I saw there is already a thread about it. But I already worked on this one. Sorry for that. It will be a very long one.
Today I read of this guy in a German newsmagazine. Then I read the New York Times article.
www.nytimes.com
I think the notion of mandatory assisted suicide is pure poison and could led to genocide in fact that would be mass-murder.
I think his suggestions were horrible and completely insane. However I realized how the media reports about this issue. I barely read any balanced articles about assisted suicide in general. In my country the jurisdiction is far more progressive than the media elites. I have the feeling the media is pretty paternalistic on this issue. The courts who ruled on assisted suicide as human right were more reasonable to me.
I would never support this insane idiot of professor. I would call such plans evil. However I am a little bit annoyed how this topic is approached. In Japan it seems to be even worse. Once I read a Japanese manga and it made me very angry. It called voluntary assisted suicide murder. All people who would be in favor of assisted suicide would be evil people, miserable and with the secret intent to kill vulnerable people. I wrote about this manga once sadly I cannot find it anymore. My description is rather vague. The story said that the legalisation of assisted suicide would necessarily end with pressuring old/vulnerable people to die. And in the end all people would want to commit suicide because life can be so exhaustive.
And with the story of this Yale professor the story becomes full circle.
But for me these two takes are pretty ignorant and stupid as fuck. I don't like both sides of the extreme. I don't want that assisted suicide becomes mandatory for anyone. Moreover I would not say that assisted sucide is inherently evil and that it should be prohibited under any circumstances.
When I read stories like that manga or news reports like that one I get the feeling they portray it as a choice between these two extremes. Then there comes the argument well it would be a slinking/creeping process. One day we allow assisted suicide for terminally ill, the next they demand this right for mentally ill and in the future it will become mandatory.
I really hate such a dichotomy and black-white thinking. I mean there is so much nuance in that discusssion. But instead everyone talks about this insane professor who wants to murder the elderly.
For me that is nonsense. I don't know more than what I read in these two articles. It is probably concerning that he has cult status and is kind of a social media star for the bullshit he demands. However I never really heard his position unfiltered. So maybe I am biased. But what I read about his ideas was pretty stupid. Especially the part about mandatory assisted suicide.
I would prefer a balanced debate with serious arguments emphasizing the most reasonable arguments. Such a mandatory assisted suicide suggestion is clearly insane and rather distracts of a discussion with many nuances concerning an important topic.
Today I read of this guy in a German newsmagazine. Then I read the New York Times article.
A Yale Professor Suggested Mass Suicide for Old People in Japan. What Did He Mean?
Yusuke Narita says he is mainly addressing a growing effort to revamp Japan’s age-based hierarchies. Still, he has pushed the country’s hottest button.
I think the notion of mandatory assisted suicide is pure poison and could led to genocide in fact that would be mass-murder.
I think his suggestions were horrible and completely insane. However I realized how the media reports about this issue. I barely read any balanced articles about assisted suicide in general. In my country the jurisdiction is far more progressive than the media elites. I have the feeling the media is pretty paternalistic on this issue. The courts who ruled on assisted suicide as human right were more reasonable to me.
I would never support this insane idiot of professor. I would call such plans evil. However I am a little bit annoyed how this topic is approached. In Japan it seems to be even worse. Once I read a Japanese manga and it made me very angry. It called voluntary assisted suicide murder. All people who would be in favor of assisted suicide would be evil people, miserable and with the secret intent to kill vulnerable people. I wrote about this manga once sadly I cannot find it anymore. My description is rather vague. The story said that the legalisation of assisted suicide would necessarily end with pressuring old/vulnerable people to die. And in the end all people would want to commit suicide because life can be so exhaustive.
And with the story of this Yale professor the story becomes full circle.
But for me these two takes are pretty ignorant and stupid as fuck. I don't like both sides of the extreme. I don't want that assisted suicide becomes mandatory for anyone. Moreover I would not say that assisted sucide is inherently evil and that it should be prohibited under any circumstances.
When I read stories like that manga or news reports like that one I get the feeling they portray it as a choice between these two extremes. Then there comes the argument well it would be a slinking/creeping process. One day we allow assisted suicide for terminally ill, the next they demand this right for mentally ill and in the future it will become mandatory.
I really hate such a dichotomy and black-white thinking. I mean there is so much nuance in that discusssion. But instead everyone talks about this insane professor who wants to murder the elderly.
For me that is nonsense. I don't know more than what I read in these two articles. It is probably concerning that he has cult status and is kind of a social media star for the bullshit he demands. However I never really heard his position unfiltered. So maybe I am biased. But what I read about his ideas was pretty stupid. Especially the part about mandatory assisted suicide.
I would prefer a balanced debate with serious arguments emphasizing the most reasonable arguments. Such a mandatory assisted suicide suggestion is clearly insane and rather distracts of a discussion with many nuances concerning an important topic.
Last edited:
