Discussion Should 'healthy' people have access to assisted suicide? Poll

[Forever Sleep]

I know there are many threads concerning this but I couldn't see one with a poll and I do enjoy a poll...

I'm going to set some ground rules for my vote but please feel free to define your own in the comments- if you like...

The person is over the age of 18.

By 'healthy' I mean- no terminal illness, no chronic pain. No, or very little history of mental health illness. (I realise this is contentious- some people will argue that ANYONE who wants to kill themselves is mentally ill.)

The person can clearly define what death is and can rationally communicate why they want to die. They express this wish at the start of the assessment. Six months later- their ideas have not changed.

The person has been offered therapy and medication and any other help available but has chosen to refuse this.

Should this person be given access to assisted suicide? If not- why not?

 

[Darkover]

this is the way it should be nobody should be forced to live aginst his\her wishes
talk about setting off a mass exodus here i can bet theres a billion human who would love to leave this place
behind and would do if granted their wishes instead of having a uncaring goverment with ridiculous laws
i won't ever forgive this goverment for making me live out my misery here for 18 long years when i could of been
euthanized decades ago everyone should have thier choice honored if they want to die then so be it maybe next time
you'll take better care of your pepole instead of this awful shit

 

[Musketeer]

by healthy are we talking physically healthy, mentally healthy, ect. there are many ways you can classify healthy.

 

[SamTam33]

Absolutely. I can't think of a single reason why not. I'd probably swap out the proposal of meds and therapy with a flat rate fee.

We shouldn't be forced to live with other people's choices. Sorry mom and dad, I'm taking back my life. Literally.

 

[Forever Sleep]

by healthy are we talking physically healthy, mentally healthy, ect. there are many ways you can classify healthy.

I put my definition and example in the post (for me- I'm talking about someone with no terminal illness or chronic pain and no history of mental illness.) It's up to you really if you want to specify what conditions you think assisted suicide should be allowed. I tried to give a very specific example but I appreciate there are many nuances to this and many different opinions.

Absolutely. I can't think of a single reason why not. I'd probably swap out the proposal of meds and therapy with a flat rate fee.

We shouldn't be forced to live with other people's choices. Sorry mom and dad, I'm taking back my life. Literally.

LOVE the sound of a flat rate fee- a fee to keep living do you mean? Not sure blackmail or bribe suit this... A incentive maybe? . Give me the money or let me kill myself?

Remember @TAW122 and @Doom posting threads to this end: If pro-lifers want us to keep living- against our will- most especially if they have forced us into costly treatments- they should be paying our bills. .

I'd love to do this- go to a psychiatrist or whatever and tell them that I was suicidal. They would either need to PROVE that I was mentally ill- in which case- surely I ought to be receiving benefits. If someone is that ill and unhinged- it can't be that safe to let them work. Or else- I'm not mentally ill- in which case- they must agree that they in fact own everyone's lives and we (fundamentally) have no autonomy when it comes down to it.

Or- do you mean- we would need to pay them? 'Why are you doing all this overtime Fred? Saving up for something nice?'

 

[LeapOfFaith]

I think we would have another type of society if assisted suicide was allowed. It would make people more cautious of being mean to each other, at least that is what I am hoping for. I believe that if someone knows (for real) that their action could very well lead to that person committing suicide.. they would not want to have that on their conscience. People in general are pretty distant to imagining someone killing themselves by the traditional means of suicide. However if they knew that painless suicide at a hospital was only a phone call away.. people might reconsider their ways of acting and start being nicer to each other. And we would certainly not spend resources on mediocre therapists etc the society in general would have to step up their game to create a more livable and enjoyable standard of living for their population to not want to make them leave this place.. otherwise they would lose all their tax revenues. Only the ones that enjoy life would be living, creating a wonderful community, now lots of people are trapped between a horrible life or the fact that they will have to rely on gruesome methods to leave..

 

[rationaltake]

You see, people who have conditions that are currently called mental illnesses aren't necessarily less rational than anybody else. Why should they be denied personal autonomy? The same goes for people who have conditions currently called learning difficulties.

Interestingly my GP said that somebody who is able to make an advance plan to refuse end of life treatment is by definition mentally capable. My plan was endorsed despite the health system saying I have "severe and enduring mental illness".

Presumably the same protocol would apply if assisted suicide were available.

You've said that "the person can clearly define what death is and rationally communicate why they want to die". In this case I would say mental illness is irrelevant. Fulfilling your criteria would mean the person is mentally capable.

In addition I don't see where therapy and medication would come into it if the person had no mental illness in the first place. The therapy and medication would be to treat their suicidal ideation?

Counselling could be useful if the person wanted it to help with end-of-life plans or just to talk.

Anyway, just some thoughts that occurred to an "unhinged" individual!

 

[Dead Ghost]

Of course, if you do not have any disease it is obvious that it is a meditated and rationalized act. No one should be able to stand in the way of this decision because there is really no argument whatsoever against a decision that is totally free and not conditioned by any cause or disease.

//

Es clar, si no te cap malaltía es evident que és un acte meditat i racionalitzat. Ningú hauría de poder obstaculitzar aquesta decisió perquè realment no hi ha cap tipus d'arguments contra una decisió totalment lliure i no condicionada per cap causa o malaltía.

 

[theboy]

of course! every person has the right to die voluntarily

 

[Forever Sleep]

You see, people who have conditions that are currently called mental illnesses aren't necessarily less rational than anybody else. Why should they be denied personal autonomy? The same goes for people who have conditions currently called learning difficulties.

Interestingly my GP said that somebody who is able to make an advance plan to refuse end of life treatment is by definition mentally capable. My plan was endorsed despite the health system saying I have "severe and enduring mental illness".

Presumably the same protocol would apply if assisted suicide were available.

You've said that "the person can clearly define what death is and rationally communicate why they want to die". In this case I would say mental illness is irrelevant. Fulfilling your criteria would mean the person is mentally capable.

In addition I don't see where therapy and medication would come into it if the person had no mental illness in the first place. The therapy and medication would be to treat their suicidal ideation?

Counselling could be useful if the person wanted it to help with end-of-life plans or just to talk.

Anyway, just some thoughts that occurred to an "unhinged" individual!

Thanks- some very interesting points. I think you're right. I think someone was talking about the Canadian MAID system the other day. Saying that it seemed to in some part acknowledge that not all people who want to CTB are mentally ill. Plus, just because someone does have mental illness- it doesn't mean they can't make rational decisions.

You know- I would LOVE to know how they define mentally capable though... I would say the majority of people here appear to be able to make reasoned decisions.

However- these decisions are going to be based on their perceptions and belief system. I imagine- in the case of depression- 'professionals' will say that these outlooks have become skewed.

I suppose what I was getting at- with the OFFER of therapy and support is the argument that (potentially) all of us here would likely be deemed as suffering from depression. Whether we want to acknowledge that or not. Me personally- I really don't know. I COULD have a mental illness. I feel like I'm fairly rational. Still- I suppose if a doctor suggested a treatment- I might give it a shot- if they could REALLY convince me that my problems were physiological or maybe habitual and could be changed by drugs/therapy. Can't say I'm really looking to 'get better' though.

I just think- some people may have NEVER had therapy, or any other kind of support. I think everyone should at least be given the opportunity to talk more about their situation- if they want to before CTB. I think this should be offered though- not forced.

The matter relies on whether just being suicidal makes you mentally ill- which I honestly don't know. I'm not so sure the 'professionals' know either though- and that's what troubles me!

 

[TAW122]

Absolutely, I voted yes because the right to die should be a inalienable right for all individuals. Also, given the ground rules that have been specified, they seem to be reasonable as that gives more than ample time for the person to consider the option and confirm it (along with finalizing their decision). It wouldn't make sense to delay a healthy person's decision for years to come, and while the six month benchmark is taken from current existing legislature (death with dignity laws), it is a good starting point.

 

[ksp]

all people should have access to voluntary euthanasia - without any judgment

all suffering is valid: my suffering is not the same as yours, and i don't need to be understood

you need to take ownership of responsibility for your life, and your personal autonomy

when universal access to euthanasia is granted, all people can ask for help

currently, all applications for voluntary euthanasia need to be approved (by external subjectivities)
this should be reversed: all approved, except for special and individual circumstances

currently all life is imposed by very few individuals - dictatorship
any person alive is in virtual prison, which is the opposite of democracy and personal freedom

 

[LaVieEnRose]

Yes though I think a young person seeking assisted death without any physical or mental reasons but merely just not wanting to live would be exceedingly rare.

 

[FuneralCry]

The option of assisted suicide should simply be a human right, it's what we deserve the option of after so unfairly and selfishly being forced to endure existence. Death is the most normal thing ever after all and it's what we are destined for, so under no circumstances could suicide ever be wrong.

Continuing to exist in this world is just simply delaying the inevitable anyway, so therefore it's irrational to wish to gatekeep suicide. Life is just something so insignificant and purposeless anyway, so it could never be justified trying to make suicide as purposely difficult as possible for people no matter the circumstances. People shouldn't have to earn the right to die through the torment they experience or meet some kind of suffering criteria, if we were brought into this world all for no reason then suicide could never need a reason.

And I also think that it makes sense wanting suicide, I see it as just being a natural response to being aware of this world. Some people are just likely tired of existing and many wish to escape a future that could potentially be filled with much worse suffering. Life is not for everyone after all, and I think that simply not wanting to continue existing is something that is perfectly rational and this should be respected. I just think that if someone wishes to leave they should be able to peacefully without having to struggle in finding a method.

 

[UKscotty]

The governments will never give it as they need people to slave away.

 

[Anzhe]

In modern society, people with depression are considered mentally ill, but this is often not the case at all - because depression can be a natural reaction to ongoing events. I mean - laughing at the funeral of a loved one is an inadequate reaction for example, but this is exactly what society wants from us. And if people are not capable of doing such things, then they will be branded as mentally ill. I'm even afraid to go to a psychologist and talk about my depression, which has lasted for more than 20 years - because I will get the stigma of a mentally ill person. But how should I react to my life when everything is so excruciatingly bad? I do not have serious illnesses and Dignitas will refuse me. In 2015, I took 600 digoxin tablets and was sure that I would die, but this did not happen - I only got worse heart failure problems and several painful hours. I survived and I was afraid to go to the doctor after an unsuccessful suicide attempt - I was afraid that the doctors would understand what I had done ... This unsuccessful suicide attempt further worsened my already painful life and health. Over the years, nothing in my life has changed - I still want to die just as badly. I think that any person should have the right to qualified assistance in their suicide from an organization like Dignitas. The procedure should not be easy, fast and cheap - for example, a person should be given 1 year after signing the contract and during this 1 year he must either confirm his desire to leave or change his mind. Everyone should have the right to leave without pain.

 

[spinningmyself]

I voted yes, I am a reasonably heathy person as far as I know anyway. I do not or will not go to a doctor for anything, if I would need some kind of medication to prolong my life I will not take it. Everyone in my family knows this and all I can hope for if something happens they will not try and force me. I do not have any mental issues as far as I know either. What I am is just very tired of being here. I don't think it is right at all to keep a person here who doesn't want to be here, not right at all. I have found comfort here, mostly lurking because I have always been a shy person. I can't talk to anyone about how I feel because they would most likely try and pressure me to see a therapist when I don't need one. I think if this was a legal kind of thing it could do some good for alot of people.

 

[oneeyed]

We need those suicide booths like in Futurama. One and done zap, next customer.

 

[Ghostofthepast]

100% No one has the right to say someone should or shouldn't kill themselves but that person

 

[ChoclateIsSweet]

Unpopular opinion but I disagree. I think a lot of us in in this website can easily become one tracked in our vision.
Whilst I agree legalised euthanasia may do many people good, we need to do more to safeguard it to make sure it only helps those that truly want it.

I know the phrase "truly want it" may cause people to be annoyed or angry but in truth not everyone who is suicidal wants to die.
70% of people who attempt suicide, never make further attempts in their life again. Of course, there's no way of saying how their life is and why they continue to live. All I have are analogous accounts from friends and people on the internet that tell me they're either unsure how they feel about life or they're glad they survived.

Regarding the ground rules, the only difference is that the person somewhat try to engage in therapy and/or meditation (ideally this would be free). Whilst, this option hasn't actually helped me and I know that not everyone's problems can easily be fixed through that, there are still those it may be help.
It definitely shouldn't just be,
"Please kill me."
"Ok."

I will finish when I wake up

 

[Bitterman1996]

Leaving a comment because this topic interests me a lot.

Tbh if full automated society where hard labors are no longer needed for any kind of production is achieved, i think this is the next step. Not to say, labour laws would immedietely became better, but it could be a pacifier for the ruling class to stop uprising. "You want to die? Just do it then, not in a way that will cause public disorder of course"-kind of thing.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Unpopular opinion but I disagree. I think a lot of us in in this website can easily become one tracked in our vision.
Whilst I agree legalised euthanasia may do many people good, we need to do more to safeguard it to make sure it only helps those that truly want it.

I know the phrase "truly want it" may cause people to be annoyed or angry but in truth not everyone who is suicidal wants to die.
70% of people who attempt suicide, never make further attempts in their life again. Of course, there's no way of saying how their life is and why they continue to live. All I have are analogous accounts from friends and people on the internet that tell me they're either unsure how they feel about life or they're glad they survived.

Regarding the ground rules, the only difference is that the person somewhat try to engage in therapy and/or meditation (ideally this would be free). Whilst, this option hasn't actually helped me and I know that not everyone's problems can easily be fixed through that, there are still those it may be help.
It definitely shouldn't just be,
"Please kill me."
"Ok."

I will finish when I wake up

I do actually agree with a lot of what you are saying. I definitely don't think it should be a case of just walking into a place and chugging a glass of N. I do think an assessment of some description needs to happen. Preferably over a period of time- at least six months- to establish that this isn't an impulsive decision. During which time- the person should definitely be OFFERED the chance of support.

Interestingly, someone wrote a post about the clinics In Switzerland (I believe it was.) They said that people so often overlook the suicide prevention aspect of these places. For some people- this is the first time they have been able to talk freely about their ideation (without fear of being judged or hospitalised against their will.)

For SOME, this approach seems to have been enough for them to re-consider their wish. That alone ought to tell us that talking about suicide openly would likely be beneficial- rather than the 'no you musn't' approach people seem to receive a lot from therapy- and society.

I definitely agree that support should be offered but I don't actually think it should be compulsory- that assisted suicide will only be granted after this or that.

I suppose I see that initial assessment as a type of therapy session in a way- How do you feel? Why do you think you feel this way? Do these thoughts trouble you, or, do they feel natural? Have you ever tried to feel differently? Is this something you would be willing to try? Do you think you have any potential to want to live again? Stuff like that. I reckon just those questions alone would give the patient and interviewer a good idea on what the person 'truly' wanted.

 

[Givenuponlife]

Leaning towards yes, but with nuance. I think that there ought to be the following conditions:

1. Age of 25+ (I think that's when the brain "matures", if I'm not mistaken), unless there is a terminal illness of some kind.

2. No one with parental/caring responsibilities or even those who own a pet should be allowed to go ahead automatically, unless there are clear provisions set for those dependents after one's passing (even then, I personally believe that it ought to be discouraged). Exceptions for those with terminal illness should exist though.

3. One must be sound of mind i.e. able to understand and comprehend their suicide and be able to give (imformed consent).

4. One must be able to understand and write things like wills, living wills etc.

5. Undergo a waiting period (between 1 month to a year, perhaps?), with counselling and therapy to be offered, albeit not compulsory.

6. An interview to filter out people who are being forced or coerced into suicide.

7. I think prisoners, excluding those with terminal illnesses, shouldn't be allowed.

Other than those, I've no qualms at all regarding legalisation.

 

[GasMonkey]

Sarco access to anybody over 18, no gatekeeping at all.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Leaving a comment because this topic interests me a lot.

Tbh if full automated society where hard labors are no longer needed for any kind of production is achieved, i think this is the next step. Not to say, labour laws would immedietely became better, but it could be a pacifier for the ruling class to stop uprising. "You want to die? Just do it then, not in a way that will cause public disorder of course"-kind of thing.

Hmmm- interesting. By automated- I assume you mean- robots, computers, AI? So- far fewer jobs all round I suppose?

Will this help us though- do you think? I think competition for jobs is already VERY high. Not just manual jobs either... My background is creative and computers have wiped out a lot of my industry. I don't think fewer jobs mean fairer labour laws. I think likely- the reverse is true. The more competetive the market, the more employers know they can push people to do- and because people are SO desperate for work- they'll do it. I believe fewer jobs means greater exploitation.

The few plum homosapien jobs will become like gold dust and will require only the VERY best of our species to get them- or those that are best connected. What will the rest of the population do? Will they receive benefits if they can't find a job? Where will the money come from if it's mostly robots and AI doing the work? Presumably- their paycheques will go to their rich owners. Do you think they'll want to share?

As computers, robots and AI become cheaper than humans- lots of industries will simply dry up- it's already happening. I don't think unemployment leads to utopia when resources aren't shared equally and as a race- we're not very good at sharing...

I think if they then allow assisted suicide for anyone who just simply doesn't enjoy this new society- yes- they'll likely get a lot of takers. Still- I don't think this will prevent uprisings in the working population- I think they will only increase: 'The government allowed my son to kill himself because he couldn't find work' type thing.

Maybe I'm just a complete pessimist though! I just see a very dystopian future all the time greedy humans are involved. Of course- if AI eventually take over (likely), maybe they will make a better go of things. Good luck to them! I think we've had our shot- I personally think it would be better if we went the way of the dinosaurs.

 

[Bitterman1996]

Hmmm- interesting. By automated- I assume you mean- robots, computers, AI? So- far fewer jobs all round I suppose?

Will this help us though- do you think? I think competition for jobs is already VERY high. Not just manual jobs either... My background is creative and computers have wiped out a lot of my industry. I don't think fewer jobs mean fairer labour laws. I think likely- the reverse is true. The more competetive the market, the more employers know they can push people to do- and because people are SO desperate for work- they'll do it. I believe fewer jobs means greater exploitation.

The few plum homosapien jobs will become like gold dust and will require only the VERY best of our species to get them- or those that are best connected. What will the rest of the population do? Will they receive benefits if they can't find a job? Where will the money come from if it's mostly robots and AI doing the work? Presumably- their paycheques will go to their rich owners. Do you think they'll want to share?

As computers, robots and AI become cheaper than humans- lots of industries will simply dry up- it's already happening. I don't think unemployment leads to utopia when resources aren't shared equally and as a race- we're not very good at sharing...

I think if they then allow assisted suicide for anyone who just simply doesn't enjoy this new society- yes- they'll likely get a lot of takers. Still- I don't think this will prevent uprisings in the working population- I think they will only increase: 'The government allowed my son to kill himself because he couldn't find work' type thing.

Maybe I'm just a complete pessimist though! I just see a very dystopian future all the time greedy humans are involved. Of course- if AI eventually take over (likely), maybe they will make a better go of things. Good luck to them! I think we've had our shot- I personally think it would be better if we went the way of the dinosaurs.

Not just AI, as software alone has very limited application. I meant it as in food production from start to finish as even now, even with access to heavy machinery it's still very much requires real human to operate hence added labour cost. I also think fewer jobs doesn't meant fairer labour laws—that's also why i add 'not that it would be much better'.

Few select jobs that didn't disappear are just robot/machine supervisor. Maybe doctors too, though i think it most of the process could be automated as well (ie diagnosing based on symptoms, giving exact prescriptions based of body type etc). I just think having such large population is just a risk for the ruling class at that point. I do see your point of "it wont stop the uprising/rebellions", in my imagination it would be the ruling class is open to basic universal income, but it would be severely limited. Enough so depression is still very much a common problem. Oppressive militaristic acts would just add more fuel to the fire, so they just willingly provide the people a choice to do it in a way that's more quiet. Then again that's just my imagination, because at that point why keep large population when you can have the select few of the top.

Tbh AI talk these days made me really depressed, especially when it's encroaching art space. Really depressing to see.

 

[Forever Sleep]

in my imagination it would be the ruling class is open to basic universal income, but it would be severely limited.

I just think the ruling classes will shift their money and investment into robotics and computing. So long as the machines stay subserviant, I can't see them ever losing their wealth.

In a way- I actually see more scope for them to become richer! If ability and talent suddenly becomes something you can buy- rather than have to recruit in the form of exceptional humans, then surely- the richest people will be able to afford the very best machines- which will yield them the highest returns and so- the cycle repeats. They don't even have to worry about pesky things like 'rights' so long as the machines don't become sentient. They can work them all day and night until they fall apart.

In fact- I just think the gap between rich and poor will widen as fewer working people can find jobs. Really don't see the future being bright!

I think hopes of a utopian future rely on the abolition of the class system and I can't see that happening. I reckon it truly will promote the survival of the fittest (or perhaps more ruthless) in our race- especially if assisted suicide is made more widely available. I'm SO glad I don't believe in reincarnation!

 

[TAW122]

In modern society, people with depression are considered mentally ill, but this is often not the case at all - because depression can be a natural reaction to ongoing events. I mean - laughing at the funeral of a loved one is an inadequate reaction for example, but this is exactly what society wants from us. And if people are not capable of doing such things, then they will be branded as mentally ill. I'm even afraid to go to a psychologist and talk about my depression, which has lasted for more than 20 years - because I will get the stigma of a mentally ill person. But how should I react to my life when everything is so excruciatingly bad? I do not have serious illnesses and Dignitas will refuse me. In 2015, I took 600 digoxin tablets and was sure that I would die, but this did not happen - I only got worse heart failure problems and several painful hours. I survived and I was afraid to go to the doctor after an unsuccessful suicide attempt - I was afraid that the doctors would understand what I had done ... This unsuccessful suicide attempt further worsened my already painful life and health. Over the years, nothing in my life has changed - I still want to die just as badly. I think that any person should have the right to qualified assistance in their suicide from an organization like Dignitas. The procedure should not be easy, fast and cheap - for example, a person should be given 1 year after signing the contract and during this 1 year he must either confirm his desire to leave or change his mind. Everyone should have the right to leave without pain.

Well said, and I think having the ground rules to prevent impulsive decisions or in the event that someone may change their mind is a good safeguard. I (personally) would be ok (speaking for myself of course) with having a waiting period that still guaranteed that I will be able to exercise my right after the cooldown period has passed. The keyword is "guaranteed" meaning that once I get through their simple criteria, I would then be able to obtain it (death with dignity) without any other interference, objection, or prevention. I

Additionally, I would add another rule which is to penalize and criminalize anyone who interferes with such a right after the waiting period and confirmation of someone who wishes to die, this would be in the form of either fines, imprisonment, and/or restitution towards not only the victim (who suffered harm from the prolifer's interference), but also to the people who were inconvenienced by the prolifer's actions (medical professionals and staff).

Leaning towards yes, but with nuance. I think that there ought to be the following conditions:

1. Age of 25+ (I think that's when the brain "matures", if I'm not mistaken), unless there is a terminal illness of some kind.

2. No one with parental/caring responsibilities or even those who own a pet should be allowed to go ahead automatically, unless there are clear provisions set for those dependents after one's passing (even then, I personally believe that it ought to be discouraged). Exceptions for those with terminal illness should exist though.

3. One must be sound of mind i.e. able to understand and comprehend their suicide and be able to give (imformed consent).

4. One must be able to understand and write things like wills, living wills etc.

5. Undergo a waiting period (between 1 month to a year, perhaps?), with counselling and therapy to be offered, albeit not compulsory.

6. An interview to filter out people who are being forced or coerced into suicide.

7. I think prisoners, excluding those with terminal illnesses, shouldn't be allowed.

Other than those, I've no qualms at all regarding legalisation.

These sound like reasonable safeguards except the 25+ age which I think should be lowered to the age of majority as a start. Obviously the closer to the minimal legal age (which I will consider 18 in this example as the US and several countries share that same number) there would be a bit more vetting as they are younger.

I do agree that one with parental/caring responsibilities not "immediately or automatically" proceeding with the process unless they set up a plan on how to best care for their dependents (children and pets, but moreso children), with the exception being terminal illness. Informed consent seems to be cornerstone, I fully agree. Also, I fully agree with having a waiting period (whether it is a month to year at most but not much longer, unless terminal illness) and counseling as well as therapy available to the person (not compulsory though). Having an assessor (who does the interview) during the process is also very important (the 3rd cornerstone) to ensure the person is not being coerced or forced into making the choice to die (will be tricky but I think with enough information and vetting it can be possible).

The last point, I would only partially agree, prisoners, depending on their crime, should still have it unless it is very heinous and reprehensible beyond redemption, but even then, the economic question would be, at what point do we let them leave suffering so that we would not have to continuously put resources (food, clothing, shelter, basic needs) to keeping said prisoner(s) alive?

Overall I think the criteria you've listed summarizes up what I have in mind for the legal right to die, with ground rules and safeguards to prevent abuse and fraud, ensure true consent is received, and of course truly confirming a person's decision to die with giving them every opportunity to change their mind if they wish to.

Leaving a comment because this topic interests me a lot.

Tbh if full automated society where hard labors are no longer needed for any kind of production is achieved, i think this is the next step. Not to say, labour laws would immedietely became better, but it could be a pacifier for the ruling class to stop uprising. "You want to die? Just do it then, not in a way that will cause public disorder of course"-kind of thing.

Yes, automation and AI should be the economic answer towards the argument of "the gov't needs it's workers to keep the cog of society running!". If AI and automation becomes more common than it is now, then there should be more allowance towards people wanting to check out and not wishing to wage-slave until retirement (which may/not be around in a few decades) and then faded away through natural death while sitting in a nursing home. Sure, there will need to be people who upkeep the machines, but again if AI and automation is advanced enough, perhaps it could even self-sustain itself (depending on how intelligent of the AI we are discussing). The ruling class can enjoy their legion of AI workers (non-humans) doing their bidding and ruling over them, while allowing all humans who don't wish to partake in the hamster wheel of a grind a peaceful, dignified exit. Sounds like a winning solution to me.

 

[SamTam33]

LOVE the sound of a flat rate fee- a fee to keep living do you mean? Not sure blackmail or bribe suit this... A incentive maybe? . Give me the money or let me kill myself?

Remember @TAW122 and @Doom posting threads to this end: If pro-lifers want us to keep living- against our will- most especially if they have forced us into costly treatments- they should be paying our bills. .

I'd love to do this- go to a psychiatrist or whatever and tell them that I was suicidal. They would either need to PROVE that I was mentally ill- in which case- surely I ought to be receiving benefits. If someone is that ill and unhinged- it can't be that safe to let them work. Or else- I'm not mentally ill- in which case- they must agree that they in fact own everyone's lives and we (fundamentally) have no autonomy when it comes down to it.

Or- do you mean- we would need to pay them? 'Why are you doing all this overtime Fred? Saving up for something nice?'

LMAO I love the idea of society/government paying for our expenses if they want us to stay alive. But no, I meant charging a fee for the service of assisted suicide.

Taxpayers would raise holy hell if it was a government-funded program. Circumvent all of their BS by charging a fee and allowing the program to be self-funded.

Unpopular opinion but I disagree. I think a lot of us in in this website can easily become one tracked in our vision.
Whilst I agree legalised euthanasia may do many people good, we need to do more to safeguard it to make sure it only helps those that truly want it.

I know the phrase "truly want it" may cause people to be annoyed or angry but in truth not everyone who is suicidal wants to die.
70% of people who attempt suicide, never make further attempts in their life again. Of course, there's no way of saying how their life is and why they continue to live. All I have are analogous accounts from friends and people on the internet that tell me they're either unsure how they feel about life or they're glad they survived.

Regarding the ground rules, the only difference is that the person somewhat try to engage in therapy and/or meditation (ideally this would be free). Whilst, this option hasn't actually helped me and I know that not everyone's problems can easily be fixed through that, there are still those it may be help.
It definitely shouldn't just be,
"Please kill me."
"Ok."

I will finish when I wake up

But what's the worst that can happen to someone who dies when they "didn't really want it?"

They won't be around to regret their decision, so what's the problem? What are the odds that they were going to stick around and cure cancer?

What are the odds that they were going to have a really spectacular life if they had just stayed alive?

Normalcy and being average is so overrated amongst humans. It's what most people aspire to and it's sadder and more pathetic than any suicidal ideation.

We think foregoing suicide is worth it in exchange for an average life where you pay some bills, wash your face and have picnics on nice weather days.

That's what we're advocating when we attempt to regulate and gatekeep suicide.

Our standards are so unbelievably low.

 

[ksp]

we need to do more to safeguard it to make sure it only helps those that truly want it.

i understand your reasoning: your thinking is based on kindness, and i appreciate your honesty, but:

it's very easy to generalize

how do you define 'truly'? why is your definition better than someone else's?

safeguard:

- society - take this responsibility away from normal people / take my responsibility away from me
- it implies that normal people are irresponsible with their lives
- people are incapable of understanding that life is a 'precious' gift
- society will need to approve your decision - society knows your suffering better than you

the following questions are addressed to all who answered 'no' to the original question:

- when is acceptable for your personal freedom to be taken away from you, by society?
- would you feel safer if society decides your fate? (is society a better judge than you?)
- is it better to place blind trust in society? (i don't trust my judgement)
- is society completely impartial and objective? with no hidden agendas?
- will all people in society be able to understand your pain and torment? 100% ?!

when you allow society to take away your personal freedom and individual autonomy you are saying this:
- please feel free to judge me: i trust you more than i trust myself
- i'm confident i can make everyone understand my suffering
- i'm confident that i can exactly describe my indescribable unhappiness
- i'm sure i can show everyone that my hidden agony and hopelessness is completely understood
- my sadness and misery are undeniable (by everyone else)
- no one will ever doubt my reasons: no one will ever say that my reasons are not good enough


your personal autonomy is the most important right in your life

so i ask again:
- are you ready to give up this right and responsibility
- are you sure that society will approve your voluntary euthanasia?

or:
- will you demand that your personal freedom and self determination be respected, without exceptions?!

i don't want society to approve my decision - this is my decision, and mine alone
i don't need any validation - i know what i want; from society i only want respect and a dignified, and peaceful exit

---

so my initial answer to this thread remains the same:

all people should have access to voluntary euthanasia - without any judgment

all suffering is valid: my suffering is not the same as yours, and i don't need to be understood

when universal access to euthanasia is granted, all people can ask for help

i strongly believe that most people (99.99%) are extremely intelligent and responsible !

most people can a make all existential decisions by themselves

(and i'm not only referring to this website / forum - i'm referring to all people, in all countries)

---

ps.

when universally voluntary euthanasia will be accepted by all countries, the impulsivity and desperation of suicide will be completely eliminated - most people will be much more careful about ending their lives; everyone will be free to give themselves as long as they need (1 month to 100 years) - they won't be cornered by the current 'prison walls'