Asking legitimately not as a joke
I personally believe we should have the right to die, moreso as an individual choice than one a relative should make. We as individuals, who did not consent to living in this absolutely broken society, should have every right to just say one day, “Y’know what, I’ve had enough, I’m done.” This comment will likely be controversial, and I am not encouraging anyone to commit suicide, seek help where and how you can, suicide can be a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
A friend of mine told me once she considered those who commit suicide (outside of terminal illness) to be cowards, taking the “easy” way out and leaving their loved ones to suffer. I argued back that how is it unacceptable for loved ones to suffer, but it’s perfectly acceptable for the individual to suffer to keep the loved ones comfortable? And that’s what mental health (tin foil hat time) is entirely about: not comfort for the individual, but comfort for the society.
It doesn’t matter if you are completely disenfranchised with society, struggling to make ends meet, working multiple jobs with no benefits, eating the same meal 2-3 times a day every day to save money, none of that matters because you’re not contributing to society/capitalism they way you’re supposed to. When the VA was trying to force me onto SSRIs despite my objections due to the side effects they can have, I told them flat out I wasn’t taking a pill just so I could be “productive” for a society that will let me die in the streets at the earliest and cheapest convenience. And no “pill” is going to fix how sick and broken we are as a society.
We as a species weren’t designed for this kind of society, we’re an analog species trying to adapt to a digital world we haven’t had time to properly adjust to. We aren’t designed to work 40 hours/week, 8 hours/day, 50+ weeks per year. We aren’t designed to work ourselves to exhaustion and forego social interactions in the pursuit of more money to try and keep the lights on. And we are watching the largest transfer of wealth to the ultra-wealthy, making the Gilded Age look like child’s play.
So I guess, to sum it up: I think everyone should have the right to end their own life, regardless of the reason, but I don’t believe anyone should have the right to end someone else’s life outside of already-established practices (DNR orders, “pulling the plug” as PoA, etc). We are too broken as a society to trust ourselves to choose when others should die, but we should absolutely be allowing individual’s to end their own lives.
Agreed. I am becoming increasingly more skeptical of psychiatry since it seems like a means of downloading society’s problems onto individuals.
So I want to start with the pretext that I’m a lifelong defender of euthanasia. I’ve watched my mom slowly die of brain cancer as she lost function.
That said, euthanasia is easy to combine with removal of the autonomy of the disabled and can lead to very bad places. Especially since less severely disabled people is a positive incentive for governments.
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.
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.
Yeah, I see your airtight logic there and wouldn’t dream of arguing.
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.
Is there a socialist society that has failed without the US crushing it?
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.
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.
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.
In terms of yourself, it already effectively is legal. When was the last time someone was prosecuted for attempting suicide?
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.
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.
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.
If you didn’t kill yourself I’ll kill your whole family.
Murder becomes too easy
There’s a fact-checked debate from Vox where both parties set 3 facts that they both agree to. Then they provide footnotes and more information that’s not covered by just the facts. I found this format very enlightening while also explaining both points of view without getting heated.
I only found it on YouTube, but it might be available elsewhere.
Who is the arbiter of death that decides when it is right on behalf of another?
We already make similar decisions for end of life, but without the option for a peaceful and painless end.
In the US at least someone can choose Do Not Resuscitate (DNR), which means medical services will not keep them alive when they are in a critical condition, but it also means they can’t make the process easier or faster. People who are brain dead or unresponsive have whole legal processes around letting the person die or be kept on life support.
So we already have those concrrns addressed, but without the option of a swift and painless death.
We would see a trend of old rich people euthanize.
