Euthanasia; Yeah or Nay? (1 Viewer)

[Farb]

This is becoming a talking point or will be soon. I personally have no issue with medical assisted suicide in a hospice care environment. There is a push, and this is in Canada, to include the mentally ill, disabled, and even the homeless. That I cannot get behind. What does everyone else think about it?

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/con...-of-abuse-is-becoming-ever-more-apparent.html

How does the unthinkable become not only thinkable, but seemingly inevitable? How do we normalize things we recently considered not just abnormal, but horrifying?

The question arises because a major Canadian medical organization is pushing the idea of allowing doctors to do something that’s long been considered unthinkable and abnormal: killing infants who are born with conditions that make survival impossible.

The Quebec College of Physicians made the case for this before a parliamentary committee studying changes to Canada’s law on medical assistance in dying (MAID), a.k.a. assisted suicide.

To be clear, the college’s proposal involves only newborns with severe malformations whose chance for life is “basically nil.” It wouldn’t be a license to kill babies. But let’s also be clear about this: authorizing doctors to actively euthanize infants — rather than allowing nature to take its course — does cross a line once thought inviolable.

The college suggests blurring things in other ways, too. It supports extending MAID to “mature minors,” i.e. teenagers aged 14 to 17, and wants us to think about allowing euthanasia for old people who are just “tired of living.”

Now, Canada’s laws on MAID have long been stretched far beyond the original (and praiseworthy) concept of sparing terminally ill people from unnecessary agony at the end of their lives, allowing a so-called “death with dignity.” When the law was passed in 2016 it didn’t specify that a person must be terminally ill to qualify for a medically assisted death, and last year it was amended to remove the requirement that death be “reasonably foreseeable.”

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/famil...ssion-wasn-t-fit-for-assisted-death-1.4609016

A British Columbia man who struggled with depression and showed no signs of facing an imminent demise was given a medically-assisted death despite desperate pleas from his loved ones, family members say.

Alan Nichols was admitted to Chilliwack General Hospital in June, at age 61, after he was found dehydrated and malnourished. One month later, he died by injection.

Days before his death, family members begged Nichols, a former school janitor who lived alone and struggled with depression, not to go through with the procedure. They still don’t know why doctors approved the life-ending procedure and insist that Nichols did not fit the government criteria of facing an “imminent death.”

https://www.foxnews.com/media/canad...law-include-mentally-ill-enable-mature-minors

 

[Farb]

I think the state/community/society should provide aid and comfort to those facing terminal illness who have decided to end life on their terms instead of a terminal disease's terms.

I think the state/community/society should remain neutral if someone chooses to end their life for any other reasons. That means the state/community/society should refrain from providing comfort or aid, but they should also refrain from criminalizing or stigmatizing it.

Choosing to end one's life is the ultimate act of self-determination and am fully supportive of every having the inalienable right of self-determination.

We all engage in some form of activity that we know will decrease our life span, so we are all quite literally slowly, incrementally committing suicide. A death by a thousand cuts is still death.

Existing decreases your life span. That argument makes zero sense. Breathing is not slowly committing suicide just as living life.

You have something when you lump state/community/society together on this subject.

So you would like to see the stigma of committing suicide removed regardless of the catalyst? What if a person chooses that because of depression? Do you think that should be 'allowed' by the state/community and society?

 

[superchuck500]

Existing decreases your life span. That argument makes zero sense. Breathing is not slowly committing suicide just as living life.

You have something when you lump state/community/society together on this subject.

So you would like to see the stigma of committing suicide removed regardless of the catalyst? What if a person chooses that because of depression? Do you think that should be 'allowed' by the state/community and society?

Not sure what you mean by "allowed by the state" but suicide isn't illegal.


I think the substantial majority of Americans (perhaps a vast majority) believe that suicide in instances of depression (or some other treatable or temporary condition) is a tragic loss and should not be assisted. But in instances of terminal illness, it's quite different.

 

[Farb]

Not sure what you mean by "allowed by the state" but suicide isn't illegal.


I think the substantial majority of Americans (perhaps a vast majority) believe that suicide in instances of depression (or some other treatable or temporary condition) is a tragic loss and should not be assisted. But in instances of terminal illness, it's quite different.

never said it was illegal.

I wonder at what point the scale tipped in Canada from the majority of Canadian believing euthanasia for depression or other temporary conditions should be assisted?

 

[LA - L.A.]

Existing decreases your life span. That argument makes zero sense. Breathing is not slowly committing suicide just as living life.

I never said breathing does. Stick to what I actually said if you want to understand the logic of what I said. Breathing is necessary to stay alive. Consuming alcohol, tobacco, huffing paint, recreational drugs/chemicals are not necessary to sustain life, but do in fact shorter one's life.

You have something when you lump state/community/society together on this subject.

What do you think I have by making the connection between state/community/society? Do you see those as separate and unconnected?

So you would like to see the stigma of committing suicide removed regardless of the catalyst?

Yes.

What if a person chooses that because of depression?

Does stigmatizing people with depression usually help them out of their depression? Does it usually help them to avoid suicide? The answer is no to both questions.

Do you think that should be 'allowed' by the state/community and society?

Allowed as in not criminalized, yes. Allowed as in assisted, no.

 

[Farb]

I never said breathing does. Stick to what I actually said if you want to understand the logic of what I said. Breathing is necessary to stay alive. Consuming alcohol, tobacco, huffing paint, recreational drugs/chemicals are not necessary to sustain life, but do in fact shorter one's life.


What do you think I have by making the connection between state/community/society? Do you see those as separate and unconnected?


Yes.


Does stigmatizing people with depression usually help them out of their depression? Does it usually help them to avoid suicide? The answer is no to both questions.


Allowed as in not criminalized, yes. Allowed as in assisted, no.

Well, it (breathing) does so there is that. Unless a person lives in a vacuum, anything they do, eat, drink will eventually decrease their life.

Do you consider the church to be part of the community/society?

Maybe if we educate and reiterate that suicide is a bad thing and there is never a good reason for it, it might make someone think twice. The libs do this for racism, weird sex fetishes and drugs, why not include suicide? Do you think the point might be to help lower the population?
Do you think part of the solution for the world is lower population rates? If your stance is that we speed up the process for those that will kill themselves off eventually there by saving the resources and the strain on the planet?

So you are against Canada's view on assisted suicide where the state actually helps facilitate it and has to approve it? If not, do you think states have the right to allow citizens of other states the ability to travel in order to commit suicide?

 

[LA - L.A.]

Well, it (breathing) does so there is that. Unless a person lives in a vacuum, anything they do, eat, drink will eventually decrease their life.

Some things directly lead to accelerated poor health and a significantly earlier death like consuming alcohol, tobacco, highly processed and chemical laden food, huffing paint, recreational drug use and so on. We all know these things to be objectively true.

Anyone doing those things is voluntarily shorting their life and if they didn't do those things they'd live longer barring any fatal accidents, so people doing those things are voluntarily killing themselves at a younger age than they would have naturally died.

Do you consider the church to be part of the community/society?

Religion is a part of community and society, and religious people are part of government. However, no one religion should be allowed to make their religious values and beliefs policy and law for everyone else who has different religious values and beliefs.

I think no one should be allowed to withhold their goods or services from anyone else on the grounds of differing religious beliefs and values. The reason for that is that open marketplaces only exist because of roads, utilities, law enforcement protection, and all of the other infrastructure and logistics that government institutions provide. Everyone who conducts any business relies on and benefits from the infrastructure and institutions provided by the government, therefore no one should be allowed to withhold their goods and/or services from anyone else based on their religious beliefs and values.

Maybe if we educate and reiterate that suicide is a bad thing and there is never a good reason for it,...

Sometimes there are very good reasons for suicide, even if you don't agree with them. None of us have the right to make that determination for anyone else.

Suicide in cases of depression or other emotional dis-ease is not an issue of knowledge, it's an issue of emotions and/or neurology. Helping people to heal emotionally or neurologically helps people avoid suicide, telling them "there is never a good reason for it" rarely ever helps. In fact, stigmatizing is counter-productive. So, if the sincere goal is to decrease the number of people who commit suicide then stigmatizing should be avoided.

I'm all for increasing the availability of emotional and neurological healthcare to everyone. That's the best solution to lower the number of suicides. It's good to "educate" them on the fact they have other options and people care enough to help. Preaching right and wrong, and good and bad at them has the opposite effect of what is intended.

...it might make someone think twice.

It rarely does. Most of the time it makes them feel more isolated, unloved, defective and depressed which actually increases the likelihood they'll commit suicide.

The libs do this for racism, weird sex fetishes and drugs, why not include suicide?

So it's only the "libs" that think that racism, weird sex fetishes and drugs are, to put it in your words and worldview, "bad things and there is never a good reason for them?"

"Conservatives" think that racism, weird sex fetishes and drugs are good things and there are good reasons for them?

You think that racism, weird sex fetishes and drugs are good things and there are good reasons for them?

Such a bizarre comparison and claim for you to make.

Do you think the point might be to help lower the population?

No and only a fool would think that treating people compassion, understanding, respect and dignity is just a cover for a sinister plan to depopulate. Someone would have to be in a really depraved state of mind to sincerely believe that might be the case.

Historically, when a society wants to kill people off, they either send them to war or just mass murder them after dehumanizing and demonizing them in the name of religious and/or cultural values. You know what I'm talking about; like calling people "libs" and claiming they want to reduce the population and/or replace people, or calling non-heterosexuals abominations and offenses to god that have no place in society.

You know, things like that are what people do when they want to lower the population. They don't have the patience to wait around and let some of the people voluntarily kill themselves every now and then. That's much too slow, inefficient and indiscriminate for the people who want to lower the population.

Do you think part of the solution for the world is lower population rates?

See the above.

If your stance is that we speed up the process for those that will kill themselves off eventually there by saving the resources and the strain on the planet?

See the above.

So you are against Canada's view on assisted suicide where the state actually helps facilitate it and has to approve it?

I don't know what Canada's policies are and I don't take a random, unknown person's word on things like that. I haven't looked into Canada's policies for myself and I'm not going to make any comments from a place of ignorance.

I stated my position very clearly and very simply regarding suicide. There's no ambiguity in what I think.

If you have an issue with Canadian policy, you'd be better served discussing it with Canadians.

If not, do you think states have the right to allow citizens of other states the ability to travel in order to commit suicide?

If my understanding of state law is correct, state laws apply to what people do within the borders of each state. No state has the right to claim legal jurisdiction over what one of their residents (by the way we are all US citizens, we are only residents of states) does in another state. If that weren't true, Las Vegas wouldn't exist.

A person from a state that legally prohibits gambling can travel to Las Vegas and gamble themselves into bankruptcy, can they not? Do you think that the states that prohibit gambling should be able to prevent their citizens from traveling to Las Vegas to gamble? Apply the same questions to the legal prostitution in some of Nevada's counties?

My answer is that the states only have a right to determine what happens within their borders. They do not have a right to dictate to their residents what they can and can not do while within the borders of other states.

For instance, only the state of Oregon has a right to decide who can legally commit suicide in their state. To put your mind at ease, the state of Oregon only allows verified residents of Oregon to seek out suicide assistance and they have very stringent restrictions and protections in place to prevent predatory exploitation and depraved indifference.

Oregon making their own rules for what happens inside Oregon is how it should be. Louisiana, California, Mississippi, New York and all other states have no business telling their residents what they can and can not do while in another state. They also have no right to forbid their residences from traveling to other states, if the residents haven't committed a crime of that state within the boundaries of that state.

You can't arrest and detain someone from driving to a store they plan on robbing. You can only arrest them for actually robbing the store and the police in Californian cannot arrest a California resident for robbing a store while they are in Louisiana. That falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of the state of Louisiana.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

I have zero problems with people who are terminially ill having assisted suicide. I don't think big pharm would be on board with that, i think they make waaay more money keeping people alive as long as possible. Personally, if i am for sure gonna die of a horrible disease, why would i want to lay in a bed hooked up to machines hopped up on pain meds until finally die?

 

[LA - L.A.]

I have zero problems with people who are terminially ill having assisted suicide. I don't think big pharm would be on board with that, i think they make waaay more money keeping people alive as long as possible. Personally, if i am for sure gonna die of a horrible disease, why would i want to lay in a bed hooked up to machines hopped up on pain meds until finally die?

I already know my plan if I'm ever diagnosed with a terminal disease or an incurable, degenerative neurological disease. First, psilocybin therapy to help me be at peace with my mortality for what remaining time I have left. Second, spend what time I have left saying hello and good bye to everyone. Third, end my life when I reach the specific conditions that I've set for myself. I would discourage people from being with me in that moment, because I know it would be harder for them than it would be for me.

 

[Farb]

Some things directly lead to accelerated poor health and a significantly earlier death like consuming alcohol, tobacco, highly processed and chemical laden food, huffing paint, recreational drug use and so on. We all know these things to be objectively true.

Anyone doing those things is voluntarily shorting their life and if they didn't do those things they'd live longer barring any fatal accidents, so people doing those things are voluntarily killing themselves at a younger age than they would have naturally died.



Religion is a part of community and society, and religious people are part of government. However, no one religion should be allowed to make their religious values and beliefs policy and law for everyone else who has different religious values and beliefs.

I think no one should be allowed to withhold their goods or services from anyone else on the grounds of differing religious beliefs and values. The reason for that is that open marketplaces only exist because of roads, utilities, law enforcement protection, and all of the other infrastructure and logistics that government institutions provide. Everyone who conducts any business relies on and benefits from the infrastructure and institutions provided by the government, therefore no one should be allowed to withhold their goods and/or services from anyone else based on their religious beliefs and values.


Sometimes there are very good reasons for suicide, even if you don't agree with them. None of us have the right to make that determination for anyone else.

Suicide in cases of depression or other emotional dis-ease is not an issue of knowledge, it's an issue of emotions and/or neurology. Helping people to heal emotionally or neurologically helps people avoid suicide, telling them "there is never a good reason for it" rarely ever helps. In fact, stigmatizing is counter-productive. So, if the sincere goal is to decrease the number of people who commit suicide then stigmatizing should be avoided.

I'm all for increasing the availability of emotional and neurological healthcare to everyone. That's the best solution to lower the number of suicides. It's good to "educate" them on the fact they have other options and people care enough to help. Preaching right and wrong, and good and bad at them has the opposite effect of what is intended.


It rarely does. Most of the time it makes them feel more isolated, unloved, defective and depressed which actually increases the likelihood they'll commit suicide.


So it's only the "libs" that think that racism, weird sex fetishes and drugs are, to put it in your words and worldview, "bad things and there is never a good reason for them?"

"Conservatives" think that racism, weird sex fetishes and drugs are good things and there are good reasons for them?

You think that racism, weird sex fetishes and drugs are good things and there are good reasons for them?

Such a bizarre comparison and claim for you to make.


No and only a fool would think that treating people compassion, understanding, respect and dignity is just a cover for a sinister plan to depopulate. Someone would have to be in a really depraved state of mind to sincerely believe that might be the case.

Historically, when a society wants to kill people off, they either send them to war or just mass murder them after dehumanizing and demonizing them in the name of religious and/or cultural values. You know what I'm talking about; like calling people "libs" and claiming they want to reduce the population and/or replace people, or calling non-heterosexuals abominations and offenses to god that have no place in society.

You know, things like that are what people do when they want to lower the population. They don't have the patience to wait around and let some of the people voluntarily kill themselves every now and then. That's much too slow, inefficient and indiscriminate for the people who want to lower the population.


See the above.


See the above.


I don't know what Canada's policies are and I don't take a random, unknown person's word on things like that. I haven't looked into Canada's policies for myself and I'm not going to make any comments from a place of ignorance.

I stated my position very clearly and very simply regarding suicide. There's no ambiguity in what I think.

If you have an issue with Canadian policy, you'd be better served discussing it with Canadians.


If my understanding of state law is correct, state laws apply to what people do within the borders of each state. No state has the right to claim legal jurisdiction over what one of their residents (by the way we are all US citizens, we are only residents of states) does in another state. If that weren't true, Las Vegas wouldn't exist.

A person from a state that legally prohibits gambling can travel to Las Vegas and gamble themselves into bankruptcy, can they not? Do you think that the states that prohibit gambling should be able to prevent their citizens from traveling to Las Vegas to gamble? Apply the same questions to the legal prostitution in some of Nevada's counties?

My answer is that the states only have a right to determine what happens within their borders. They do not have a right to dictate to their residents what they can and can not do while within the borders of other states.

For instance, only the state of Oregon has a right to decide who can legally commit suicide in their state. To put your mind at ease, the state of Oregon only allows verified residents of Oregon to seek out suicide assistance and they have very stringent restrictions and protections in place to prevent predatory exploitation and depraved indifference.

Oregon making their own rules for what happens inside Oregon is how it should be. Louisiana, California, Mississippi, New York and all other states have no business telling their residents what they can and can not do while in another state. They also have no right to forbid their residences from traveling to other states, if the residents haven't committed a crime of that state within the boundaries of that state.

You can't arrest and detain someone from driving to a store they plan on robbing. You can only arrest them for actually robbing the store and the police in Californian cannot arrest a California resident for robbing a store while they are in Louisiana. That falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of the state of Louisiana.

Yes, while certain activities do infact shorten ones life that is why most of those things you listed are illegal, or were 10 mins ago.

The state has a burden to protect life. The state can take a life, only after due process. Maybe something like that should be in place for MAID? I could see how that goes off the rails.

I don't think the state has any place to coerce any citizen to produce or participate in anything that person feels violates something as sacred as their relation with their God. Yes, that includes others people's feeling of validation.
The state exists to build roads, infrastructure ect because the people that engage in the free market says so, not the other way around. But all of this has nothing to do with state sanctioned suicide.

Yes, I call the alt left libs. Shocked? Do you feel dehumanized and attacked? The president just gave a war speech against us 'deplorables' that support the other party. Your side can virtue signal all you would like and call us all the names you would like, it doesn't bother us anymore because your ideology is being exposed and people are starting to see it. Being called a racist for voting for Trump has zero sway anymore. Now 'nazi' according to Biden is the new playbook. Should be fun.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Yes, while certain activities do infact shorten ones life that is why most of those things you listed are illegal, or were 10 mins ago.

Seriously? Listed alcohol, tobacco, highly processed and chemical laden food, huffing paint, recreational drug use. Only 2 out of 6 are illegal. You think 1/3 of a list is most of the list? Also the legal things like alcohol, tobacco, highly processed food and chemical laden food are more universally and highly consumed than recreational drugs and huffing paint. They also account for the overwhelming majority of health problems that lead to an earlier than natural death.

The state has a burden to protect life.

The state only has a burden to protect a life threatened by another life. It doesn't have the burden of protecting people from themselves. If it did, alcohol, alcohol, tobacco, highly processed and chemical laden food would all be banned in every state.

The state can take a life, only after due process.

The state is taking a life in states that allow assisted suicide. The state doesn't participate in the suicide, at least the states here in the US work that way.

Maybe something like that should be in place for MAID? I could see how that goes off the rails.

I have no idea what what this MAID you speak of is.

 

[Farb]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/ot...nized-due-to-crippling-depression/ar-BB1kY1d0

She said she decided to be euthanized after her doctors told her, “There’s nothing more we can do for you. It’s never gonna get any better,” according to The Free Press.

“I was always very clear that if it doesn’t get better, I can’t do this anymore,” ter Beek said.

She is just one of the growing number of people in the West who have decided to die rather than continue living in pain that, unlike a terminal illness, could be treated.

Seems this new fad has indeed fallen down the proverbial slippery slope. Wont be long before the push for this is here in the US and many who oppose it now, will be very vocal in it's support.

 

[samiam5211]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/ot...nized-due-to-crippling-depression/ar-BB1kY1d0

She said she decided to be euthanized after her doctors told her, “There’s nothing more we can do for you. It’s never gonna get any better,” according to The Free Press.

“I was always very clear that if it doesn’t get better, I can’t do this anymore,” ter Beek said.

She is just one of the growing number of people in the West who have decided to die rather than continue living in pain that, unlike a terminal illness, could be treated.

Seems this new fad has indeed fallen down the proverbial slippery slope. Wont be long before the push for this is here in the US and many who oppose it now, will be very vocal in it's support.

Suicide isn't a new fad there bub.

I guess you mean the new fad is families not having to clean up blood from their bathroom floor after they find the body of their loved ones.

 

[Farb]

Suicide isn't a new fad there bub.

I guess you mean the new fad is families not having to clean up blood from their bathroom floor after they find the body of their loved ones.

LOL, sure, along with the strawmen, that is exactly what we are talking about. Thanks Wolverine.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

i'm sure thats an easier way to go than a shotgun to the face.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Fascists don't like the idea of any form of suicide, because they want to be the only ones that get to decide who lives and dies, and when and how they die.

A society of people who are willing to take their own lives than suffer a life they do not want is the fascists worst nightmare. It's hard to enslave and oppress a group of people with the threats of pain and death, if that group of people would respond by taking their own lives instead.

For fascists, their disapproval of euthanasia does not come from a place of compassion, it comes from their obsessive compulsive need for control.

 

[J-DONK]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/ot...nized-due-to-crippling-depression/ar-BB1kY1d0

She said she decided to be euthanized after her doctors told her, “There’s nothing more we can do for you. It’s never gonna get any better,” according to The Free Press.

“I was always very clear that if it doesn’t get better, I can’t do this anymore,” ter Beek said.

She is just one of the growing number of people in the West who have decided to die rather than continue living in pain that, unlike a terminal illness, could be treated.

Seems this new fad has indeed fallen down the proverbial slippery slope. Wont be long before the push for this is here in the US and many who oppose it now, will be very vocal in it's support.

I've always wondered the cognitive distance it takes to see this as evil. We consider euthanizing our pets that are in chronic pain as a mercy. I don't know if anti-depressants "cure" all these cases. You can look at famous examples like David Foster Wallace.

I can't recall Farb's position from the abortion thread, does anyone remember if Farb is pro capital punishment?

 

[SamAndreas]

Seems counter-intuitive for someone clinically diagnosed with depression to have the competence to determine they want to commit suicide. The minimum age should probably remain at 18 although, let's be honest, that's a somewhat arbitrary number.

For everyone else who is mentally sound/competent, yes, it should be an option. Whether they are disabled or homeless or whatever else should not come in to play as a reason not to allow them to make a knowing choice. Quite simply, it's no one else's life but their own. The concept of the state's general interest in life in the abstract is baloney.

Yes, it really is that simple.

This klezmer song without words beautifies the general concept starting at the other end of life set on another primitive planet:

 

[Farb]

i'm sure thats an easier way to go than a shotgun to the face.

So those are the only options? Shotgun to the face or state sponsored suicide?