Comment by bityard
3 days ago
> I am really pro assisted suicide as a way of shortening suffering
You don't consider years of mental trauma on the individual and years burden and stress on loved ones to be suffering?
3 days ago
> I am really pro assisted suicide as a way of shortening suffering
You don't consider years of mental trauma on the individual and years burden and stress on loved ones to be suffering?
I don't think the average amount of suffering for people with Alzheimer's and their families is sufficient to warrant euthanasia as a solution. I don't doubt there are some cases where it could be warranted, but I find it very difficult to get behind the idea that consent should pass from the individual. I obviously see that people with Alzheimer's and their families do suffer, the degree to which depends on the availability of proper care. We're essentially debating whether euthanasia is a better option to high quality care, and that's where the life of a person becomes a pretty gross economic equation. High quality care deprives families of assets. That tension between selfish (or so called "practical") interests and prioritising the interests of the dying is non-trivial, particular where the dying can't reasonably consent. The gentleman mentioned in this scenario would have had a more dignified death had he been provided the correct facilities, and probably shouldn't have been left to run riot in the community. It pains me that this is a story about how some guy became an asshole in his final years and not one of how a guy was deprived of a dignified death by the structures of society. I suspect to some degree people see euthanasia as a simple way to offer compassion and dignity in death, but I do think it's highly informed by ableist prejudice. There is a wide spectrum of dignity and life left to live in an end of life pathway and jumping to euthanasia as the solution is a pretty dangerous one in my opinion.
It's really up to them, not you. If you're pro assisted suicide you have to be pro other people making the decision in ways you disagree with.
That's the issue with assisted suicide. A lot of old people bring burden and stress on loved ones at some point. How many old people will be guilt tripped into an assisted suicide because of this philosophy?
I don't see what that has to do with my comment, but okay: A lot less than are unwillingly bringing undue burden and stress to their family and neighbors because there is no legal mechanism to avoid it. Even fewer if we acknowledge that assisted suicide should be an option with a very high bar for those who would qualify. I wrote another comment about one way it might work.
I interpreted your argument that suffering that years of burden and stress on loved ones bring is a good reason for an assisted suicide. Or did I misunderstood you?
Regarding your estimates, are you just making up a lot of assumptions or do you have any data backing up your relative numbers? In your other comment you seem to assume that anyone not agreeing with OP's suggestion doesn't have personal experience with close relative having a dementia. I'm very sorry for your loss. At least some others (me included) also have had this unfortunate experience, but don't agree. High bar is actually very hard to quantify. All old people are in gradual decline and are relatively close to their deaths. One alternative to your suggestion would be that a state would provide quality professional care for people with dementia. That way the things OP described wouldn't happen and the family of the patient wouldn't have to bear the financial burden of the disease. We are more advanced and richer that we have ever been in human history, but it seems like we are unable, as a community, to provide very ill people with quality care they need.