unpopular take on here but im generally uneasy about assisted suicide and any state supported suicide programme

[...]

im suicidal and support everyone's autonomy regarding their own mortality but the inner sociologist in me worries about the consequences of the state actively supporting suicide. on the flip side of course the state shouldn't be punitive regarding it and it's also true that they create push factors that lead to it. but even the slippery slope of state sanctioned death aside, it would further enhance the toxic climate of individual responsibility towards the main drivers of suicide which are really the failure of our environment. i worry that it further removes the pressure/responsibility of society as a whole to create an environment whereby we aim to improve the lives of the vulnerable and suicidal because society in essence would be offering a way out of these driving issues of poor quality of life (via suicide) in lieu of changes to qualify of life itself.

 

[demuic]

There is already very little pressure to improve society and improve the lives of the vulnerable by those who have the power to do so.

There is nothing to say that we can't have both assisted suicide or euthanasia at the same time as striving to improve society. It's not an either or. Of course, it should always be a goal to open up dialogues surrounding suicide and make it less of a taboo topic and these things can coexist, the topic of assisted suicide for non terminal illness and mental health is in fact one way people are beginning to think about this topic in the first place. Naturally, it should be ensured that no one feels pressured to receive assisted suicide when they don't wish to, but I think this would not be very common due to how life is generally treasured amongst a majority of people, there would be a lot of uproar and backlash if this was to happen. (I think it would most likely be the reverse, that people would be trying to dissuade people from assisted suicide. Cynically, there is more to be gained from keeping someone alive and in treatment if you look at it that way.) Assisted suicide or euthanasia is generally seen as a last resort.

Suicide will never be able to be prevented 100%. Even if society was more compassionate or improved the societal reasons why people want to commit suicide, there will still be people who want to die for other reasons.

It is not only the environment that is a driver for suicide. Biology plays a large role. We are very very far away from any consistent, accessible, and affordable treatment, let alone cures, to most of the most common mental or physical conditions that lead someone to commit suicide. In the meanwhile, people who are living in pain without any proper cure for their ailments should not be forced to resort to painful methods and secrecy, causing even more grief at an unpredicted suicide, they should be able to receive a humane death, in the company of their loved ones, if that is what they choose. In the case of it being facilitated by the state, of course there will be evaluations and waiting periods and such, and they will likely want the individual to ensure they have exhausted all other options first.

Even in countries or localities that do have assisted suicide for non terminal illnesses, it is not as if every case is approved either and it can be difficult and expensive to go that route anyway.

Additionally, not everyone would choose assisted suicide even if it is available. It is a huge task to say goodbye to life and leave everyone and everything you know behind. Even on SS, where people might be more suicidal or determined to die than the average citizen, you can see that a lot of people do not rush to CTB even if they do have a readily available method. It

For these reasons, I believe these concerns regarding assisted suicide, while reasonable, are generally overblown.

 

[Gsvko]

Makes sense, but society will never be able to accommodate everyone, there will always be people who find that their needs are unmet and suffering's too great. Don't encourage it, but have it as an option.

 

[CommitSudoku]

I'm not sure where those who have decent quality of life but nothing to live for are left. Even with the best quality of life, there are so many factors. People will want to die regardless of how many efforts are seen through, in my opinion. Maybe it will change the lot of some people and that would be great. But I feel like I'm not alone in just saying some of us never felt life was right for us even if compared to others the hand we were dealt wasn't the worst. I don't think a failure of environment has driven me to this point, it's been a failure if myself.
I'm probably missing some of the point or misunderstanding and I apologize for that. This topic interested me but my brain is a bit dead now. Anyways, even if we got state/government support for suicide I still see it not being easy to get and thus many could be left in the same situation regardless. Wishing to die but unable to since they couldn't check off all the mandatory boxes that would be included before assisted suicide was granted. I guess I see it all being about the same whether it's there or not, but a benefit of at least allowing more open state assisted suicide is suicide could perhaps be less of a taboo and more openly and rationally discussed which could help people who have reached that point.

 

[Interloper]

I don't think it's nearly as unpopular here as you think, don't worry. Unless there was some forum wide poll for it that I missed...

 

[WhiteRabbit]

I guess it depends on how easily accessible assisted suicide would be. There would need to be wait period and counseling imo.

 

[LastFlowers]

im suicidal and support everyone's autonomy regarding their own mortality but the inner sociologist in me worries about the consequences of the state actively supporting suicide. on the flip side of course the state shouldn't be punitive regarding it and it's also true that they create push factors that lead to it. but even the slippery slope of state sanctioned death aside, it would further enhance the toxic climate of individual responsibility towards the main drivers of suicide which are really the failure of our environment. i worry that it further removes the pressure/responsibility of society as a whole to create an environment whereby we aim to improve the lives of the vulnerable and suicidal because society in essence would be offering a way out of these driving issues of poor quality of life (via suicide) in lieu of changes to qualify of life itself.

Life itself is already a slippery slope straight to hell.

Individual responsibility?
Who is the individual in this scenario?
The suicidal?
Or society (aka a conglomeration of individuals)?

The failure of our environment?
Are you saying that individuals should get to shirk responsibility for their contributions toward the trauma and grossly decreased quality of life of others, and blame it on..what?
The dirt beneath our feet? The group of people they are adjacent to, a part of?

Please clarify if I'm woefully misinterpreting what you're meaning to say.
I have a feeling I am..

Or perhaps you mean to say that an easy and simplified way out would cause those left behind to have no motivation in creating a more livable environment with equal and fair opportunity?
So if we all start climbing into suicide booths, it lets everyone else off the hook in regards to improving our quality of life and giving us a reason to stay, same as those who already do?

Because that much I can see your point on,
the thing is we can't wait around and suffer in hopes for that to happen sooner than later (because it won't, maybe not any time soon, maybe never), and the burden shouldn't be on our backs.
We should always have a sanctioned option, a guarantee of a dignified death without the tumultuous taboo.
It will never erase our pain, it will never undo the reasons why we made the decision to put an end to our existence in the first place.
And THAT is what we should be trying to get across to those who would otherwise let all these suicides roll off their backs as if there are no consequences so long as death is an option-because there are, suicide does not obliterate them, it simply ends the victim's consciousness of them.

So I believe we should still rally for popular support of the option, for the government to back it, but what we should be careful about is how it's implemented, remain alert and aware that those in power could abuse it, and continue pushing for awareness of the "bigger picture" along side it.
Everything has pitfalls-possible trade offs, but where this topic is concerned, ultimately barring assisted suicide and any programs surrounding it is only going to cause further harm and desperation for those already suffering.

You also have to keep in mind that not every woe can be eliminated via conscientious effort, things like bodily illness (and plenty of other detriments) may not be remedied or made palatable enough to survive, even if every human being on earth put their heads and hearts into finding a solution and giving every damn about the sufferer.
We have to have contentment in and of our own personhood and physical selves, even apart from others' antagonizing and apathy, if we are to lead a life worth living.

 

[Chinaski]

im suicidal and support everyone's autonomy regarding their own mortality but the inner sociologist in me worries about the consequences of the state actively supporting suicide. on the flip side of course the state shouldn't be punitive regarding it and it's also true that they create push factors that lead to it. but even the slippery slope of state sanctioned death aside, it would further enhance the toxic climate of individual responsibility towards the main drivers of suicide which are really the failure of our environment. i worry that it further removes the pressure/responsibility of society as a whole to create an environment whereby we aim to improve the lives of the vulnerable and suicidal because society in essence would be offering a way out of these driving issues of poor quality of life (via suicide) in lieu of changes to qualify of life itself.

This post is correct - the numerous postings on here demanding free death on demand are effectively posturing towards an increase in the many societal drivers to suicide. Having witnessed the impact of the austerity measures in the UK regarding housing, healthcare, benefits, debt, social care, addiction, depression etc which were inflicted on the poorest, and the directly-linked rise in suicides resulting from these government policies, it's easy to see how death on demand would be more about furthering the ruling class onslaught upon the poorest to suit their own economic interests than it would be about compassion. I find myself making this point frequently here, but a truly "compassionate" society is one which seeks to eradicate its societal drivers to suicide, not one which offers to cull its poorest and weakest members.

 

[D&D]

a truly "compassionate" society is one which seeks to eradicate its societal drivers to suicide, not one which offers to cull its poorest and weakest members.

This. Exactly.

Even a sufficiently intelligent society (if compassionate is too much to ask) would see what is obvious; more equal distribution of resources would not only result in a more balanced society, but, on the long run, help save the only habitat we have - planet earth. But no ... let's greed of all stripes rule, continuing to make rich richer and poor even poorer until they have nothing left, nothing to be taken off them, but life itself. Via state sponsored method administrated by a neatly dressed and softly spoken government official at the nearby office.

As much as I believe that everyone should be free to chose a peaceful and dignified death, the key words are free to chose. When, as sadly happens more and more, the choice is between being homeless, hungry, cold, unable to access any kind of social services or medical, including psychiatric, help and death ... there is neither choice nor freedom. Only desperate people pushed to their premature deaths by the society that abandoned them. In many, many cases just a little practical help; some humanity and some resources, would have made all the difference. Sure, some might suicided later on regardless, BUT at least they would have a choice. Choice to make the only truly free choice - between decent life and decent death. Anything less is a piss poor excuse for greed, abuse, neglect and cruelty.

 

[come to dust]

The idea to me that having free and legal available suicide would reduce the pressure to make society better for people is ridiculous. Most people who want society to be better aren't even suicidal, they will push for that regardless of whether or not euthanasia is readily available.

Also I really like the idea of the government taking care of my death for me and me not worrying about the stress of looking for methods.

 

[Chinaski]

The idea to me that having free and legal available suicide would reduce the pressure to make society better for people is ridiculous. Most people who want society to be better aren't even suicidal, they will push for that regardless of whether or not euthanasia is readily available.

Also I really like the idea of the government taking care of my death for me and me not worrying about the stress of looking for methods.

"reduce the pressure to make society better" like wtf, we've just lived through a global pandemic where it's been made very clear who is expendable and who isn't.

 

[Graytaichi]

im suicidal and support everyone's autonomy regarding their own mortality but the inner sociologist in me worries about the consequences of the state actively supporting suicide. on the flip side of course the state shouldn't be punitive regarding it and it's also true that they create push factors that lead to it. but even the slippery slope of state sanctioned death aside, it would further enhance the toxic climate of individual responsibility towards the main drivers of suicide which are really the failure of our environment. i worry that it further removes the pressure/responsibility of society as a whole to create an environment whereby we aim to improve the lives of the vulnerable and suicidal because society in essence would be offering a way out of these driving issues of poor quality of life (via suicide) in lieu of changes to qualify of life itself.

Its nothing to feel uneasy,you prob wont get approval. Unless u have severe depression ,you care too much of how the society thinks of you.even you have cancer or cant work the chances are still 5% you can be in the assisted suicide program or even lower. Virtually zero which is equivilent to no such assisted suicide program at all

 

[Blondi]

I , as a Republican , can't believe there are so many entitled leftists here .
Poor people are poor for a reason. Either because they are lazy or their ancestors were lazy or inadequate. Your not entitled to other people's hard worked money. I believe in freedom. I believe in assisted suicide based on market ideals.
You don't ban alcohol because it hurts people. It's God's given
choice of freedom to everyone, to do whatever they wish, even if it hurts them.
And I am not some privileged millionaire . I am relatively poor and
Have some physical disabilities. But I realise it's mine problem and mine alone.

 

[Chinaski]

I , as a Republican , can't believe there are so many entitled leftists here .
Poor people are poor for a reason. Either because they are lazy or their ancestors were lazy or inadequate. Your not entitled to other people's hard worked money. I believe in freedom. I believe in assisted suicide based on market ideals.
You don't ban alcohol because it hurts people. It's God's given
choice of freedom to everyone, to do whatever they wish, even if it hurts them.
And I am not some priveleged millionaire . I am relatively poor and
Have some physical disabilities. But I realise it's mine problem and mine alone.

There's a lot (!) to unpack in this but I'll swerve addressing the bulk of it for fear of detailing, however the bit I've emboldened is quite telling in that you're advocating assisted suicide based on no other premise beyond meeting the fee required to meet Muh Market's demand for profit. This naturally excludes many people who would satisfy MAID criteria but do not hold the required capital to access it. There is no difference, in real terms, between pricing someone out of something and outrightly banning them. So you advocate compassionate suicide assistance, but only for the wealthy.

I also note that by your own admission you're ill, and not wealthy. It is therefore likely you will be priced out, effectively barred, from accessing this. At least you're able to accept that, as a person who is not fortunate enough to inherit any significant wealth, that your poverty and illness is the fate you deserve, unlike those Entitled Leftists who are all over this goddam forum.

 

[Seiba]

There's a lot (!) to unpack in this but I'll swerve addressing the bulk of it for fear of detailing, however the bit I've emboldened is quite telling in that you're advocating assisted suicide based on no other premise beyond meeting the fee required to meet Muh Market's demand for profit. This naturally excludes many people who would satisfy MAID criteria but do not hold the required capital to access it. There is no difference, in real terms, between pricing someone out of something and outrightly banning them. So you advocate compassionate suicide assistance, but only for the wealthy.

I also note that by your own admission you're ill, and not wealthy. It is therefore likely you will be priced out, effectively barred, from accessing this. At least you're able to accept that, as a person who is not fortunate enough to inherit any significant wealth, that your poverty and illness is the fate you deserve, unlike those Entitled Leftists who are all over this goddam forum.

Seems a little bit like satire with the American flag. It's almost self aware -- but with how things are with people I suppose possibly not.

 

[Chinaski]

Seems a little bit like satire with the American flag. It's almost self aware -- but with how things are with people I suppose possibly not.

Ha, could be, but the substance of that post has been made so many times here it's impossible to gauge these days.

 

[Blondi]

Seems a little bit like satire with the American flag. It's almost self aware -- but with how things are with people I suppose possibly not.

It's not satire in the slightest. The United States of America is my favourite country. That's why the American flag is in the text.

 

[Sanva]

The exact reason suicide is a taboo is because society is completely uninterested in helping people/working on making people's lives better. yes, ideally we'd have a world in which we work on bettering everyone's lives. for me and I think for a lot of people it's more like "no, you're not allowed to kill yourself" but then I also get 0 help. I think having a several years long process for assisted suicide in which people can actually speak about their feelings freely & get treatment would put more responsibility on society. because as things are it's super easy for people to just ignore any issues in our society and when someone kills themselves it's like "damn, what a selfish piece of shit".

 

[noname223]

im suicidal and support everyone's autonomy regarding their own mortality but the inner sociologist in me worries about the consequences of the state actively supporting suicide. on the flip side of course the state shouldn't be punitive regarding it and it's also true that they create push factors that lead to it. but even the slippery slope of state sanctioned death aside, it would further enhance the toxic climate of individual responsibility towards the main drivers of suicide which are really the failure of our environment. i worry that it further removes the pressure/responsibility of society as a whole to create an environment whereby we aim to improve the lives of the vulnerable and suicidal because society in essence would be offering a way out of these driving issues of poor quality of life (via suicide) in lieu of changes to qualify of life itself.

I think I have a diametrical view on it. I am a huge supporter of assisted suicide (and I support a very liberal form of it. Even more liberal than in Belgium.) I hate that all peacuful methods are only available if you purchase them illegaly.
I think the right of self-determination concerning assisted suicide is more important than the protection of life. Even if some people regretted their decision at least they had a choice. When peaceful means are illegal many people have no choice because they are too scared about ending with severe longterm damage.
The highest court of my country ruled in favor of very liberal assisted suicide laws.

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/thre...g-why-the-right-to-die-is-so-important.81594/

The reasoning was very good in my point of view.

I think every adult should be empowered to make this decision. And it is especially important that peaceful and reliable methods are available. Which often not the case when doing it on your own.
I think in a secular country I should not be obliged to follow the rules of the bible or christian fundamentalism. I don't believe their morality this is why I don't need to follow it.
In my country a huge majority supports assisted suicide. Though the politicians don't make a liberal law which is against the will of the people and against the highest court ruling.

Personally I think the pharma industry has a huge interest in order to avoid assisted suicide. The vast majority of money is made in the last 1/3 of a person's lifespan.

I don't buy the argument people would be pushed into assisted suicide. As a rational thinking adult you do a lot of very decisive decisions every single day. Should people not be allowed to drive a car, own a knife or eat really unhealthy food? It is ironic this argument against assisted suicide comes often from people who are in favor of owning a huge rifle or pro the death-sentence.

But that is just my opinion about it.

 

[...]

I , as a Republican , can't believe there are so many entitled leftists here .
Poor people are poor for a reason. Either because they are lazy or their ancestors were lazy or inadequate. Your not entitled to other people's hard worked money. I believe in freedom. I believe in assisted suicide based on market ideals.
You don't ban alcohol because it hurts people. It's God's given
choice of freedom to everyone, to do whatever they wish, even if it hurts them.
And I am not some priveleged millionaire . I am relatively poor and
Have some physical disabilities. But I realise it's mine problem and mine alone.

had me for a second there

I don't buy the argument people would be pushed into assisted suicide. As a rational thinking adult you do a lot of very decisive decisions every single day. Should people not be allowed to drive a car, own a knife or eat really unhealthy food

oh god not rational choice theory. we - as an individual - often have the freedom to choose between certain decisions without someone telling us what to do, yes. we - as an individual - do not however get to choose 1) the framework of options available to us 2) the years of environmental factors that influence and are the reasons why we are more likely to choose one or the other.

if decisions were purely down to "rational thinking" then the law of odds would dictate that every social strata would all - on average - equally pick the same options which of course is not the case. so either the reason for the discrepancy is a) certain groups are just less "rational" or stupider than others or b) you accept that there are external drivers that on average push more people from certain social stratas to "choosing" one choice over the other. yes everyone has the option between eating healthy and unhealthy food and keeping fit or slipping into being overweight. but does being impacted by external factors like the ability to afford healthy food and exercise, the educational understanding of healthy food and exercise, the mental health to be motivated towards healthy food and exercise not all help push the likelihood of one's healthy food and exercise one way or the other?

Of course I would be surprised if the government drag people out their houses and literally push people off a high rise building towards their deaths, but it is no means far fetched to say that the most vulnerable people in society would disproportionately be pushed by their circumstances towards death on demand policies than those less vulnerable. this is already proven when looking at pretty much any metric regarding suicide as it already is. anyone can choose to kill themselves but certain social stratas disproportionately choose to do so than others. my point with death on demand policies is that it is seeks to benefit these status-quo circumstances further because even more people are choosing to end their lives whose otherwise existence would create an extra burden and an added pressure on those systematic circumstances to change which without then leads people further unlikely to escape their drivers to suicide therefore again increasing the likelihood they choose suicide in this awful reinforcing cycle until gradually the most susceptible to suicide are continually killing themselves more and more.

 

[ReallyTired]

When elderly people in nursing homes, or terminally ill have to suffocate themselves with plastic bags or hang themselves, or try to starve themselves to death, to name a few horrors people go through to die, one would think people everywhere would wake up to the terrible suffering and say enough is enough.

 

[Crazy4u]

the government is not interested in real suicide prevention anyway. They would never address issues causing people to suicide. Assisted suicide program mainly helps the poor & suicidal by providing them access to peaceful methods. Without assisted suicide, the poor & suicidal will have to try and end their life in a gruesome and risky manner.

Having an assisted suicide program won't result in a massive increase in suicide rate. if it does, the rich, the forced lifers, and the government would suddenly be interested because they are losing labor and may try to help the poor as a result.

 

[FuneralCry]

No matter what people say, I believe that the option of a peaceful death should be a human right. Nobody should have to resort to risky and traumatic methods that can fail in order to end their suffering. None of us asked to be alive in the first place so we have no obligations to stay alive. Many suicide methods are difficult because of the SI and people have got damage from failing ctb. It is horrific in my opinion, that people cannot peacefully end their suffering at a time of their own choosing. The knowledge of having a peaceful way out would comfort me greatly. Everyday it hurts me that ctb is so difficult.

 

[Chinaski]

Having an assisted suicide program won't result in a massive increase in suicide rate. if it does, the rich, the forced lifers, and the government would suddenly be interested because they are losing labor and may try to help the poor as a result.

If by "assisted suicide" you mean death on demand, no questions asked, then you're absolutely wrong.

A not insignificant number of failed suicide attempts go on to recover. There is literally a recovery section on here where people have decided to give life another go. Death on demand would have resulted in their suicide, as it would many people who have been temporarily suicidal due to grief, separation, job loss, whatever external incident which triggers it, and also gone on to recover. Suicide rates would undoubtedly increase and many of them would be as an impulsive first response rather than a necessary last resort.

Then there's the notion that we're needed as "workers", as if the expendability of the working classes have not been laid absolutely bare by the pandemic, this view also looks through the value of a human being in purely economic terms. Yes the ruling classes want workers, however if you've seen how people who are unable to work are treated as second class citizens in the UK you'd appreciate that death on demand, coupled with the already existing dearth of quality public services and their continued defunding, would be absolutely beneficial to those with power to tacitly nudge economically burdensome individuals towards death. We've already seen an increase in suicide rates due to our punitive policies around welfare benefits for example, we have an embarrassingly poor mental health provision, we have a crisis in social care and we treat our elderly appallingly in order to Balance Muh Books, we have a government which implements policies which are drivers towards suicide. In no way would it be more beneficial for society as a whole to implement a system where the solution to societal problems is a quick death.

 

[Crazy4u]

If by "assisted suicide" you mean death on demand, no questions asked, then you're absolutely wrong.

A not insignificant number of failed suicide attempts go on to recover. There is literally a recovery section on here where people have decided to give life another go. Death on demand would have resulted in their suicide, as it would many people who have been temporarily suicidal due to grief, separation, job loss, whatever external incident which triggers it, and also gone on to recover. Suicide rates would undoubtedly increase and many of them would be as an impulsive first response rather than a necessary last resort.

Then there's the notion that we're needed as "workers", as if the expendability of the working classes have not been laid absolutely bare by the pandemic, this view also looks through the value of a human being in purely economic terms. Yes the ruling classes want workers, however if you've seen how people who are unable to work are treated as second class citizens in the UK you'd appreciate that death on demand, coupled with the already existing dearth of quality public services and their continued defunding, would be absolutely beneficial to those with power to tacitly nudge economically burdensome individuals towards death. We've already seen an increase in suicide rates due to our punitive policies around welfare benefits for example, we have an embarrassingly poor mental health provision, we have a crisis in social care and we treat our elderly appallingly in order to Balance Muh Books, we have a government which implements policies which are drivers towards suicide. In no way would it be more beneficial for society as a whole to implement a system where the solution to societal problems is a quick death.

my definition of assisted suicide is to allow anyone to apply for it at free or very affordable rate. The agency must ask the suicidal if there is anything they can do to keep them alive and if they are 100% sure of their decision. If for example, the reason for suicide is possible eviction, I believe the right thing to do is to raise funds to keep the person alive. However, if the suicidal refuses help and insists on suicide, they should get assisted suicide. No shame, no stigma.

I also believe that many suicidal people want to recover and I agree with you that some people can be saved. Unfortunately, the society and the system we live in don't want to help them recover. They don't want to prevent suicide. Yes, assisted suicide would make them die and it is unfortunate, but they shouldn't have to stay alive and suffer.

To be clear: the worker view is not how I think about human life. it is the reality of human life in today's economy and society.

 

[ceserasera]

im suicidal and support everyone's autonomy regarding their own mortality but the inner sociologist in me worries about the consequences of the state actively supporting suicide. on the flip side of course the state shouldn't be punitive regarding it and it's also true that they create push factors that lead to it. but even the slippery slope of state sanctioned death aside, it would further enhance the toxic climate of individual responsibility towards the main drivers of suicide which are really the failure of our environment. i worry that it further removes the pressure/responsibility of society as a whole to create an environment whereby we aim to improve the lives of the vulnerable and suicidal because society in essence would be offering a way out of these driving issues of poor quality of life (via suicide) in lieu of changes to qualify of life itself.

It's a slippery slope to eugenics. What's to stop people deemed 'undesirable' by the state then being killed in a state sanctioned way. Should be avoided entirely.

 

[Chinaski]

my definition of assisted suicide is to allow anyone to apply for it at free or very affordable rate. The agency must ask the suicidal if there is anything they can do to keep them alive and if they are 100% sure of their decision. If for example, the reason for suicide is possible eviction, I believe the right thing to do is to raise funds to keep the person alive. However, if the suicidal refuses help and insists on suicide, they should get assisted suicide. No shame, no stigma.

I also believe that many suicidal people want to recover and I agree with you that some people can be saved. Unfortunately, the society and the system we live in don't want to help them recover. They don't want to prevent suicide. Yes, assisted suicide would make them die and it is unfortunate, but they shouldn't have to stay alive and suffer.

To be clear: the worker view is not how I think about human life. it is the reality of human life in today's economy and society. I would probably stay alive for at least 20 years if financial and health issues were not significant. This is one of my main reasons to ctb.

I don't think eviction, essentially homelessness, is something which should be resolved by suicide in any instance and this kind of illustrates my point, in thst those who will seek such a drastic and final measure will be those amongst the lower classes. I doubt there will be many millionaires queuing up to be injected with death, however those with the precarity of living the working classes are subject to, such as eviction, will be. I'd personally prefer to focus political energy on increasing the rights of tenants and diminishing the power of private landlords, a government policy for the mass building of council houses, as proposed in the last two Labour manifestos, rather than pretend the solution to the problems of precarious housing is actual *death* just because l feel presently unable to kill myself.

The working classes are only one injury or illness away from being considered economically burdensome to the ruling classes. We've just seen our government talk about the working classes in the context of the pandemic in terms like "let the bodies pile high" while our servile media have been very keen on prioritising the need for economic stability over the lives of our loved ones. We do not live in a society fit for "euthanasia for all" and until we do l can't support thus fanciful and immature notion.

HHaving said all that, we're probably not far from disagreement in terms of our final point in that l also believe current euthanasia/maid criteria is too narrow and needs to be significantly widened, and further l believe the prohibitive costs should be abolished and state funding for those who are eligible. Access to dignified death for those who meet the criteria in its current form is the privilege of those wealthy enough to access it, and this is fundamentally wrong.

 

[noname223]

If by "assisted suicide" you mean death on demand, no questions asked, then you're absolutely wrong.

A not insignificant number of failed suicide attempts go on to recover. There is literally a recovery section on here where people have decided to give life another go. Death on demand would have resulted in their suicide, as it would many people who have been temporarily suicidal due to grief, separation, job loss, whatever external incident which triggers it, and also gone on to recover. Suicide rates would undoubtedly increase and many of them would be as an impulsive first response rather than a necessary last resort.

Then there's the notion that we're needed as "workers", as if the expendability of the working classes have not been laid absolutely bare by the pandemic, this view also looks through the value of a human being in purely economic terms. Yes the ruling classes want workers, however if you've seen how people who are unable to work are treated as second class citizens in the UK you'd appreciate that death on demand, coupled with the already existing dearth of quality public services and their continued defunding, would be absolutely beneficial to those with power to tacitly nudge economically burdensome individuals towards death. We've already seen an increase in suicide rates due to our punitive policies around welfare benefits for example, we have an embarrassingly poor mental health provision, we have a crisis in social care and we treat our elderly appallingly in order to Balance Muh Books, we have a government which implements policies which are drivers towards suicide. In no way would it be more beneficial for society as a whole to implement a system where the solution to societal problems is a quick death.

Sorry but in my opinion you are wrong in this case.

First of all assisted suicide would not be accessible for everyone. I think in every country which has pro-choice laws there is an assessment whether the wish is persistent. People could not commit suicide impulsively so this comparison you draw is wrong. Moreover in most or all country where assisted suicide is legal the price for it is ridiculous expensive. So no this is not discrimination against poor people who have no way out of their misery. It is rather the contrary. The rich have an easy and dignified way out and the poor have to jump in front of trains or hang themselves as some sort of criminal etc. This is simply the current state of assisted suicide where it is allowed.

Recently I wondered how liberal assisted suicide laws affects suicide rates. I was not sure about it and made a research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26437189/
In this study they say the US assisted suicide laws are associated with an increase of 6,3% in total of all suicides. To be honest this is not really way more. I really doubt this notion suicide would become an easy way out. I really wonder that there are even that many people who support that claim despite the fact my whole personal experience of suicidality gives me completely another impression of it.

Moreover I think the notion that the rich want that the poor people ctb is quite absurd. I never heard that neoliberal countries havies more liberal assisted suicide policies. It is quite the opposite. Many religious parties believe that you are the only one who is responsible for your own happiness. This belief which comes from the puritans. And these relgious people are the one's who are the biggest enemy of liberal assisted suicide laws. Most of these parties don't give a fuck about poor people. I would know many politicians in my country who would fit in this category. I have the feeling they feel superior not only in their economical strength they also have to feeling the poor people have to obey to them and force them their will.

 

[Chinaski]

Sorry but in my opinion you wrong in this case.

First of all assisted suicide would not be accessible for everyone. I think in every country which has pro-choice laws there is an assessment whether the wish is persistent. People could not commit suicide impulsively so this comparison you draw is wrong. Moreover in most or all country where assisted suicide is legal the price for it is ridiculous expensive. So no this is not discrimination against poor people who have no way out of their misery. It is rather the contrary. The rich have an easy and dignified way out and the poor have to jump in front of trains or hang themselves as some sort of criminal etc. This is simply the current state of assisted suicide where it is allowed.

Recently I wondered how liberal assisted suicide laws affects suicide rates. I was not sure about it and made a research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26437189/
In this study they say the US assisted suicide laws are associated with an increase of 6,3% in total of all suicides. To be honest this is not really way more. I really doubt this notion suicide would become an easy way out. I really wonder that there are even that many people who support that claim despite the fact my whole personal experience of suicidality gives me completely another impression of it.

I did say in the first line of my post "if you mean assisted suicide you mean death on demand...", which is quite different to the widening of the existing criteria to access euthanasia.

Ultimately this chat is done seven or eight times a day on here, by people who imo are viewing it through their own prism of being unable to kill themselves at present. I understand this feeling, but whatever the outcome of these discussions nobody is going to get their peaceful pill anytime soon.

I also notice how these threads ultimately conclude in an agreement, that yes MAID/euthanasia should be more accessible - l too agree with this. However few people seem to want to draw where that qualifying line is, beyond "include people like me, with my very specific problem". It's a pointless, circular chat of no consequence - discussing this issue so frequently on this website is not going to shift the dial towards anyone's peaceful death, in terms of political agitation it has about as much value as attempting to kick-start a revolution by reading Capital to a dog.

(also no need to apologise for disagreeing with me, if everyone on here did that it'd require its own megathread)

 

[noname223]

I did say in the first line of my post "if you mean assisted suicide you mean death on demand...", which is quite different to the widening of the existing criteria to access euthanasia.

Ultimately this chat is done seven or eight times a day on here, by people who imo are viewing it through their own prism of being unable to kill themselves at present. I understand this feeling, but whatever the outcome of these discussions nobody is going to get their peaceful pill anytime soon.

I also notice how these threads ultimately conclude in an agreement, that yes MAID/euthanasia should be more accessible - l too agree with this. However few people seem to want to draw where that qualifying line is, beyond "include people like me, with my very specific problem". It's a pointless, circular chat of no consequence - discussing this issue so frequently on this website is not going to shift the dial towards anyone's peaceful death, in terms of political agitation it has about as much value as attempting to kick-start a revolution by reading Capital to a dog.

(also no need to apologise for disagreeing with me, if everyone on here did that it'd require its own megathread)

I was not sure about the defintion of death on demand. Moreover I think talking about assisted suicide can change things. A former member of SS when it was on reddit was Adam Maier Clayton. He was a right to die activist. He raised a lot of awareness to this issue. In my country the highest court ruled in favor of liberal assisted suicide laws. The highest judge talked to people who were experiencing severe suicidality. This forum has 6 milliion views per month. If only a very small percentage of them feel empowered to speak openly about their right to die they can change things. Instead of ctb immediately they can raise awareness for this topic and give their life a meaning by doing that.