Who should be eligable for euthenasia?

[3/4Dead]

In part asking because I need some Ideas for a uni writing project but also simply curious. Give me what you think the appropriate perameters for acceptable suicide should be. Do we limit it from people with mental health struggles or..?

 

[divinemistress36]

People with treatment resistant mental illness should qualify and those with unbearable conditions

 

[AnotherSadDay]

Well, the answer depends of you are talking about euthanasia where someone else kill you (doctor injects you a drug) or assisted suicide (you take the drug that kills you, but it could be prescribed by someone)

For euthanasia I would allowed it to people with terminal condition, unbereable pain or people with cronic disease that dont allowed them to have the quality of life they expect.

For assisted suicide I wouldnt put any restriction except for age. I would define the minimum age as half the life expectancy of the country of origin of the person. For example, if the life expectancy of your country is 70 years, I would define that you must have 35 years to be accepted to make an assisted suicide.

 

[Languish]

The chronically, unbearably ill, and those who are of a certain age, and have wished for death long enough, without any solution ever managing to be found that could make them feel as if they could enjoy/value life. Also those 18 and older. Preferably 21 and older.

 

[Phosphorous 4]

Me

 

[dontwakemeup]

In college I've always wrote papers regarding this topic. This was always my response:
-People minimum age 40 with 2 psychiatrist signing off. Any reason is ok. They have to been on medication and exacerbated all recommendations
-Those with chronic debilitating illnesses
-Those living with chronic pain

Please be the voice for us! Best wishes on your paper!!

 

[chocolocothechocobo]

anyone that has the mental capacity to make an informed decision.
for the chronically and mentally ill I would like to point out that the access to medication and therapy as well as alternative treatment options should be easier than the access to euthanasia and financial burden should never be the reason someone takes this route, but that would require systemic changes I highly doubt will happen in the near future.

 

[avoid]

Maybe this thread will be of help.

The Pro-Choice Spectrum: A matter of life and death

The various ideas people have about 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life' views have tended to sharply divide this community at times, though fortunately we remain civil. I had the idea of making a graph which I believe includes an approximation of all possible perspectives on this issue. This is partly a...

sanctioned-suicide.net

 

[roommate]

Have you looked up the process of how Switserland and the Netherlands are doing it?
I kind of comply in a way with the process of the Netherlands, some people actually cure from their suicidal ideations during the process.
I just don't want to hang on of a process that fully relies on what the doctors want to do.
But I feel like a doctor should be able to back out of it when it has a bad gut feeling.
Euthenasia is also free within the good insurance system.

I think if it's open for everyone to decide there are going to be a lot of impulsive (and unwanted) deaths.
That's why I think there should be a process.

There should be looking into more options though.
People will still do a suicide attempt of their own if they get declined from the euthenasia proces.

This video with English subtitle can give you some insight of some more options of people in the Netherlands:

 

[cait_sith]

How I would do it:
Everyone with an incurable disease, both mental and physical ones, that can prove a history of having exhausted a sufficient amount of curing attempts, should have immediate access to euthanasia.

People who can't prove any disease and are over the age of 25 should also have the right to have access to Nembutal, but they have to apply for it and only receive it after a ~1-year-waiting-period to make sure they don't choose hastily and they will be given resources during that year.

 

[WatchmeBurn]

People with incurable and unbearable suffering who are over the age of 18.

Under-18 only for people with terminal illnesses who are expected to die soon (idk the exact prognosis that'd qualify off the top of my head) and who pass Gillick Competence.

 

[Ligottian]

Lots of thoughtful replies... There is such a broad spectrum of opinion. I wouldn't want it legal for the 15 year old distraught over the breakup of a teenage flirtation. On the other hand, I lean towards "on demand" for any adult, after a consultation and waiting period. Some people are just tired of living even if they don't have the papers to prove it.

 

[milkteacrown]

(Government) sanctioned suicide is a thorny subject because what the government deems acceptable parameters for someone to put themselves to death is very different from governments simply turning a blind eye to suicide. I believe programs like MAID, for example, are problematic because its user base consists primarily of poor people who haven't exhausted their options for treatment and who do have manageable conditions but who aren't receiving enough help. On the other hand, I'm against the fact that the least painful and most peaceful methods of suicide are gatekept from the public in general. It's complicated and I don't think there are clear-cut answers that would work ethically in all scenarios.

 

[ChildrensITV]

Me

 

[seekingnothingness]

I think any adult with the mental faculty to make decisions should be able to decide to die peacefully whenever they want, regardless of physical or mental health. Why would I be able to decide if someone else gets to die peacefully based on what I perceive their health to be or some other criteria?

A little discouraged by some answers because if legislation for euthanasia was to pass in my country it would for sure be more restrictive than the previling opinion in sasu.

 

[FuneralCry]

It needs to be avaliable, it needs to be accessible for me to find peace from the cruelty and suffering of existing, the fact that I cannot just have that option even know this existence was so tragically imposed is just so cruel and horrible to me, I'd always prefer to not exist than be conscious suffering all for the sake of it in this existence where there is no limit as to how much agony one can feel just to decay and die anyway. To me existing really is just waiting to die so I should be able to have the option to painlessly free myself from this existence I never would have chosen with no risks of trying to die going wrong whenever I wish to. To me existence really is an abomination that just causes suffering all for the sake of it and problems there were never a need for, non-existence really is all that's positive and desirable for me, I just want to never suffer ever again, it's horrific to me how a human can suffer for so long in this existence just to be tortured by old age, I'll always see existence as the most torturous, futile burden.

 

[Namelesa]

Anyone no matter what as we were forced into this life so it's fair for anyone to quit it early. There shouldn't be any limits for euthanasia.

 

[onmywaytothebusstop]

In part asking because I need some Ideas for a uni writing project but also simply curious. Give me what you think the appropriate perameters for acceptable suicide should be. Do we limit it from people with mental health struggles or..?

Everyone

 

[SilentSadness]

Anyone who is capable of making such a decision, any other answer is incorrect since suicide is a human right similar to the right to life and is inalienable. Restricting it to people with illnesses or conditions is a disaster since you would have to prove you have that condition, opening you up to mountains of abuse. People often say high numbers like "50" or "25", they shouldn't be taken seriously though since they're only saying that because they're over that age. I don't understand the need to gatekeep and restrict assisted suicide, yes some safeguards should be in place but age or illness restrictions are just pro-life discrimination rather than safeguards.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

We all had the right and ability to move away from extreme suffering or unbearable pain. But they stole those rights by making anyone helping u with suicide a crime and by making Nembutal, suicide booths crimes etc....

Anybody who is suffering extremely can't voluntarily pay someone else to free them from their pain : there is no justification only pure evil control of others

This hell was imposed on everyone

People don't get in it, ever since guns were invented we could hire someone to shoot us painlessly . But can I hire someone to shoot me ? No . Not because there wouldn't be people willing to do it if I paid them .no it's because the monsters made that a crime

 

[ringo99]

Anyone who's 18 and older and clear minded about their decision to ctb

 

[Hotsackage]

I donno, there is no answer to this. From a scientific point of view, anyone who is not able to live the quality of life they wanna live, and through any therapeutic treatmenr there is no relief, then ya, a case can made.

 

[WanderingTiger]

In my country, euthanasia is entirely prohibited for individuals, regardless of the circumstances. Nevertheless, there is ongoing debate surrounding the topic, particularly concerning individuals who are suicidal or suffer from mental disorders. Many people argue that those in such conditions lack the mental capacity to make informed choices and are disconnected from reality. From my perspective, euthanasia should be accessible to anyone experiencing suffering, regardless of its nature. Contrary to the beliefs held by traditionalists, mental health conditions can inflict profound and seemingly endless pain. For instance, individuals with eating disorders may endure a life that feels utterly inhumane.

These conditions can compel individuals to make choices they would not otherwise consider, leading to actions they may deeply regret later. For example, a person with severe schizophrenia might harm someone during a psychotic episode and then have to grapple with the consequences of that action, despite having no culpability for their condition. This only serves to increase their suffering, as they face societal judgment and stigma, often feeling isolated from the world. I have observed a psychiatric clinic in my city and reflected on the humanity of all individuals, regardless of their conditions. It seems illogical to perpetuate discrimination against those who do not conform to societal norms.

I believe that all forms of suffering are valid and real, and it is essential for society to understand and empathise with this reality. Euthanasia should be considered as a compassionate option for those enduring unbearable pain, irrespective of the source of their suffering. I hope I have conveyed my thoughts and emotions on this matter clearly, as I find it challenging to express myself on such a sensitive topic. Thank you to anyone who has taken the time to read this

 

[MatrixPrisoner]

Anyone that simply does not want to live. No need to overcomplicate this thesis.

 

[sevennn]

me xD !!

 

[ShatteredSerenity]

If you try to codify into law euthanasia regulations governing everyone who might become eligible for euthanasia, you'll run into the same problem they did with US tax laws because there are so many people (335 million) with so many different circumstances and needs. The current US tax code is 2,600 pages which is totally unfriendly to anyone who needs to use it.

Euthanasia is simpler than taxes, so it wouldn't be quite as long, but it would still be complex with a lot of inclusions, exclusions, exceptions, and alternatives. I think that's why most of these euthanasia laws worldwide have left the details for doctors to decide.

One alternative would be to convene tribunals consisting of medical, legal, and ethics experts to adjudicate requests for euthanasia on a case by case basis. This would be time consuming and costly, so simpler cases might be approved by an expedited legal pathway, but more complex cases could be heard by a panel of experts with deep, specialized knowledge.

It would be a open question who would write the rules and procedures of the tribunals, and it would make a huge difference if it went through the legislative vs executive branch. Anything encoded in law would be more conservative and difficult to change, but if significant parts were implemented as administrative rules enacted by the executive branch it would be much easier to pass more progressive euthanasia regulations.

 

[wiggy]

Anyone who isn't actively undergoing psychosis.

 

[3/4Dead]

Thanks for all the great replies, you guys are awesome and my project is going very well. congrats you're in an undergrad research project if you respond to this thread lmao. no names or anything of course, just mentioning some of the stuff i'm seeing here.

Hey if anyone is familiar with deontology I'd love to hear how you feel this ties into ethical obligation to preserve human life, yo

In college I've always wrote papers regarding this topic. This was always my response:
-People minimum age 40 with 2 psychiatrist signing off. Any reason is ok. They have to been on medication and exacerbated all recommendations
-Those with chronic debilitating illnesses
-Those living with chronic pain

Please be the voice for us! Best wishes on your paper!!

Interesting! Thanks for your response and well wishes =]

Have you looked up the process of how Switserland and the Netherlands are doing it?
I kind of comply in a way with the process of the Netherlands, some people actually cure from their suicidal ideations during the process.
I just don't want to hang on of a process that fully relies on what the doctors want to do.
But I feel like a doctor should be able to back out of it when it has a bad gut feeling.
Euthenasia is also free within the good insurance system.

I think if it's open for everyone to decide there are going to be a lot of impulsive (and unwanted) deaths.
That's why I think there should be a process.

There should be looking into more options though.
People will still do a suicide attempt of their own if they get declined from the euthenasia proces.

This video with English subtitle can give you some insight of some more options of people in the Netherlands:

I must admit im not very well read on much of anything in other countries stupid, stupid american so I'll definetly watch this video and look into more of the regulations in Switserland and the Netherlands, hadn't even thought to check in where it's legal lol, thanks!

Lots of thoughtful replies... There is such a broad spectrum of opinion. I wouldn't want it legal for the 15 year old distraught over the breakup of a teenage flirtation. On the other hand, I lean towards "on demand" for any adult, after a consultation and waiting period. Some people are just tired of living even if they don't have the papers to prove it.

Great replies, for sure. I'm kind of in the same boat about my concerns for impulse decisons so a blanket "everybody gets it" doesn't quite feel like the right answer but neither does over-regulation.

Anyone who is capable of making such a decision, any other answer is incorrect since suicide is a human right similar to the right to life and is inalienable. Restricting it to people with illnesses or conditions is a disaster since you would have to prove you have that condition, opening you up to mountains of abuse. People often say high numbers like "50" or "25", they shouldn't be taken seriously though since they're only saying that because they're over that age. I don't understand the need to gatekeep and restrict assisted suicide, yes some safeguards should be in place but age or illness restrictions are just pro-life discrimination rather than safeguards.

Definetly agree with a lot of this -- I think when people put age minimums that are super high numbers like you said they're already over that age and it certainly shifts their judgement about it.

In my country, euthanasia is entirely prohibited for individuals, regardless of the circumstances. Nevertheless, there is ongoing debate surrounding the topic, particularly concerning individuals who are suicidal or suffer from mental disorders. Many people argue that those in such conditions lack the mental capacity to make informed choices and are disconnected from reality. From my perspective, euthanasia should be accessible to anyone experiencing suffering, regardless of its nature. Contrary to the beliefs held by traditionalists, mental health conditions can inflict profound and seemingly endless pain. For instance, individuals with eating disorders may endure a life that feels utterly inhumane.

These conditions can compel individuals to make choices they would not otherwise consider, leading to actions they may deeply regret later. For example, a person with severe schizophrenia might harm someone during a psychotic episode and then have to grapple with the consequences of that action, despite having no culpability for their condition. This only serves to increase their suffering, as they face societal judgment and stigma, often feeling isolated from the world. I have observed a psychiatric clinic in my city and reflected on the humanity of all individuals, regardless of their conditions. It seems illogical to perpetuate discrimination against those who do not conform to societal norms.

I believe that all forms of suffering are valid and real, and it is essential for society to understand and empathise with this reality. Euthanasia should be considered as a compassionate option for those enduring unbearable pain, irrespective of the source of their suffering. I hope I have conveyed my thoughts and emotions on this matter clearly, as I find it challenging to express myself on such a sensitive topic. Thank you to anyone who has taken the time to read this

I wish i kinda had more to say but I def wanted to acknowledge that I saw this and say thanks for your reply this was very interesting!

 

[roommate]

There are also some euthenasia stories in dutch, which you can pull through the translator I can share in a DM if you want.
For each story i want one bottle of N /sarcasm

 

[Forever Sleep]

- Over the age of 18, unless there are debilitating health issues- in which case- child, doctors and parents need to agree.

- So long as the person can demonstrate mental capacity to make such a decision, I think it should be available to all adults with the priviso of:

- A thorough assessment where they can discuss all their available options, possible support services they may not have considered. The people assessing them would need to be well informed about all services available eg. healthcare, mental wellness, financial aid, life coaches- whatever might be relevant to them IF they choose to make use of those services. (I don't think they should be forced to.)

- A six month waiting period to deter impulsive attempts and to allow time for treatments to work. (Where accepted.)

- I think families and loved ones ought to be informed of the decision. We can't hope for things to change unless the entire population starts to embrace this. Also, just practically speaking, the first 18 year old that sneaks off to get a 'peaceful pill' via their government without their parents knowledge could well lead to riots and the whole bill being overturned.

-It would also mean that loved ones could be supported themselves throughout the process and, those that wanted to could donate their organs.