Would you be in favour of assisted dying being introduced for terminally ill patients in your country?

bionicjoey, 2 months ago

It was introduced in my country (Canada) and immediately the government started talking about expanding access to it for people with intellectual disabilities; and worse yet, people with treatable conditions where the treatment is just very expensive. That freaks me out quite a bit.

I think it’s good for it to be available but there need to be significant guardrails on its availability. My cousin and his wife recently used it for her father, and based on my understanding of his situation, I think it was probably a lot better than letting him die slowly.

Redredme, 2 months ago

Say, didnt you guys hear about that one party which was hugely popular in germany once? The guy in charge was called “the boss” and they had a very specific greet.

They too extended it to people with disabilities.

I dunno… But it seems somewhat relevant…

PerogiBoi, 2 months ago

Brain dead take. The Nazis also breathed air so you better start holding your breath.

corsicanguppy, 2 months ago

you guys hear about that one party which was hugely popular in germany

Evil people can accidentally do humane things under completely evil reasons. The question is always what the victim actually wants.

But I completely respect your ability to make this false comparison and then loudly express concern for it, as reminding us how evil can even coerce people into a bad decision for purely inhumane reasons of cost around the alternatives is a way we can work to avoid that kind of mis-use of this process. We need to be reminded every moment about it.

Redredme, 2 months ago

The moment the state decides if your life is valuable enough or not is the moment we are talking about fascism. It is that simple.

And yes, I’m all for assisted death. But the keyword is assisted. And if you yourself cannot decide if you want to be assisted it just can’t happen.

A politician can not decide for you if you deserve to live or not. A life canot be valued. And that was what was implied.

zephorah, 2 months ago

Some terminal illnesses, I think I’d prefer this route. ALS, for example. No fucking way am I doing that.

If it’s not a play on eugenics, just giving the terminal choices in how they go out, I don’t see the problem.

Perhapsjustsniffit, 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

Disabled Canadian here. Spinal cord injury. I think assisted death is necessary in any society and I am glad we have it. That’s said… That some are choosing death over starvation or homelessness due to disability is not ok. If we give the option for assisted death we also need the support structure to avoid such unfortunately necessary choices for some. I have 3 young kids. I’m fully disabled now at almost 50. I went from a salary when working of almost 100,000/year to $12, 440.61 on disability. Even if I could find work that would make exceptions for my disability I could only earn $6000/year before I would lose my disability altogether and have to work full-time. $6000. Try live for a year on that, but that’s what the feds say justifies full time employment for someone like me. $12,000/ year is no walk in the park but half that would be devastating.

If my major purchases (home etc)were not paid off we would be homeless for certain. A single grocery bill for us for two weeks is well over $300 and we grow all our own vegetables, chickens and eggs out of necessity. If we had a mortgage and car payment we would be seriously considering one less mouth. We are lucky because we live rurally and have some stability in owning our home otherwise MAID would be a consideration. Not because I don’t want to live but because I couldn’t afford to.

Eldritch, 2 months ago

The short answer is yes. The longer answer is also yes.

ricecake, 2 months ago

It should be available to anyone as long as informed consent can be achieved and they’re of sound mind in the view of at least a few medical professionals.

I think it should be available as a medical directive, like a DNR order with specific criteria, and require several doctors to evaluate the criteria unanimously, and no family to object if the patient can’t give informed consent, only whatever form of consent they can give.
It should be called off if the patient objects, regardless of their ability to give informed consent.
Scenario I’m picturing is a person with dementia who previously filled out a form stating that if they’re no longer themselves or able to function, and other criteria they specified beforehand, and doctors agree the circumstances have been met, and the family doesn’t object, it should be able to proceed even though someone with advanced dementia cannot consent because they cannot fully understand. If they say no it must stop.

I feel concern about people with mood disorders seeking that route, which is why I want a medical professional to say they’re of sound mind.
Ultimately it’s your life and your body, so you should be able to have that autonomy, but I think it’s responsible to pause if a doctor says you’re not in a rational place to make that type of choice.

Lemminary, 2 months ago

I’m also in favor of having it as an option for anyone. There should be nobody opining what I should do with my life or with my body who doesn’t know me at a deep and personal level.

nieceandtows, 2 months ago

For sure. When your own body becomes a prison, you should have a say on whether you want out.

Kalcifer, 2 months ago

Canada currently has assisted dying (referred to as MAID — Medical Assistance In Dying). The issue that I see with it, in Canada, is that it is a conflict of interest; Canada has public healthcare, so all patients are seen as a net drain on the system. Because of this, It is in the government’s best interest to reduce the cost of healthcare by lessening the number of patients in hospitals. In my view, it is, therefore, in the Canadian government’s best interest to encourage assisted dying over treatment to the absolute limits of what is ethically or legally allowed.

Yerbouti, 2 months ago

It’s actually really really hard to have access MAID. Multiple doctors needs to give consent and they have no financial interest to do so. I’ve read an article about this and even if it was easier to access MAID, the overall savings would be negligible.

Kalcifer, 2 months ago

I wasn’t making a claim regarding how easy or difficult it is to get MAID; I was only stating that it is a conflict of interest for a public healthcare system to provide it.

DessertStorms, 2 months ago

I think in utopia it'd be great, but we don't live in utopia, and in the world we do live in, assisted suicide is just an easy out for ableist society to push us towards, because it's significantly easier to dispose of us from behind the alarmingly thin veil of "compassion" than it is to create a world where we don't struggle and suffer by default just for existing as ill or disabled people.

And it's so much easier mostly because the first step to creating an actually compassionate and inclusive world, is facing the fact that society and the individuals in it treats disabled people so badly and sees so little value in our lives, which is why so many abled people (including those making legislation, because disabled people sure aren't) would "rather die than be disabled" in the first place (or why so many disabled people have been denied treatment because their lives were deemed "not worth saving", which happens a lot more often than most people would be comfortable acknowledging), and that's simply not something most abled people are willing to do, never mind actually acting on these facts to change them.

This kind of legislation is closer to eugenics than it is disability rights.

Tarquinn2049, 2 months ago

Yeah, it’s not like it’s done on a whim. As long as there is someone on staff that is comfortable administering it, I have no problem with it. I wouldn’t want it to be forced as an option if there is no one on staff comfortable doing it. But transferring to a place that does offer it should be an option for those cases.

slazer2au, 2 months ago

Already a thing here in NL.

intensely_human, 2 months ago

I am in favor, and we already did introduce it here.

I think it might have been 2018 when we voted on it for the state of Colorado.

A doctor can now administer suicide drugs if a patient is terminally ill or has a condition that makes their life hell.

Alpha71, 2 months ago

As long as it is kept to terminally ill people. Here in Canada, it’s being offered to people with life long health issues (Chronic pain etc.) But for us the slippery slope is it has been offered to people with mental health issues as well. I can’t verify if it is an officially sanctioned offering, but people have come forward with stories of it being offered to them.

JackGreenEarth, 2 months ago

I’m glad that no one has said no!

tygerprints, 2 months ago

Of course I am completely in favor of assisted suicide. Not necessarily just for terminally ill patients but those who have absolutely zero quality of life and only experience life as a series of horrible painful stressors.

It's every human being's right to choose when to end their own life. And after all, death is just the cracking of the outer shell and release into the world you always wanted to live in - it's a freeing of the spirit within and a necessary part of one's life cycle.

There's always going to be some problem around people changing their mind but, I think most people opting for such a procedure would never change their mind about it. You'd have to have them sign release and total consent forms, and I can already see this thing getting balled up in wads of red tape that will make it virtually impossible to carry out.

Shelena, 2 months ago

We already have it in the Netherlands and I think it is a good thing. I know several people who chose for assisted dying when they were terminal and I think it protected them from a lot of unnecessary suffering.

There are some laws in place to prevent abuse. For example, there is a second, independent doctor assessing the situation to make sure conditions are really met and that someone is really terminal and deciding this from their own free will. The patient should be able to reconfirm that they really want to get euthanised before it happens. I think this is a good thing, but sometimes it is difficult when people with dementia clearly have stated and written down officially that they want assisted dying in certain circumstances, but they are not able to reconfirm because they lost their ability to understand.

In some cases you can have assisted dying when you suffer psychologically without any outlook of improvement (i.e. you have tried all treatments etc). However, there are waiting lists for those, which are quite long. My sister was on such a waiting list because she had anorexia. However, she died from starvation before she could be assessed. I am still a bit in doubt whether it would have been a good idea for her to get assisted dying. I still was hoping and thinking that there could be ways for her to get better.

Maybe the doctor assessing whether she would be approved for this would have thought the same, maybe not. She died anyway, so maybe I was wrong. In any case, I am not completely against euthanasia in case of psychological illness, as people can suffer from that equally as from physical ailments. However, you should be extremely careful and it should be extremely clear that there is no other solution at all anymore.

corsicanguppy, 2 months ago

a second, independent doctor assessing the situation

This is like how olympic judges are part of a panel, and judges decide independently who receives a prize for best performance.

Shelena, 2 months ago

That definitely plays a role. I think the independent doctor also should not have any relationship to the person who has requested assisted death at all. If I am correct, one reason for that is that they can then truly come to a fresh, objective conclusion based on facts. I think another reason is that some people might become quite close with their own doctor over the years and therefore it might be difficult for this doctor to tell them no, or yes. They might be too involved.

shortwavesurfer, 2 months ago

Yes, I think this is absolutely okay. However, I do think that it should be periodically reviewed, say, every five years and reaffirmed that this is actually what you want.