|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/11/18 - 12:06:49 PM EST (GMT-5)
I'm really torn on this. Initially I think it should be legal but I'm concerned about how the process would work.
How many people may die due to a spur of the moment decision?
Would there be a vetting process?
If there is, how many people will be denied and then forced to more suffering or into doing it themselves?
Should it only be available to people with untreatable/terminal illness?
(I'm not asking anyone to answer these questions btw. These are just my concerns)
|
|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/11/18 - 12:10:05 PM EST (GMT-5)
i think it should absolutely be an option for any right thinking person who wants it, but it should be a long and tedious process to weed out treatable mental illness (assuming treatments work) and allow people to change their minds
like a couple of years and if you're still steadfast and rational then f*ck it, give people the help to do it in a controlled calm kind manner that isn't a random violent crapshoot that leaves them to be discovered by traumatised neighbours
|
|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/11/18 - 12:11:09 PM EST (GMT-5)
or worse still, merely permanently damaged for an even more crappy prolonged life
|
|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/11/18 - 12:13:01 PM EST (GMT-5)
i also don't think it should be tied to terminal illnesses
i mean they're the people who need it least, right?
|
|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/11/18 - 12:15:28 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 5/11/18 - 12:13:01 PM skyfish wrote:
i also don't think it should be tied to terminal illnesses i mean they're the people who need it least, right? |
I believe they would need it more. If I was given 12 months to live, I would much rather go out on my own terms than wait, through the pain, for the inevitable to happen. |
|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/11/18 - 12:16:40 PM EST (GMT-5)
my point is that if you have a terminal illness you're going to imminently die anyway regardless of if it's legal or not
this legislation would allow people who aren't about to die imminently to have that luxury
|
|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/11/18 - 12:23:42 PM EST (GMT-5)
What fun is there in dying if one cannot traumatize their neighbors as a part of it?
|
|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/11/18 - 12:31:16 PM EST (GMT-5)
2 years also seems like a long time. I'm not sure if someone who desperately wanted it would be willing to wait that long.
I totally get why you would want a 2 year period though.
|
|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/11/18 - 12:34:23 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 5/11/18 - 12:31:16 PM WigglesFT wrote:
2 years also seems like a long time. I'm not sure if someone who desperately wanted it would be willing to wait that long. I totally get why you would want a 2 year period though. |
that's the whole point
desperate wanting is the exact thing that shouldn't be allowed, because that can change
steadfast over the years desire is different |
|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/11/18 - 3:39:56 PM EST (GMT-5)
My big problem is the same than with death penalty: you’re not allowed to make mistakes. Since mistakes were already made* in such a short time, I’m gonna go with NO.
* in Belgium two people were allowed to be euthanized that were in their 20s. One was suffering from depression and the other one had a heavy case of PTSD after years of physical and sexual abuse. The PTSD one changed her mind, but still, the State okayed it.
|
|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/11/18 - 3:41:04 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 5/11/18 - 3:39:56 PM Abzurd wrote:
My big problem is the same than with death penalty: you’re not allowed to make mistakes. Since mistakes were already made* in such a short time, I’m gonna go with NO. * in Belgium two people were allowed to be euthanized that were in their 20s. One was suffering from depression and the other one had a heavy case of PTSD after years of physical and sexual abuse. The PTSD one changed her mind, but still, the State okayed it. |
they killed her even though she didn't want to be killed? |
|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/11/18 - 3:50:51 PM EST (GMT-5)
No, the state approved it but then she didn't end up going through with it.
|
|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/11/18 - 4:41:45 PM EST (GMT-5)
The state should have no say in whether or not you're allowed to kill yourself.
|
|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/11/18 - 4:47:22 PM EST (GMT-5)
...but if they do have a say, one should be penalized if they fail to go through with it.
|
|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/11/18 - 4:50:17 PM EST (GMT-5)
|
|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/11/18 - 4:51:39 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 5/11/18 - 3:50:51 PM birdsong4j wrote:
No, the state approved it but then she didn't end up going through with it. |
oh
so what? |
|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/11/18 - 5:10:58 PM EST (GMT-5)
Well I think the point was that the state approved a case where the person ultimately changed their mind, therefore the state is not necessarily trustworthy in determining which cases should be allowed.
(I don't necessarily agree with this, but I think it was the point)
|
|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/11/18 - 5:11:56 PM EST (GMT-5)
i just read it as someone wanted to do something and they were allowed to do it, but then they changed their mind which is fine
|
|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/11/18 - 5:12:57 PM EST (GMT-5)
i don't see that she ultimately didn't want to go through with it has any bearing on whether she should have been allowed to
|
|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/11/18 - 5:13:35 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 5/11/18 - 4:41:45 PM CuckingFunt wrote:
The state should have no say in whether or not you're allowed to kill yourself. |
I mean ultimately they don't. They just have a say in whether or not it should be considered a crime for someone (a medical professional) to help you do it. Which means the methods available to you are inherently more violent, more traumatic for your family, and the whole thing is just overall more stigmatized than it maybe should be. |
|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/11/18 - 5:14:55 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 5/11/18 - 5:12:57 PM skyfish wrote:
i don't see that she ultimately didn't want to go through with it has any bearing on whether she should have been allowed to |
I don't either, really. There can be rules about when physician-assisted suicide is allowed, but the state can't be responsible for knowing ahead of time whether someone will change their mind. |
|
Inquizitor2
Male,
30-39
Western US
Joined: 6 yrs, 2 mos ago
6,280 Posts
|
|
|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/11/18 - 9:11:42 PM EST (GMT-5)
personally, i'd be for it only if there was no chance of recovery. but assisted suicide is something that is between a patient and their doctor, and each situation will be different.
|
|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/11/18 - 9:23:52 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 5/11/18 - 9:11:42 PM Inquizitor2 wrote:
personally, i'd be for it only if there was no chance of recovery. but assisted suicide is something that is between a patient and their doctor, and each situation will be different. |
People can't even decide on that when it's clear from all medical advice that there is no recovery and someone will never survive without life support. Just look at stuff like the baby Alfie case recently. Those parents refused to listen to medical professionals who all agreed the child had such severe brain damage that he'd never swallow on his own. |
|
|
3 months ago - Saturday 5/12/18 - 4:48:35 AM EST (GMT-5)
I think that the situation you described is actually more difficult, as you're deciding that on behalf of someone with no agency of their own.
|
|
|
3 months ago - Friday 5/18/18 - 11:40:08 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 5/11/18 - 5:10:58 PM birdsong4j wrote:
Well I think the point was that the state approved a case where the person ultimately changed their mind, therefore the state is not necessarily trustworthy in determining which cases should be allowed. (I don't necessarily agree with this, but I think it was the point) |
The fact that she changed her mind was only FYI. Not relevant to the point I want to make: you can't allow assisted suicide with people suffering from a disease that makes them suicidal. It's the opposite of medecine. |
Share 
