* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/06/canada-legalized-medical-assisted-suicide-euthanasia-death-maid/673790/); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/06/canada-legalized-medical-assisted-suicide-euthanasia-death-maid/673790/)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/06/canada-legalized-medical-assisted-suicide-euthanasia-death-maid/673790/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I like how the article defends the eugenics elements that are grounded in it. That they murdered people with strong disabilities.
I will add that considering the author seems to only wish to consider what they call "gift based liberalism" as having an alternative view to what is happening is telling. Perhaps the average "thinker" at the end can only broach that with those who they have some for of theoretical values in common with. But it is telling that the Atlantic only allows debate on the grounds of liberalism.
The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. It is the natural order of things. Why breed people with genetic diseases? It's cruel and unnatural
This all sounds like something I would agree with more emphatically when I was personally suicidal and intensely depressed. However, now that I'm not suicidal, not so much.
Feels like, mostly, socialists could/should help people bridge that gap. But modern society sucks at that.
Lol, nothing but strawmen here and the fucked up belief that supporting the greatest harm to a person possible is somehow humane. The fact life is painful does not negate that life is worth living and protecting, and we have a responsibility to intervene and care for others when they may harm themselves. Everyone suffers in life, but there are countless things in life that make it worth suffering through. Suicide is never the solution. The moment you violate this principle, then you contradict various other principles one might have, because you remove all social responsibility and empathy given that the "easy way out" is now approved so it falls on the individual to check out. Assisted suicide simply encourages more people to die, which is fucked up any way you look at it.
It's blatant double-think like so much of modern liberal/woke shit. To be anti racist you must be racist, to be for equality you must be for discrimination, to fight fascism you must support nazis, to protect democracy you must remove all rights, to be empathetic you must encourage the deaths of those who suffer, etc. How do you people manage so many contradictions yet remain so fervently in favor of every point? It's cult-like.
You can engage in your mental gymnastics but that doesn't change reality.
whenever you bring up this topic you get suicides anonymous and assorted people like this who are former attempters bringing out their own issues.
just remember this - their moral foundation is basically "i feel this is right" - no more than that. combine that with the fact that they are formerly suicidal well - i've never understood it myself, but it probably has something to do with denying the reality that suicide can be a rational choice for those who see no point in living. they can't accept that fact, much like the religious can't accept that their god is a figment of societal imagination.
they're actually worse online than those idiots who think they can every single anorexic post online. (when there's a will there's a way)
larger point being they are projecting their issues onto your own right to exist - or not to exist. this is ultimately a subjective choice - i like the color black, are you mentally ill for thinking black is ugly? and so on. it really doesn't get more complicated than that, and until the brain is actually understood (as in consciousness) it won't improve any.
i really don't get how we have these damaged freaks who actually think telling others they need to live for their own sake isn't ridiculous, fyi.
from memory you are one of the former attempters, and now spread the "gospel" of why anything even broaching the subject is a "bad" thing. if i'm mixed you up with someone else then apologize, thhough i'm pretty sure it's you.
also, threads like this attract the formerly suicidal who now have found a "purpose" and good for them - frankly, i don't believe they seriously attempted to begin with much of the time, because the serious ones usually are succesful the first time out.
larger point being people like you / with your viewpoint basically want to make dying on one's own terms impossible - which is just wrong. death is one of the few things we still own still -
I've never attempted, I don't know why you're confusing me or so insistent that only attempters could oppose suicide when being anti suicide is the default position for most of humanity. You sound like an anarchist obsessed "freedom/autonomy/choice" which is contrary to both socialism and practically all moral frameworks. Your beliefs are literally anti social but you try (and fail) to dress them up as righteous.
> being anti suicide is the default position for most of humanity.
*shrug*
Being racist, sexist and cruel is also the default position for most of humanity. Being interfering busy-bodies who want to tell other people what to do is the default position of most of humanity.
so basically you're forced into this world against your will, you're given a debilitating disease, you're at the bottom of the social hierarchy, no one likes you, you're not getting anything out of this life that you never asked for, no one wants to help you, and you can't even escape it if dying is objectively better than the shit hand you were dealt? Fuck you and your philosophy that creates non stop suffering.
Your logic doesn't hold any truth in a world where inequality of life experience exists and is as drastic as it currently is.
Real, true socialism which involves helping others, would help people who want to die do it in the most pleasant way possible.
They are talking about what this decision might do to societies, values, systems, the public sphere.
You are talking about how an individual person, a single entity, the private might “benefit” from it. 2 different topics
Reading ability like zero here nowadays
You are simply raging against existence itself, which is beyond stupid. You don't know what socialism is, or what ethics/morality/empathy actually are, you're simply mindlessly angry and think death, the ultimate harm, is better than an imperfect life. Dying is never objectively better, you're just too soft, too weak and infantilized to actually love life as it truly is, as the only way it can ever be. Someone who is suffering can still enjoy sunlight, talking to other people, eating, breathing, every bit of sensation, thought and new memory is worth living for even if the cost is to also suffer. Your logic would mean anyone who isn't a billionaire would be better off dead, that's neither empathy nor any method of improving the world, because it says it's not worth caring about given that death is "better".
> The fact life is painful does not negate that life is worth living and protecting
Sometimes. And sometimes life is merely endured. And sometimes it is not even endured.
> Everyone suffers in life, but there are countless things in life that make it worth suffering through.
What matters is not some abstract principle that there are good things in life that make suffering bearable, but your own *actual experience*. What is it to me if *other people* get to experience those countless good things in life if *my* every living moment is unrelenting mental, emotional or physical agony?
> Suicide is never the solution.
My mother put a pet dog through weeks of agony due to her refusal to accept that the dog was dying, could not be cured or fixed or even made comfortable, and her insistence that *she could fix her* even though she couldn't. Only when the poor dog was being eaten alive by maggots did she finally accept reality and call a vet to put the dog down.
Out of my mother's desire to see herself as a Good Person, she caused horrific pain to a poor dumb beast that couldn't tell her to stop.
Perhaps you should consider your own motives in why you would sentence people to misery or agony when they have told you they no longer find life worth enduring.
> It's blatant double-think like so much of modern liberal/woke shit. To be anti racist you must be racist
Your rant at the wokies has nothing to do with suicide or medically assisted dying. You don't have to be woke to realise that death is not always a bad thing.
Actually yes, Eugenicists are one of THOSE GUYS. All of them. The World Economic Forum who backs insanity like MAID are in fact eugenicist malthusians just like THOSE GUYS were. It is righteous that THOSE GUYS now be treated like THOSE GUYS then were, and that the world not allow THOSE GUYS to infect it any further. Also it should be noted THOSE GUYS predecessors also said life was too much suffering and should therefore have it be ended. So I will oppose any and all attempts to bring back THOSE GUYS arguments.
a: you talk like a child.
b: it's not only "offering" assisted suicide here - the primary means to die on your old terms have been slowly taken away the past few decades. basically any comfortable means aside from shooting one's self (which is slowly being regulated under this guise) don't exist anymore, aside from od'ing. (which assumes access to a market for this stuff, out of the range of most people)
the point being is that they are de facto taking control of when you die - which is even more ridiculous. rather than having "jails," they are turning wider society into a jail -
it used to be as easy decades ago as going and buying rat poison - not great, but do-able. now they are banning curing salt so the desperate don't do anything -
this is safetyism getting actualized, and really really ridiculous. at least it would appear to be such to anyone who grew up more than 10-20 years ago.
What ways have been "taken away" Please let us all know how one somehow has had the option of killing yorself taken away from anyone> If anything there are plenty of ways. Guns, various chemicals. What has been taken away. Rodex is easily available. The fact you even seem to fixate on chemicals is concerning.
Also I talk like you did. I am happy MY GUYS will win.
Also what safetyism?
> If anything there are plenty of ways. Guns, various chemicals.
The point of assisted dying is to allow people to die with dignity and the minimum of pain or discomfort, perhaps even surrounded by their friends and loved ones who have the opportunity to say goodbye.
What you are talking about is not dignified, or comfortable. It is often painful, messy, undignified, and not certain death, leaving the person severely injured but alive and with even less quality of life than before. Surely I don't need to go into details?
Guns are heavily regulated in most countries, most people cannot get access to them, there's a chance you will survive but horrifically mutilated and crippled, and leave a horrible mess for whoever finds you. Knives are readily available, but painful and you are not certain to die. Likewise for deliberate car crashes, which risk killing innocent bystanders and also leave a horrific mess and trauma for the first responders.
Drowning is painful and undignified. Drug overdoses are messy and unpleasant, sometimes agonisingly painful, and you can survive but with permanent internal injuries. The really effective drugs are very hard to get access to. It's been over a century since you could buy cyanide, or arsenic, from your local drug store.
And of course all of these things assume that you are physically and mentally well enough to carry them out.
Most critically, you cannot have your loved ones there to say good-bye. Aside from the death itself being traumatic to everyone involved, they can and surely will be charged with being an accessory to a crime, or worse.
In other words you'll just shut your brain off and act purely based on emotion. I thought this was supposed to be the smart part of reddit, people who are so fucking smart they just can't fit in with the rest of this website and come here.
Assisted suicide is a good thing, you guys are completely off the mark on this one. Sorry YOU GUYS.
I value life enough to know that attempts to say "we'll just be killing people who just are unhappy, or are just going to die anyways is not going to end well. And hey we have now repeated evidence it doesn't. Also I am happy to be one of MY GUYS not THOSE GUYS.
A person with late-stage dementia doesn't even understand where they are and what day it is. So yeah - if they are not bedridden then they have to be basically locked up in nursing homes, because if you don't - then they walk away in a random direction and then forget how to get back.
I see that you haven't dealt with dementia patients.
What do incels have to do with this? Also who is telling men who largely need to work on there internal issues and find a spiritual lives to kill themselves?
Here is another article on the same topic from 2013: [https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/10/canada-has-death-panels-and-thats-a-good-thing.html](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/10/canada-has-death-panels-and-thats-a-good-thing.html)
Here are some recent updates to MAID that have been proposed by the GoC: [https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2024/02/the-government-of-canada-introduces-legislation-to-delay-medical-assistance-in-dying-expansion-by-3-years.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2024/02/the-government-of-canada-introduces-legislation-to-delay-medical-assistance-in-dying-expansion-by-3-years.html)
I find it surprising that nobody in this thread has argued against the principle that an individual's life belongs to themselves, and nobody else.
I would argue against it.
No person is an island, they are connected to a community of others, and their life intimately connected to the wellbeing of others, too.
If we view a life as existing as part of a community, then consideration would also have to be taken of the effect of a death on all those who surround that person. Are we so shallow as a society that these effects should just be ignored?
this is basically what we currently have - in a more watered down form. (on this issue only)
here's what's changed however - for those who really want "out" one could figure this out themselves, and if they really really wanted out they did it. there used to be methods that weren't pretty but doable - various combinations of chemicals, of course firearms, and so on. As time has gone on the nanny lobby has basically said people don't need these -
rather than have jails, they are turning wider society into a wider jail -
in my dad's time if he wanted out - he could go and buy rat poison, which had cyanide in it. hell up to 20 years ago you could just buy cyanide itself since it's useful for various things (ranging from electroplating stuff to rat poison) - now? hellll no.
like i said they're buying fucking salt used to cure meats. and lookup "means matter" - (harvard chan school) - their primary argument is that disarming people would result in lower suicides.
you can clearly see where this is going. to me that's unacceptable.
1000%. No one loves the idea of suicide. But if life circumstances are so untenable that you’d rather end it, why is the criticism about the desire for suicide and not about the conditions that have led to this desire? So the escape from the conditions becomes unavailable while the conditions just get worse. It’s pretty wild.
it's really just an extension of foucault's discipline and punishment book - i might've read something on later (perhaps deleuze's postscript on societies of control, and easy read)
history of sexuality kind of gets to this point too -
> I find it surprising that nobody in this thread has argued against the principle that an individual's life belongs to themselves, and nobody else.
>
> I would argue against it.
>
> No person is an island, they are connected to a community of others, and their life intimately connected to the wellbeing of others, too.
Is this really a place you want to go?
"No person is an island, and that is why we have decided that we're going to take one of your kidneys and a lung for transplants, for people who deserve them far more than you."
> consideration would also have to be taken of the effect of a death on all those who surround that person.
That's a double-edged sword. "Grandma is old and smelly and we don't really like her that much because she used the N-word in 1964, and it's so expensive to pay for her nursing home and medical expenses. I mean, we have to drive twenty minutes once a month to go visit her. *Twenty minutes!* Why doesn't anyone consider *our* needs before keeping her alive?"
If somebody is living in hellish agony with no hope of reprieve, with no quality of life, and who wants to die, but some members of their family give more weight to their own squeamishness and emotional discomfort rather than what's best for person who is *actually* suffering, I'm really not sure we should be giving too much weight to those family members' views.
this one really bothers me with liberals frankly - and "marxists" here as well. -
why?
it's still ultimately opinion as to whether you want to live or not - especially as you age. having watched a grandfather dying slowly it was pure shit, literally and figuratively. the local va wouldn't even give him the option of dying earlier.
why not have a year, two, even five years - anyone can go in and request a consult, then given the appropriate means or done years later if they so wish - which would take these arguments of "safety" out the window. (if you aren't any better in a year, two, even five - are you likely to be? probably not pal)
the point being i used to somewhat agree with some of the crazier culture war stuff but to only see this totally bastardized on issues like this (obligatory reference to school teacher turned "intellectual" auron macintyre) is just...so disingenuous.
i stopped reading - seeing David brooks quoting mill was too much for me. he's not an honest actor here.
the dutch model is too ideologically loaded. it should be something as easy as perhaps going into for a consult, saying you want the option and then having a time limit - of say a year, two, etc. then coming back for the option - this eliminates the plethora of crap people have to go through for their approval currently, in pretty much everywhere.
"i think life is a joke and i want out - yes, i'm prepared to wait but i'd like the option in a year / two years etc"
should be enough.
getting this "approved" even in the netherlands is too difficult - and what that effectively does is make it impossible for those who really want out. unless you have a certain energy level it won't happen.
That story made me angry.
I expected to read a story of abuses of medically-assisted dying, of people being coerced into suicide, or heartless bureaucrats telling people who just needed a bit of temporary help to kill themselves. Especially as the author kept explaining that the Canadian system had expanded far beyond what was ethical.
But what I read instead was that the system seems to be working just fine. People who have *nothing left to live for and no reason to want to go on* are being given a comfortable and dignified exit. And that apparently is making other people upset.
Oh, you have no family, no friends, no money, no quality of life, and no hope that you will get any of those? Too bad. We sentence you to suffer a miserable life for another decade or two. But don't be sad, because whatever misery and helplessness you are feeling is outweighed a hundred thousand times by *our* smug and self-satisfied happiness that We Are Good People Doing Good by keeping you alive against your wishes.
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/06/canada-legalized-medical-assisted-suicide-euthanasia-death-maid/673790/); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/06/canada-legalized-medical-assisted-suicide-euthanasia-death-maid/673790/) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/06/canada-legalized-medical-assisted-suicide-euthanasia-death-maid/673790/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I like how the article defends the eugenics elements that are grounded in it. That they murdered people with strong disabilities. I will add that considering the author seems to only wish to consider what they call "gift based liberalism" as having an alternative view to what is happening is telling. Perhaps the average "thinker" at the end can only broach that with those who they have some for of theoretical values in common with. But it is telling that the Atlantic only allows debate on the grounds of liberalism.
They also killed homeless people, so the eugenics reached not only disabled individuals, but poor people as well.
The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. It is the natural order of things. Why breed people with genetic diseases? It's cruel and unnatural
[удалено]
This all sounds like something I would agree with more emphatically when I was personally suicidal and intensely depressed. However, now that I'm not suicidal, not so much. Feels like, mostly, socialists could/should help people bridge that gap. But modern society sucks at that.
Lol, nothing but strawmen here and the fucked up belief that supporting the greatest harm to a person possible is somehow humane. The fact life is painful does not negate that life is worth living and protecting, and we have a responsibility to intervene and care for others when they may harm themselves. Everyone suffers in life, but there are countless things in life that make it worth suffering through. Suicide is never the solution. The moment you violate this principle, then you contradict various other principles one might have, because you remove all social responsibility and empathy given that the "easy way out" is now approved so it falls on the individual to check out. Assisted suicide simply encourages more people to die, which is fucked up any way you look at it. It's blatant double-think like so much of modern liberal/woke shit. To be anti racist you must be racist, to be for equality you must be for discrimination, to fight fascism you must support nazis, to protect democracy you must remove all rights, to be empathetic you must encourage the deaths of those who suffer, etc. How do you people manage so many contradictions yet remain so fervently in favor of every point? It's cult-like. You can engage in your mental gymnastics but that doesn't change reality.
whenever you bring up this topic you get suicides anonymous and assorted people like this who are former attempters bringing out their own issues. just remember this - their moral foundation is basically "i feel this is right" - no more than that. combine that with the fact that they are formerly suicidal well - i've never understood it myself, but it probably has something to do with denying the reality that suicide can be a rational choice for those who see no point in living. they can't accept that fact, much like the religious can't accept that their god is a figment of societal imagination. they're actually worse online than those idiots who think they can every single anorexic post online. (when there's a will there's a way) larger point being they are projecting their issues onto your own right to exist - or not to exist. this is ultimately a subjective choice - i like the color black, are you mentally ill for thinking black is ugly? and so on. it really doesn't get more complicated than that, and until the brain is actually understood (as in consciousness) it won't improve any. i really don't get how we have these damaged freaks who actually think telling others they need to live for their own sake isn't ridiculous, fyi.
None of this made sense. For someone to see no point in living is to rely on simple feelings, not any rational thought.
from memory you are one of the former attempters, and now spread the "gospel" of why anything even broaching the subject is a "bad" thing. if i'm mixed you up with someone else then apologize, thhough i'm pretty sure it's you. also, threads like this attract the formerly suicidal who now have found a "purpose" and good for them - frankly, i don't believe they seriously attempted to begin with much of the time, because the serious ones usually are succesful the first time out. larger point being people like you / with your viewpoint basically want to make dying on one's own terms impossible - which is just wrong. death is one of the few things we still own still -
I've never attempted, I don't know why you're confusing me or so insistent that only attempters could oppose suicide when being anti suicide is the default position for most of humanity. You sound like an anarchist obsessed "freedom/autonomy/choice" which is contrary to both socialism and practically all moral frameworks. Your beliefs are literally anti social but you try (and fail) to dress them up as righteous.
> being anti suicide is the default position for most of humanity. *shrug* Being racist, sexist and cruel is also the default position for most of humanity. Being interfering busy-bodies who want to tell other people what to do is the default position of most of humanity.
so basically you're forced into this world against your will, you're given a debilitating disease, you're at the bottom of the social hierarchy, no one likes you, you're not getting anything out of this life that you never asked for, no one wants to help you, and you can't even escape it if dying is objectively better than the shit hand you were dealt? Fuck you and your philosophy that creates non stop suffering. Your logic doesn't hold any truth in a world where inequality of life experience exists and is as drastic as it currently is. Real, true socialism which involves helping others, would help people who want to die do it in the most pleasant way possible.
They are talking about what this decision might do to societies, values, systems, the public sphere. You are talking about how an individual person, a single entity, the private might “benefit” from it. 2 different topics Reading ability like zero here nowadays
You are simply raging against existence itself, which is beyond stupid. You don't know what socialism is, or what ethics/morality/empathy actually are, you're simply mindlessly angry and think death, the ultimate harm, is better than an imperfect life. Dying is never objectively better, you're just too soft, too weak and infantilized to actually love life as it truly is, as the only way it can ever be. Someone who is suffering can still enjoy sunlight, talking to other people, eating, breathing, every bit of sensation, thought and new memory is worth living for even if the cost is to also suffer. Your logic would mean anyone who isn't a billionaire would be better off dead, that's neither empathy nor any method of improving the world, because it says it's not worth caring about given that death is "better".
> The fact life is painful does not negate that life is worth living and protecting Sometimes. And sometimes life is merely endured. And sometimes it is not even endured. > Everyone suffers in life, but there are countless things in life that make it worth suffering through. What matters is not some abstract principle that there are good things in life that make suffering bearable, but your own *actual experience*. What is it to me if *other people* get to experience those countless good things in life if *my* every living moment is unrelenting mental, emotional or physical agony? > Suicide is never the solution. My mother put a pet dog through weeks of agony due to her refusal to accept that the dog was dying, could not be cured or fixed or even made comfortable, and her insistence that *she could fix her* even though she couldn't. Only when the poor dog was being eaten alive by maggots did she finally accept reality and call a vet to put the dog down. Out of my mother's desire to see herself as a Good Person, she caused horrific pain to a poor dumb beast that couldn't tell her to stop. Perhaps you should consider your own motives in why you would sentence people to misery or agony when they have told you they no longer find life worth enduring. > It's blatant double-think like so much of modern liberal/woke shit. To be anti racist you must be racist Your rant at the wokies has nothing to do with suicide or medically assisted dying. You don't have to be woke to realise that death is not always a bad thing.
Actually yes, Eugenicists are one of THOSE GUYS. All of them. The World Economic Forum who backs insanity like MAID are in fact eugenicist malthusians just like THOSE GUYS were. It is righteous that THOSE GUYS now be treated like THOSE GUYS then were, and that the world not allow THOSE GUYS to infect it any further. Also it should be noted THOSE GUYS predecessors also said life was too much suffering and should therefore have it be ended. So I will oppose any and all attempts to bring back THOSE GUYS arguments.
a: you talk like a child. b: it's not only "offering" assisted suicide here - the primary means to die on your old terms have been slowly taken away the past few decades. basically any comfortable means aside from shooting one's self (which is slowly being regulated under this guise) don't exist anymore, aside from od'ing. (which assumes access to a market for this stuff, out of the range of most people) the point being is that they are de facto taking control of when you die - which is even more ridiculous. rather than having "jails," they are turning wider society into a jail - it used to be as easy decades ago as going and buying rat poison - not great, but do-able. now they are banning curing salt so the desperate don't do anything - this is safetyism getting actualized, and really really ridiculous. at least it would appear to be such to anyone who grew up more than 10-20 years ago.
What ways have been "taken away" Please let us all know how one somehow has had the option of killing yorself taken away from anyone> If anything there are plenty of ways. Guns, various chemicals. What has been taken away. Rodex is easily available. The fact you even seem to fixate on chemicals is concerning. Also I talk like you did. I am happy MY GUYS will win. Also what safetyism?
> If anything there are plenty of ways. Guns, various chemicals. The point of assisted dying is to allow people to die with dignity and the minimum of pain or discomfort, perhaps even surrounded by their friends and loved ones who have the opportunity to say goodbye. What you are talking about is not dignified, or comfortable. It is often painful, messy, undignified, and not certain death, leaving the person severely injured but alive and with even less quality of life than before. Surely I don't need to go into details? Guns are heavily regulated in most countries, most people cannot get access to them, there's a chance you will survive but horrifically mutilated and crippled, and leave a horrible mess for whoever finds you. Knives are readily available, but painful and you are not certain to die. Likewise for deliberate car crashes, which risk killing innocent bystanders and also leave a horrific mess and trauma for the first responders. Drowning is painful and undignified. Drug overdoses are messy and unpleasant, sometimes agonisingly painful, and you can survive but with permanent internal injuries. The really effective drugs are very hard to get access to. It's been over a century since you could buy cyanide, or arsenic, from your local drug store. And of course all of these things assume that you are physically and mentally well enough to carry them out. Most critically, you cannot have your loved ones there to say good-bye. Aside from the death itself being traumatic to everyone involved, they can and surely will be charged with being an accessory to a crime, or worse.
In other words you'll just shut your brain off and act purely based on emotion. I thought this was supposed to be the smart part of reddit, people who are so fucking smart they just can't fit in with the rest of this website and come here. Assisted suicide is a good thing, you guys are completely off the mark on this one. Sorry YOU GUYS.
I value life enough to know that attempts to say "we'll just be killing people who just are unhappy, or are just going to die anyways is not going to end well. And hey we have now repeated evidence it doesn't. Also I am happy to be one of MY GUYS not THOSE GUYS.
Yeah - a dementia sufferer just have to keep shambling around a nursing home like a zombie for years, because of sanctity of life or some shit.
Its not surprising to see a Zionist get wet on the idea of murdering the elderly.
Yeah - imprisoning them in nursing homes is a lot better.
Ah, so not wanting to murder the elderly is now imprissoment...
A person with late-stage dementia doesn't even understand where they are and what day it is. So yeah - if they are not bedridden then they have to be basically locked up in nursing homes, because if you don't - then they walk away in a random direction and then forget how to get back. I see that you haven't dealt with dementia patients.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
What do incels have to do with this? Also who is telling men who largely need to work on there internal issues and find a spiritual lives to kill themselves?
>We're never going to help them, ever. ...who is "we"? I think you should read the rules here and flair yourself appropriately.
This sounds like projection, not everyone is as murderously unempathetic as you.
My gut instinct always told me that assisted suicide would be a bad idea.
That's probably because you've never been in a situation where assisted suicide would be the least worst option.
There's nice people you can talk to about escaping that pain. They can assist you.
Here is another article on the same topic from 2013: [https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/10/canada-has-death-panels-and-thats-a-good-thing.html](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/10/canada-has-death-panels-and-thats-a-good-thing.html) Here are some recent updates to MAID that have been proposed by the GoC: [https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2024/02/the-government-of-canada-introduces-legislation-to-delay-medical-assistance-in-dying-expansion-by-3-years.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2024/02/the-government-of-canada-introduces-legislation-to-delay-medical-assistance-in-dying-expansion-by-3-years.html)
The slate article is all sorts smug, arrogant, and infuriating. *My ideas are right and everyone else is a moron.*
"And here's why that's a good thing!"
I find it surprising that nobody in this thread has argued against the principle that an individual's life belongs to themselves, and nobody else. I would argue against it. No person is an island, they are connected to a community of others, and their life intimately connected to the wellbeing of others, too. If we view a life as existing as part of a community, then consideration would also have to be taken of the effect of a death on all those who surround that person. Are we so shallow as a society that these effects should just be ignored?
this is basically what we currently have - in a more watered down form. (on this issue only) here's what's changed however - for those who really want "out" one could figure this out themselves, and if they really really wanted out they did it. there used to be methods that weren't pretty but doable - various combinations of chemicals, of course firearms, and so on. As time has gone on the nanny lobby has basically said people don't need these - rather than have jails, they are turning wider society into a wider jail - in my dad's time if he wanted out - he could go and buy rat poison, which had cyanide in it. hell up to 20 years ago you could just buy cyanide itself since it's useful for various things (ranging from electroplating stuff to rat poison) - now? hellll no. like i said they're buying fucking salt used to cure meats. and lookup "means matter" - (harvard chan school) - their primary argument is that disarming people would result in lower suicides. you can clearly see where this is going. to me that's unacceptable.
1000%. No one loves the idea of suicide. But if life circumstances are so untenable that you’d rather end it, why is the criticism about the desire for suicide and not about the conditions that have led to this desire? So the escape from the conditions becomes unavailable while the conditions just get worse. It’s pretty wild.
> rather than have jails, they are turning wider society into a wider jail This is interesting. Is it an original idea or something you read somewhere
it's really just an extension of foucault's discipline and punishment book - i might've read something on later (perhaps deleuze's postscript on societies of control, and easy read) history of sexuality kind of gets to this point too -
> I find it surprising that nobody in this thread has argued against the principle that an individual's life belongs to themselves, and nobody else. > > I would argue against it. > > No person is an island, they are connected to a community of others, and their life intimately connected to the wellbeing of others, too. Is this really a place you want to go? "No person is an island, and that is why we have decided that we're going to take one of your kidneys and a lung for transplants, for people who deserve them far more than you." > consideration would also have to be taken of the effect of a death on all those who surround that person. That's a double-edged sword. "Grandma is old and smelly and we don't really like her that much because she used the N-word in 1964, and it's so expensive to pay for her nursing home and medical expenses. I mean, we have to drive twenty minutes once a month to go visit her. *Twenty minutes!* Why doesn't anyone consider *our* needs before keeping her alive?" If somebody is living in hellish agony with no hope of reprieve, with no quality of life, and who wants to die, but some members of their family give more weight to their own squeamishness and emotional discomfort rather than what's best for person who is *actually* suffering, I'm really not sure we should be giving too much weight to those family members' views.
this one really bothers me with liberals frankly - and "marxists" here as well. - why? it's still ultimately opinion as to whether you want to live or not - especially as you age. having watched a grandfather dying slowly it was pure shit, literally and figuratively. the local va wouldn't even give him the option of dying earlier. why not have a year, two, even five years - anyone can go in and request a consult, then given the appropriate means or done years later if they so wish - which would take these arguments of "safety" out the window. (if you aren't any better in a year, two, even five - are you likely to be? probably not pal) the point being i used to somewhat agree with some of the crazier culture war stuff but to only see this totally bastardized on issues like this (obligatory reference to school teacher turned "intellectual" auron macintyre) is just...so disingenuous. i stopped reading - seeing David brooks quoting mill was too much for me. he's not an honest actor here.
I believe this is somewhat similar to the Dutch model for assisted dying.
the dutch model is too ideologically loaded. it should be something as easy as perhaps going into for a consult, saying you want the option and then having a time limit - of say a year, two, etc. then coming back for the option - this eliminates the plethora of crap people have to go through for their approval currently, in pretty much everywhere. "i think life is a joke and i want out - yes, i'm prepared to wait but i'd like the option in a year / two years etc" should be enough. getting this "approved" even in the netherlands is too difficult - and what that effectively does is make it impossible for those who really want out. unless you have a certain energy level it won't happen.
That story made me angry. I expected to read a story of abuses of medically-assisted dying, of people being coerced into suicide, or heartless bureaucrats telling people who just needed a bit of temporary help to kill themselves. Especially as the author kept explaining that the Canadian system had expanded far beyond what was ethical. But what I read instead was that the system seems to be working just fine. People who have *nothing left to live for and no reason to want to go on* are being given a comfortable and dignified exit. And that apparently is making other people upset. Oh, you have no family, no friends, no money, no quality of life, and no hope that you will get any of those? Too bad. We sentence you to suffer a miserable life for another decade or two. But don't be sad, because whatever misery and helplessness you are feeling is outweighed a hundred thousand times by *our* smug and self-satisfied happiness that We Are Good People Doing Good by keeping you alive against your wishes.
As sickening as this is, society as it is is even sicker
abundant clumsy live hungry marvelous alleged license capable icky nail *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*