Right to die for terminally ill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe most here don't see the slippery slope. Once you decide whether you want to live is a balance of the pain vs happiness in life and all those who really suffer are eliminated from this earth, them even the mediocre sufferings of today will seem unbearable to you in the future. Because people look to others as sources of comfort and inspiration, once those who live hard lives are gone, the entire center shifts. If you get into an accident today and lose your legs but you see all these examples of people who have persevered and found fulfilling lives following similar accidents, that gives you strength to go on. If all these people offed themselves then you will also likely quickly decide to off yourself were you to suffer that accident.

They are ok breaking a few eggs to keep their privileged omelette. Where, breaking a few eggs means healthcare workers coercing vulnerable people to die.

[Anonymous]

I agree the slippery slope is real. Those who mock it are clueless about how slippery slopes operates.

What starts out as rare for the genuinely sick and in pain --> for the mentally unwell --> psychiatric advice to people that if they're not happy they can easily trot down the hallway and end their lives. It can happen so easily.

I'm not opposed to the right to die for the terminally ill but do think there needs to be strong guardrails around it and a medically approved procedure requiring case managers and doctors.

[Anonymous]

I watched my father die over the course of 10 weeks last year. The last week was especially excruciating. It should be that we can include euthanasia in an AMD. I hope I never find myself in that situation. I absolutely believe in a right to die.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree the slippery slope is real. Those who mock it are clueless about how slippery slopes operates.

What starts out as rare for the genuinely sick and in pain --> for the mentally unwell --> psychiatric advice to people that if they're not happy they can easily trot down the hallway and end their lives. It can happen so easily.

I'm not opposed to the right to die for the terminally ill but do think there needs to be strong guardrails around it and a medically approved procedure requiring case managers and doctors.

If people are unhappy, especially with clinical depression, why shouldn't they get the choice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe most here don't see the slippery slope. Once you decide whether you want to live is a balance of the pain vs happiness in life and all those who really suffer are eliminated from this earth, them even the mediocre sufferings of today will seem unbearable to you in the future. Because people look to others as sources of comfort and inspiration, once those who live hard lives are gone, the entire center shifts. If you get into an accident today and lose your legs but you see all these examples of people who have persevered and found fulfilling lives following similar accidents, that gives you strength to go on. If all these people offed themselves then you will also likely quickly decide to off yourself were you to suffer that accident.

Shouldn't people get the choice. Using one hardship for a select group of people means nothing. You have no idea the impact illness or mental illness has on others. I've been in my house for over a month now due to a simple cold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe most here don't see the slippery slope. Once you decide whether you want to live is a balance of the pain vs happiness in life and all those who really suffer are eliminated from this earth, them even the mediocre sufferings of today will seem unbearable to you in the future. Because people look to others as sources of comfort and inspiration, once those who live hard lives are gone, the entire center shifts. If you get into an accident today and lose your legs but you see all these examples of people who have persevered and found fulfilling lives following similar accidents, that gives you strength to go on. If all these people offed themselves then you will also likely quickly decide to off yourself were you to suffer that accident.

Shouldn't people get the choice. Using one hardship for a select group of people means nothing. You have no idea the impact illness or mental illness has on others. I've been in my house for over a month now due to a simple cold.

Are you arguing that people should be able to choose MAID after being home for a cold?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reason MAID is used and preferred largely by wealthy white men in places where it is allowed. They are the only ones that can have the confidence that they’ll control the process.

Uh, cite please. I know of two elderly WOMEN who have availed themselves of MAID due to debilitating conditions. Believe me, they were in control of the process.

Look at the published numbers.

Wealthy, privileged white women are the second most common, on average.

MAID is utilized primarily by those who do not have to fear coercion or discrimination by the medical establishment.

DP here. All this tells me is that is needs to be more widely available and doctors need to talk about it.

DP. And how do you propose to do this ethically? How do you propose to have healthcare providers do this who are part of a medical system that has systematically and widely discriminated against poor, non-white, and/or uneducated patients and that has discarded them and treated them badly their whole lives? How do you think they can possibly trust the medical system at this critical juncture when they have a lifetime of extremely reasonable skepticism?

I’m the Canadian PP who posted above and there are already serious issues in Canada with privileged and educated providers suggesting euthanasia to people whose greatest problem appears to be that they are poor, or have unstable housing. This is not a theoretical issue; this is happening now.

What I see in Canada is that the wealthy and privileged who want access to this in their own lives don’t particularly care if the system coerces poor and vulnerable people into ending their own lives, so long as those privileged people retain that access for when they want it. They seem to consider that a few eggs broken to make an omelette. To me, that is an utterly immoral position.

Well if you are poor and unhoused is it better to suffer and die under an overpass or die warm and comfy and cozy. If society isn’t going to provide for these people, the least we could do is let the ones who want to go have a nice exit.

Let’s also not forget the trauma to family members and first responders when people who have no other choice put a gun in their mouth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe most here don't see the slippery slope. Once you decide whether you want to live is a balance of the pain vs happiness in life and all those who really suffer are eliminated from this earth, them even the mediocre sufferings of today will seem unbearable to you in the future. Because people look to others as sources of comfort and inspiration, once those who live hard lives are gone, the entire center shifts. If you get into an accident today and lose your legs but you see all these examples of people who have persevered and found fulfilling lives following similar accidents, that gives you strength to go on. If all these people offed themselves then you will also likely quickly decide to off yourself were you to suffer that accident.

Shouldn't people get the choice. Using one hardship for a select group of people means nothing. You have no idea the impact illness or mental illness has on others. I've been in my house for over a month now due to a simple cold.

You plan to kill yourself because you have had a cold for too long? That doesn't seem very sane. However, here's a quarter for the suicide booth. Have fun!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe most here don't see the slippery slope. Once you decide whether you want to live is a balance of the pain vs happiness in life and all those who really suffer are eliminated from this earth, them even the mediocre sufferings of today will seem unbearable to you in the future. Because people look to others as sources of comfort and inspiration, once those who live hard lives are gone, the entire center shifts. If you get into an accident today and lose your legs but you see all these examples of people who have persevered and found fulfilling lives following similar accidents, that gives you strength to go on. If all these people offed themselves then you will also likely quickly decide to off yourself were you to suffer that accident.

Shouldn't people get the choice. Using one hardship for a select group of people means nothing. You have no idea the impact illness or mental illness has on others. I've been in my house for over a month now due to a simple cold.

Are you arguing that people should be able to choose MAID after being home for a cold?

Sigh - they are saying that their health status is such that they are completely knocked out by something as simple as a cold. They don’t support it because colds are hard but because their health status makes it such that even something benign is impactful. I imagine this person’s life is quite limited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe most here don't see the slippery slope. Once you decide whether you want to live is a balance of the pain vs happiness in life and all those who really suffer are eliminated from this earth, them even the mediocre sufferings of today will seem unbearable to you in the future. Because people look to others as sources of comfort and inspiration, once those who live hard lives are gone, the entire center shifts. If you get into an accident today and lose your legs but you see all these examples of people who have persevered and found fulfilling lives following similar accidents, that gives you strength to go on. If all these people offed themselves then you will also likely quickly decide to off yourself were you to suffer that accident.

Shouldn't people get the choice. Using one hardship for a select group of people means nothing. You have no idea the impact illness or mental illness has on others. I've been in my house for over a month now due to a simple cold.

You plan to kill yourself because you have had a cold for too long? That doesn't seem very sane. However, here's a quarter for the suicide booth. Have fun!

I've been on multiple rounds of steroids and antibiotics and still sick. There is obviously another illness but my body cannot fight something like a simple cold easily. You have no idea how it is to have chronic illnesses (I have three) and they are difficult to treat. Do I plan to kill myself, of course not, but if the other illnesses progress as I get older (I'm long past my life expectancy but I have a mild case), given I'd need a transplant and other things, yes, I'd prefer to die than go through all that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe most here don't see the slippery slope. Once you decide whether you want to live is a balance of the pain vs happiness in life and all those who really suffer are eliminated from this earth, them even the mediocre sufferings of today will seem unbearable to you in the future. Because people look to others as sources of comfort and inspiration, once those who live hard lives are gone, the entire center shifts. If you get into an accident today and lose your legs but you see all these examples of people who have persevered and found fulfilling lives following similar accidents, that gives you strength to go on. If all these people offed themselves then you will also likely quickly decide to off yourself were you to suffer that accident.

Shouldn't people get the choice. Using one hardship for a select group of people means nothing. You have no idea the impact illness or mental illness has on others. I've been in my house for over a month now due to a simple cold.

It's about how society values human lives. Sometimes we have to say no because it's important for society to believe life shouldn't be easily disposable. There is a strong argument for the seriously sick and in pain people, but I do not agree that mental health falls into this category so easily. The former is terminal, the latter not always.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reason MAID is used and preferred largely by wealthy white men in places where it is allowed. They are the only ones that can have the confidence that they’ll control the process.

Uh, cite please. I know of two elderly WOMEN who have availed themselves of MAID due to debilitating conditions. Believe me, they were in control of the process.

Look at the published numbers.

Wealthy, privileged white women are the second most common, on average.

MAID is utilized primarily by those who do not have to fear coercion or discrimination by the medical establishment.

DP here. All this tells me is that is needs to be more widely available and doctors need to talk about it.

DP. And how do you propose to do this ethically? How do you propose to have healthcare providers do this who are part of a medical system that has systematically and widely discriminated against poor, non-white, and/or uneducated patients and that has discarded them and treated them badly their whole lives? How do you think they can possibly trust the medical system at this critical juncture when they have a lifetime of extremely reasonable skepticism?

I’m the Canadian PP who posted above and there are already serious issues in Canada with privileged and educated providers suggesting euthanasia to people whose greatest problem appears to be that they are poor, or have unstable housing. This is not a theoretical issue; this is happening now.

What I see in Canada is that the wealthy and privileged who want access to this in their own lives don’t particularly care if the system coerces poor and vulnerable people into ending their own lives, so long as those privileged people retain that access for when they want it. They seem to consider that a few eggs broken to make an omelette. To me, that is an utterly immoral position.

Well if you are poor and unhoused is it better to suffer and die under an overpass or die warm and comfy and cozy. If society isn’t going to provide for these people, the least we could do is let the ones who want to go have a nice exit.

Let’s also not forget the trauma to family members and first responders when people who have no other choice put a gun in their mouth.

And if we can manage to find a way to force people into choosing between MAID and the underpass, so much the better. Rich white guys won't have to worry about foreclosures.

[Anonymous]

The option of MAID has been a great relief to family member and a few friends of the family. I'm happy the option was available for them to seek out.

I was beyond angry when it was presented/suggested to another family member because they were about to become a wheelchair user in their 70s. Line crossed. Nothing terminal, they were well aware of MAID and not seeking it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its wrong to ask someone to kill you. You can refuse treatment or kill yourself. Putting that responsibility on another person is unnecessary and wrong.

YOU MORON, PEOPLE WHO ARE TERMINAL OFTEN CANNOT MOVE.

Then refuse treatment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reason MAID is used and preferred largely by wealthy white men in places where it is allowed. They are the only ones that can have the confidence that they’ll control the process.

Uh, cite please. I know of two elderly WOMEN who have availed themselves of MAID due to debilitating conditions. Believe me, they were in control of the process.

Look at the published numbers.

Wealthy, privileged white women are the second most common, on average.

MAID is utilized primarily by those who do not have to fear coercion or discrimination by the medical establishment.

DP here. All this tells me is that is needs to be more widely available and doctors need to talk about it.

DP. And how do you propose to do this ethically? How do you propose to have healthcare providers do this who are part of a medical system that has systematically and widely discriminated against poor, non-white, and/or uneducated patients and that has discarded them and treated them badly their whole lives? How do you think they can possibly trust the medical system at this critical juncture when they have a lifetime of extremely reasonable skepticism?

I’m the Canadian PP who posted above and there are already serious issues in Canada with privileged and educated providers suggesting euthanasia to people whose greatest problem appears to be that they are poor, or have unstable housing. This is not a theoretical issue; this is happening now.

What I see in Canada is that the wealthy and privileged who want access to this in their own lives don’t particularly care if the system coerces poor and vulnerable people into ending their own lives, so long as those privileged people retain that access for when they want it. They seem to consider that a few eggs broken to make an omelette. To me, that is an utterly immoral position.

Well if you are poor and unhoused is it better to suffer and die under an overpass or die warm and comfy and cozy. If society isn’t going to provide for these people, the least we could do is let the ones who want to go have a nice exit.

Let’s also not forget the trauma to family members and first responders when people who have no other choice put a gun in their mouth.

Yikes. Yeah, maybe you had better stay out of this discussion. You are entirely irrational at best, and a eugenist at worst.