Discussion Would euthanasia, right-to-die, death with dignity be legal if it was more profitable than treatment of symptoms and prolonging on life?

[TAW122]

I had an interesting thought that just came to mind with respect to the legalization of voluntary euthanasia, assisted-suicide, euthanasia, death with dignity, and right to die laws. I am thinking that from an economical standpoint, perhaps assisted suicide, and other measures (sometimes even passive euthanasia) is forbidden, outlawed, banned, illegal in many states in the US (and many other countries around the world) is simply because of money (along with other reasons and causes). In the current medical system, hospitals and the medical-industrial complex has more to gain for keeping a patient alive and continuously treating said patient's illness rather than permanently curing it or finding a permanent solution. It also fuels big-pharma and what not (but that's another story for another time).

Therefore, putting aside the other reasons (religion, ethics, and humanism), suppose if someday, or in such circumstances where the process and procedure of euthanasia is more profitable in the US rather than hospice, long term care, and/or being alive, would there be a shift in laws and/or more doctors allowing patients a legal, dignified exit? In other words, let's say that in 20-30 years, that the current system of the medical industry (medication and treatment over cure) is unsustainable and that it is more profitable for someone to die than to be treated, would more legislation be geared towards allowing/legalizing euthanasia and death with dignity, versus just keeping someone alive until their natural end?

This is of course putting aside other factors and reasons and just focusing on the economic aspect of this. I know that not all countries have a profit motive, so this is leaning more towards the US, where healthcare is still heavily privatized and for profit along with capitalistic incentives.

 

[AnxietyAttack44]

I think it would be considered more often. There would be groups of people who will most likely fight it tho as its not ethical in their eyes.

 

[SpottedPanda]

It seems like a bit of a non issue, but I only say that because it's already not expensive to end someone's life, whereas fifty years or however long somebody lives worth of medical bills and the like is really expensive, though that's not taking into account what someone might contribute to the economy through wages, purchasing et cetera

 

[shipwreck]

Hard to see how assisted suicide could be profitable, either to a purveyor of services or to society as a whole: the death of a consumer shrinks the economy.

Plus there's not lot of repeat business...

 

[AcornUnderground]

I had an interesting thought that just came to mind with respect to the legalization of voluntary euthanasia, assisted-suicide, euthanasia, death with dignity, and right to die laws. I am thinking that from an economical standpoint, perhaps assisted suicide, and other measures (sometimes even passive euthanasia) is forbidden, outlawed, banned, illegal in many states in the US (and many other countries around the world) is simply because of money (along with other reasons and causes).

Therefore, putting aside the other reasons (religion, ethics, and humanism), suppose if someday, or in such circumstances where the process and procedure of euthanasia is more profitable in the US rather than hospice, long term care, and/or being alive, would there be a shift in laws and/or more doctors allowing patients a legal, dignified exit? In other words, let's say that in 20-30 years, that the current system of the medical industry (medication and treatment over cure) is unsustainable and that it is more profitable for someone to die than to be treated, would more legislation be geared towards allowing/legalizing euthanasia and death with dignity, versus just keeping someone alive until their natural end?

This is of course putting aside other factors and reasons and just focusing on the economic aspect of this. I know that not all countries have a profit motive, so this is leaning more towards the US, where healthcare is still heavily privatized and for profit along with capitalistic incentives.

An interesting trend in the few US States that have Death with Dignity laws allowing assisted suicide: some patients have come forward very infuriated that, in their terminally ill cases, their insurance will deny payment for drugs that may prolong their life, but offer to pay for the assisted suicide drugs.

I honestly think that prolonging human life in hopeless situations is less about money and more about the general human spirit to preservere, particularly in medicine. The unfortunate goal of medicine, especially in America, is to always try and fix the patient. Always go for quantity, not quality of life.

I saw this personally with my mother who had a glioblastoma brain tumor, with 0% chance of living more than a year and no health insurance. They did brain surgery, chemo and radiation on her - more than $500k in medical bills -well aware that they would likely be unpaid. She died in 10 months.The doctors that treated her considered this a success.

 

[Shinbu]

If AI took over the economy, will these things be more easier to legalize?.

 

[Thirdtimesthecharm]

It would be. All they care about is money. To them we're just money printing machines and every machine that destroys itself is a loss of potential money made to fuel their economy. That's the only reason suicide prevention exists on an institutional level; to minimise loss of money. There is no empathy in it and thats what most don't seem to realise.

 

[TAW122]

I think it would be considered more often. There would be groups of people who will most likely fight it tho as its not ethical in their eyes.

Sadly, that will always be true for as long as there are pro-lifers, anti-choicers roaming about in this world.

It seems like a bit of a non issue, but I only say that because it's already not expensive to end someone's life, whereas fifty years or however long somebody lives worth of medical bills and the like is really expensive, though that's not taking into account what someone might contribute to the economy through wages, purchasing et cetera

That's interesting, but what about someone who doesn't have many assets (or none) and/or money and just rely on handouts and only consume instead of produce?

Also, I think that with a lengthy process, with a waiting period, cool-off period (prevent impulse decisions), and screenings, vettings, checks, and mandatory euthanasia counseling session (to help the patient know and acknowledge that he/she is making a permanent decision) as well as releasing liability from the doctors and medical professionals who proceed (which is why the screening, consent, and waiting period along with other processes are put in place), then funeral and post-mortem arrangements to be made, I could see there are multiple areas where profit is possible. Furthermore, there could be an overseeing organization that watches over the doctors and medical professionals who perform these to ensure that all ethical guidelines are being followed, the patient is treated with the most utmost dignity, and are in compliance with all applicable laws (assuming the legalization of such procedures and practices). This panel or watchdog group can keep any bad actors out and make sure the doctors are doing the right thing.

An interesting trend in the few US States that have Death with Dignity laws allowing assisted suicide: some patients have come forward very infuriated that, in their terminally ill cases, their insurance will deny payment for drugs that may prolong their life, but offer to pay for the assisted suicide drugs.

I honestly think that prolonging human life in hopeless situations is less about money and more about the general human spirit to preservere, particularly in medicine. The unfortunate goal of medicine, especially in America, is to always try and fix the patient. Always go for quantity, not quality of life.

I saw this personally with my mother who had a glioblastoma brain tumor, with 0% chance of living more than a year and no health insurance. They did brain surgery, chemo and radiation on her - more than $500k in medical bills -well aware that they would likely be unpaid. She died in 10 months.The doctors that treated her considered this a success.

Sorry to hear about your mother and shame on those doctors for considering themselves as doing a good service (probably partly to minimize their own guilt).

If AI took over the economy, will these things be more easier to legalize?.

That might be as AI (assuming it's programmed and learned to be logical, as devoid of emotion as possible) is generally more logical and rational. However, there may also be other problems such as human rights abuse and other gray areas, so it's not perfect but certainly an interesting concept.

 

[EmbraceOfTheVoid]

It'd be legal without a doubt if it was more profitable. Our world runs on money and there are more than enough examples where money takes precedent over the well being of people or animals. Look at things like factory farming, deforestation, human rights violations and bribes just to have the World Cup in Qatar, etc. Psychiatry for instance would be offering things like MDMA therapy to cure things like trauma if it was profitable but it's not worth it when Big Pharma can keep feeding you pseudo-scientific drugs that force you to keep coming back since they'll claim you haven't found "the right one" yet.

"The pressure to reduce health care costs is aimed only at the treatment of real diseases. There is no pressure to reduce the costs of treating fictitious diseases. On the contrary, there is pressure to define ever more types of undesirable behaviors as mental disorders or addictions and to spend ever more tax dollars on developing new psychiatric diagnoses and facilities for storing and treating the victims of such diseases, whose members now include alcoholics, drug abusers, smokers, overeaters, self-starvers, gamblers, etc."
― Thomas Stephen Szasz, Cruel Compassion: Psychiatric Control of Society's Unwanted

 

[Darksektori]

Its possible but unfortunately that's not how the system works. Unfortunately there's more money to be made keeping someone alive as long as possible. Chemotherapy for example, if someone has terminal cancer and they go into remission its because of chemotherapy if they die during treatment it was the Cancer's fault. It's never considered that the Chemotherapy completely destroyed the person's immune system making it impossible for it mobilize to try fighting it. And yes contrary to popular belief your immune system Is designed to fight cancer, the problem is time it takes time for the immune system to figure out how to kill it and unfortunately time is not on a cancer patient's side usually. I hope down the road that they perfect immunotherapy treatments because its shown alot of promise, no chemicals to destroy you ability to fight back but to give these people a fighting chance at least. Chances are I won't be around to see that, but that's would be something I would like to have happen.

 

[Bct]

Most likely they'll try to legalize it, despite moral/religion/etc. concerns. Honestly, I don't think there's a way to make it more profitable than keeping people alive, as there can be repeat business.

 

[TAW122]

Most likely they'll try to legalize it, despite moral/religion/etc. concerns. Honestly, I don't think there's a way to make it more profitable than keeping people alive, as there can be repeat business.

Maybe not, but suppose if they have panels, 3rd party organizations that act as an overseer, watchdog, and vetter/screener to make sure both the patient and the doctor are following proper procedure, proper protocol, and more. Also, maybe once it's legalized, there could be right-to-die lawyers and attorneys that specialize in such cases. There are also clauses that prohibit third parties from trying to benefit financially, politically, or personally from someone else's tragedy.

 

[IrRegularjoe]

I don't think it has anything to do with money. I think it has to do with ignorance. They wouldn't know why a person would want assisted suicide until they were sick themselves. Some people are clouded in their own stupid reality. Then it causes problems for people who actually need the freedom.

 

[2020wanderlust]

New protest that needs to happen haha.
This world is overpopulated and by 2050 things will be a lot worse, people that want to leave and have been assessed properly should be able to.. but it won't happen in my lifetime

 

[terry_a_davis]

I don't think so no.

 

[TAW122]

I don't think it has anything to do with money. I think it has to do with ignorance. They wouldn't know why a person would want assisted suicide until they were sick themselves. Some people are clouded in their own stupid reality. Then it causes problems for people who actually need the freedom.

Yes, ignorance is a big factor that cannot be ignored and the vast majority of people, the masses, the general population of the world is like that. Then there are the willfully ignorant, the ones who refuse to accept real reality (the world outside of their own bubble, their own individual lives). I don't remember who said this in the past, but I do recall that sometimes a policy is made that benefits or doesn't affect the vast majority of people, but there will always be the small amount of people in the world that are negatively impacted and they just get swept under the rug. So as far as euthanasia and right to die, I believe that we are the vast minority (even smaller fraction of people who do support the right to die and similar movements), so we are essentially shafted and ignored by society at large and thrown under the bus (no pun intended) when it comes to having policy that benefits us.

New protest that needs to happen haha.
This world is overpopulated and by 2050 things will be a lot worse, people that want to leave and have been assessed properly should be able to.. but it won't happen in my lifetime

Yes, this is something I am upset about too. I'm a millennial and I'm almost 30 years of age, so by then, I'd be close to 60 (assuming that the world didn't implode or enough unrest causing civil society and/or the world we know to go to shit by then) and that's a long three decades to wait. With the recent world events and mainly the pandemic going on, it seems like a lot of things have been put on hold, including the fight towards legalizing death with dignity in more states. We had made good progress in 2019, but 2020 things have grinded to a halt. I too wished that within a few decades that I would be able to see more states or more countries that would allow death with dignity and not only limited to terminally ill patients.