And yes, mental illnesses are a particularly terrible case. Being insane does not mean not having a debilitating, painful and incurable - whether or not outright terminal - physical illness. And perhaps, a really bad and certainly incurable mental condition itself is enough. Just take advanced Alzheimer's. What's the point of forcing people to suffer like that? Themselves and their caregivers, too. But i understand that one is unapproachable because of immediate Aktion T4 = Nazi = BAD association and will probably remain so for a very long time.
But for fuck's sake, at least get off the butt of mentally fit people who don't want to suffer!
Like the person in the article who obviously is suffering from purely psychosomatic issues.
IMHO this would not make the TOP 5 for reasons why people may consider this unapproachable.
Rights are not applicable here. How exactly would you stop them from self termination?
Are you referring to "do no harm"? According to my own moral compass helping someone end their life with dignity is not doing harm, quite the opposite. You could even argue that leaving them suffering when you have the means, knowledge, and consent to help them is doing harm.
I don't know if I would even call that hyperbole.
Wow. It's your duty to just accelerate into abuse and corruption.
Of course, it is not possible to absolutely prevent anyone from self-terminating if they are sufficiently motivated but "self-termination" tends to have legal/criminal aspects attached to it.
Thought experiment: if it is decided that a person without a Terminal Illness indeed has a right to die "would this or would this not completely negate something like an involuntary 5150 hold based on possible self-harm?"
The more I think about it, the more this seems not just possible, but likely. I can only speak for myself but this seems like an unintended consequence.
So the concept of rights clearly does still apply.
Also, the concept of a right is very related to law. If you have the right to die, than it can't be criminal for someone to help you die.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/06/canada-...
One of the more surprising stories about MAID involves a Canadian veteran and paralympic, who was entitled to have a wheel chair lift installed at her home, and was instead offered the equipment to end her life because the lift was too expensive. This was something Trudeau had to address:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/christine-...
They are leaving out the denominator, however, which indicates that there are at least 15k MAID deaths per year, and increasing rapidly (probably closer to 20k, but statistics are generally at least 24 months behind), which doesn't include the people who qualify, but ultimately choose a natural death. Current estimates are that ~4-5% of deaths in Canada are MAID.
So yes, there are "abuses", but arguably no evidence of irreparable harm.
Maybe one day this will be considered an inalienable human right.
But pushing people to take this decision should be criminalised as murder.
But if people can decide to check out and do so painlessly, the Ponzi relying on everyone toiling and paying rent/taxes might collapse, so we can't have that!
This idea resonates with many as being true at some level, however a terminal-illness can be regarded as different, i.e. not a temporary problem.
If there is not a terminal illness in the equation, would you agree that the situation tends towards the idea of "temporary problem/permanent solution"?
If there is not a terminal illness in the equation, is there any sort of condition or threshold you believe should exist to deprive a human being this "right" under any condition?
For example: should a human who does not have a terminal illness and has not yet reached majority age, have the "right" to self-terminate? Why or why not?
Assuming you want to commit suicide by a sensible cocktail of drugs: - something against the anxiety
- something that puts you into a deep sleep
- something against the muscle spasms
- something that stops your heart / breathing
From the top of my head that would be: - ketamine
- propofol / thiopental
- potassium chloride
Most of these things are not available legally, you need a doctor to help you acquire them.
To implement the protocol in a way that prevents unnecessary suffering you need someone to administer the injections, preferable a professional.
Last but not least you might not want to be alone, but be accompanied by loved ones.
All involved people might face criminal charges, in some jurisdictions even not trying to resuscitate would be a crime.
Also not every person that expresses the desire to die should necessarily act upon that momentary desire.
By enabling a supervised procedure, that mandates counseling, such cases could be recognized.
The larger problem is access to the drugs. Barbiturates are not favored for most other purposes due to the high abuse potential. I believe is why they are not recommended for this purpose in Canada, for example.
pseudolus•8mo ago