Comment by firesteelrain
3 days ago
It’s still absurd despite what you say that we are implying that we should euthanize another human because they have become difficult to manage due to illness. Where do we draw the line?
3 days ago
It’s still absurd despite what you say that we are implying that we should euthanize another human because they have become difficult to manage due to illness. Where do we draw the line?
> we should euthanize another human
You are shiftinf the topic. This is about self-euthanization, assisted suicide. Not others.
> Where do we draw the line?
As written elsewhere, having to draw a line does not mean that the only reasonable conclusion is to make it illegal in general. It's a hard topic without easy answers. "Don't allow it" is an easy answer that doesn't do justice to the topics complexity.
A good friend of mine passed away a year ago with an incurable disease, diagnosed 3 months before his death, and it was essentially guaranteed that he'd have to endure unbelievable suffering during the last weeks of those months. He didn't have the choice to end it early. It was heartbreaking.
I for my part hope that I can choose myself when the time has come.
It is not really a shift. The slippery slope is the heart of the debate. Once assisted suicide is allowed, the line between respecting autonomy and others making that decision blurs. Safeguards may help, but asking where to draw the line is the central problem.
I'm not arguing either side, but I'd like to note that human societies have been drawing various lines dealing with the legal and ethical issues surrounding the death of other people in various stages of age, competency and guilt, usually without descending into a free-for-all killing frenzy.
When things get bad, it was usually not the drawing of lines that did it, but the intention and underlying stance on the rights and indeed humanity of others. The line is not what makes the slope slippery, but a pervasive lack of empathy seems to do it. We also know that bad actors do not care about lines much.
So I think that slippery slope is not a powerful argument on its own.
My body my choice. And I shouldn’t have to justify my choice. I’m not sure if it’s country specific or religion based, but certain groups really can’t grasp the fact that we have agency over our bodies and how we live (or not).
Where do we have an example of the medical community engaging in any sort of slippery slope in this regard?
The politicians, yes. Auschwitz may return but it won't be voluntary.
2 replies →
Yes it. You are not the arbiter of what the heart of the debate is.
6 replies →
I am not implying that at all. People should be free to choose when to die, and people should be free to set conditions for their future wherein they no longer wish to live even if they could not express that at point.
That's a personal choice. Anyone not interested in that won't have to do anything and can just wait for the end.
It's not that simple. Once the option is there, there is incentive to encourage people to take it when their continued existence would be a burden.
You can quite easily draw a line that society does not get to force someone to live a tormented existence in spite of their prior declaration that they do not want to be tormented.
“It shouldn't be that way” is not an excuse to torture people through your moralizing indifference to the fact that it is that way.
I've wondered about this for my hypothetical future self.
Currently? I'd say that I wouldn't want to live with dementia, but what if my "demented self" (kinda hate the phrasing, sorry) in the future wants to live, or doesn't remember they don't want to live?
Do I have a say over the life of someone who doesn't remember they were me?
You don’t have a say over your future you because your future you is not the same person as you.
1 reply →
The entire issue they're pointing to is that deciding that someone's existence is sufficiently tormented is difficult and morally fraught.
If you visit an elderly care home you'll find plenty of people who express their wish that they don't want to live any longer. It's not getting better for them - they are just waiting for the day to come, often in agony.
1 reply →
But do people who have dementia or say a mental illness have the capacity to make that decision?
It sounds like Daniel Kahneman was suffering from depression after his wife's death and all he saw in the rest of his life was sadness. He had no hope. What day was the best day to die? What if the next day his hope came back?
"What if the next day his hope came back?"
What if he tried that, but every day just got worse than the last day?
And people don't get any younger.
My grandmother is 98. She hates her life since she could not go out anymore. But she is catholic and suicide would be a mortal sin. So she waits till gods take her. And suffers till then.
I would make a different choice for sure. If life is hell and no one depends on me, why should I continue the suffering? (At the cost of others, if I would need help?)
But my plan is of course to reach 120+ in good health. But if I decide I had enough, it will be my decision.
48 replies →
Why do you see depression? Note the article mentions a partner--he lost his wife but he had found someone else so I do not think this is a result of losing his wife.
8 replies →
I think the implication was more "people should be free, when they're of sound mind, to choose euthanasia if they lose that sound mind".