The world doesn't owe us euthanasia

[Hotsackage]

It doesn't owe us, but people are in agony, a lot of us here, and if they aren't bothered to provide sufficient health care, then they should provide MAID. That's not say Healthcare shouldn't be put first, but that obviously is not going to happens soon

 

[escape_from_hell]

I hear your view, I just don't get the obsession on this site with a injectable death. There are numerous ways to kill yourself reliably and that are close to or completely immediate and painless. Even if we lived in a world where it wasn't completely painless and immediate, we're talking about ending your suffering forever so I don't understand why someone would continue suffering forever in extreme torture if a few minutes is what is needed to end that or be angry if they make the choice not to. I completely disagree with his notion that we're forced to continue living, we're here on the internet freely having a discussion all living in different parts of the world; we're not detained in nazi concentration camps (though plenty committed suicide there as well).

It's fair points and I'm all for changing how society views or facilitates suicide, involuntary committal, etc.

But primarily on this point...

"Maybe it is weak of me, but I would do anything to have a peaceful death using opiates or barbiturates rather than struggle with heart palpitations and vomitting for half an hour after taking lethal salts not knowing if I'll die, or vomit again in my sleep and wake up in an ICU under a sectioning hold. I think this is why many other people want euthanasia to become legal, because it's a guaranteed, peaceful death that doesn't have to be endured alone."

...I don't see that as other people owing it to us. If someone doesn't ctb because they won't use a violent method or struggle with SI, I don't think that inherently means it falls on others. The options exist to ctb, they have for thousands of years before these compounds were used, it is a choice to choose or not choose to use them. I would be right along with you to vote on legislation allowing N to be freely used for suicide, but it's often proclaimed here that the lack of it or euthanasia is forcing people to live and that's simply not true from my view. In regards to saying it's not freely accessible, the vast majority of people can gain access to a rope and somewhere to hang. While I genuinely think it would be great if suicide was handed to people on a platter in the form of easily used drugs, I don't see it as a requirement for one to kill themselves.

"Nobody's stopping you. If you wanted it bad enough, you'd be dead. Maybe you're just faking it for attention. It's easy just do it already."
In this very thread a fellow human being is saying there is a shotgun accessible within feet, yet that person cannot muster up what it takes to get it done and also fears user error. They would rather pay for it. People pay for all kinds of services for a reason. People pay to have their homes cleaned, for personal trainers, for financial or legal advice. There is nothing stopping them from cleaning their home, working out, busting out a legal dictionary or just doing the math on finances in most cases.

Have you considered other possible reasons they are willing to pay for those services other than expediency? Maybe someone who pays for such services does so because of disability, chronic pain, or working long hours. Now let's turn our attention to the suicidal for a moment. In general, is it not possible a good portion of suicidal people struggle to do basic things for various reasons, usually mental or physical health? Would it be easy for them to get'er done? Sure, but maybe others aren't gonna like the results: jumping off a tall building and landing on pedestrians, stopping trains for investigation and cleanup after dying on tracks, forcing the hand of a cop when they finally reach their mental breaking point and are out ranting and raving madly in public, ODing on sidewalks in front of kids, taking up medical resources as efforts are made to save them, and so on.
Also, not 100% sure, but isn't confessing to suicidality grounds for confiscation of weapons or blocking 2nd amendment rights in the USA?

WE OWE NOTHING TO ANYONE FOR BEING DRAGGED INTO THIS LIFE.
They don't owe us the decency of hiring end-of-life assistance, of being able to say goodbye to loved ones without incarceration? Fine, we don't owe them being a good citizen, paying taxes, anything--and there are many undesirable behaviors that desperate people will resort to including antisocial ones. Here's a grim consideration, one we cannot have the answer to usually but we can ponder: would making access to assisted dying easy prevent a lot of crime and tragedies?

It's fucked up to say, but wouldn't you rather someone who's been bullied and at their wit's end with rage and depression be able to seek private and comfortable death instead of going on a rampage? Yes, you can say nobody is responsible for them making such an violent choice. The question is--would any of a number of horrible crimes people commit have been averted? And more than even crime. Homelessness seems like more of a problem than in my youth, but maybe that's just visibility I haven't looked at the stats. Sure you get into a conundrum of not looking like you're exterminating the homeless. But many maybe wouldn't get to the typically undesirable state of homelessness to begin with.

It's not a simple case of entitled thinking, expecting governments to provide free speedy death van on-call service. While it'd be nice for every citizen to be guaranteed a humane exit from this involuntary state of being here in the first place, they also think they don't even owe their citizenry the common courtesy of simply not interfering with reasonable options to do so. They don't owe it to anyone to be able to say goodbye to loved ones without immediately shotgunning themselves in the head right there in front of them, lest they face incarceration. They stigmatize the state of suicidality itself, allowing no room for reasonable or rational policies, which is purely a cultural stigma although there is some biology and economics at play.

"Owing" is a human concept and modal verbs (shoulda woulda coulda) are also all invented by humans to express their wishes.
None owe it to them to not die on train tracks, damned be the consequences.
None owe it to them to not utilize police services to suicide-by-cop.
None owe it to them to not jump off tall buildings, who cares what happens below.
None owe it to them to not use traffic for suicide, without regard for consequences.
None owe it to them to not shotgun their heads off, creating a confetti shower of brain rain on their public gatherings.
None owe it to them to not jump into an aircraft engine for blending.

None have an obligation to stop complaining about ease of access, or more accurately, the intentional disruption of efforts to escape an undesirable life.

 

[jbear824]

It is owed because our bodies belong to us. Not any government. We have the inherent right as sapient, sentient beings to decide how and when we die. And having painless, peaceful methods withheld is nothing more than barbaric cruelty.

I would downvote the original post if I could for being such a bad take lol

 

[pyx]

its felo-de-se all over again.

 

[Ampsvx123]

It doesn't ought us anything, and neither us to it. Don't go crying 'selfish' when the train get splattered in blood.

 

[Illegal Preclear]

Don't go crying 'selfish' when the train get splattered in blood.

Or when the other people at the shooting range get a fun little shower in someone else's brain matter. Or when the person who messes up their method winds up a vegetable and is now a burden on your tax dollars. Or when someone's poorly thought out detergent suicide winds up killing the kids in the next apartment over.

@LaughingGoat If you are, for whatever reason, opposed to clean, efficient, and bystander safe systems in place for suicide, I hope you're okay with the things I've mentioned.

 

[LifeCanBeCruel]

There are plenty of doctors willing to help suffering people with assisted suicide so whether anybody owes us anything is irrelevant. It's kind of a straw man anyway. Everybody is entitled to legal defense but that doesn't mean any lawyer is legally obligated to take on a particular client. The same applies to doctors and euthanasia. I don't think the government has a moral right to ban the practice when it's they who actively prevent us from having a peaceful death by taking away our means to do it ourselves risk free. They impede us so they should provide an alternative.

 

[LaughingGoat]

"Nobody's stopping you. If you wanted it bad enough, you'd be dead. Maybe you're just faking it for attention. It's easy just do it already."
In this very thread a fellow human being is saying there is a shotgun accessible within feet, yet that person cannot muster up what it takes to get it done and also fears user error. They would rather pay for it. People pay for all kinds of services for a reason. People pay to have their homes cleaned, for personal trainers, for financial or legal advice. There is nothing stopping them from cleaning their home, working out, busting out a legal dictionary or just doing the math on finances in most cases.

Have you considered other possible reasons they are willing to pay for those services other than expediency? Maybe someone who pays for such services does so because of disability, chronic pain, or working long hours. Now let's turn our attention to the suicidal for a moment. In general, is it not possible a good portion of suicidal people struggle to do basic things for various reasons, usually mental or physical health? Would it be easy for them to get'er done? Sure, but maybe others aren't gonna like the results: jumping off a tall building and landing on pedestrians, stopping trains for investigation and cleanup after dying on tracks, forcing the hand of a cop when they finally reach their mental breaking point and are out ranting and raving madly in public, ODing on sidewalks in front of kids, taking up medical resources as efforts are made to save them, and so on.
Also, not 100% sure, but isn't confessing to suicidality grounds for confiscation of weapons or blocking 2nd amendment rights in the USA?

WE OWE NOTHING TO ANYONE FOR BEING DRAGGED INTO THIS LIFE.
They don't owe us the decency of hiring end-of-life assistance, of being able to say goodbye to loved ones without incarceration? Fine, we don't owe them being a good citizen, paying taxes, anything--and there are many undesirable behaviors that desperate people will resort to including antisocial ones. Here's a grim consideration, one we cannot have the answer to usually but we can ponder: would making access to assisted dying easy prevent a lot of crime and tragedies?

It's fucked up to say, but wouldn't you rather someone who's been bullied and at their wit's end with rage and depression be able to seek private and comfortable death instead of going on a rampage? Yes, you can say nobody is responsible for them making such an violent choice. The question is--would any of a number of horrible crimes people commit have been averted? And more than even crime. Homelessness seems like more of a problem than in my youth, but maybe that's just visibility I haven't looked at the stats. Sure you get into a conundrum of not looking like you're exterminating the homeless. But many maybe wouldn't get to the typically undesirable state of homelessness to begin with.

It's not a simple case of entitled thinking, expecting governments to provide free speedy death van on-call service. While it'd be nice for every citizen to be guaranteed a humane exit from this involuntary state of being here in the first place, they also think they don't even owe their citizenry the common courtesy of simply not interfering with reasonable options to do so. They don't owe it to anyone to be able to say goodbye to loved ones without immediately shotgunning themselves in the head right there in front of them, lest they face incarceration. They stigmatize the state of suicidality itself, allowing no room for reasonable or rational policies, which is purely a cultural stigma although there is some biology and economics at play.

"Owing" is a human concept and modal verbs (shoulda woulda coulda) are also all invented by humans to express their wishes.
None owe it to them to not die on train tracks, damned be the consequences.
None owe it to them to not utilize police services to suicide-by-cop.
None owe it to them to not jump off tall buildings, who cares what happens below.
None owe it to them to not use traffic for suicide, without regard for consequences.
None owe it to them to not shotgun their heads off, creating a confetti shower of brain rain on their public gatherings.
None owe it to them to not jump into an aircraft engine for blending.

None have an obligation to stop complaining about ease of access, or more accurately, the intentional disruption of efforts to escape an undesirable life.

Equating having someone kill you and clean your house is a big jump imo. I also don't see a connection that can be made between someone choosing to not kill themselves because they're preferred method isn't available and on having others do it and becoming a mass shooter. I know I'm repeating myself, but people have been committing suicide for time immemorial. I'm not trying to ruffle feathers to say, but the act of suicide doesn't require a medical professional.

Right to autonomy means you have the right to do what you want to your body/life. It's the reason people who hate on trans people are idiots, even if they disagree it's not their call what someone does with their own body. It doesn't give you the right to harm others, so saying because euthanasia isn't offered doesn't mean someone has the right to swerve their car in incoming traffic like you are ok with. The government or anyone else can't and don't prevent us from killing ourselves, the 700,000 people a year would be a testament to that. They prevent methods, but choosing to only die by a "humane" exit is a choice people make. I don't understand it personally, but that's their choice to make for themselves. That choice doesn't mean others have to or should kill them.

It is owed because our bodies belong to us. Not any government. We have the inherent right as sapient, sentient beings to decide how and when we die. And having painless, peaceful methods withheld is nothing more than barbaric cruelty.

I would downvote the original post if I could for being such a bad take lol

Our bodies belonging to us means people are required to kill us? I don't follow the logic.

Or when the other people at the shooting range get a fun little shower in someone else's brain matter. Or when the person who messes up their method winds up a vegetable and is now a burden on your tax dollars. Or when someone's poorly thought out detergent suicide winds up killing the kids in the next apartment over.

@LaughingGoat If you are, for whatever reason, opposed to clean, efficient, and bystander safe systems in place for suicide, I hope you're okay with the things I've mentioned.

Why exactly does not having someone kill you mean you have to take a gun to a shooting range and kill yourself there or someone irresponsibly killing kids. It's a false equivalency. The extreme vast majority who manage to kill themselves do so without any such circumstance.

There are plenty of doctors willing to help suffering people with assisted suicide so whether anybody owes us anything is irrelevant. It's kind of a straw man anyway. Everybody is entitled to legal defense but that doesn't mean any lawyer is legally obligated to take on a particular client. The same applies to doctors and euthanasia. I don't think the government has a moral right to ban the practice when it's they who actively prevent us from having a peaceful death by taking away our means to do it ourselves risk free. They impede us so they should provide an alternative.

Euthanasia: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (such as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy

Assisted Suicide: : suicide committed by someone with assistance from another person

You will find very few doctors in most societies who are comfortable with euthanasia, especially if it isn't for extreme terminal cases. There's a reason Kevorkian is known as Dr. Death, I think the community is far more enlightened about these matters than the general population. They are far less tolerant of participating in direct death, doctor or not.

 

[suffering_mo]

I am with you to a good extent. I have been a Christian pro-life individual practically my whole adult life. But after being severely injured by pharmaceuticals, along with another chronic pain condition that has stolen my quality of life, and made life hard to live, I feel I should have the option for a way out without hurting myself further. This goes strongly against the beliefs of my faith and I never expected to be in this position and I feel guilt ....but it's where I am because I am living in hell from an unnatural poison.....you can't understand it until you experience it. I could possibly qualify for Switzerland but I would never be allowed because my family would not support it. I still believe that assisted suicide should be strongly vetted and overall discouraged. Most people who are suicidal go on to live a happy and normal life, with some quality of life. Never euthanasia because that is a slippery slope of society just doing away with their citizens when they're no longer useful to them. The other argument against all this is that by offering it, health care companies can deny more services to save money and then people feel forced to end their lives because they have no choice. It can be a serious moral issue that's a slippery slope.

 

[LaughingGoat]

I am with you to a good extent. I have been a Christian pro-life individual practically my whole adult life. But after being severely injured by pharmaceuticals, along with another chronic pain condition that has stolen my quality of life, and made life hard to live, I feel I should have the option for a way out without hurting myself further. This goes strongly against the beliefs of my faith and I never expected to be in this position and I feel guilt ....but it's where I am because I am living in hell from an unnatural poison.....you can't understand it until you experience it. I could possibly qualify for Switzerland but I would never be allowed because my family would not support it. I still believe that assisted suicide should be strongly vetted and overall discouraged. Most people who are suicidal go on to live a happy and normal life, with some quality of life. Never euthanasia because that is a slippery slope of society just doing away with their citizens when they're no longer useful to them. The other argument against all this is that by offering it, health care companies can deny more services to save money and then people feel forced to end their lives because they have no choice. It can be a serious moral issue that's a slippery slope.

Thanks for sharing that perspective, we're on opposite ends of the spectrum as I'm an atheist but like you said personal experiences definitely changes one's philosophies to an extent. My question on saying "needing an option without hurting yourself further" is I see plenty of methods available in the resources section here that many have used successfully with little to minimal pain. While I'm a proponent of assisted suicide, I'm struggling in this thread to see how euthanasia is seen as an expected service provided as if other methods are unachievable or inhumane. Death is death.

 

[LifeCanBeCruel]

Canadian law allows for euthanasia and they seem to get on fine with it. The reason assisted suicide alone is inadequate is because not everybody is physically capable of doing it themselves. Nobody has the right to force another person to kill, or to be involved in killing them, but there are doctors who are willing and the law should get out of the way.

 

[babyharpseal]

there r also doctors who dont want to do stuff like abortions/provide birth control, give trans healthcare, have non-white patients, bc it goes against their beliefs or whatever. too bad. its part of the job so do it, or get a different fuckin job instead of making ppl suffer bc ur a big baby. and like lots of ppl have already said, euthanasia is administered by the patient, i havent heard of the doctor having to inject them or whatever

anyway, vets euthanise animals all the time, even if they couldve survived with the right medical care (that owners cant afford), or theyre perfectly healthy but too aggressive, or theres too many pets in the shelter, or hell just an asshole owner that wants their pet put down for convenience. if they can do it, then why cant doctors suck it up in order to help ppl end their suffering? how can they be comfortable letting someone live in agony, or die slowly n painfully, but will piss their pants n cry at having to hand them a button or deadly cocktail? do they throw tantrums when they need to take ppl off life support too?

 

[suffering_mo]

Thanks for sharing that perspective, we're on opposite ends of the spectrum as I'm an atheist but like you said personal experiences definitely changes one's philosophies to an extent. My question on saying "needing an option without hurting yourself further" is I see plenty of methods available in the resources section here that many have used successfully with little to minimal pain. While I'm a proponent of assisted suicide, I'm struggling in this thread to see how euthanasia is seen as an expected service provided as if other methods are unachievable or inhumane. Death is death.

I would disagree....all of these methods outside of pentobarbital are risky, very risky, and painful or cause issues if you survive. What peaceful methods are you referring to?

--Gun is violent and traumatic for those who find you, your family, etc and can have failures, resulting in some pretty serious consequences.
--Hanging if failed can cause neurological or physical problems.
--SN is also risky, can be painful and is hard to find. Also success rate is debatable and if you survive, you can have damage to your organs and brain. I can't do it because of my stomach issues.
--Jumping is going to be painful and you could survive with serious consequences. If you go to a public place, you could injure someone else.

My opinion....if the medical system can f you up, they should be required to give you an out. Many benefit from the medical system but there's a handful of us, in the minority, that are severely hurt. For those hurt, there should be an option. I also feel like we have to quit saving every person who is going to die. Instance...my sister's stepson was saved after a car crash. He now has a severe TBI and is psychotic and dangerous. He never asked to be saved.

 

[LaughingGoat]

Canadian law allows for euthanasia and they seem to get on fine with it. The reason assisted suicide alone is inadequate is because not everybody is physically capable of doing it themselves. Nobody has the right to force another person to kill, or to be involved in killing them, but there are doctors who are willing and the law should get out of the way.

I specifically stated in the OP that physical disabilities were an exception to the expectation. Someone with no physical capabilities to kill themselves will have to rely on others by nature.

I'm a huge fan of Dr. Kevorkian for what he did for his patients (there's a few questionable things I've read in terms of experimentation), so I agree wholeheartedly that the act itself shouldn't be illegal even outside a medical facility as long as there's proof that the person wasn't coerced and it was fully consensual. Like I said, I would provide that myself if legal. But the attitude that is that it's owed. You called it a straw man, but I've read those exact statements and sentiments tons on this site.

there r also doctors who dont want to do stuff like abortions/provide birth control, give trans healthcare, have non-white patients, bc it goes against their beliefs or whatever. too bad. its part of the job so do it, or get a different fuckin job instead of making ppl suffer bc ur a big baby. and like lots of ppl have already said, euthanasia is administered by the patient, i havent heard of the doctor having to inject them or whatever

anyway, vets euthanise animals all the time, even if they couldve survived with the right medical care (that owners cant afford), or theyre perfectly healthy but too aggressive, or theres too many pets in the shelter, or hell just an asshole owner that wants their pet put down for convenience. if they can do it, then why cant doctors suck it up in order to help ppl end their suffering? how can they be comfortable letting someone live in agony, or die slowly n painfully, but will piss their pants n cry at having to hand them a button or deadly cocktail? do they throw tantrums when they need to take ppl off life support too?

The difference in emotional and moral turmoil between the act of treating a black person if someone is a racist and being responsible for someone's death quite a large gap I would say. Regarding abortions, I'm strongly for them all the way until a baby is born, but I don't think a doctor should have to perform them if they view it as killing a living being.

Do you eat animals, use leather, etc.? Even if you don't personally, most do. Why aren't they ok with breeding and killing people, it's the same thing based off that logic. As a vegan I agree with the sentiment more than you can imagine, but it's a reductive argument for how people perceive their own moral systems. How many friends do you know who have killed a fish or chicken? Would you be friends with them if they killed a dog or cat?

 

[LifeCanBeCruel]

I agree with you then. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[LaughingGoat]

I would disagree....all of these methods outside of pentobarbital are risky, very risky, and painful or cause issues if you survive. What peaceful methods are you referring to?

--Gun is violent and traumatic for those who find you, your family, etc and can have failures, resulting in some pretty serious consequences.
--Hanging if failed can cause neurological or physical problems.
--SN is also risky, can be painful and is hard to find. Also success rate is debatable and if you survive, you can have damage to your organs and brain. I can't do it because of my stomach issues.
--Jumping is going to be painful and you could survive with serious consequences. If you go to a public place, you could injure someone else.

My opinion....if the medical system can f you up, they should be required to give you an out. Many benefit from the medical system but there's a handful of us, in the minority, that are severely hurt. For those hurt, there should be an option. I also feel like we have to quit saving every person who is going to die. Instance...my sister's stepson was saved after a car crash. He now has a severe TBI and is psychotic and dangerous. He never asked to be saved.

Firearms have a better statistical success rate than pentobarbital. Firearms and full hanging have nearly zero failure chance when done properly. Are there downsides like blood and other things, sure; but I don't see that as meaning that we are owed death in the exact specific way we want it. Life is full of aspects that don't meet our desired utopian paths, that's probably half the reason we want to exit, I see suicide as no different. It's imperfect by nature.

I agree with you then. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No worries, thank you for the respectful intellectual discussion.

 

[avalonisburning]

Yeah, I don't expect anyone to end my life when the time comes, especially if it means snatching a slot from someone in worse condition than me. It also feels irresponsible and unfair to make ending my life someone else's job outside of truly dire circumstances, and for that I can DIY it just fine. It's the process and fallout of the act that I wish would change. I'm also speaking for myself as a person who can superficially pass for normal if you squint hard enough.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

I agree completely that involuntary committal is morally and societally wrong, but that's a separate argument in my view.

I wasn't making any arguments against involuntary commitment in that post as such. I mean that the paternalistic prohibition and prevention of suicide is not logically compatible with unsanctioned suicide.

They don't want to help? Then they can keep all forms of "help" to themselves.

Especially when the kind of help offered just makes things worse!

I hear your view, I just don't get the obsession on this site with a injectable death. There are numerous ways to kill yourself reliably and that are close to or completely immediate and painless. Even if we lived in a world where it wasn't completely painless and immediate, we're talking about ending your suffering forever so I don't understand why someone would continue suffering forever in extreme torture if a few minutes is what is needed to end that or be angry if they make the choice not to.

I've heard that assertion lots of times and sure it logically makes sense but what makes sense on paper doesn't always coincide with how things work out on in practice, in reality. It doesn't take an advanced understanding of human psychology to understand why it works out that way.

Also bear in mind that there is more appeal to assisted death than just painlessness or reliability. Perhaps most appealing is the open nature of it rather having to do it clandestinely in the shadows.

...I don't see that as other people owing it to us. If someone doesn't ctb because they won't use a violent method or struggle with SI, I don't think that inherently means it falls on others. The options exist to ctb, they have for thousands of years before these compounds were used, it is a choice to choose or not choose to use them. I would be right along with you to vote on legislation allowing N to be freely used for suicide, but it's often proclaimed here that the lack of it or euthanasia is forcing people to live and that's simply not true from my view. In regards to saying it's not freely accessible, the vast majority of people can gain access to a rope and somewhere to hang. While I genuinely think it would be great if suicide was handed to people on a platter in the form of easily used drugs, I don't see it as a requirement for one to kill themselves.

I don't think how things historically have been should be the guidelines. We should continue to grow and develop as a society and strive towards the ideal of being as humane as possible.

But it's true that it can feel silly demanding the right to die when society doesn't even ensure the well-being of people in life. Like I saw a fundraiser where an older man, engineer by profession, had medical provlems and was thereby left broke and jobless and had trouble finding another one and has has turn to gofundme donations lest he become homeless. That's definitely insane and yes getting donations from people is availing himself of society but it is not via institutional means. The institutions apparently don't care.

So yes as much as death is touted as a human right it is definitely delusional to expect to have that recognized without a fight. No other human rights were recognized without a struggle.

But really we are just bemoaning the lack of access to it, just as we also bemoan many other undesirable or absurd things.

Especially since there IS a precedent for people being granted assisted death/euthanasia for non-terminal suffering including mental and since that has indeed materialized it makes sense to long for the same access...

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I don't think that anybody would have to rely on euthanasia if society didn't restrict the more peaceful methods. Society mixes carbon dioxide into inert gasses to make dying through that be painful, society bans nembutal, society tries their best to get rid of SN sources and so on. Euthanasia wouldn't be needed if society just instead allowed suicidal people to access peaceful methods as then the suicidal people can just kill themselves instead. It's basically everything that @KillingPain267 here said. When people say that they deserve euthanasia, they actually mean that they deserve a painless way to die which I agree with

The world does owe us euthanasia though. Existence was a burden placed onto the person brought into existence and was not within the limits of a person's rights to autonomy, as existence was forced upon them. We were all brought into existence against our will, so it's only fitting that we all have the right to a guaranteed and peaceful death. That's the only way to make things right, as no one was able to consent to existence. Therefore, we should all have the right to leave this world whenever we want to, and have a surefire way to exit

I agree with all of this as well. We couldn't choose the circumstances of our birth so I believe that we should be allowed to choose the circumstances of our death. The world does owe us a painless suicide method whether that includes euthanasia or otherwise. I think that euthanasia is the best way to ctb as it's all done by professionals hence it's less likely to fail but, in the end, I'd also be okay to ctb myself from nembutal if they just allowed us to have it

 

[brokeandbroken]

I see a lot of perseverating on the fact that euthanasia isn't an offered or accessible service, but I don't think it is something that we can or should expect as owed to us from others. Firstly, the act of killing someone else shouldn't be a burden placed on another person and it is not within the limits of a person's rights to autonomy to force someone else to offer it. Secondly, I often read statements from people who continue to struggle in existence, desiring an external death so strongly that it seemingly paralyzes them into inaction. While I certainly understand the desire there and the possible obstacle of SI, that doesn't mean that it is owed to us.

Now before I get accused of being "pro-life" or against the access of assisted suicide methods, I've said here multiple times that if it wasn't illegal and prosecutable as murder, I would willingly and actively offer without charge and perform the act of euthanasia on people who were seeking it. That's even considered an extreme view on here by many so hopefully that makes it clear I'm not anti-suicide, just against pushing off the responsibility of our own death onto other people. Someone could make a logical argument that your parents owe you death since they gave you life and I don't disagree with that, it's just not going to happen so one is best pursuing realistic ways to end their suffering. I also need to acknowledge there is a very small amount of people who are suffering from debilitating physical disabilities that would prevent them from any form of suicide, that's an exception to what I'm discussing here.

I mean you are right and I think wrong. I've said I think a program should exist that 1 year of extensive therapy, appropriate medication, etc... and if nothing has still worked then euthanasia should be given if the person is of sound mind and desires it.

I mean you bring up killing someone but let's stop acting let the vast vast majority of people are good or even give a shit about someone besides themselves. That includes doctors.

I mean I worked my ass off in life was in medical school overseas (Poland-I am American, I interviewed for it in the US and it was an international school in English). Victim of crimes I can easily prove (even online) by the medical school was illegally forced out. No one gave a shit about it or me when i got back. I am 160k+ in debt. No opportunities, no friends, nothing. Explain to me how working minimum wage when not that long ago I was learning to save lives while only being able to afford ramen, living in a building that can only be described as disgusting with criminals, without friends or anything is going to make me happy, fulfilled, or anything good. If you aren't going to give opportunities to people and you aren't going to seek justice for them. To me you are being more cruel than killing them. People aren't that good. In fact most are pretty fucking shitty. In my home state they'll give pedophiles free education, the US govt will pay terrorists in Afghanistan 40-87 million per week, pay a stipend to family members of the taliban that were killed fighting Americans, and yet I spent my life trying to cure people's cancer take away their pain and when my day came that i needed help no one cared, not my family, not the government, no one. So yeah in my view give opportunities to those willing to work or let people die.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Where do they perform euthanasia though? Most of the time, I imagine it's assisted suicide. The patient is the one who drinks the nembutal, takes the tablets or presumably hits the button in the Sarco Pod. I suppose if it's via IV, then a doctor would need to do it. Still, I remember once at a museum, they had a prototype computer programme linked to a lethal injection. It asked you a bunch of questions before finally, you got to choose whether to go ahead with it. It was a weird kind of thrill to even go through the simulation- I must have been suicidal even then.

Not sure I like the argument though- basically that we're not owed a peaceful exit. Especially seeing as our societies are so keen on prolonging life- even if that isn't the patients wish.

What are we owed then? What do we owe society in return? Should society do it's best to support people- no matter how much help they need? Does it? Can it even? There's a finite amount of money- surely? In return- what should be expected of us? Should we be living as long as possible to pay our taxes?

Is it really all that reasonable in a society that likes to think of itself as highly developed and humane that there is a percentage of our population living in pain and against their will? And- should they decide that they can't anymore, they will need to risk maiming themselves via a home grown method. Plus, if they fail- possible involuntary sectioning.

I'd argue that our most important gift in life is choice. The ability to decide on our own destiny- freedom effectively. Suicidal people are all being coerced into continuing to live because of the restriction of reliable, peaceful methods.

Of course- it is more complicated than that. I would agree that assisted suicide needs to be regulated to prevent impulsive attempts and even murder via coercion. So- that does make it problematic when it comes to restricting harmful substances like SN. But then- that to my mind gives more weight to allowing it officially. Then, it could be controlled. But yeah- assisted suicide wherever possible rather than euthanasia.

 

[escape_from_hell]

I know I'm repeating myself, but people have been committing suicide for time immemorial. I'm not trying to ruffle feathers to say, but the act of suicide doesn't require a medical professional.

Yes people have committed suicide for time immemorial.
How many throughout human history were absolutely miserable and wanted to make that escape but could not bring themselves to do it? Or from cultural stigma or legends of hells? How many lifetimes of unnecessary horror.
I think there may be a disconnect on this point. That sure some are able to escape. Those 700k/year are testament to that. But those are the ones that succeed. The ones who were incredibly brave. Sure, you may not need to be resourceful to jump off a cliff, but not everyone can do that even if they desire greatly to end it. I think in extreme cases like people jumping from windows of the WTC on 9/11 because they chose it over burning alive, sure then everyone can do it.

It calls to mind the infamous case of the gladiator slave who shoved a toilet brush down their throat to end it (veracity of the story who knows). So, some people will be able to pull a trigger with a gun in their mouth, some will be able to jump, and few will be able to shove a toilet brush down their throat in all but the most extreme immediate desperation. And some won't be able to do it without help, no matter how able they appear! That does not mean that don't want to die and shouldn't at least have their case heard by society without risking the repercussions they face today.

It doesn't give you the right to harm others, so saying because euthanasia isn't offered doesn't mean someone has the right to swerve their car in incoming traffic like you are ok with. The government or anyone else can't and don't prevent us from killing ourselves, the 700,000 people a year would be a testament to that. They prevent methods, but choosing to only die by a "humane" exit is a choice people make. I don't understand it personally, but that's their choice to make for themselves. That choice doesn't mean others have to or should kill them.

I don't recall stating I was personally okay with someone swerving their car in incoming traffic and reading over my reply now I still don't see it. But I am stating a possible outcome of making it more difficult for people to kill themselves, such as by banning access to N, shaming incarcerating and possibly saddling with huge medical debt someone that mentions considering suicide even without solid evidence.
What I'm trying to convey isn't quite as far as "a connection that can be made between someone choosing to not kill themselves because they're preferred method isn't available and on having others do it and becoming a mass shooter" but that if you let a disease fester, the rabid dogs don't magically recover and live these long illustrious lives like people "saved" from suicide allegedly might. It can get worse. Suicidal people can get desperate. They may do all kinds of mentally unsound things in their death throes, and their death throes will last the x number of years until it happens randomly if they aren't able to do it themselves or get at least the offer or opportunity to explore it.

It's just cruelty to all. Because other people have the strength to jump off heights, source drugs by traveling to other countries, research pay for and setup a scuba rig or whatever doesn't mean these people don't want it bad enough. Hell, many of them could also be CEO's if they just had the drive. And I think that's a reasonable comparison to at least hint at what I mean.

But I can sum up most of what I said with: suicide is hard, even if you want it.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

Where do they perform euthanasia though? Most of the time, I imagine it's assisted suicide.

I believe in Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands the doctors administer the drugs while in Switzerland and the U.S. states where it is allowed the patient drinks the solution. Since in Switzerland it is private organizations engaged in the dying business it is vital that the individual be the one to carry it out.

 

[snowbird]

governments force us to live and pay taxes, everyone who is born couldn't be asked if they wanted it - of course not, how can you ask a fetus for consent?
So as soon as you are able to make informed decisions, you should be allowed to go if you want to.
but of course they won't allow it - because they want you to work and make them money.

I absolutely think every government owes us euthanasia!
but it's just like some other user said here before (sorry, I don't remember your name) - if it was allowed for everyone to go in a peaceful, humane way, many many more people would do it and population would shrink, which in return would force the governments to uphold certain standards and make life better and easier for more people. but we all know how fkced up the system is in which we're living. So it will never happen and I'll be forever angry and bitter about this!

 

[Darkover]

Every human has the right to die with dignity to end suffering of which they have no control over.

Whether assisted or not, suicide should fall within our autonomy and natural right to self-determination.

 

[martinso67]

even if it was implemented it would be highly selective. i don't think many people would 'qualify' here in the eyes of the clinician.

It would be regulated Randomly. I read about a women in her 20s that has depression (which is treatable if you want to really put in the work, it could have different reasons that would not be clear directly). She was approved for euthanasia. That was not a single case. People with that condition that also have a good life and a boy friend. How can your depression be so severe when you have energy and the will for Hobbys and a boyfriend.

But people with medical conditions that are not lethal but make your life bad and limit stuff you can do in life. They are rejected.
What the hell??? So it makes it more in a way. "I decide if you are allowed to live".

The perfect solution for me is euthanasia through a device and gas that can be used for bought. SOMETHING like the suicide pod from Exit. You use the device for a small fee or you can buy some portable device that you can use everywhere you want. Gas through a device that was tested before by engineers is the most reliable.
Building that device and buying Nitrogen or Helium is not illegal. Also its not part of the medical sphere or no doctor is needed.

 

[LaughingGoat]

I wasn't making any arguments against involuntary commitment in that post as such. I mean that the paternalistic prohibition and prevention of suicide is not logically compatible with unsanctioned suicide.

They don't want to help? Then they can keep all forms of "help" to themselves.

Especially when the kind of help offered just makes things worse!




I've heard that assertion lots of times and sure it logically makes sense but what makes sense on paper doesn't always coincide with how things work out on in practice, in reality. It doesn't take an advanced understanding of human psychology to understand why it works out that way.

Also bear in mind that there is more appeal to assisted death than just painlessness or reliability. Perhaps most appealing is the open nature of it rather having to do it clandestinely in the shadows.



I don't think how things historically have been should be the guidelines. We should continue to grow and develop as a society and strive towards the ideal of being as humane as possible.

But it's true that it can feel silly demanding the right to die when society doesn't even ensure the well-being of people in life. Like I saw a fundraiser where an older man, engineer by profession, had medical provlems and was thereby left broke and jobless and had trouble finding another one and has has turn to gofundme donations lest he become homeless. That's definitely insane and yes getting donations from people is availing himself of society but it is not via institutional means. The institutions apparently don't care.

So yes as much as death is touted as a human right it is definitely delusional to expect to have that recognized without a fight. No other human rights were recognized without a struggle.

But really we are just bemoaning the lack of access to it, just as we also bemoan many other undesirable or absurd things.

Especially since there IS a precedent for people being granted assisted death/euthanasia for non-terminal suffering including mental and since that has indeed materialized it makes sense to long for the same access...

You provided sound arguments for all your points and I don't disagree with them. The only thing in principle I suppose I differ on is that people wanting a somewhat perfect, ideal suicide. I genuinely struggle to understand it, but I will concede that is my personal view on the matter and not indicative of some greater truth. Thank you for your well thought out responses.

I don't think that anybody would have to rely on euthanasia if society didn't restrict the more peaceful methods. Society mixes carbon dioxide into inert gasses to make dying through that be painful, society bans nembutal, society tries their best to get rid of SN sources and so on. Euthanasia wouldn't be needed if society just instead allowed suicidal people to access peaceful methods as then the suicidal people can just kill themselves instead. It's basically everything that @KillingPain267 here said. When people say that they deserve euthanasia, they actually mean that they deserve a painless way to die which I agree with

I agree with all of this as well. We couldn't choose the circumstances of our birth so I believe that we should be allowed to choose the circumstances of our death. The world does owe us a painless suicide method whether that includes euthanasia or otherwise. I think that euthanasia is the best way to ctb as it's all done by professionals hence it's less likely to fail but, in the end, I'd also be okay to ctb myself from nembutal if they just allowed us to have it

Your point on painless way to die is fair enough and I agree it would be best if it was available. My view definitely comes from a personal philosophy of not obsessing over things out of our control and finding ways to get things done regardless, but I won't argue that is some objective truth.

 

[Dark Window]

If the world forces you into existence against your will, it should definitely consider not forcing you to remain here against your will, and offer you a peaceful way out of a shit life you never wanted.

I don't agree with euthanasia I agree with assisted dying/suicide.

If they don't want to give us that, then they cannot complain about public suicides.

We live in an age of psychology, psychiatry and despite improving our understanding, suicide rates are increasing.

800k suicides a year, and remember most suicide attempts fails. You're probably looking closer to 10-20 million people attempting suicide a year.

 

[LaughingGoat]

Yes people have committed suicide for time immemorial.
How many throughout human history were absolutely miserable and wanted to make that escape but could not bring themselves to do it? Or from cultural stigma or legends of hells? How many lifetimes of unnecessary horror.
I think there may be a disconnect on this point. That sure some are able to escape. Those 700k/year are testament to that. But those are the ones that succeed. The ones who were incredibly brave. Sure, you may not need to be resourceful to jump off a cliff, but not everyone can do that even if they desire greatly to end it. I think in extreme cases like people jumping from windows of the WTC on 9/11 because they chose it over burning alive, sure then everyone can do it.

It calls to mind the infamous case of the gladiator slave who shoved a toilet brush down their throat to end it (veracity of the story who knows). So, some people will be able to pull a trigger with a gun in their mouth, some will be able to jump, and few will be able to shove a toilet brush down their throat in all but the most extreme immediate desperation. And some won't be able to do it without help, no matter how able they appear! That does not mean that don't want to die and shouldn't at least have their case heard by society without risking the repercussions they face today.


I don't recall stating I was personally okay with someone swerving their car in incoming traffic and reading over my reply now I still don't see it. But I am stating a possible outcome of making it more difficult for people to kill themselves, such as by banning access to N, shaming incarcerating and possibly saddling with huge medical debt someone that mentions considering suicide even without solid evidence.
What I'm trying to convey isn't quite as far as "a connection that can be made between someone choosing to not kill themselves because they're preferred method isn't available and on having others do it and becoming a mass shooter" but that if you let a disease fester, the rabid dogs don't magically recover and live these long illustrious lives like people "saved" from suicide allegedly might. It can get worse. Suicidal people can get desperate. They may do all kinds of mentally unsound things in their death throes, and their death throes will last the x number of years until it happens randomly if they aren't able to do it themselves or get at least the offer or opportunity to explore it.

It's just cruelty to all. Because other people have the strength to jump off heights, source drugs by traveling to other countries, research pay for and setup a scuba rig or whatever doesn't mean these people don't want it bad enough. Hell, many of them could also be CEO's if they just had the drive. And I think that's a reasonable comparison to at least hint at what I mean.

But I can sum up most of what I said with: suicide is hard, even if you want it.

Thank you for explaining your meanings in more detail, I am more clear on your positions now.

Regarding the idea of people being able to kill themselves, there are two points that come to mind for me. 1) often here when people state they can't get over SI, one of the most popular responses is it means they're not fully ready and accepting of their decision. While we could certainly argue the full validity of that statement on an individual basis, I think there is definitely some truth there. 2) becoming CEO includes tons of factors out of your control, far more than are in your control. Outside of extreme rare cases like complete physical disabilities, I view the act of suicide as being as close to purely in one's control as an act can be.

Regarding the disease festering and people getting desperate, I see the answer already being present in the form of multiple avenues of suicide that can't be take away. The fact that the preferred method is unavailable isn't a reasonable explanation to me, though I agree with you that it would be best if N was.

Where do they perform euthanasia though? Most of the time, I imagine it's assisted suicide. The patient is the one who drinks the nembutal, takes the tablets or presumably hits the button in the Sarco Pod. I suppose if it's via IV, then a doctor would need to do it. Still, I remember once at a museum, they had a prototype computer programme linked to a lethal injection. It asked you a bunch of questions before finally, you got to choose whether to go ahead with it. It was a weird kind of thrill to even go through the simulation- I must have been suicidal even then.

Not sure I like the argument though- basically that we're not owed a peaceful exit. Especially seeing as our societies are so keen on prolonging life- even if that isn't the patients wish.

What are we owed then? What do we owe society in return? Should society do it's best to support people- no matter how much help they need? Does it? Can it even? There's a finite amount of money- surely? In return- what should be expected of us? Should we be living as long as possible to pay our taxes?

Is it really all that reasonable in a society that likes to think of itself as highly developed and humane that there is a percentage of our population living in pain and against their will? And- should they decide that they can't anymore, they will need to risk maiming themselves via a home grown method. Plus, if they fail- possible involuntary sectioning.

I'd argue that our most important gift in life is choice. The ability to decide on our own destiny- freedom effectively. Suicidal people are all being coerced into continuing to live because of the restriction of reliable, peaceful methods.

Of course- it is more complicated than that. I would agree that assisted suicide needs to be regulated to prevent impulsive attempts and even murder via coercion. So- that does make it problematic when it comes to restricting harmful substances like SN. But then- that to my mind gives more weight to allowing it officially. Then, it could be controlled. But yeah- assisted suicide wherever possible rather than euthanasia.

This is a good explanation of the role of society in supporting people and I agree with many of the points you argue. The idea of choice, freedom, and destiny however is a place I don't see as being restricted to the point of non-availability. I struggle to understand the idea of a peaceful method from my own perspective (just recognizing that, not arguing that is objectively correct), but there are many reliable methods available.

governments force us to live and pay taxes, everyone who is born couldn't be asked if they wanted it - of course not, how can you ask a fetus for consent?
So as soon as you are able to make informed decisions, you should be allowed to go if you want to.
but of course they won't allow it - because they want you to work and make them money.

I absolutely think every government owes us euthanasia!
but it's just like some other user said here before (sorry, I don't remember your name) - if it was allowed for everyone to go in a peaceful, humane way, many many more people would do it and population would shrink, which in return would force the governments to uphold certain standards and make life better and easier for more people. but we all know how fkced up the system is in which we're living. So it will never happen and I'll be forever angry and bitter about this!

Maybe it's semantics, but I diametrically disagree that we are forced to live. I agree wholeheartedly that people should be allowed to die if they want, but I don't see the lack of euthanasia as stopping someone from taking their own life. Choosing the only commit suicide in one way or by another's hand is a choice people make imo. That being said, I do agree it would be best if it was available.

Every human has the right to die with dignity to end suffering of which they have no control over.

Whether assisted or not, suicide should fall within our autonomy and natural right to self-determination.

I am asking to understand genuinely, not trying poke holes. What does it mean to die with dignity and why is it such a determining factor that people would choose life instead of suicide? It's a concept I see here a lot that I struggle to empathize with and would like to hear your perspective on.

It would be regulated Randomly. I read about a women in her 20s that has depression (which is treatable if you want to really put in the work, it could have different reasons that would not be clear directly). She was approved for euthanasia. That was not a single case. People with that condition that also have a good life and a boy friend. How can your depression be so severe when you have energy and the will for Hobbys and a boyfriend.

But people with medical conditions that are not lethal but make your life bad and limit stuff you can do in life. They are rejected.
What the hell??? So it makes it more in a way. "I decide if you are allowed to live".

The perfect solution for me is euthanasia through a device and gas that can be used for bought. SOMETHING like the suicide pod from Exit. You use the device for a small fee or you can buy some portable device that you can use everywhere you want. Gas through a device that was tested before by engineers is the most reliable.
Building that device and buying Nitrogen or Helium is not illegal. Also its not part of the medical sphere or no doctor is needed.

I agree and in that sense, I think N should be made available to people who are using expressly for suicide.

If the world forces you into existence against your will, it should definitely consider not forcing you to remain here against your will, and offer you a peaceful way out of a shit life you never wanted.

I don't agree with euthanasia I agree with assisted dying/suicide.

If they don't want to give us that, then they cannot complain about public suicides.

We live in an age of psychology, psychiatry and despite improving our understanding, suicide rates are increasing.

800k suicides a year, and remember most suicide attempts fails. You're probably looking closer to 10-20 million people attempting suicide a year.

My issue with that is the world doesn't force you into existence, your parents do. So I could see holding them responsible, but my perspective is the world doesn't and can't force me to remain here, it's my choice to not have killed myself yet.

 

[bed]

I agree, i don't think the world owes use anything including euthanasia. The thing is it's not like doctors are being forced to euthanize people in countries where MAiD or assisted dying is legalized. They are allowed to not do it for any reason they see fit and do not have to go into that side of the field. The doctors who do want to help/provide the service are doing it of their own freewill. Also in almost all cases of MAiD, the person is taking the drug themselves unless it's absolutely necessary for the doctor to assist them in that.

edit: i'd like to add that there was an interesting article about a doctor in British Columbia who helped people with euthanasia and they found it very rewarding to be able to allow people to die with compassion surrounded by their loved ones. not sure if ill be able to find the article since it is a few yrs old now though.