Bad news - the capsule uses nitrogen, the most common element in the atmosphere.
Ok, that’s funny.
Totally for it. Just like abortion, suicide should be available on demand with free and easy access. If it can be done 100% successfully without pain to the user so much the better though I would hope the pod also has a change your mind button that is clear and easy to hit available up until the end.
What do you think is the “failure rate” of psychiatrists? Often they’re doing nothing more than a machine would do… ask a bunch of yes/no questions, score the answers, look up the corresponding diagnosis, look up corresponding treatments. Many of them could be replaced with an iPhone app. At least an AI could be rigorously programmed to consider outcomes of previous decisions.
I wonder what they’d say if you told them you wanted to explore financing options.
I have no problem with the AI consult. As I said above, many psychiatrists operate in a mechanical fashion anyway, and then taint the decision-making process with their own biases (which they never evaluate).
I do think the consult should be mandatory, and the distribution of the drug should be controlled so as to prevent diversion to an unqualified person (i.e. it should be done in a clinic where the procedure is observed and the expended pod is collected and destroyed).
I would also make it a series of consults… say perhaps once a month, for 3 months, to prevent “impulse buys” and allow the process to suggest other alternatives if their condition or mental outlook has changed. We should be very careful about providing permanent solutions to problems that might be temporary.
They don’t need the pods. Assisted suicide has been legal in Switzerland since 1941.
The only thing this company has done is introduce a new method for people to use to commit suicide.
Nitrogen asphyxiation. If I was going to off myself, that’s the way that I would do it.
Yes. I find the idea of super-easy suicide somewhat terrifying, but if I DID want to end my life, this pod seems perfect. Arrange a memorial service, say goodbye to everyone, have someone help me into the pod (I’m assuming here that I’m near death for other reasons) and then push the button and quietly, painlessly, quickly fade away.
That the pod doubles as a coffin is an added bonus.
Wonder if there’s a combo deal that includes a burial/cremation and large drink.
IMHO this is key. Such actions should only be allowed for people who are dying from untreatable physical illnesses like cancer. I wouldn’t allow their use for people with an uncontrolled psychiatric disease.
Why should it? Why should your feelings constitute a claim on what I do with my life? Your view is a common one, but I think it has not been examined from both sides, only from the side of the survivors.
Can you quantify the amount of misery that someone else should have to endure so that you don’t feel bad?
I’m not interested in arguing this particular method or company, how commercial it might be, or what dire future it might lead to. Just this one point: what is it about your pain that should make it more important to me than relief from my pain?
People should have control over their own bodies for any reason, as long as they’re not being manipulated.
Absolutely agree. Death is far from the worst thing that can happen to us. The terms on which I end my life are up to me to decide, not society’s or the government’s.
As for the pain of the survivors: I cared for two relatives during their long, appalling decline into dementia. I will never, so long as I am able, inflict that pain on my children. I have an exit plan in place, and my chief fear now is that I will suffer a stroke or other debilitating catastrophe that prevents me from using it.
What gives you the right to hurt other people with your actions?
No one can - which is why the pain of NEITHER party should be discounted or dismissed.
How does your pain justify causing pain to other people?
Death is an inevitable event that happens to all of us. So suicide is essentially just doing it on your own schedule.
^ I do fear this to be the case. Especially since we’ve already had instances of state-mandated “euthanasia” imposed on people against their will and without their consent. Make suicide too easy and it goes from a choice to an obligation.
^ At a minimum I’d want to see the above - although I’ll note it does not use a drug, it uses pure nitrogen gas. Alright, I’ll be honest, I’d prefer not to see this at all, but if it must exist I want multiple consults, assurance other treatment options for what ails the person to be either exhausted or non-existent, and to make sure this is not done on an impulse.
Don’t like gate-keeping? Boo-hoo - lots of other medical decisions require gate-keeping and double-checking before proceeding to irrevocable decisions, why should this one be any different?
^ This.
Maybe for untreatable depression, but in that case it needs to be demonstrated that no current treatment modes can remedy the situation. Yes, gate-keeping again because I am opposed to handing out suicide like candy.
So, since I’m allowed control over my body for any reason you’re OK with me deliberately swinging my arms in a manner that will contact your face and break your nose?
The right to control your body should not extend to excusing actions that hurt other people. Well, OK, if I’m trying to put out a fire and someone won’t get out of my way, thereby endangering others, I might be justified in shoving that person out of my way, even to the extent of causing some injury, for the greater good of saving multiple lives but that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about suicide, which will inevitably hurt other people, just as any death causes pain to those who remain alive.
And I agree - ABSOLUTELY we must guard against manipulation or any form of coercion. Absolutely we must guard against people being killed without their consent, or pressured to killed themselves. That would be murder
Because you are responsible for your own emotional pain, as I am for mine. Your pain arises from your own values and feelings; it is not caused by outside events, but by your reaction to those events.
There is an important difference here: if I do something damaging to you physically (for example) that is hurting you with my action. If I do something to myself that you don’t like, I am not hurting you, your reactions are hurting you. No matter how close our relationship (assuming we are both adults) you don’t own me. You don’t have the right to tell me that I must suffer so that you don’t suffer.
I hadn’t read this before I posted my previous post. This shows that you don’t understand the nature of rights. There is no equivalence between breaking someone’s nose and breaking their heart.
The phrase “breaking their heart” is of course only a metaphor for doing something that is emotionally painful for someone else, it is a common phrase but it is inaccurate. I cannot break your heart, only you can.
Generally we don’t excuse such things; people who carelessly hurt other people’s feelings are typically regarded with scorn.
Are you suggesting some sort of regulation that would require candidates to declare that they’ve considered their friends’ and family’s feelings in making their decision to die? Should they have to get permission from each of those people?