>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.

>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.

>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?

>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.

>“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.

> 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.

>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.

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.

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.

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.

Usually, hospitals try to keep people alive, not dead. There is no equivalence here.

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.

>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.

>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?

>where it's being proposed as an option to patients

This is an inevitability, not a possibility. Families and doctors will bring it up.

>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.

Good. Local municipalities shouldn't be able to restrict all housing development, maybe barring large single family homes. The median home in Massachusetts costs well over $600K. If you'd like to fix the problem before we arrive at a similar point, the only way to do it is to build more housing and that's impossible without addressing local zoning.

Building only becomes cost effective when there's any sort of scale. The time and monetary costs of obtaining the permits necessary to build one home, on top of land and materials, is going to be quite high. It makes more sense to simply allow developers to easily construct new homes of all types, add ADUs by right, repurpose abandoned buildings, etc.

Can't blame him for that really

Nearly all infrastructure funding goes to roads & highways lmao

🤡

You have just discovered that science is a continuous process, and that what the theories we accept are likely to eventually change.

In other words, welcome to freshman year bio.

I'd be willing to bet that the population of communities with a T stop is a strong plurality if not a majority of the Commonwealth.

>and transportation

Somehow I don't feel like more money going to the MBTA as it stands is going to help anything. Actually I feel as if I'd rather watch a pile of money burn in front of me.

VTDigger is the only VT newspaper I read. Free Press really isn't much better than 7 Days.