Social E

[GOATER]

Yes, it should be a human right.

 

[Son of Jamin]

I’m personally against it but my personal convictions shouldn’t dictate policy!

 

[ralphc1]

Since I'm the first, and only one so far, to vote 'No,' I feel need to give an explanation.

We live in a world of ever-advancing medical research, with the most powerful painkillers being described as hundreds of times more powerful than heroine. There's literally no reason why anyone in their final days should be in an amount of pain to wish they were already dead.

Add to that, the 'slippery slope' theory, that once euthanasia is commonly accepted by society and the medical community it will eventually become 'assisted suicide' to be used for the mentally ill and depressed.

These types of proposals are always sold with the best case scenarios being the only scenarios, without addressing the complicated and outright bad scenarios.

What is the point to staying alive once you lose physical and mental capability?

 

[IloveTHIS]

Anyone that can see some one suffering a horrific painful slow death and tell them they don't have the right to go ahead and check out early deserves the strongest right hook possible right on the jaw

 

[PrinceOfPain]

For it, assuming that it's not forced.

 

[MMA IAN]

Definitely support eugenics, it’s a brave man who makes this thread good on you chief.

 

[BEER]

I think anyone should have the right to end their life on their own terms. Terminally ill people shouldn't be forced to suffer through untold anguish until their body gives out. My grandfather has quite advanced dementia at this point, and the whole family knows that, if he had known it was coming, he would have swallowed a bullet instead of living ten years too long.

 

[Dirt Road Soldier]

I don't give a shit what others do with their lives, so let people have at it.

Terminally ill? Sure!
Depressed 20 something? Why not?
Thrill seeker looking to go out as a stain on the ground? Fuck it, whatever.

Their life, their choice.

 

[panamaican]

I'm fine with suicide. I'm fine with family/friend assisted suicide. I'm not fine with professional assisted suicide.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

I'm for it.
If I'm coherent enough to know my quality of life is shot, or someone I've designated my DPA does, I wanna be sent off on a cloud of dreamy dreams.

 

[cincymma79]

For

Should be manadatory for people going under the speedboat limit on the fastlane, people who don’t understand bar codes in the you scan line, maroon5, and campers who play call of duty

 

[Neph]

I'm fine with suicide. I'm fine with family/friend assisted suicide. I'm not fine with professional assisted suicide.

Would you care to elaborate on this? I would think professional assisted suicide would be by far the most humane method. I'd love to understand why you would not support it.

 

[Trotsky]

I'm fine with suicide. I'm fine with family/friend assisted suicide. I'm not fine with professional assisted suicide.

Do you enjoy strangling or shooting your aging cat and dog companions Ol' Yeller style?

 

[Diamond Jim]

Absolutely. I watched my grandmother suffer from ALS for years. No one should be forced to go through that if they make that choice.

 

[panamaican]

Would you care to elaborate on this? I would think professional assisted suicide would be by far the most humane method. I'd love to understand why you would not support it.

I don't think we should be paying people to kill other people in these situations. Suicide, to me, is something that you should handle yourself. I disagree with the idea that people in a professional setting should be tasked with helping people kill themselves. As a society I see it as a moral issue when you start paying people to kill other people.

From a professional perspective, the problem with it is that you can never determine what the dead person wanted after they're dead. The potential for abuse is significant.

While there's plenty of people who would like to pretend that it can be limited to terminal issues, the reality is that any issue, medical or otherwise, that the individual doesn't feel up to facing would be a candidate for euthanasia. Any potential restrictions would be arbitrary. For example with terminal diseases - how little time must be left in the person's life to be eligible? And if the patient has 5 years left vs. someone with 5 months left but the same disease, can they both get euthanized? What if the patient has 15 years left with the same disease?

I think it opens more problems. This is simplified by removing the professional from the discussion.

 

[RockstarChris]

im against Youth In Asia

 

[Trotsky]

I think it opens more problems. This is simplified by removing the professional from the discussion.

So, do you then support giving non-professional citizens access to the very-dangerous drugs and equipment used for assisted suicide and just hoping they don't divert them into illicit trade? Because, if we're just saying "go find a way to do it," I'm sure you're aware of the great suffering that many people attempting would-be-painless suicide go through because they were medically imprudent or insufficient.

I mean, forget people shooting their faces off (the privatization thereof would lead to legalizing actual murder). People in this situation will generally go for chemical overdoses like sleeping pills and not realize that they're wildly ineffective in killing a person and often actually create both horrifying psychological effects directly diametrical to their properly-dosed purpose and violent and painful digestive rejection and organ failure.

 

[Neph]

I don't think we should be paying people to kill other people in these situations. Suicide, to me, is something that you should handle yourself. I disagree with the idea that people in a professional setting should be tasked with helping people kill themselves. As a society I see it as a moral issue when you start paying people to kill other people.

From a professional perspective, the problem with it is that you can never determine what the dead person wanted after they're dead. The potential for abuse is significant.

While there's plenty of people who would like to pretend that it can be limited to terminal issues, the reality is that any issue, medical or otherwise, that the individual doesn't feel up to facing would be a candidate for euthanasia. Any potential restrictions would be arbitrary. For example with terminal diseases - how little time must be left in the person's life to be eligible? And if the patient has 5 years left vs. someone with 5 months left but the same disease, can they both get euthanized? What if the patient has 15 years left with the same disease?

I think it opens more problems. This is simplified by removing the professional from the discussion.

I appreciate your response but disagree most strenuously.

I think there are very unpleasant consequences of removing the professional from the process. What kind of black market shenanigans are going to take place? Why is it okay for a family member who has no experience to administer this rather than a professional? A failed administration of a sedative could result in horrendous harm to the sufferer and by extension leave terrible emotional scarring on family and friends. It would be a wonderful burden to lift from your family and I, as an individual, would be happy for that.

I don't quite understand what it is meant by 'the problem is you cannot determine what the dead person wanted after they are dead'. I would expect that legalised euthanasia would come with strict guidelines and include documentation that absolutely confirms the intention of the sufferer. I don't know how a professional would make it 'unable to determine the dead's desires' while a family member would alleviate that?

As to the rest of your post it seems that it is not to do with a professional administering euthanasia but rather your broad concerns about it.

As far as I am concerned if they have 5 years left and are suffering then they can do it. It's their choice. Basically, it's their choice for just about anything as it is their body and it is not the right of the state to interfere. I would suggest that, in line with my earlier condition that is there must be strict documentation, there is a 'cooling off period' except under medically severe circumstances which would be a specified list.

 

[panamaican]

Do you enjoy strangling or shooting your aging cat and dog companions Ol' Yeller style?

If they asked me to, I would do it. I think it's a silly question though. If your pets could speak, do you think they would ask to be driven to the vet and put down? Or do people make that decision for them?

And if it was one of your loved ones, how certain would you be that they decided to be euthanized as opposed to being talked into it by some supposedly well meaning individual.

 

[Neph]

And if it was one of your loved ones, how certain would you be that they decided to be euthanized as opposed to being talked into it by some supposedly well meaning individual.

Firstly I would suggest a cooling off period except under specified medical conditions only. If this is a rash decision then they must restate their desire again in 3 months and perhaps again in 6 months.

Secondly, after this waiting period if they are still convinced let them do it. It's not for us to decide, and if you aren't trusting of their ability to make a decision you might as well just run their whole life for them in case they are being 'convinced by outsiders'.