Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Technical-Plate-2973 t1_je6rpfn wrote

Because there are actually some progressive concerns against it. I recommend reading this:

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2007/10/03/a-progressive-argument-against-the-legalization-of-physician-assisted-suicide/

I understand that someone would get to a point that they are suffering so much, they are near the end of their life and this is the decision that is right for them. I just think it is really tricky for the state to put guidelines though law the point in which that would be allowed.. especially when people that get a really bad diagnosis a lot of times get really depressed and we don’t want them to make rash decisions. There is a reasons that all disability rights organizations oppose this. Like- how to decide which disabled is bad enough to kill yourself? In Canada they allow this for chronically I’ll and mentally ill people.

I also think this article speaks to the economic factors- , “So to put it starkly, if you’re faced with the choice at the end of life where one option is between $50 and $150 for a lethal prescription of medication to end your life versus tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars for long-term care, that’s a pretty draconian choice to put in front of people.”

14

MattOLOLOL t1_je6ur4n wrote

The alternative is to simply not give them a choice, so they end up with the 10k+ bill automatically. That certainly doesn't seem better.

34

[deleted] t1_je6zvo4 wrote

Better for the corporations who issue the bill

12

Pocketpine t1_je718t6 wrote

I mean, They already have the choice, just maybe not through a hospital.

However, It’s another thing entirely for a doctor to suggest offing yourself over a bill. That would be my main worry—insurance companies pushing death instead of treatment. It already happens, more or less, this would just be explicit.

9

gorkt t1_je9rogq wrote

I understand this argument - I do think that when you give the government the power to make life and death decisions, there needs to be clearly defined and strict limits.

2

Lilly6916 t1_je83s3m wrote

Maybe it’s a reasonable choice. They’re dying anyway. They’re certainly not comfortable. And they don’t want to add to family burden. I’d take the $50 option.

1

Technical-Plate-2973 t1_je861w9 wrote

I disagree. We want people to do this only as a final measure and as a last resort. We don't want people to do this because they are financially pressured. That is not what this bill is for.

4

SileAnimus t1_je8r89q wrote

In other words we can't legalize it because healthcare wringing dying people suffering is just so sexy and profitable, so much so that people would literally rather die than dealt with healthcare's bills.

Peak USA.

3

Technical-Plate-2973 t1_jea7pue wrote

No, it’s that we have a very unequal healthcare system. That’s fucked up. Because of that, we don’t want to legalize this just for people to choose physician assisted suicide out of financial pressure (for example, to avoid being in medical debt). It’s sad but it’s true.

1

George_GeorgeGlass t1_je8d4ul wrote

And this here is all the twisted ways that make this not clear cut.

I’m loving all the comments about healthcare providers being too religious or the system is making money off the backs of terminal patients. All from people who don’t get it or can’t think this deep.

There are so many ethical issues tied to this. It’s simply not that easy. You can see how few people understand the layers of this just reading through this thread.

2

Avocadoexpresss OP t1_jea7pgs wrote

In the 11 states that currently allow DwD, the perimeters are very clear. A person diagnosed terminal with 6mo or less to live can can verbalise their wishes to take a life ending drug sooner (with vetting). No ambiguity.

1

Lilly6916 t1_jea2rnl wrote

Sorry, I didn’t mean financial pressure. But people should have the option to do this sooner. I wouldn’t want to live the end of my life trapped in my body, not able to do anything, not able to communicate readily, maybe not able to breathe on my own, maybe in a nursing home. The financial pressure and burden on my family would certainly be a consideration. But not the primary issue. Some people want every second they can get and that should also be their option.

2

Technical-Plate-2973 t1_jea74vi wrote

I get that. I think the argument in the article is that because we don’t have Universal Health Care, people would be pressured to choose this because they don’t want to go into medical debt. I don’t this that is something we should allow.

1