No, whats annoying is it gives that reply way too often.
I’ve noticed its happening less often now which is good. I’m guessing a lot of people complained and gave feedback over the last few months.
If you call one of these numbers, does it trigger some Officious Person to come out and try to confiscate any weapons you may have laying around?
Will you pass a Background Check ever again??
I just tried googling “suicide is painless”. As i was typing, it auto-completed to various things about the song. If i had been googling for real, i would have clicked on one of those. But i didn’t, i typed the whole phrase, and i did get a (silent) referral to 988, and another to a local suicide prevention thing, and then the Wikipedia page for the sign and a link to a YouTube version of it
No sound.
I am still baffled that Google thinks it’s their business to try to advertise suicide prevention.
Why not Weight Watchers when I search for ice cream? Or Gamblers Anonymous if I search for a Vegas hotel?
GTFO my life Google. Know your role, and that ain’t it. Period.
Maybe because searching for ice cream and Vegas hotels aren’t going to possibly result in your immediate death.
I know your schtick here on the board is that you are an unfeeling emotionless robot but JFC dude. Get a fucking clue.
I view suicide as a fundamental human right. Perhaps THE fundamental human right.
If someday when I am in dire straits and I decide that suicide is my best option I just hope like hell the rest of society and their primitive religions stay the hell out of my way.
I owe the same courtesy to everyone else. Now and every day. And IMO you do too. As does Google’s soulless profit-maximizing algorithm.
YMMV, but I have plenty of clue thank you very much. It’s the other busybody people I wonder about.
ET: Actually, I don’t wonder one little bit. They are blinkered and wrong.
You seem to be confusing two completely different scenarios between which there is a whole universe of difference.
The right to medical euthanasia for terminally ill patients has been established in most civilized countries. There are no arguments against it except from religious nutjobs.
But suicidal thoughts from those in temporary emotional distress, especially young people, is an entirely different matter. Completely, entirely different. These are people with a potentially bright future who need to be helped out of a pit of desperation from which they’re temporarily unable to extract themselves. Helping them out of that abyss is the fundamental human right that society owes them.
I don’t disagree with your point as it applies to appropriate justification of medical euthanasia, but do you think a young middle school student should be free to commit suicide because he or she has been bullied? I think you’re muddling two completely different situations. How can you possibly not see the difference?
I would say, also, that depression is an illness, and it tends to manifest in bouts of bad times. And sometimes in a bout of depression, a person is moved to suicide. And often, they get dissuaded and are later grateful for that. And sometimes they are contemplating suicide, but aren’t certain what they want.
A suicide hotline doesn’t step into your living room and prevent you from killing yourself. But it gives you a voice willing to listen and be supportive when times are rough. It’s an option, not a barrier. And it’s a good option that society ought to provide.
Only 10 countries have legal active euthanasia. The majority of western Europe does not. And in one of those 10 (Australia), it’s still not legal everywhere.
Then I guess we can quibble about what “civilized country” means. Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) has been legal in Canada since 2016. Canada was also one of the first countries in the world to legalize same-sex marriage (Ontario and BC in 2004, nationwide in 2005).
A fine example of No True Scotsmanization.
Also, there are plenty of non-religious arguments against it. I am for legal euthanasia, mostly, but there are plenty of legitimate counter-arguments. Such as the possibility that the state cannot administer euthanasia without the risk of coercing citizens into it, or at least guiding them down that path.
I have yet to ever hear one that is even remotely persuasive.
This is exactly the same laughable argument that says that single-payer health care will result in patients being killed off when they have diseases that are too expensive to treat. It’s an absurdity that stems from the uniquely American pathologically paranoid distrust of government. In the non-paranoid sanity of the real world, decisions about euthanasia are made the same way as all health care decisions, by independent physicians, usually including the patient’s own attending physicians, and always taking into account the patient’s desires.
It’s not theoretical:
My position would be based on the data. Is this negligible or not? That would determine the answer.
Regardless, the argument is valid. Whether it’s sound depends on the real-world results.
You will not do it in a box, you will not do it with a fox, you will not eat pills in a house, you will not eat pills with a mouse.
Sam if you let me be, I will try them you will see!
Of course it’s theoretical, and completely false!
Your argument was about “the state … coercing citizens into [euthanasia]”. Does the quoted article, even if accurate, support that? There is no “state” involved – these judgments were made by independent medical practitioners. The allegations, if true, say that what I cited as “the patient’s desires” were given undue preference over legally established baseline medical requirements. If that was the case, it’s a problem that should be fixed, but it’s absolutely no argument in any way for forcing terminally ill patients in excruciating pain to suffer needlessly. The only argument that’s ever been advanced against that horrific scenario is by religious nutjobs.
Apparently you ignored the part where I said “or at least guiding them down that path.”
Is there any upper bound for the number of non-terminal cases that you’d consider acceptable? Say if it turned out that only 1% of cases were actually terminal, with the rest being temporary situations, would that maybe be a hint that there was something very wrong with the system and it should be paused until it could be sorted out?
What the actual number is is irrelevant to the validity of the argument. It is absolutely right to be concerned about the possibility. We know the number isn’t zero. Therefore it should be kept track of and we should allow the possibility of pausing or ending the program if the ratio gets too bad.
No. Just no. This sort of appeal to probability is a fallacious argument when it centers around Black Swan events. This is not how we determine public policy about critical health care. We don’t put people through horrendous suffering just because someone, somewhere, in some incredibly rare situation, might use MAID to enable an unjustified suicide.
I feel like I’m in the middle of one of these interminable arguments about the alleged perils of single-payer. I know you’re smarter than that so I feel that at this point you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing. After a lifetime here I have great trust in our system of government and our medical establishment. You may feel differently and you may be justified in feeling that way. That’s not how it works here. I’m out.
You said there was there was no argument except from religious nutjobs. There clearly is such an argument and it would be irresponsible to support euthanasia without steelmanning the opposition. These exceptional cases do exist and they should be responded to.
As I said earlier, I generally support medical euthanasia. But I refuse to simply characterize all opposition as religious nuttery and dismiss it on that basis. Or pretend that there are only 10 “civilized” countries in the world and that the rest have no legitimate arguments.
If somebody wants to kill themselves for any reason, who the hell are we to say they’re wrong and must be stopped until / unless we agree with their reasons? I simply cannot comprehend the idea that some people think they know better than the person in question what they want.
And yet somehow someone else deciding whether a woman can or can’t abort a fetus is anathema? Put some consistency in your opinions please.
A life belongs to the person who lives it. And should be terminatable for any reason or no reason by the person living it. Anything else is tyranny.
That’s a slightly different claim. What Canada offers is euthanasia funded and delivered by the state. Of course people should be able to kill themselves if they wish. But offering it as a medical service isn’t quite the same thing.