Asking legitimately not as a joke
I fully support being able to choose to end your own life with dignity. But in Canada there were reports of people encouraging the homeless and severely ill to do it, simply because it was cheaper and easier for the institutions if these people killed themselves.
Within a capitalist society, where the lives of those who do not produce profit are not valued, it can lead to some sickening discriminatory behavior from profit-driven institutions.
within a capitalist society
Besides slavery, I cannot think of any successful societal system to date that did not prioritize rewarding the productive and/or powerful. Not saying that you’re wrong, just that it’s far from exclusive to capitalism. (The bar for “success” here being a society that exists over many generations)
Socialism and communism are specifically designed to put the needs of the people first. ‘From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.’
Socialism and communism, in theory, are structured to prioritize the needs of the people over profit or power. That slogan captures that ideal beautifully. However, history shows that the implementation of these systems falls short of their ideals. Issues like bureaucratic inefficiency, corruption, or the consolidation of power within ruling parties have led to systems that still reward the powerful or productive, just in different ways. I’d argue that the challenge isn’t the system itself but the difficulty of designing any system that fully aligns with such principles while addressing the complexities of human behavior and societal needs. Capitalism embraces it while socialism and communism pay lip service to ideals while also committing the same sins in practice. My point that it’s not exclusive to capitalism remains.
You’re comparing what corrupt communist leaders do to what capitalism does by design.
Yes, that’s what I said. I’m not defending capitalism.
You mean cronie capitalism. The Fabian Socialist were big into eugenics, remember. Straight capitalism is based on a free and open market. That’s not what anywhere has.
No one would want to. Letting capitalists run rampant (more so than they already do) would be extremely destructive for any society.
“Free and open markets” work in theory, lol.
Private ownership over the means of production and allowing people to hoard capital will ALWAYS concentrate wealth and will ALWAYS produce an oligarchy.
You just unironically made a “capitalism hasn’t actually been tried yet” post in a thread where you’re on the “communism and socialism never work” position.
The irony is delicious
I never said it’s never been tried, lol. But when the government picks winners and losers, it’s not a free market
Is there a socialist society that has failed without the US crushing it?
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution
Maybe you can’t think of them but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any.
Sources on that? Serious question
I’ve heard multiple people claiming this yet haven’t read anything about it
Did you read either article that you posted?
The first literally says there is a RISK of that happening (and the why’s of that risk being utter nonsense), yet the title sounds like doctors are just sitting and waiting with a syringe to stab any random patients that come by. It’s bullshit
The second is exactly the same with one difference: it has a link to an article talking about a SINGLE doctor at veterans affairs apparently suggesting it, and veterans affairs basically punishing the doctor for that.
So I’m sorry, but both articles make it sound like the Canadian government can’t wait o murder you while in reality there was one single doctor who didn’t follow protocol.
I’m sorry, but the argument isn’t supported by facts, this does not happen
How many of those people being encouraged are actually doing it tho? That should be the main issue, not the fact that people are encouraging them.
Nope. Bad take.
Misuse, or misjudging when to use it.
Exactly, if it’s going to be a policy it needs to have extensive safeguards. Who can make the call? Under what circumstances? What are the consequences for malpractice?
Imagine a shitty person, insurance company or hospital preferring to prematurely kill you or someone you love because it’s less effort and cheaper than trying to keep a person alive and help them recover. Because you know someday somebody will try
That’s a good reason to have a process for euthanization that is as thorough as the one for letting people die slowly by cutting off feeding tubes or machines that assist with bodily functions. Or even like the Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) choice that people can make when they are of sound mind.
It is not a good reason to ban it and make everyone else suffer by dragging out death when it is an inevitability and the person is ready to go.
For the record, I’m all for the right to medically and painlessly end one’s own life if they so choose. That said…
It could potentially be abused in situations where someone has power of attorney or some other situation where they can make medical decisions on your behalf. That seems like a pretty easy thing to guard against, though.
“Oh you’re disabled and can’t work”
Let’s make disability benefits super low, so you are unable to survive, thereby you have to “choose” euthanasia.
Current socio economic regime already works like this, at least within US and other third world locations, people are just in denial about it.
The sick and elderly may feel pressure to not be a burden to others.
Do they not already? I work out a lot to prevent myself from being a burden if I’m older
Overall yes, but that pressure might be magnitudes greater when there is “an easy way out”.
And what is wrong with that?
I’ll gladly remove myself and the burden of caring for me if it comes to an incurable illness. Better I leave my wife with more resources than drain all those and still leave.
And argon or nitrogen can easily be had at welding supply stores…
You shouldn’t draw conclusions about others from yourself.
Some people might still value what they have. And who are you to tell another what others should do with their live?
They aren’t telling other people what to do, they are in favor of having the ability to decide. Euthanasia baing illegal is deciding everyone who is terminally ill must have a slow and agonizing death.
That’s not what was written:
- What are flaws of allowing anyone to euthanize themselves?
- People might feel pressured to kill themselves.
- And what is wrong with that?
That is exactly the opposite of giving people the option to choose. It’s pushing them into a given direction.
And just for the record: I watched my Great grandma wither away in a senior home while asking to be let go. I would have gladly given her peace if it was legal. But it has to be the person’s own choice. Free from others influence and pressure.
From the perspective of someone who generally would prefer not to exist, because I don’t trust my brain to make that decision. How we perceive reality can vary incredibly from it, suicide can seem not only an appropriate response to your situation but the only way to escape it one day, only to have the next day feel nowhere near as bad. In short, requiring other people’s input and approval on your decision to die is a good thing. Medical assistance in dying SHOULD be legal and available everywhere, but it’s important to make sure it’s actually appropriate.
Good point about our perception of reality. If we have drugs available to us that can make us perceive reality as not that bad (or even good), then what if it’s just a defect in our bodies that makes us feel like life isn’t worth living? If our bodies are simply defective in producing the mood balancing hormones, then depression or other mood disorders can be treated with medicines, no different than taking a Tums when we overindulge on Thanksgiving.
The hospital industrial complex doesn’t get to make ass loads of money from keeping people alive just to suffer.
Choosing for yourself if you’re of sound mind, I have no problem with.
Others choosing for you is rife with problems. Taking out family because they don’t like you, you’re too needy for them, to get at your will, etc etc.
For assisted suicide, I think you just need to make sure it’s the only option left to stop or prevent the suffering of a person (like an incurable disease, or debilitating conditions with no cure, etc.). You also need to make sure the choice is made with enlightened consent.
To allow someone to kill someone else is another level of complexity. The processes of gathering consent, and the reasons to proceed are extremely complex to make sure the decision is taken within the bounds of actual consent, especially if the person to be killed is not conscious or in a capacity to understand.
Time, multiple checks/options to back out, and independent evaluation is the way you handle this.
Anyone can already euthanize themselves. We’re all just a helium or nitrogen tank and trash bags away from our exit stage right.
Some asshole christian would end up saving me and then I’ll be permanently brain damaged.
I’d say that’s on you, there’s more places to not be found than there are discoverable locations on the earth. Proper planning prevents poor performance and all that.
In terms of yourself, it already effectively is legal. When was the last time someone was prosecuted for attempting suicide?
that’s the problem though. people try to do it themselves and often die painfully or survive with sometimes debilitating lifelong injuries. this way, it’s on their terms but supervised by a doctor, and it’s not a violent way to go.
As a concept the idea of allowing total autonomy seems sound.
Implementing it as a practice where the government assists could see some perverse incentives to get people to kill themselves. Here’s a real example
If the system can safeguard against these, perhaps, but it isn’t a one and done safeguard but constant vigilance. Allowing others to put down people raises even more need for scrutiny.
We already have processes in place to make decisions for those that are unresponsive and on life support/feeding tubes that could be used with a few changes for similar situations involving euthanasia.
People with depression and other mental illnesses who aren’t capable of making that decision will use it. It also makes it a lot easier to argue for cutting mental healthcare and other suicide prevention measures.
Honestly as someone who’s struggled with depression for 20 years, and had a couple of attempts, the idea that the government may just decide there’s no problem with me yeeting myself is terrifying.
The problem I have is that preventing euthanasia does not mean there will be a significant effort to reduce the desire for it in the first place. If anything, I would say there are also perverse incentives (particularly in the US) for not allowing people to have that choice (also leaving isn’t really viable for many suffering either). Ideally using those choices would push a government for some changes… although I know it probably would not fix malice, greed, or incompetence etc.
Personally I would take a chance to test (physical, cheap) brain preservation if it were an option (esp. if I could set some revival conditions/scenarios). I know there would be no guarantee, though it is the tiniest step up from non-existence and I do think it should make some difference in the tone.
It’s legal in some countries, so I don’t see much risks. They rotty sure you can look up for data from Switzerland, Belgium and Netherlands
Legal does not imply moral.
Illegal does not imply immoral.
To be fair, the ethos of those countries as a whole is different from other places like the US. Some places, I think, are inherently unsafe for euthanasia.
There are quite some checks and balances in place over here (Netherlands). I have known some terminally ill people who went this route, and one it wasn’t an easy option, two people postponed or didn’t go through with it, three some people couldn’t take this option anymore because you have to arrange it in advance and they ran out of time.
If you didn’t kill yourself I’ll kill your whole family.
The decision making process could be abused for some cases, such as those that are comatose or elderly and confused. In the case of comatose or unresponsive cases we already have a process of letting them die by cutting off food or assistance with basic functions and then they have to suffer instead of being allowed to die peacefully like we have for pets.
Also there is some concern that normalizing it would increase the frequency with the assumption that doing so would be wrong. These are valid concerns and should be taken into account, but are massively outweighed by the benefits of less suffering.
I actually disagree with the idea that someone has to be massively suffering or in the process of dying to be able to end their life in a painless way. Having an incurable disease shouldn’t mean they must live long enough to suffer before being able to make a decision. I mean we can make decisions like Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) where medical staff can let someone die, but they can’t make that process quicker when it comes up because of the fear that someone might assist when they should have let the person painfully die slowly in agony instead.
There are valid concerns, but they are massively overblown compared to the amount of suffering that could be avoided if people were able to make decisions about their end of life while they were still of sound mind, like DNR but more like ‘help me die painlessly if I’m going to die anyway’. Just make the decisions where the person’s preference isn’t known a complicated process to avoid those abuses.
