I can see some sort of waiting period and medical consultation requirement; because sometimes people do just give in to a despair which wouldn’t have lasted if they’d hung on a bit longer, and/or don’t realize they’re experiencing genuinely treatable symptoms for which they wouldn’t consider the treatment to be even worse than the problem. It should be possible to waive the waiting period in urgent cases (patient in agony that can’t be medically relieved, clear diagnosis of something that will rapidly remove mental capacity, that sort of thing; though if the waiting period’s reasonable I don’t think there would need to be a lot of exceptions.)
And there needs to be a procedure for people who are already in a state in which they can’t choose – results of accidents, sudden strokes, babies and very young children, etc. Such a procedure should rely heavily on any preferences clearly expressed by the person when/if they were able to do so.
My BIL chose to end his life by doctor assisted suicide. He spent 34 years as a firefighter and found some of the chemicals used caused cancer. My sister did not support his position, she listened to the whackos from her church that told her prayer will save his life. But she had no say in his decision. He passed when he was ready. I am glad that the laws of my state support doctor assisted suicide and I will have that same option in the future if I want it.
Every Western nation (and many others) that I know of is facing an elderly care crisis. We have too many elderly people, too few care practitioners and not enough money, in large part due to dwindling birth rates and skyrocketing health care costs.
Euthanizing people is by far the cheapest way to go about the issue, a kind of a brutally perfect solution to meat bags taking up resources while providing none. Kinda fuzzy, semi-involuntary euthanasia was used by several hunter-gatherer groups out of necessity, so it’s as old as can be. You can bet not everyone was left behind because they wanted to die.
Once euthanasia becomes widely accepted, there will be multi-level pressure towards the feeble elderly etc. to opt for it. It will not be overt, as that would be illegal and tasteless, but pressure doesn’t need that. “I don’t want to be a burden”. That’s the fuzzy.
Involuntary euthanasia is when somebody forces me to die when I say I don’t want to die. If I say I want to die and take the steps to die then it’s voluntary. Succumbing to market forces and social pressure is a voluntary act. Stop the marketing forces and social pressure if you think they are harmful, don’t stop me from deciding when I want to die. The reason why I want to die is none of your business.
My daughter’s FIL is my age but he’s been going downhill rapidly the past few years. He’s a retired MD and a diabetic since childhood. At some point he decided he was tired of denying himself the things he enjoyed, like Coca-Cola.
Recently he had pieces of one foot removed. He’s basically slowly killing himself and IMHO that’s something he has every right to do.
The other fuzzy is the person who’s in what might be momentary despair. Such a person may be any age; but I think it may be more common in younger people, who have less experience with which to judge what might be momentary despair and what’s likely to be a long-term problem.
But I don’t think either of those is a reason to ban it entirely. The question from my point of view is, what are and aren’t reasonable methods for screening out the people on one end of the fuzzy and giving the others their choice; and what to do about the ones in the middle of the fuzzy where it may be impossible for any screening method to work well?
How about “I really want to live but I absolutely can’t stand to live in the only situation this society will allow me to afford”?
Wasn’t there a case just like this in Canada recently? I think we had a thread on it.
As long as a person is of sound mind and isn’t being manipulated or pressured into it, I’m fine with voluntary euthanasia. A person’s body is their own to make their own decision on if they want to continue living or not.
“I really want to live…" is not the same as “I want to die.” Quite the opposite I think. Sure, a waiver is practical to require. You have to sign your name to an unequivocal statement that you want to die. Then there is nothing to consider fuzzy.
If you think corporations wouldn’t find a way of twisting people’s arms into “volunteering” for euthanasia in the name of cost-cutting, then you’re not thinking like a capitalist.
I am not nor have I ever been suicidal. However, I have lost a number of family members to alzheimers. This is a big fear of mine, that I wouldn’t want to put my family through watching me lose my mental faculties and being a burden upon them having to care for me.
I say this, which is incongruent with my family caring for my father in his last 5-7 years and mourning his loss and joyful to have spent the last few years with him as much as I could.
But I would like the option of deciding earlier that when an independent doctor decides in the future that I am no longer myself and my family agrees that I will go out with some sort of physician administered cocktail.
Why is the default in these arguments something like “I support involuntary continuation of life, even if force is necessary, for people suffering. Keep them alive, shove drugs down their throats, keep them from non-prescribed drugs, tie them up if necessary, just keep them alive until it’s impossible not to do so. Criminalize anyone who thinks differently, especially if they are under the delusion that their bodies belong to themselves.”
Put that way, the morality of our current system is utterly unsustainable. We put life as an abstract thing ahead of living as a concrete reality. Religion is surely much of the blame, hypocritical and contradictory, postulating a wonderful afterlife but utterly condemning anyone who might want to reach it on their own terms.
That the practical procedures for assisted or voluntary suicide might be subject to pitfalls or abuse should never be an argument for complete abolition. Literally every procedure is subject to pitfalls or abuse: the way our current system extends lives is about as abusive as a system can get. Why would anyone support a horribly invasive abusive system that extends suffering when a better system is at our fingertips?
If the duration of the treatment is AT LEAST 10x less than the potential amount of high quality of life (QoL) years a patient would get from it, I would want a panel of MDs to decide since they best know potential treatments and outcomes on QoL.
Generally, I would encourage the panel to err in favor of the patient when they’re on the fence. If the patient is physically unable to self-euthanize, then they should be authorized automatically under the “low quality of life” criterion.
I do think there should be some friction involved in ending a life. Humanity can’t be trusted and I would find futurama-style suicide booths disturbing.
All my logic assumes human life is precious. If we decide human life is not actually inherently precious, then I agree that all my arguments fall apart.