Submitted by d5dq t3_11e4fdy in massachusetts
3720-To-One t1_jacoy3r wrote
Reply to comment by homefone in A renewed push to legalize ‘medical aid in dying’ by d5dq
Okay? And when the writing is already on the wall, why force EVERYONE involved to have to needlessly suffer more than they already have to?
homefone t1_jacqzcr wrote
>why force EVERYONE involved
Yes, this exactly right here. People will be pressured to kill themselves, even if they don't want to, because the option is there and dying people think themselves a burden. That's not right.
3720-To-One t1_jacwub1 wrote
You seem to miss the part where they are already dying, and the writing is on the wall.
But you’re right, let’s force them and their families to continue to needlessly suffer for absolutely nothing.
Nobody’s forcing you to euthanize yourself.
If you don’t want a euthanasia, don’t get a euthanasia.
homefone t1_jada8p9 wrote
Modern pain mitigation is, overall, very good and we are one of the best states for healthcare. The idea that every terminally ill person is suffering badly and wants to die as soon as possible is just wrong.
None of that addresses the fact that the option of euthanasia will encourage people who don't want to kill themselves to do so. Or the possibility that someone incapable of consenting to suicide would do so.
3720-To-One t1_jadfnd7 wrote
Or how about… let the patient decide?
Crazy idea, I know.
socialist_frzn_milk t1_jae73pc wrote
Oh hey, it’s the same argument people use to argue against reproductive choice. No one has argued that every terminally ill person wants to die, and personally, I’d love to see some statistics on your assertion that assisted suicide will pressure people into killing themselves.
homefone t1_jaee5xd wrote
> Oh hey, it’s the same argument people use to argue against reproductive choice.
This is a red herring, and anyways, I support abortion rights.
>No one has argued that every terminally ill person wants to die
I didn't argue that either. I argued that the availability of euthanasia to the terminally ill will encourage people to take that choice, regardless of whether they want to or not.
>I’d love to see some statistics on your assertion that assisted suicide will pressure people into killing themselves.
You can't poll the terminally ill or dead.
socialist_frzn_milk t1_jaeffc0 wrote
You argued that the availability of assisted suicide will cause more people to commit suicide while completely ignoring that these are not always the only options. “Dignity” is whatever a terminally ill patient decides it is, and if it’s “put a needle in my arm while I am surrounded by family and friends and let me go to sleep peacefully”, that is absolutely their right and you have no business taking it from them.
Oh, and it turns out you don’t have to poll the terminally ill or dead to know that you’re talking out of your ass, because the NIH already says you’re wrong. This study shows there was absolutely no statistically higher risk of disproportionate effect on “at risk” groups: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652799/
Seems to me that you’re trying real hard not to say “But it makes me feel icky!”
homefone t1_jaegauh wrote
>that is absolutely their right and you have no business taking it from them.
No it isn't.
>Oh, and it turns out you don’t have to poll the terminally ill or dead to know that you’re talking out of your ass, because the NIH already says you’re wrong: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652799/
This analysis concerns whether racial minorities and other "vulnerable groups" are targeted for euthanasia. That's not I've been talking about.
socialist_frzn_milk t1_jaeiene wrote
In order for your argument to make any sense you would HAVE to be talking about at-risk groups, because otherwise you WOULD be talking out of your ass and there’d be no point continuing this.
And “No it isn’t” is something a child says when they’ve lost the argument. It IS a right, and you do not get to strip someone of their dignity because you don’t agree with their medical choices.
homefone t1_jaejgxw wrote
>HAVE to be talking about at-risk groups
No.
>It IS a right, and you do not get to strip someone of their dignity because you don’t agree with their medical choices.
I don't think it's a medical choice, I think it's killing oneself. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If you're saying it's a right, you need to show that it's a right.
socialist_frzn_milk t1_jaejzgm wrote
End-of-life decisions are medical decisions. You don’t get to pretend that they’re not. And since you are not interested in arguing like an adult, I’m about finished wasting my time.
Wentailang t1_jacvu65 wrote
maybe we shouldn’t have hospitals, since it pressures people to get checked into them if they otherwise would want to stay home. it’s not fair to the minority of people who prefer to suffer, so let’s take away everyone’s freedom of choice.
homefone t1_jad9qkt wrote
Usually, hospitals try to keep people alive, not dead. There is no equivalence here.
Wentailang t1_jadbhmo wrote
my point is “a few people might feel pressure if they have multiple options, so no one should have any options” sounds utterly ridiculous in any other context. i do understand where you’re coming from, and that euthanasia is higher stakes, but we shouldn’t be torturing millions of people so that thousands might accidentally stop suffering a couple months early when they actually wanted to draw it out.
and to answer the inevitable follow up, i don’t see why it’s easier to advocate keeping euthanasia banned when we could instead be advocating for doctors not being allowed to suggest it, or not be allowed to give it to non-terminally ill patients.
homefone t1_jadcepi wrote
And equating euthanasia to "just another option" is what concerns me.
Pain mitigation is very good for most terminally ill people. The idea that euthanasia is anything but a nuclear option for the few cases where pain is prolonged and unmanageable is disturbing. Suicide is not pain mitigation. It's death.
The reason why we shouldn't allow it at all is because, no matter what, some families will mention to their ill, and because you will inevitably euthanize someone who couldn't have consented to it. There are too many ethical problems with it.
Wentailang t1_jaddbed wrote
i feel like this is a fundamental difference we probably won’t be reconciling, but i do see where you’re coming from and apologize if i came off a bit dickish. while i do still support it, you’ve at least helped add some more nuance to my stance. thanks for bearing with me.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments