Found this post on Reddit. It’s actually from the UK but I think its relevant for most parts of the world. It seems to be popular but wanted to ask what do you think about this?
From here: Reddit - Dive into anything
In my opinion it seems like something that would be very difficult to implement. I know it’s done in Oregon though.
Desmond Tutu recently caused a stir when he came out in favor of euthanasia for those who are dying and in discomfort.
For a great many of us, this seems like a slam-dunk. How in the world could anyone be opposed to the right of someone in severe pain, with no hope of a remedy, to give up their own life?
One word explanation of hatred of suicide:
Christianity.
“Life is a gift from a loving God who will send you to Hell if you end your life before He chooses”.
Or something like that.
The west coast of the US now has “Physician-Assisted Suicide”.
It’s been in all the papers - and maybe even Facebook.
And the pain and suffering from a terminal disease are also gifts from that same God. :rolleyes:
I’ll go with the first four words of the title.
Existence, regardless of how painful or miserable it may be, is inherently and objectively preferable to ceasing to exist and never being again for all the rest of eternity.
Suicide is therefore unacceptable under any circumstances.
So if there is an afterlife, it’s acceptable?
And I’d object to anyone trying to force it on you.
But for me and like-minded individuals; of course it’s an option, even if a physician isn’t willing/able to assist.
No matter how many times you have said that on this board, you still can’t support it with any kind of evidence. Remember, this is how you feel, not what is objectively true.
Guys, I’m going to let people know something up front here, because these threads often end up Smapti pileons: his mother was mentally ill and committed suicide when he was a small child. His opinions on this issue are not rational, and he takes them to be facts.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
In the what?
His opinion is just as rational as is yours.
But it is only rational for him, as my opinion is rational for me.
My life, my body, my choice. When we have a free choice to make that harms no other person, minimises physical and mental suffering and can be taken without coercion, where exactly is the argument for denying such a choice to an individual? I have no gods to appease nor any afterlife to earn.
Religious people can feel free to make that choice for themselves as well but to try and use their own religious justification to deny it to others is, for want of a better term…evil.
No. Everyone is entitled to their opinion as it pertains to themselves, yes, but that does not make all opinions rational ones. His opinion is not “rational”, because it is not based on or in accordance with reason or logic, as he has, briefly and only occasionally, been able to admit. It is based on deep seated and unresolved childhood trauma and fear of abandonment. I do not at all mean that to say that it’s unimportant. It’s VERY important, to him. It’s also important to me that other posters know that, as without that knowledge, these threads tend to get very heated and unkind towards Smapti, as people don’t realize they’re talking to someone who very likely suffers a genuine mental illness triggered by this topic.
I’m not a moderator, of course. This isn’t any kind of warning or direction to action. I just know I wish that I had known about it in some of our previous conversations, because without that knowledge, I said some things that were probably less than kind, and I regret it.
This is a big issue in Canada at the moment.
There are a lot of plausible “what if” scenarios. Could a depressed 19 year old request euthanasia?
It seems reasonable for terminal illness to reduce suffering. Issues of competence, definitions of terminal, family issues, medical power of attorney, living wills, who does the euthanasia, who would refuse to do the euthanasia… All come into play.
One of the problems I’ve run into trying to get patients into hospice is that in order for us to get an order for hospice, there needs to be a terminal diagnosis, and in order for there to be a terminal diagnosis, there needs to be a diagnosed disease process that is expected to lead to death. Which seems very logical, until you realize that there are a lot of people out there dying of nothing. That is, they don’t have cancer (or they don’t want to go through the expensive and invasive diagnostic testing to find out that they have a cancer they don’t want to treat anyway) or ALS or MS or whatnot, they’re just dying, slowly, because bodies wear out over time. And that’s often a very discouraging, depressing, dispiriting, and sometimes painful process.
I have the same concern over limiting the right to die to people with a “terminal illness.” Should a person not have the right to end their suffering because we don’t have a good label for the thing that’s making their existence unbearable?
If it was objectively better, it would have been impossible for me to come to a different conclusion.
Objectively, the options for life are:
8 Currently good, likely good in the future.
2 Currently good, likely bad in the future.
3 Currently bad, likely good in the future.
-4 Currently bad, likely bad in the future.
-10 Currently bad, almost certainly bad until the end.
0 Nothing
We might quibble with those numbers a bit, but zero is always better than negative.
No, no it isn’t.
Smapti believes that it’s better to be tortured for a year and then painfully murdered than to have a painless injection without torture AND that believing the latter is untenable.
If that’s just as rational as “every person should make a decision as to what’s best for themselves” the I think your definition of rational is non-standard.
What we have in Oregon is a “Right to Die” law. Not to be confused with active, physician-assisted suicide.
To qualify, you must be diagnosed with an illness that is terminal and certified by two physicians to be likely to cause your death within 6 months, as well as competent to make decisions about your own health and well being. A physician may then prescribe medication that can be taken by the individual alone that will cause death. No physician is present to administer the drugs, and no other person may make the decision on behalf of another person.
In the years since its implementation, remarkably few people have taken advantage of the law. A notable number of them obtain the medication yet persevere to a natural death. It seems the aspect of having control over one’s fate is the important thing.
Unfortunately, it is of no help to those who are unable to speak for themselves such as some stroke victims… but the law is better than nothing. I for one am grateful for the option should it ever become necessary in my life. (So far, so good.)
To learn more about how it works here, there is an excellent film entitled How to Die in Oregon. Very informative and surprising to some.
I also agree with kayaker. It is always an option, even without the assistance of a physician. You just have to pick your moment… and that’s always the tricky bit, isn’t it?
This opinion is only valid for himself. But he believes it to be true for everybody, and as a result thinks that somebody choosing euthanasia by definition can’t be a rational person and as a result must be denied it.
Also, he’s afraid that allowing euthanasia is a slippery slope, that might end in more or less forced euthanasia, and as a result might eventually be applied to him against his will if it’s allowed for others who want it. Self preservation (which is absolutely paramount for him, to some ridiculous extent).
It’s implemented in the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, and somehow they seem to manage. So you presumably could implement it too (and so we could, since it’s forbidden in France too despite being supported by the majority in polls. Mostly the opposition comes from the Catholic church, who’s ready to move heaven and hell to prevent it and somehow seems to succeed).