Maid' has to be expanded and accepted first. Suicide was decriminalised in my country a long time ago, so some progress was made. It has to be made a step at a time. Change does happen slowly, unfortunately for us.

Too much change might risk a backlash and freedoms being repealed. Although sometimes it just takes the wrong government in power.

 

[Cathy Ames]

"Exit International, the publisher of the Peaceful Pill Handbook, was granted admission to the World Federation of Right to Die societies by 2018 but not without some opposition. Within just a few years it had decided not to renew its membership.

Where did this quote come from?

 

[JustSwingingTheD]

Where did this quote come from?

From the wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Federation_of_Right_to_Die_Societies

I think the medical model is very wrong. It assumes that life is only biological. It is not worth living only when the body is damaged to a certain point.

But life is more that. People seek enlightenment, self-realization, financial and political freedoms, friendship, marriage, and other things. Everyone has different values. Health is not the only important factor in life. People participate in extreme sports with full knowledge of the risk. Some people like to travel. Being trapped in their own home due to lockdown is worse than death.

I think when people find their current situation unbearable, and they have evaluated all options and scenarios but still find no way out, and it is not temporary, they should be entitled to euthanasia. In other word, they are "terminal" in some parameters of their own choice. Those parameters can be medical or not.

Well, life IS only biological. That is all that can be proved, everything else is just religious/pseudo-religious theories. I agree to everything else you said. It's all completely subjective, it takes a high degree of narcissism from anyone to think they would be able to determine who has the right for a peaceful death and who doesnt.

Determining whether ones willingness to die is temporary or not can be challenging. Nobody really knows what's temporary and what's not when it comes to mental health. I agree that those suffering from temporary psychotic depression, or those who have just gone through something highly traumatizing, for example, should be stopped from getting these services. But how to reliably assess that? I think that in the end, people who still "have a chance" at fulfilling life dying, is the lesser evil to the alternative, people living years and years in constant agony without any hope.

I see some strong parallels to the abortion debate here (if you can call it debate since the other side hardly has any arguments). After all, dead people do not suffer from being dead. Just like the unborn don't suffer from not having been born.

 

[obafgkm]

From the wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Federation_of_Right_to_Die_Societies

Well, life IS only biological. That is all that can be proved, everything else is just religious/pseudo-religious theories. I agree to everything else you said. It's all completely subjective, it takes a high degree of narcissism from anyone to think they would be able to determine who has the right for a peaceful death and who doesnt.

Determining whether ones willingness to die is temporary or not can be challenging. Nobody really knows what's temporary and what's not when it comes to mental health. I agree that those suffering from temporary psychotic depression, or those who have just gone through something highly traumatizing, for example, should be stopped from getting these services. But how to reliably assess that? I think that in the end, people who still "have a chance" at fulfilling life dying, is the lesser evil to the alternative, people living years and years in constant agony without any hope.

I see some strong parallels to the abortion debate here (if you can call it debate since the other side hardly has any arguments). After all, dead people do not suffer from being dead. Just like the unborn don't suffer from not having been born.

I think mental sufferers are hard cases. An outsider can always question if their desire to ctb is influenced by their mental conditions. At the end of the day, to be objective means involving other people, or relatives, in the decisions. The question is whether the other people would also err on the side of allowing ctb, as many sufferers may, as you said, prefer to end their immediate sufferings than waiting any longer for recovery.

While the ctb debate is similar to abortion, I think it is also similar to bankruptcy. From the perspectives of parents, relatives, society, business partners, they are probably concerned about their financial and emotional investments and plans may suddenly evaporate due to someone ctb.

But there are uncontroversial cases, e.g. retired people who are not in debt or under any obligations in any way. They really have nothing to do and don't find life meaningful anymore. They don't have terminal illness to qualify for any medical scheme. The general public seems not ready to accept cbt for these people, because they are not suffering?

 

[Euthanza]

The slippery slope is derived from confusing between murd3r and voluntary euthanasia, so it's not valid argument (if it's barely an argument at all).

I haven't watch the movie Plan 75, yet, but I think the director's intention is brought by irrational fear of death, for the fact that majority of Japanese elders favor euthanasia that she can't accept.

 

[JustSwingingTheD]

I think mental sufferers are hard cases. An outsider can always question if their desire to ctb is influenced by their mental conditions. At the end of the day, to be objective means involving other people, or relatives, in the decisions. The question is whether the other people would also err on the side of allowing ctb, as many sufferers may, as you said, prefer to end their immediate sufferings than waiting any longer for recovery.

Some conditions like psychosis are pretty easy to assess. Depression on the other hand, much more complicated. There are people whose brainchemistry is naturally altered so that they are self-destructive pretty much from the start of their lives, regardless of their living conditions. Should we force these people to live just because there is a distinct possibility their depression magically goes away at some point?

While the ctb debate is similar to abortion, I think it is also similar to bankruptcy. From the perspectives of parents, relatives, society, business partners, they are probably concerned about their financial and emotional investments and plans may suddenly evaporate due to someone ctb.

A good point. We are all a resource to someone, at least most of us. Even those who can't work because of mental/physical ailments are a resource for those who make their living by "helping" them.

Asking doctors whether we should legalize euthanasia is imo quite like asking the police whether we should legalize weed.

But there are uncontroversial cases, e.g. retired people who are not in debt or under any obligations in any way. They really have nothing to do and don't find life meaningful anymore. They don't have terminal illness to qualify for any medical scheme. The general public seems not ready to accept cbt for these people, because they are not suffering?

The general public doesn't honestly care about the whole issue that much. Which is weird, considering we will all get sick and die at some point. It's a small, but vocal proportion of our societies that is responsible for advancing our civil liberties. A sizeable portion of people are perfectly okay with living in Nazi Germany.

 

[Infernal]

I think the medical model is very wrong. It assumes that life is only biological. It is not worth living only when the body is damaged to a certain point.

But life is more that. People seek enlightenment, self-realization, financial and political freedoms, friendship, marriage, and other things. Everyone has different values. Health is not the only important factor in life. People participate in extreme sports with full knowledge of the risk. Some people like to travel. Being trapped in their own home due to lockdown is worse than death.

I think when people find their current situation unbearable, and they have evaluated all options and scenarios but still find no way out, and it is not temporary, they should be entitled to euthanasia. In other word, they are "terminal" in some parameters of their own choice. Those parameters can be medical or not.

Also I think people massively underestimate how significant mental health is.

 

[Pluto]

From a strategic perspective, sometimes going slower means going faster.

Attempting to bring up universal euthanasia immediately exposes slippery slopes such as depression in young mothers, bullying victims ('bullicide'), or elderly people being pressured by relatives wanting their inheritance. It would discourage regular people from working through challenging situations and going on to make contributions or serve as inspirations for society.

Opponents will cherry-pick examples such as these and use them to dismiss the entire euthanasia movement. Conversely, Exit International has used specific examples of terminally ill people going through extremely agonising final days in order to promote their own stance.

A united political bulldozer supporting euthanasia for terminally ill or chronically ill (however that may be sensibly defined) will prevent infighting within the euthanasia movement limiting us to the the current snail's pace of progress. It's not like the fundamentalist Christians who are the main opponent of sensible policy are themselves fragmented or politically ineffective.

Asking doctors whether we should legalize euthanasia is imo quite like asking the police whether we should legalize weed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Action_Partnership (formerly 'Law Enforcement Against Prohibition')

LEAP pushes to end the War on Drugs and legalize and regulate all drugs from a public health perspective as a means of reducing death, disease, and addiction associated with drug use and illegal drug sales.

 

[obafgkm]

Some conditions like psychosis are pretty easy to assess. Depression on the other hand, much more complicated. There are people whose brainchemistry is naturally altered so that they are self-destructive pretty much from the start of their lives, regardless of their living conditions. Should we force these people to live just because there is a distinct possibility their depression magically goes away at some point?

A good point. We are all a resource to someone, at least most of us. Even those who can't work because of mental/physical ailments are a resource for those who make their living by "helping" them.

Asking doctors whether we should legalize euthanasia is imo quite like asking the police whether we should legalize weed.

The general public doesn't honestly care about the whole issue that much. Which is weird, considering we will all get sick and die at some point. It's a small, but vocal proportion of our societies that is responsible for advancing our civil liberties. A sizeable portion of people are perfectly okay with living in Nazi Germany.

Big pharmas and doctors are probably some of the strongest opposition to accessible euthanasia. What's more cash cow than people taking patented drugs or stuck in hospital for life?

The current atmosphere seems to accept those expensive euthanasia resorts as a progress and solution to end suffering. A few extreme court cases gives the impression that suffering patients have been taken care of. The trend seems to give legitimacy to the medical model.

The situation really has not changed for most people, if not worse. They don't have the money or the knowledge to navigate through the red tape. Most peaceful methods, e.g. helium, lethal sleeping pills, have been more difficult to obtain, very much because the idea that "suicide is wrong" is firmly established. It's like saying "if you suffer, go get official help." I think the public needs a more positive attitude toward suicide.

I don't know if the general public's voices have been suppressed, or they really don't care. But I can feel suicide is on the rise across all ages, notably teenagers and elderly, where I live. Maybe the past few years have really changed many things.

"Saving life is good" is similar to saying "saving people from hunger and poverty is good." In reality many people are "saved" only to live under the same repressive regimes that allegedly saved them. Only primitive societies are proud of such low level goals, giving no attention to quality of life and higher goals.

The slippery slope is derived from confusing between murd3r and voluntary euthanasia, so it's not valid argument (if it's barely an argument at all).

Meanwhile, regimes that call themselves saving most lives (and against euthanasia) are often also the most murderous and killing the most people.

I haven't watch the movie Plan 75, yet, but I think the director's intention is brought by irrational fear of death, for the fact that majority of Japanese elders favor euthanasia that she can't accept.

Thanks. The text description is interesting. Japan has an aged and closely knitted population in an advanced society. They probably will come up with a sympathetic approach for both the young and the old. What's happening there is likely to have a guiding effect to the rest of the world.





I don't think forcing parents to euthanasia is an issue in reality.

If parents are young or rich, they probably have strong views and power to protect themselves. If they are rich, they most likely have made arrangements already (they will have in light of future euthanasia law.) If people really fear, the law can have cut off age at 75, say.

If they are easily manipulated, they probably are not in full mental capacity and need external assistant anyway. Is an external agent really more trustworthy than their own offspring?



Perhaps euthanasia laws would actually encourage people to make arrangements early in life before it's too late.

 

[Euthanza]

Big pharmas and doctors are probably some of the strongest opposition to accessible euthanasia. What's more cash cow than people taking patented drugs or stuck in hospital for life?

Doctors are exclusive community, they are certainly not peasants. But they are prone to suicide too, quietly

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20180508/doctors-suicide-rate-highest-of-any-profession

 

[obafgkm]

Doctors are exclusive community, they are certainly not peasants. But they are prone to suicide too, quietly

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20180508/doctors-suicide-rate-highest-of-any-profession

I don't know if doctors are really more suicidal, but they are more likely to have access to banned substances and reliable methods, which might have amplified their numbers.

I agree that suicide is relevant to all people, not just those terminally ill. It's about expectation, not just baseline existence.

 

[Euthanza]

I don't think forcing parents to euthanasia is an issue in reality.

If parents are young or rich, they probably have strong views and power to protect themselves. If they are rich, they most likely have made arrangements already (they will have in light of future euthanasia law.) If people really fear, the law can have cut off age at 75, say.

If they are easily manipulated, they probably are not in full mental capacity and need external assistant anyway. Is an external agent really more trustworthy than their own offspring?

Perhaps euthanasia laws would actually encourage people to make arrangements early in life before it's too late.

Yes, seems Plan 75 is NPC movie. Instead, pro choice made many documenters about Plan Quality

 

[obafgkm]

Yes, seems Plan 75 is NPC movie. Instead, pro choice made many documenters about Plan Quality

What is npc and plan quality?

Big pharmas and doctors are probably some of the strongest opposition to accessible euthanasia. What's more cash cow than people taking patented drugs or stuck in hospital for life?

The current atmosphere seems to accept those expensive euthanasia resorts as a progress and solution to end suffering. A few extreme court cases gives the impression that suffering patients have been taken care of. The trend seems to give legitimacy to the medical model.

The situation really has not changed for most people, if not worse. They don't have the money or the knowledge to navigate through the red tape. Most peaceful methods, e.g. helium, lethal sleeping pills, have been more difficult to obtain, very much because the idea that "suicide is wrong" is firmly established. It's like saying "if you suffer, go get official help." I think the public needs a more positive attitude toward suicide.

I don't know if the general public's voices have been suppressed, or they really don't care. But I can feel suicide is on the rise across all ages, notably teenagers and elderly, where I live. Maybe the past few years have really changed many things.

"Saving life is good" is similar to saying "saving people from hunger and poverty is good." In reality many people are "saved" only to live under the same repressive regimes that allegedly saved them. Only primitive societies are proud of such low level goals, giving no attention to quality of life and higher goals.




Meanwhile, regimes that call themselves saving most lives (and against euthanasia) are often also the most murderous and killing the most people.



Thanks. The text description is interesting. Japan has an aged and closely knitted population in an advanced society. They probably will come up with a sympathetic approach for both the young and the old. What's happening there is likely to have a guiding effect to the rest of the world.





I don't think forcing parents to euthanasia is an issue in reality.

If parents are young or rich, they probably have strong views and power to protect themselves. If they are rich, they most likely have made arrangements already (they will have in light of future euthanasia law.) If people really fear, the law can have cut off age at 75, say.

If they are easily manipulated, they probably are not in full mental capacity and need external assistant anyway. Is an external agent really more trustworthy than their own offspring?



Perhaps euthanasia laws would actually encourage people to make arrangements early in life before it's too late.

I have been thinking, which one is easier and morally acceptable:


1. Tell your parent "many people have chosen euthanasia. It's painless and ends suffering forever. Why don't you also try?"

2. Repeat asking you parent "can I borrow $$$ to start a business? You will be a shareholder," until the parent has no money left and struggles for the rest of life.

I don't know. Maybe it's actually easier to ask people to die (and get their money) than to ask them directly for money.

 

[Euthanza]

What is npc and plan quality?

NPC = Non Pro Choice.
I mean plan quality of life, by watching real life assisted suicide documentaries, people should look for quality of life, instead of just looking at certain age dystopia (above 75 years old)

 

[JustSwingingTheD]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Action_Partnership (formerly 'Law Enforcement Against Prohibition')

LEAP pushes to end the War on Drugs and legalize and regulate all drugs from a public health perspective as a means of reducing death, disease, and addiction associated with drug use and illegal drug sales.

Yet the fact remains that most police officers in the US are firmly against even the legalization of cannabis.

Policing in an Era of Legal Marijuana: Cops' opinions on decriminalization, incarceration & more

Police1 recently conducted a survey capturing law enforcement attitudes towards marijuana use and enforcement. A total of 3,615 sworn officers participated

www.police1.com

"Interestingly, despite our survey takers' views on incarceration, on the topic of decriminalization, 52% did not think marijuana should be decriminalized in their state."

Thanks. The text description is interesting. Japan has an aged and closely knitted population in an advanced society. They probably will come up with a sympathetic approach for both the young and the old. What's happening there is likely to have a guiding effect to the rest of the world.

Japan is historically not know for very "sympathetic" approaches to problems like these. It's a very closed up, culturally rigid and racist society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Japan "A recent global analysis found that Japan was one of 23 countries which could see a total population decline of 50% or more by the year 2100." In what other country its leaders would rather watch their population drop to half than ease up immigration? That by itself speaks of extremely racist attitudes.

 

[JustSwingingTheD]

Up