Submitted by d5dq t3_11e4fdy in massachusetts
Comments
Crazyhellga t1_jach3er wrote
Yup. I’ve been there with my Dad, he entered hospice when his cancer got to the point where the surgeon walked out of the OR crying (same surgeon working on him for ten years) saying “I am so sorry, there is nothing more I can do”. Well, because other than cancer my Dad is as absolutely healthy, even after 10 years of treatments, it took him over three weeks to die, essentially starving to death because that was the only option and it was awful. I would never wish another family to go through it. If you are literally just waiting to die, why drag it out and make it very miserable physically and emotionally for the dying and their families?
S1ntag t1_jack5tz wrote
My deepest condolences for your loss.
homefone t1_jacl8sv wrote
>why drag it out and make it very miserable physically and emotionally for the dying and their families?
Because of exactly this. Dying people may view themselves as a burden and essentially commit suicide to not feel like that. This is part of why Mass courts have ruled against medically assisted suicide.
Edit: You cannot disagree with the majority opinion on this subreddit without getting hard down voted.
SouthShoreSerenade t1_jacomy4 wrote
>Dying people may view themselves as a burden
I'm going to say something awful.
I've seen enough dying people in my life to know that they ARE a burden, almost universally, when that death is drawn out. A horrible burden, one that saps the strength, the will, the hope, and the light out of the people that care for them.
Any dying person that wishes to avoid being that terrible burden on the ones that they love have the God given right to make the choice not to be that burden, and government and a falsely polite society have no right interfering with that.
Dementia has struck every elderly blood related person on my dad's side of the family. Already I can see it coming for him. I know it will come for me too. I will not let my loved ones have to babysit me while I scream in fear, soil myself, and try to call police on the threatening "intruders" who have loved me their entire lives. It's not happening.
socialist_frzn_milk t1_jae6cld wrote
This isn’t an awful sentiment, people with severe dementia and Alzheimers ARE a huge burden and the people in my family who have died of it would have been mortified to know the hardship it placed on their loved ones. Death with dignity is always preferable.
homefone t1_jacqik8 wrote
>Any dying person that wishes to avoid being that terrible burden on the ones that they love have the God given right to make the choice not to be that burden, and government and a falsely polite society have no right interfering with that.
No. Feeling like a burden is not a justification for suicide. It's not normally, and that doesn't change at the end of life. And how will we be certain that every medically assisted suicide will be done to someone that can actually consent to it? Dying people are not known for their mental faculties.
>I've seen enough dying people in my life to know that they ARE a burden
And so, you'd prefer they feel pressured to kill themselves because of it?
3720-To-One t1_jad0j9r wrote
You’re right.
Let’s force dying people to needlessly suffer, because letting them go out on their own terms it makes you uncomfortable.
I’m sure if you were the one slowly dying an agonizing death, you’d feel different.
If you don’t want a euthanasia, don’t get one.
Miami_Vice-Grip t1_jad0q3v wrote
I don't really view any life generally as anything that special/beautiful. It seems like you are arguing for a position that doesn't hold water. Like, they are only killing themselves because they feel they are a burden? Well two things, they are literally already going to die anyway regardless of their feelings, and they literally are a burden on the others.
Normally the rationale behind not wanting suicides is that the people have more life to live or the issues they have are temporary. Neither of those apply here.
Like I get the instinct to be against it, but it's a unique situation compared to "traditional" suicide. It's also not like anyone is forcing people to die.
If the worry is that others with power of attorney would like, trick people into signing up for MAID or something, that's a whole other issue.
All of this unless I'm not understanding what you're saying correctly
homefone t1_jadb6kt wrote
The rationale against prohibiting suicide is that human life is the most valuable thing in the world. That's why offenses which violate human life are the most heinous crimes one can commit.
Suicide is not pain mitigation. It's forcefully snuffing out someone's life, and it can't be undone. The fact that we're discussing this as just another medical treatment and not a nuclear option is exactly what concerns me here.
socialist_frzn_milk t1_jae6k5i wrote
“Forcefully snuffing out someone’s life” who often cannot remember their own name, or the names and faces of the people they love, or even remember to go to the bathroom on their own.
This is a life worth living to you?
homefone t1_jaeemc0 wrote
>“Forcefully snuffing out someone’s life” who often cannot remember their own name
This is borderline eugenics. There are a lot of groups of people who can't remember their own name, and therefore, can't consent to be euthanized.
Whether that's a life worth living to me or anybody else is irrelevant, what matters is if euthanasia for the dying is worth the ethical rabbit holes it creates, and I don't think it is.
socialist_frzn_milk t1_jaef276 wrote
So…you just selectively edited my post and either didn’t read or didn’t bother to address the rest of it. Good work. Just like every anti-choice activist on Earth. Sentimentalizing human life and pretending that medical freedom doesn’t matter if it makes YOU personally uncomfortable.
Also, I’d love to know how allowing terminally ill patients to choose their time and manner of death is some sort of “rabbit hole”.
homefone t1_jaegtyx wrote
>Sentimentalizing human life
...That's supposed to be bad?
>So…you just selectively edited my post and either didn’t read or didn’t bother to address the rest of it
I did address it. What you wrote seems to imply that people who can't remember their own names etc. have lives not worth living. In that case, yeah, I do find it prudent to point out the fairly obvious eugenic implications of that argument. And, whether you think someone in that condition has the faculty to consent to be euthanized.
>Just like every anti-choice activist on Earth.
I'm still waiting on how this is connected to abortion?
socialist_frzn_milk t1_jaeikg1 wrote
Sentimentalizing human life is connected to being anti-choice and if you can’t see how, you’re absolutely anti-choice.
And the fact that you think that there would be no psych eval or screening process in place boggles my mind. What, did you think doctors would just blow terminally ill patients’ heads off with shotguns if they decided to die with dignity?
Miami_Vice-Grip t1_jaewqlk wrote
shrug I feel like it's not that big a deal. Killing people who don't want to die is basically one of the worst things you can do to someone, but EoL situations get trickier. All humans are going to die eventually. Like I think you and I are imagining very different scenarios here. The people that MAID would apply to aren't people who have a full rich life that "could have been" if they didn't get the treatment.
Like, we put our pets to sleep if they are suffering and there's no hope left, yet we force ourselves to live through that same pain until the end. You say it's not for pain mitigation, but if someone's remaining "life" is just bedridden pain, how exactly is it cruel to allow them the choice of ending it?
But again, as long as we can all just agree that NO ONE IS FORCED TO USE THIS OPTION, similar to abortions, if it's not for you, then just don't do it. You can get upset about it, but ultimately, there's nothing after life aside from decomposition. The people who die don't give any shits anymore, and so if it's gonna happen anyway, might as well have some vestige of control.
Are there potentially people who would/could bully their family member into agreeing to be euthanized? I mean, I guess so? We already allow other people to decide to pull the plug on life support (I know it's different), we also allow family members to coach people into/through medical procedures just in general.
Worrying that someone who is actually qualified for MAID will decide to end themselves solely because of "pressure" from caregivers seems like such a specific stretch that should not block the whole idea from happening.
Implement MAID, and then see if anyone is abusing it. I mean, you also have the doctors, they aren't stupid, they are used to dealing with people who are seeking specific procedures while under duress/fear/pressure, and this would be no different.
Also, MAID is already a thing in many places around the world, so whatever worries you have about it, just like, Google if they actually happen or not. Clearly in these places where it's legal for years haven't had any complaints grievous enough to shut the whole thing down.
SouthShoreSerenade t1_jae1op5 wrote
I'd prefer a scumbag like you not to decide the fates of others.
3720-To-One t1_jacoy3r wrote
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.
copenhagen120 t1_jacpric wrote
Why not give them the agency to make that decision for themselves? Trust me, not giving them the choice doesn't make it any better.
My father-in-law is terminally ill, and for him the only thing worse than the physical pain is the emotional distress of knowing that his last days will be be a painful drain of emotional and financial resources on himself and the family he's leaving behind.
I really can't emphasize the agency part enough. Getting a terminal diagnosis is so emotionally difficult, partly because you're officially at the end of the line. There's nothing you or anyone else can do to keep the fight going. You've been stripped of agency in your fight to live, and you don't even have the agency to decide to end it if that's what you want. It contributes to the powerlessness of a terminal diagnosis in such an unnecessary way and is heartbreaking to witness.
homefone t1_jactmvn wrote
Look, I've been through similar circumstances. I would've never wished for that person to feel it necessary to kill themselves to avoid any burden of mine or somebody else's. As soon as that pressure exists, it can't be ethical suicide.
And, unless every case of medical suicide is undergone by a person 100% able to consent to such, legalizing this process amounts to state sponsored murder.
3720-To-One t1_jad0w24 wrote
THEY ARE GOING TO DIE AN EXCRUCIATING DEATH.
Why are you so in favor of state-sponsored torture?
We literally euthanize our pets when their time is done so they don’t have to suffer.
Why can’t you have that compassion for a human, who’s going to die anyways, and who wants to be able to go out on their own terms.
Chippopotanuse t1_jae7dtc wrote
Disagreeing with majorities often comes with folks booing you.
Yes. That’s how it works.
You are as free to hold whatever unpopular opinions on end of life decisions you want.
And we are equally as free to boo you.
homefone t1_jaedv73 wrote
>You are as free to hold whatever unpopular opinions on end of life decisions you want.
I'm in the majority, however slight. Do you not remember the ballot question we had about this issue not too long ago? The pro-euthanasia side failed. What is unpopular on this subreddit doesn't reflect the Bay State.
>And we are equally as free to boo you.
And you're as equally free to express your dissent and have a meaningful conversation with me like an adult, as I've done with quite a few people here. The whole point of a state subreddit is to have a sense of community and discuss issues with your neighbors. I guess that's too much.
Chippopotanuse t1_jaemgcg wrote
The ballot question. Yes. Sure. The 51/49 majority from the 2012 ballot question? That’s your basis for claiming you are in a majority view in 2023? Interesting.
Since this seems to be a subject you care about, I’m sure you are very familiar with the far more recent poll by Suffolk that found that 77% of Massachusetts residents believe a mentally sound adult with an incurable, terminal illness should have the legal option of asking a physician to prescribe aid-in-dying medication to end their suffering. Nearly 16% opposed and 7 percent were undecided.
Where are you getting information that a majority of Massachusetts residents oppose assisted suicide?
homefone t1_jaeohx5 wrote
>Where are you getting information that a majority of Massachusetts residents oppose assisted suicide?
From the last legitimate test we've had on the issue. What people say in polls and what people vote for varies dramatically.
Chippopotanuse t1_jaep7hp wrote
So 2012.
Got it.
aKaake t1_jackjl6 wrote
I've had multiple family members pass away, one as recently as last year and they have all expressed wishing they had this option.
It's important, and everyone deserves dignity and respect especially at the end of their life.
IntelligentMeal40 t1_jacxfqu wrote
My mom decided to be done and it makes me so sad that she had to do that all on her own.
aKaake t1_jacxyg5 wrote
I'm sorry about your mom. My Grampa decided to stop eating and stopped his meds. It was slow and painful for him. He was 93, he had lived, and he knew he wanted to go.
[deleted] t1_jacva70 wrote
[deleted]
aKaake t1_jacxolh wrote
It's heartbreaking hearing a loved one beg to just die. We do it for pets, and put them out of their misery. Why not give a human that right?
headrush46n2 t1_jae5ftz wrote
Because we let religion have too much say on politics.
wwj t1_jae0irp wrote
I agree. Forcing someone to die of hunger/thirst is torture. The state should not mandate that people must be tortured to death.
I had an aunt slowly pass for ten days in hospice. What I saw can only be described as torture. I was amazed that her husband and children (adults) had been convinced by the medical people that everything was fine and this was normal and peaceful. Bullshit.
theJobuTupaki t1_jad4pzs wrote
I hope Massachusetts does the right thing on this. Personal healthcare decisions are being taken away. Choice is important. If someone doesn't want to suffer, they deserve to go out on their own terms.
There is a great documentary about this topic called, How To Die In Oregon. They've had "medical aid in dying" for years.
GlowInTheDarkNinjas t1_jacgcnk wrote
I'm all for it, as long as it doesn't turn into what we hear from Canada where it's being proposed as an option to patients (especially those who don't really need it). I feel like it's unfair to present it to someone, they should come to the conclusion all on their own that that's what they'd like to do.
THevil30 t1_jad2ixv wrote
Yeah this is the thing. When this last came around I was SO in favor of MaiD because it made sense and the slippery slope arguments all seemed kind of silly.
And then Canada did it and just like skiied all the way down to the bottom of that slippery slope. Every thing the anti MaiD guys were saying was going to happen happened. People being pressured into choosing MaiD to avoid healthcare costs, people who can’t consent getting forced into MaiD, literal commercials for MaiD. It seems to be too much.
I have no issue with it from a moral perspective, and think it’s a choice I’d want to make in certain situations but idk man. The externalities seem bad, and Canada is usually better than the US at these these things.
homefone t1_jacletp wrote
>where it's being proposed as an option to patients
This is an inevitability, not a possibility. Families and doctors will bring it up.
headrush46n2 t1_jae5nmc wrote
Yeah except it's just being used not for the best interest of the patient, but for hospitals and cost cutting.
superbbuffalo t1_jackikj wrote
That’s my fear too. It’s such an easy jump to make for governments.
IntelligentMeal40 t1_jacxu9f wrote
Yes I agree, but at the same time I would rather die than sleep on the sidewalk. The government is going to withhold help from people either way, it’s not like by not allowing this the government will suddenly provide resources to people.
copenhagen120 t1_jacp8ek wrote
This is one of those issues that a lot of people feel uncomfortable facing. Lots of slippery slope arguments, religious/moral arguments, etc. Opinions change when you have a dying, suffering loved one who wants nothing more than to end the pain, and isn't able to. I promise, your take on the subject will quickly shift to "it's absolutely unacceptable that someone in terminal pain doesn't have the agency to end their struggle on their own terms".
My father-in-law is terminally ill, and for him the only thing worse than the physical pain is the emotional distress of knowing that his last days will be be a painful drain of emotional and financial resources on himself and the family he's leaving behind.
And I can't emphasize the agency part enough. Getting a terminal diagnosis is so emotionally difficult, partly because you're officially at the end of the line. There's nothing you or anyone else can do to keep the fight going. You've been stripped of agency in your fight to live, and you don't even have the agency to decide to end it if that's what you want. It just contributed to the powerlessness of a terminal diagnosis in such an unnecessary way and is heartbreaking to witness.
crake t1_jadn2ts wrote
I identify with this. As a lawyer, I spent years justifying the government's anti-death position, arguing (mostly with myself) that as a policy matter, letting people commit suicide by medical means would introduce all kinds of mischief into estate and family planning.
However, having seen both my father-in-law and my dad die from cancer, my mind is completely changed. I'm sure there are worse deaths than late stage renal failure, but my FIL was begging the doctors to kill him by the end, it was totally macabre. My dad's death in hospice care was better, but it still took almost two weeks before he took his last breath. Both deaths were traumatic for everyone around them except the doctors and nurses who see it every day.
What aggravates me is that people like me simply do not see death every day. We see it maybe once or twice close up in our entire lifetimes. So why are people like me being asked to advocate for this? MDs in hospitals see this every. single. day. Doctors and nurses should be advocating for some form of assisted suicide for terminal patients because dying is a million times more painful than whatever possible self/assisted-inflicted death moment could ever be.
If I treated my dog like the doctors treated my relatives, I think I'd be charged with cruelty to animals - and perhaps rightly so. Nobody would let a horse or a dog die an agonizing death from cancer; they would feel duty-bound to put the animal out of its misery. Yet with humans we all want to pass the buck: the family doesn't want to do it, the doctors don't want to do it, and the dying person desperately wants to do it but cannot.
I don't think there is anything morally wrong with committing suicide if you get a terminal cancer diagnosis. I'm sorry, but my own plan is to go off in the woods with a shotgun and a single shell and eat it somewhere where it won't leave a big mess. Maybe send a note to the local PD by snail mail so they can find the body before anyone else does. That strikes me as a completely reasonable, even considerate thing to do.
Unique-Public-8594 t1_jacbv3v wrote
Merciful.
SouthShoreSerenade t1_jach8u3 wrote
Hopefully the megacult that worships pain and suffering has shrunk enough to be unable to sway opinions on this again.
3720-To-One t1_jachyg0 wrote
Seriously. It’s concerning how much Catholics want to force other people to endure horrible suffering, even after the writing is already on the wall.
I’m certain any going out on my own terms when the time comes, and anybody opposed to that can cry me a river.
Elementium t1_jaclsuj wrote
The problem is a lot of people say the same thing but far too often by the time they're past the point of "if I get like that I'll kill myself" their mind or body isnt there anymore.
3720-To-One t1_jacoghw wrote
I’m just sick of religious people feeling it’s their prerogative to shove their “values” down everyone else’s throat.
Elementium t1_jacp8h3 wrote
For sure. As a whole I'd like to see a recommitment to the whole separation of church and state.
[deleted] t1_jacvclq wrote
[deleted]
3720-To-One t1_jacx0i7 wrote
And their priests like to force themselves onto kids.
IntelligentMeal40 t1_jacxm2e wrote
It’s bizarre I don’t understand they have the same God as the Christians and they can’t wait to die, if they cause your death they convinced themselves that they did you a favor because you got to Jesus sooner.
They worship the same god as the Catholics, why don’t the Catholics want people to go to Jesus? Isn’t it supposed to be the promised land?
JGard18 t1_jacg20p wrote
Even my 8 year old can’t see why we shouldn’t let people choose their own time when they’re really ill or old
ak47workaccnt t1_jacklm8 wrote
What does he think about double negatives?
Edit: you guys have no sense of humor.
succubus_in_a_fuss t1_jae6w5m wrote
I chuckled.
Flower_Murderer t1_jacsozz wrote
Good, let those at the end of the road have agency. The companies milking them and their families for more funds can pound broken glass. There is no REASONABLE argument as to why this cannot be a thing.
Personal-Walrus3076 t1_jadlnlj wrote
Because it's a MORTAL sin!
Flower_Murderer t1_jadn87h wrote
Religion is not based on any reasonable arguments. Keep your religion out of the lives of others.
[deleted] t1_jadtr04 wrote
[deleted]
Personal-Walrus3076 t1_jadtzyb wrote
Indeed, it was sarcasm 😊
[deleted] t1_jadudms wrote
[deleted]
majoroutage t1_jaefpw8 wrote
That's not a good enough reason why the government needs to be involved in making that decision.
My biggest concern, though, is the slippery slope where people may start being denied care to stay living because they're deemed not worth saving. (And for those who will inevitably say "that won't happen" there sure has been a lot of "that won't happen" happening for awhile now.)
Uncle_Tony96 t1_jadtyor wrote
Agreed. You know we live in a sick society when people call killing other people “healthcare.” Same with abortion
3720-To-One t1_jadv3db wrote
You know we live in a sick society when people can’t respect the bodily autonomy of others to have control over their own bodies.
Uncle_Tony96 t1_jadvkru wrote
Bodily autonomy is the right to like get a tattoo if you want to. Or to not get a vaccine. Not kill things
3720-To-One t1_jadxwgu wrote
Nope, guess again.
bodily autonomy is the the ability to free yourself of a parasite leeching off your body.
Slamming the downvote doesn’t change that, btw.
Lost-Variation768 t1_jae5s32 wrote
While I’m pro choice myself, a fetus isn’t a ‘parasite’ if that’s what you’re trying to say. It’s a fetus. You can justify abortion without using such extreme language.
3720-To-One t1_jaeadwe wrote
And neither is a fetus or embryo a “baby”.
But if you want to get technical, it literally is a parasite, leeching resources off of its host.
Lost-Variation768 t1_jaeb977 wrote
I never called it a baby. As I said before I’m pro choice. Even if it was a baby, someone should have the right to not have their body used as life support for a baby, hence why I support the choice to abort up until viability.
It isn’t ‘literally a parasite’, it’s just a fetus. Calling pregnancy a parasitic relationship is incredibly weird.
3720-To-One t1_jaegouo wrote
It is a parasitic relationship.
The host body gains nothing from it.
Meanwhile, something like your gut flora is a symbiotic relationship.
Lost-Variation768 t1_jaehr52 wrote
Nobody outside of Reddit calls fetuses parasites.
3720-To-One t1_jaei8dh wrote
If conservatives are going to constantly try to appeal to emotion, it’s time to play to their level.
A microscopic embryo is not special, it is not a person, it is a parasitic clump of cells.
Lost-Variation768 t1_jaeiiya wrote
So both you and the conservatives will take refuge in being wrong to own the opponent? Sounds anti-intellectual to me.
3720-To-One t1_jaejtmk wrote
How well has going high gone?
Lost-Variation768 t1_jaex6f7 wrote
Calling fetuses parasites isn't going to convince anyone...
wwj t1_jadz5ma wrote
It's funny when backwards thinkers get revealed because they don't understand sarcasm.
[deleted] t1_jadtgj1 wrote
[deleted]
socialist_frzn_milk t1_jae632a wrote
Oh please let this happen. I would love for a “death with dignity” law in MA. Too much history of incurable diseases in my family.
Cabes86 t1_jaeer8p wrote
I voted for this in 2012, where it seemed to only narrowly lose. I think a mixture of old fashioned people dying and the sheer weight of elder care and long term health issue costs will push this to win handily.
Mikes_Movies_ t1_jaegp92 wrote
As long as the state doesn’t start suggesting medical suicide for people who don’t need it Canada, sure
labrie_sideloaders t1_jadca15 wrote
The only reason this is not legal is because it would cost the pharmaceutical companies amd hospitals money. They keep people alive as zombies as long as possible on insane amounts of drugs. Saw it with my father in 2018 for 6 months with cancer. He expressed dying with dignity several times. A terrible way to go out.
[deleted] t1_jaciwos wrote
[deleted]
Linux-Is-Best t1_jadh2mk wrote
Hello everyone,
Because of the nature of this thread, which talks about assisted suicide, the automod may temporarily flag your post. Please do not message the mods to approve your post, we will get to it as we get to it. In fact, messaging the mods concerning your post is liking going to just encourage us to confirm the removal... Wait, we'll get to you (no rushing us).
Since I have your attention...
I understand for some of you, this may be a sensitive topic, but I do remind you all to please discuss this topic with each other respectfully. You are welcome to disagree with one another respectfully, too. Everyone is welcome to share their thoughts, opinions, and beliefs freely in a respectful and civil manner.
If someone disagrees with you, it does not count as an attack or being disrespectful or as "spam." And if you make a false report, you may find yourself removed, but furthermore, when we approve something, we can also bring it up to the top... So the thing you were falsely reporting, trying to make go away, you may encourage someone, like me, to bring into focus. -- I'm just saying...
Thanks for your time and consideration. -- Be safe, everyone (it's cold and snowing out there).
deano413 t1_jae36e3 wrote
It's a slippery slope... How long do you really think it's going to take our for-profit health system to go from assisting suicide, to recommending or pushing it to save $.
I'm probably in the minority but if you want to leave the earthly plane that badly, it's not too hard to take care of it yourself. Definitely not difficult enough to make me want to consider opening up that can of worms to our health insurance companies.
headrush46n2 t1_jae67r5 wrote
It's already happening in Canada and they don't have our disaster of a healthcare system. This could end really, really badly
NativeSon508 t1_jae1uto wrote
Didn’t we just vote this down something like 4 years ago?
Laureltess t1_jaf17b3 wrote
According to another commenter it was 2012- so 11 years ago. I think post Covid we could reasonably see a lot of folks changing their minds on this one.
[deleted] t1_jaeicgb wrote
[removed]
Elecrockcity t1_jackhzk wrote
Call it euthanasia please, stop using language to manipulate people.
hanner__ t1_jacmzyg wrote
Everyone knows what it is. Don’t see what’s so wrong with being able to choose to end your life if you’re going to die anyway.
[deleted] t1_jacn0vo wrote
[removed]
Elecrockcity t1_jacvuar wrote
You’re giving the state too much power. The left has become the party of the state and it’s absolutely disgusting.
3720-To-One t1_jad15lb wrote
This is actually giving individuals more power.
Why do you hate freedom?
Elecrockcity t1_jad1m7b wrote
Permitting the state to assist in the destruction of life rather than the sustainment of it is giving power to the individual? How do you figure? I thought that we were trying to do everything in our power to save grandma from the scary Covid bug - now, grandma can kill herself at her own delusional whim just so the state can save some money on Medicare? That’s awfully kind of you to support on behalf of the state.
3720-To-One t1_jad28k0 wrote
Conservatives really struggle with the concept of consent, don’t you?
And the state wouldn’t be killing anyone.
The state would be allowing people to have agency over their own bodies.
Again, if you don’t want a euthanasia, don’t get one.
But I don’t know who you think you are that you get to force grandpa to suffer a horribly slow and agonizing death over the course of several weeks, when they’d rather just die quickly and peacefully.
But if you’re a masochist, nobody is going to take away your right to suffer.
Elecrockcity t1_jad34l8 wrote
Do you see how your argument relies on personal attack for effect? The name calling, the straw man, the appeals to emotion?
Look at you, defending the state again like a good little statist. You’re being used. And then you’re pointing at me and crying, “blasphemer! Don’t question the state - they’re granting me agency!”
[deleted] t1_jad6ftq wrote
[deleted]
Elecrockcity t1_jad7gx0 wrote
Do you think that me calling you a statist is a personal attack?
[deleted] t1_jad7rhu wrote
[deleted]
Elecrockcity t1_jad7xxb wrote
You mean like when you called me a masochist that supports grandpa’s suffering a tormented death?
[deleted] t1_jad8c06 wrote
[deleted]
Elecrockcity t1_jad8l9a wrote
I didn’t argue against that point because it’s absurd. And you are correct, that was not you - my mistake.
[deleted] t1_jad98b3 wrote
[deleted]
Elecrockcity t1_jada3m0 wrote
Statist is not an insult any more than conservative is.
[deleted] t1_jadb9jf wrote
[deleted]
Elecrockcity t1_jadiags wrote
Are you implying that you know better than I my intent in using a word? I think that’s pretty absurd. If I wanted to use a pejorative, I would find one better than statist. I am simply making an observation, not an insult. You are defending state actions and assigning them moral superiority based only on the fact that the state decreed them. That is - definitionally - statism. You are an agent of the state and treat the state as an authority with moral superiority.
[deleted] t1_jadm2l5 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_jadu8wh wrote
[deleted]
Elecrockcity t1_jae6dyq wrote
Thanks for your input.
hanner__ t1_jad9ftu wrote
What? I’m not even “the left” lol. I’m just all about people having the freedom to make choices about their medical care. Kevorkian had the right idea.
Elecrockcity t1_jada96d wrote
So tell me - do you support medical mandates?
hanner__ t1_jadage6 wrote
I support whatever seems like it would be beneficial. So it depends on the mandate.
You realize that assisted suicide is not a medical mandate though, right?
Elecrockcity t1_jadazxc wrote
I do but you said you are “all about people having the freedom to make choices about their medical care.” I was just wondering how consistent you are in that approach. Does it extend to the public health sphere or just for euthanasia?
hanner__ t1_jadb76b wrote
What mandate did the state put out that affected anyone receiving the health care they wanted?
[deleted] t1_jadhwir wrote
[removed]
Laurenann7094 t1_jae7bx8 wrote
Oh ffs
Elecrockcity t1_jaebl1h wrote
Right
hanner__ t1_jaeoiy0 wrote
Not really. Show me one person who was held down and forced to get the vaccine.
[deleted] t1_jaerh1o wrote
[removed]
IntelligentMeal40 t1_jacy1q8 wrote
OK, I should be able to choose euthanasia for myself if I am terminal and suffering. Why should our pets get better, more humane treatment, than humans?
Elecrockcity t1_jaczz0k wrote
I believe that’s subjective. Also, that was not my argument. My argument was aimed at the manipulation of language.
[deleted] t1_jacylf1 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_jad15hn wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jad1egm wrote
[deleted]
Elecrockcity t1_jad2n4z wrote
What about anything I said has - oh Zelenskyy. Triggered you on that one, huh? You focused on that one point and tunnel-visioned the rest like a good little cultist, it seems. You don’t see the manipulation in that? That your immediate instinct is - oh this person doesn’t think like me, must be a Russian bot because otherwise maybe I’d have to consider their point without a lens of bias provided to me by my country’s military industrial complex.
I don’t know what you mean about nuance - I’ve provided a lot of nuance in my responses and so far you’ve ignored them because you’re afraid to acknowledge them.
[deleted] t1_jad3xw4 wrote
[deleted]
Elecrockcity t1_jad4jt8 wrote
You’re correct, a cultist can’t stand criticism of things the cult has told them to love. Slava Ukraini, indeed.
[deleted] t1_jad5xfs wrote
[deleted]
Elecrockcity t1_jad71d1 wrote
Who are you talking to?
[deleted] t1_jad78jh wrote
[deleted]
Elecrockcity t1_jad7s7a wrote
I just thought for a moment you’d notice that you were projecting. A cultist can’t stand criticism of things the cult has told them to love… and yet in that long response to you five responses above - the ONE thing you took from it was that I dared to invoke Zelenskyy’s name in vain… you don’t see your reaction to that as a cultist’s impulse to reject criticism of something the cult loves?
[deleted] t1_jad8723 wrote
[deleted]
Elecrockcity t1_jad8gfv wrote
We’re speaking a different language - do you at least acknowledge that?
[deleted] t1_jad966e wrote
[deleted]
Elecrockcity t1_jada001 wrote
It is indeed English. But it is a different language. It’s like a software engineer and a car mechanic trying to tell each other what’s wrong with their respective machinery. They may have the technical understanding of the problem, but lack the shared language to communicate it to the other despite their competence in ability to understand.
Which comes back to my original point - stop abiding the destruction of language. It is driving a wedge between people that would perhaps otherwise agree.
[deleted] t1_jadb2rf wrote
[deleted]
Elecrockcity t1_jadhq76 wrote
Once again, you’re arguing for a point I did not make. My point has nothing to do with people euthanizing themselves - it’s the effort to manipulate the language used when talking about it. This is intentional, and it is breaking the shared understanding of concepts that can only be communicated through language. In this way, we have effectively begun speaking a different language from one another. I’m being as clear and as direct as I possibly can be, and you are still likely going to assert that I expressed an idea that I did not simply because you have accepted this update to the language code and I have not.
Nice diss on the car mechanic by the way, bigot.
[deleted] t1_jadkb91 wrote
[deleted]
Elecrockcity t1_jadku4e wrote
You are unpleasant.
[deleted] t1_jadmg3u wrote
[deleted]
S1ntag t1_jacf8cq wrote
Don't drag out the death. If they're going to die, let them at least die with dignity and their faculties.