Social E

Are you for or against Euthanasia?

  • i'm for euthanasia.

  • I'm against euthanasia.


Results are only viewable after voting.
So, do you then support giving non-professional citizens access to the very-dangerous drugs and equipment used for assisted suicide and just hoping they don't divert them into illicit trade? Because, if we're just saying "go find a way to do it," I'm sure you're aware of the great suffering that many people attempting would-be-painless suicide go through because they were medically imprudent or insufficient.

I mean, forget people shooting their faces off (the privatization thereof would lead to legalizing actual murder). People in this situation will generally go for chemical overdoses like sleeping pills and not realize that they're wildly ineffective in killing a person and often actually create both horrifying psychological effects directly diametrical to their properly-dosed purpose and violent and painful digestive rejection and organ failure.

Not to be an asshole but so what? So what that some people do things poorly. You're arguing for a general level of incompetence in killing themselves but a general level of competence in determining if they should be killing themselves.

My position has nothing to do with their competence in committing suicide. My position is that it's a system that is rife for abuse and dead people cannot clarify what happened prior to their deaths.
 
Not to be an asshole but so what? So what that some people do things poorly.

Your position isn't very well thought-out for purposes of addressing the concern at hand: ending an individual's suffering with dignity and under their own terms, and returning autonomy and control to them and their loved ones over the conditions of their death.

You're arguing for a general level of incompetence in killing themselves but a general level of competence in determining if they should be killing themselves.

Yes.

Generally an average person has the capacity to best decide whether they want to keep living their life. That's their unique existential specialty. Knowing how to do that comfortably and without great pain for them and their family is not something a layman is trained in.

Just as a sick person is competent to determine that they need to go see a doctor, but isn't competent to then diagnose and treat themselves.

My position has nothing to do with their competence in committing suicide. My position is that it's a system that is rife for abuse and dead people cannot clarify what happened prior to their deaths.

As far as the finality and "ripe for abuse" arguments, that's why we have procedural safeguards and Hippocratic oaths. And they already exist and are extremely stringent. Beyond those existing safeguards, you are also (for the typical case) adding an added protective condition of affirmative consent.

But I mean...more normatively, if your disposition toward a terminally ill person having to writhe in pain and suffer and scar their family, as opposed to peacefully pass in a controlled environment, is "so what?" I do not know what to tell you.
 
I'm 100% for it. No one should have to go through prolonged suffering just because there's some notion that they have to stay alive. Suffering isn't only the pain a disease or condition can cause but also the kind of life the person is put in.
 
We can't support euthanasia because that's somehow inhumane or immoral, but we routinely take people off life support/feeding tubes and let their bodies slowly suffer and starve to death.
 
I appreciate your response but disagree most strenuously.

I think there are very unpleasant consequences of removing the professional from the process. What kind of black market shenanigans are going to take place? Why is it okay for a family member who has no experience to administer this rather than a professional? A failed administration of a sedative could result in horrendous harm to the sufferer and by extension leave terrible emotional scarring on family and friends. It would be a wonderful burden to lift from your family and I, as an individual, would be happy for that.

I don't quite understand what it is meant by 'the problem is you cannot determine what the dead person wanted after they are dead'. I would expect that legalised euthanasia would come with strict guidelines and include documentation that absolutely confirms the intention of the sufferer. I don't know how a professional would make it 'unable to determine the dead's desires' while a family member would alleviate that?

As to the rest of your post it seems that it is not to do with a professional administering euthanasia but rather your broad concerns about it.

As far as I am concerned if they have 5 years left and are suffering then they can do it. It's their choice. Basically, it's their choice for just about anything as it is their body and it is not the right of the state to interfere. I would suggest that, in line with my earlier condition that is there must be strict documentation, there is a 'cooling off period' except under medically severe circumstances which would be a specified list.

As I said to Trotsky, I don't really care if they can do it well or not. Their competence at killing themselves is irrelevant to me.

I specified 3 levels of concern for me. First is the societal issue. Black markets don't matter to me here. Name any heavily regulated industry that doesn't have a black market. Professional assisted euthanasia will be no different unless you make it free. So long as there are guidelines, people will attempt to circumvent those guidelines. So, to me, the issue is purely about whether or not you want society to start paying people to kill people on command.

SEcond, is the issue related to the desires of the dead. In the law, a common problem that comes up with dead people is that the living make claims as to what the deceased intended. It's very difficult to prove. Even in the case of written instructions, the issue of competence always arises. Here, we're discussing a class of people who are seeking to pursue an outcome while in an extremely emotionally difficult space and where their compromised competence might even be the reason they make that decision. I think it creates more problems than it solves.

You might say just add regulations on top of regulations to prevent that...

Which is where the 3rd issue arises. Any regulations are going to be arbitrary in nature. I presented a simple example of that. What is the maximum years left to live before euthanasia can be legally administered? Let me add a wrinkle - someone has a terminal disease that will also compromise their mental faculties. They learn about the disease outside of the euthanasia legal window. Since the disease will eventually prevent their ability to make informed decisions, including whether or not to commit euthanasia, how do you handle that?

For those reasons, I don't think the government should allow professionals to participate in this.

I read your post and it keeps returning to a point that I don't disagree with. It's people choice, let them do what they want. Where the disagreement arises, is if professionals should be a part of it.
 
Firstly I would suggest a cooling off period except under specified medical conditions only. If this is a rash decision then they must restate their desire again in 3 months and perhaps again in 6 months.

Secondly, after this waiting period if they are still convinced let them do it. It's not for us to decide, and if you aren't trusting of their ability to make a decision you might as well just run their whole life for them in case they are being 'convinced by outsiders'.

And in your post is the very point I'm making.

You are suggesting a cooling off period and need to restate their desire in 3 months and then say that it's not for us to decide. If you trusted their ability to make a decision then you wouldn't need a cooling off period and they wouldn't need to restate their desire.

You implicitly understand the problem, even if you don't want to explicitly acknowledge it.
 
I am against euthanasia. You only get to live once. That pain you experiencing is the only time you will ever get to feel something anything.

You may as well go as far as you can. Ever hear the quote "never go quietly into the night, rage, rage against the dying of the light" or something like that?
You say "you" as if somehow you should have a say in that. What business is it of yours?
 
If you're for euthanasia then you should be willing to do the deed.
 
I don't think we should be paying people to kill other people in these situations. Suicide, to me, is something that you should handle yourself. I disagree with the idea that people in a professional setting should be tasked with helping people kill themselves. As a society I see it as a moral issue when you start paying people to kill other people.

From a professional perspective, the problem with it is that you can never determine what the dead person wanted after they're dead. The potential for abuse is significant.

While there's plenty of people who would like to pretend that it can be limited to terminal issues, the reality is that any issue, medical or otherwise, that the individual doesn't feel up to facing would be a candidate for euthanasia. Any potential restrictions would be arbitrary. For example with terminal diseases - how little time must be left in the person's life to be eligible? And if the patient has 5 years left vs. someone with 5 months left but the same disease, can they both get euthanized? What if the patient has 15 years left with the same disease?

I think it opens more problems. This is simplified by removing the professional from the discussion.
How do you guard against people offing Granny for her cash? Talk about potential for abuse that dwarfs the professional potential...
 
And in your post is the very point I'm making.

You are suggesting a cooling off period and need to restate their desire in 3 months and then say that it's not for us to decide. If you trusted their ability to make a decision then you wouldn't need a cooling off period and they wouldn't need to restate their desire.

You implicitly understand the problem, even if you don't want to explicitly acknowledge it.

I do understand the problem and have explicitly stated it, I don't know how you could read me talking about cooling off periods and then say I don't explicitly acknowledge it. How can I be more explicit!

I must say I didn't even find an argument in your piece about why professionals should not be involved. What points you raised had next to nothing to do with professionals at all and I found them totally unconvincing. I guess we'll just disagree because I think the idea of putting it in the hands of a family member to smother them or concoct their own drug is heinous.
 
Your position isn't very well thought-out for purposes of addressing the concern at hand: ending an individual's suffering with dignity and under their own terms, and returning autonomy and control to them and their loved ones over the conditions of their death.

Actually my position addresses that exact thing. Your position is my position but with the requirement that professionals be employed. That's the entirety of the disagreement - should 3rd party professionals be allowed into the process of people committing suicide (humorous since suicide is to kill oneself and adding others would change that).


Yes.

Generally an average person has the capacity to best decide whether they want to keep living their life. That's their unique existential specialty. Knowing how to do that comfortably and without great pain for them and their family is not something a layman is trained in.

Just as a sick person is competent to determine that they need to go see a doctor, but isn't competent to then diagnose and treat themselves.

Well, that's not accurate. Plenty of sick people diagnose and treat themselves without much training. But that's only secondary to my point. Given everything we know about mental health, there is no reason to believe that these people are even competent to make that decision. So you're arguing that someone who has received extremely bad health related news, is operating out of a position of fear, is competent to determine that the best treatment for their health related issue is to kill themselves. But the competence to analyze and reach such a permanent treatment option suddenly disappears as soon as they've made the decision.


As far as the finality and "ripe for abuse" arguments, that's why we have procedural safeguards and Hippocratic oaths. And they already exist and are extremely stringent. Beyond those existing safeguards, you are also (for the typical case) adding an added protective condition of affirmative consent.

But I mean...more normatively, if your disposition toward a terminally ill person having to writhe in pain and suffer and scar their family, as opposed to peacefully pass in a controlled environment, is "so what?" I do not know what to tell you.

Spare me the empty emotional arguments about writhing in pain. Someone could opt for euthanasia even if they have no pain. If that's the basis of your argument then you're ignoring the breath of the issue simply to focus on those circumstances that fit a very limited use - patients with extreme physical pain.

So, I'll pose the same question to you that I posed to Neph to illustrate why I think it's a poor policy to involve professionals, which necessitates additional regulation.

2 patients with the same terminal disease. Patient A is told he has 8 years to live. Patient B is told he has 3 years to live. The law says you only get euthanasia at 5 years or less? Why should Patient A wait 3 years before he can obtain the same treatment as Patient B?

Let's say your response is to extend the time line to 10 years? Well, the same question comes up when the patient has 13 years to live.

Now imagine that the patient is a minor. Let's make them 15 - old enough to make their own medical decisions.

Explain to me how regulating the act of suicide facilitates people doing what they want with their lives. You're thinking "Let the people decide if they want to see a professional." But that's still short-sighted because the diagnose and potential treatment options are going to start with the professional. Very few people determine that they have a terminal disease on their own. So the professional is now in the middle of it whether they want to be or not. And if they're legally allowed to administer euthanasia then they're going to be obligated to tell their patients about all available responses.

I think that's a can of worms that requires far more thought than "But some people are in pain and their families will be scarred by the exposure." No more scarred than if they think the doctor persuaded the patient to commit suicide...which can't be refuted since the patient is dead and can no longer explain their choices.
 
How do you guard against people offing Granny for her cash? Talk about potential for abuse that dwarfs the professional potential...

I think that people see the emotional pain of a suffering loved one and never take their analysis to what it means to implement this for society at large.
 
I say if that's what you want to do, have at it.


I haven't come up with a framework by which we can protect patients unable to give consent from unwanted euthanasia. I have no problem with assisted suicide.
 
I do understand the problem and have explicitly stated it, I don't know how you could read me talking about cooling off periods and then say I don't explicitly acknowledge it. How can I be more explicit!

I must say I didn't even find an argument in your piece about why professionals should not be involved. What points you raised had next to nothing to do with professionals at all and I found them totally unconvincing. I guess we'll just disagree because I think the idea of putting it in the hands of a family member to smother them or concoct their own drug is heinous.

I made the points very clearly, I made them 2x. THat you are unconvinced doesn't change that.

As to your post - you're not convinced because you can't even reconcile the inconsistency in your response. If you trust them to make these decisions - why do they need a cooling off period?

If I go to the doctor for a cold, I don't require a cooling off period before I can get prescription grade Tylenol.
 
I think that people see the emotional pain of a suffering loved one and never take their analysis to what it means to implement this for society at large.
And society at large is still left with a massive potential for abuse by inheritors, who are not trained and took no professional oath. We have "death with dignity" laws already in CO, CA, OR, VT, WA, and DC, so we can probably shed our emotional pain of a suffering loved one long enough to analyze what it means for society at large in the next few years.
 
If you're for euthanasia then you should be willing to do the deed.

As long as you take out any issues that require medical training I don't see that being much of a problem as it's the person in question's will.

That general logic can be extended to some funny situations regarding other things though.
 
lol i think we are done

At least until you actually address the inconsistency you presented: If you trust them to make their own decisions, why do they need a cooling off period?
 
Back
Top