Right to die for terminally ill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can think of nothing more satisfying for a person with a terminal illness than sitting in a glass-paneled room overlooking the Swiss Alps, taking medication, and just falling into an eternal sleep.

I'd take my family & close friends, have a few days of good meals and wine and enjoyable conversation (to the extent this is physically possible), and then exit the earth.

How is this less preferrable than suffering for months or years in a hospital or some under-staffed memory care center?

If you can travel, eat meals, drink wine and have a conversation, you shouldn’t be dying. And I don’t think you would want to. I think dying even a day too soon is selfish and will leave your loved ones in terrible pain and possibly regrets and a feeling of guilt.

Have you ever experienced watching a loved one slowly deteriorate? My dad had a terminal degenerating disease. I used to pray that he would die from a heart attack or stroke before he completely lost his memory, ability to walk, ability to eat, etc. He ended up getting septic shock from an ischemic bowel and making the decision to let him go peacefully was the easiest thing I've ever done. He was already a shell of the man he was and he HATED the life the disease forced him to have. He was depressed and angry. He hated being a burden on my mom. So no, dying before your time can absolutely be a relief for your family members who know you are suffering.

+1
One person I know who went to Switzerland had the Alzheimer's diagnosis and absolutely knew what was coming as she was a doctor. She drank wine and celebrated with her family and left on her own terms. We keep saying everyone leaves it too late and their brains deteriorate and then they can't make choices. You can't have it both ways. Seemingly healthy people will choose this because they don't want to get to the point where they can't choose.

There's a saying among veterinarians in regards to euthanasia --"better too early than too late."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its not about health care or the family, its about suffering. My inlaw suffered for years with early onset dementia. The last few years were horrible and no way to live. If I am terminal, I don't want to suffer and want the choice. Nor do I want to be in a nursing home for years, misreable.

How is someone with dementia supposed to have the competence to choose?

Maybe it can become part of an Advance Directive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can think of nothing more satisfying for a person with a terminal illness than sitting in a glass-paneled room overlooking the Swiss Alps, taking medication, and just falling into an eternal sleep.

I'd take my family & close friends, have a few days of good meals and wine and enjoyable conversation (to the extent this is physically possible), and then exit the earth.

How is this less preferrable than suffering for months or years in a hospital or some under-staffed memory care center?

If you can travel, eat meals, drink wine and have a conversation, you shouldn’t be dying. And I don’t think you would want to. I think dying even a day too soon is selfish and will leave your loved ones in terrible pain and possibly regrets and a feeling of guilt.

Have you ever experienced watching a loved one slowly deteriorate? My dad had a terminal degenerating disease. I used to pray that he would die from a heart attack or stroke before he completely lost his memory, ability to walk, ability to eat, etc. He ended up getting septic shock from an ischemic bowel and making the decision to let him go peacefully was the easiest thing I've ever done. He was already a shell of the man he was and he HATED the life the disease forced him to have. He was depressed and angry. He hated being a burden on my mom. So no, dying before your time can absolutely be a relief for your family members who know you are suffering.

+1
One person I know who went to Switzerland had the Alzheimer's diagnosis and absolutely knew what was coming as she was a doctor. She drank wine and celebrated with her family and left on her own terms. We keep saying everyone leaves it too late and their brains deteriorate and then they can't make choices. You can't have it both ways. Seemingly healthy people will choose this because they don't want to get to the point where they can't choose.

There's a saying among veterinarians in regards to euthanasia --"better too early than too late."

Exactly. I'm mystified that anyone who has a clue what's coming (having been a caretaker or seen it in relatives) wouldn't be prepared themselves, you know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can think of nothing more satisfying for a person with a terminal illness than sitting in a glass-paneled room overlooking the Swiss Alps, taking medication, and just falling into an eternal sleep.

I'd take my family & close friends, have a few days of good meals and wine and enjoyable conversation (to the extent this is physically possible), and then exit the earth.

How is this less preferrable than suffering for months or years in a hospital or some under-staffed memory care center?

If you can travel, eat meals, drink wine and have a conversation, you shouldn’t be dying. And I don’t think you would want to. I think dying even a day too soon is selfish and will leave your loved ones in terrible pain and possibly regrets and a feeling of guilt.

Have you ever experienced watching a loved one slowly deteriorate? My dad had a terminal degenerating disease. I used to pray that he would die from a heart attack or stroke before he completely lost his memory, ability to walk, ability to eat, etc. He ended up getting septic shock from an ischemic bowel and making the decision to let him go peacefully was the easiest thing I've ever done. He was already a shell of the man he was and he HATED the life the disease forced him to have. He was depressed and angry. He hated being a burden on my mom. So no, dying before your time can absolutely be a relief for your family members who know you are suffering.

DP. I have seen this up closed and lived it multiple times. I still think endowing the state and our racist, sexist, and classist medical system with this power is a dystopian horror that will end with undesirables murdered by the state.

Proponents of MAID always use images of rich white people slipping off into eternal sleep in Switzerland, and contrast them to the pain of end of life. But that’s not the true image of MAID. The true image of MAID is the PP who is advocating free MAID for mentally ill homeless people.

Putting it this way: I have seen extreme pain, deterioration, and death up close. I’ve lived with extreme pain before. And I would still rather endure that than live in a society that makes it easy to execute the inconvenient and undesirable.

Well you do that. Some of us would not.

Living with pain for a few weeks is different than the rest of your life. It’s about people not suffering.

[Anonymous]

My granddad had dementia and I know of my Dad got a similar diagnosis he'd go home and off himself, that's how rough it was on him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Who are you to decide what’s best for others? With serious mental health, they suffer terribly. Get out of our bubble. I don’t want to live homebound for years gasping for air. Most of these people are hidden in homes, nursing homes or other places rs so you never see the, so it’s easy to say tuff it out, but why should they? It’s not like someone like you is going around helping making peoples lives better.

And the next step is to declare the mentally ill incompetent and have someone or a board make the decision of MAID for them. Easy peasy.

People can’t even be involuntarily institutionalized and you think they’re going to get a lethal injection if we legalize euthanasia. You aren’t a deep thinker.

The Dutch are going to expand euthanasia to cover children who can't legally consent. Seems fine, right?

https://theconversation.com/dutch-government-to-expand-euthanasia-law-to-include-children-aged-one-to-12-an-ethicists-view-203961

Cool. Without delving into the merits, I will only note we aren’t in the Netherlands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Who are you to decide what’s best for others? With serious mental health, they suffer terribly. Get out of our bubble. I don’t want to live homebound for years gasping for air. Most of these people are hidden in homes, nursing homes or other places rs so you never see the, so it’s easy to say tuff it out, but why should they? It’s not like someone like you is going around helping making peoples lives better.

And the next step is to declare the mentally ill incompetent and have someone or a board make the decision of MAID for them. Easy peasy.

People can’t even be involuntarily institutionalized and you think they’re going to get a lethal injection if we legalize euthanasia. You aren’t a deep thinker.

The Dutch are going to expand euthanasia to cover children who can't legally consent. Seems fine, right?

https://theconversation.com/dutch-government-to-expand-euthanasia-law-to-include-children-aged-one-to-12-an-ethicists-view-203961

Cool. Without delving into the merits, I will only note we aren’t in the Netherlands.

The person didn't even bother to read the article they linked to fermenter.

"That included, for example, children with untreatable brain tumours who developed relentless vomiting, screaming, and seizures in their dying phase. Or children with epilepsy resistant to all treatment with tens to hundreds of seizures a day."

In what world is letting kids seize hundreds of times a day until they die preferable. I'm with the Dutch on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Who are you to decide what’s best for others? With serious mental health, they suffer terribly. Get out of our bubble. I don’t want to live homebound for years gasping for air. Most of these people are hidden in homes, nursing homes or other places rs so you never see the, so it’s easy to say tuff it out, but why should they? It’s not like someone like you is going around helping making peoples lives better.

And the next step is to declare the mentally ill incompetent and have someone or a board make the decision of MAID for them. Easy peasy.

People can’t even be involuntarily institutionalized and you think they’re going to get a lethal injection if we legalize euthanasia. You aren’t a deep thinker.

The Dutch are going to expand euthanasia to cover children who can't legally consent. Seems fine, right?

https://theconversation.com/dutch-government-to-expand-euthanasia-law-to-include-children-aged-one-to-12-an-ethicists-view-203961

Cool. Without delving into the merits, I will only note we aren’t in the Netherlands.

And yet many posters are pointing toward Europe and Canada as to why the US should have a similar policy. So we can use other countries to support the argument, but can't use other countries to refute the argument. That's convenient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Who are you to decide what’s best for others? With serious mental health, they suffer terribly. Get out of our bubble. I don’t want to live homebound for years gasping for air. Most of these people are hidden in homes, nursing homes or other places rs so you never see the, so it’s easy to say tuff it out, but why should they? It’s not like someone like you is going around helping making peoples lives better.

And the next step is to declare the mentally ill incompetent and have someone or a board make the decision of MAID for them. Easy peasy.

People can’t even be involuntarily institutionalized and you think they’re going to get a lethal injection if we legalize euthanasia. You aren’t a deep thinker.

The Dutch are going to expand euthanasia to cover children who can't legally consent. Seems fine, right?

https://theconversation.com/dutch-government-to-expand-euthanasia-law-to-include-children-aged-one-to-12-an-ethicists-view-203961

Cool. Without delving into the merits, I will only note we aren’t in the Netherlands.

The person didn't even bother to read the article they linked to fermenter.

"That included, for example, children with untreatable brain tumours who developed relentless vomiting, screaming, and seizures in their dying phase. Or children with epilepsy resistant to all treatment with tens to hundreds of seizures a day."

In what world is letting kids seize hundreds of times a day until they die preferable. I'm with the Dutch on this.

I read it. How many seizures a day is too many? 10? 20? 100? Does the socioeconomic resources of the parents need to be taken into account?

[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.

It’s also interesting how people are unable to step away from their privileged bubble to understand how this will play out at scale across populations.

The poor, unintelligent, mentally ill, and other vulnerable populations that progressives claim to care about will certainly be persuaded to kill themselves at much higher rates than the rich and privileged. One of young women who elected to kill herself in Canada said as much when she admitted she would not choose if the state medical services provided better care.

Mutually assisted dying is just another step into eugenics, continuing the slide that began in the 1960s of state sanctioned killing of the weak and vulnerable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Who are you to decide what’s best for others? With serious mental health, they suffer terribly. Get out of our bubble. I don’t want to live homebound for years gasping for air. Most of these people are hidden in homes, nursing homes or other places rs so you never see the, so it’s easy to say tuff it out, but why should they? It’s not like someone like you is going around helping making peoples lives better.

And the next step is to declare the mentally ill incompetent and have someone or a board make the decision of MAID for them. Easy peasy.

People can’t even be involuntarily institutionalized and you think they’re going to get a lethal injection if we legalize euthanasia. You aren’t a deep thinker.

The Dutch are going to expand euthanasia to cover children who can't legally consent. Seems fine, right?

https://theconversation.com/dutch-government-to-expand-euthanasia-law-to-include-children-aged-one-to-12-an-ethicists-view-203961

Cool. Without delving into the merits, I will only note we aren’t in the Netherlands.

The person didn't even bother to read the article they linked to fermenter.

"That included, for example, children with untreatable brain tumours who developed relentless vomiting, screaming, and seizures in their dying phase. Or children with epilepsy resistant to all treatment with tens to hundreds of seizures a day."

In what world is letting kids seize hundreds of times a day until they die preferable. I'm with the Dutch on this.

I read it. How many seizures a day is too many? 10? 20? 100? Does the socioeconomic resources of the parents need to be taken into account?

So you don't trust doctors to make a compassionate decision so kids should just suffer intense pain because of the slippery slope fallacy?

[Anonymous]

Not just pain but also terror. I would be so afraid with dementia. I know some people roll with it but a lot of people are confused, terrified and alone. I don’t want to go from having a generally decent life to having the last years being scary and lonely. No thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Who are you to decide what’s best for others? With serious mental health, they suffer terribly. Get out of our bubble. I don’t want to live homebound for years gasping for air. Most of these people are hidden in homes, nursing homes or other places rs so you never see the, so it’s easy to say tuff it out, but why should they? It’s not like someone like you is going around helping making peoples lives better.

And the next step is to declare the mentally ill incompetent and have someone or a board make the decision of MAID for them. Easy peasy.

People can’t even be involuntarily institutionalized and you think they’re going to get a lethal injection if we legalize euthanasia. You aren’t a deep thinker.

The Dutch are going to expand euthanasia to cover children who can't legally consent. Seems fine, right?

https://theconversation.com/dutch-government-to-expand-euthanasia-law-to-include-children-aged-one-to-12-an-ethicists-view-203961

Cool. Without delving into the merits, I will only note we aren’t in the Netherlands.

The person didn't even bother to read the article they linked to fermenter.

"That included, for example, children with untreatable brain tumours who developed relentless vomiting, screaming, and seizures in their dying phase. Or children with epilepsy resistant to all treatment with tens to hundreds of seizures a day."

In what world is letting kids seize hundreds of times a day until they die preferable. I'm with the Dutch on this.

I read it. How many seizures a day is too many? 10? 20? 100? Does the socioeconomic resources of the parents need to be taken into account?

So you don't trust doctors to make a compassionate decision so kids should just suffer intense pain because of the slippery slope fallacy?

Doctors who are part of a nationalized healthcare system? No, I don't trust them because the attending doctors wouldn't make the decision. It would be given to a medical ethics board that is weighing the finite resource of healthcare against the needs of a single individual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Who are you to decide what’s best for others? With serious mental health, they suffer terribly. Get out of our bubble. I don’t want to live homebound for years gasping for air. Most of these people are hidden in homes, nursing homes or other places rs so you never see the, so it’s easy to say tuff it out, but why should they? It’s not like someone like you is going around helping making peoples lives better.

And the next step is to declare the mentally ill incompetent and have someone or a board make the decision of MAID for them. Easy peasy.

People can’t even be involuntarily institutionalized and you think they’re going to get a lethal injection if we legalize euthanasia. You aren’t a deep thinker.

The Dutch are going to expand euthanasia to cover children who can't legally consent. Seems fine, right?

https://theconversation.com/dutch-government-to-expand-euthanasia-law-to-include-children-aged-one-to-12-an-ethicists-view-203961

Cool. Without delving into the merits, I will only note we aren’t in the Netherlands.

The person didn't even bother to read the article they linked to fermenter.

"That included, for example, children with untreatable brain tumours who developed relentless vomiting, screaming, and seizures in their dying phase. Or children with epilepsy resistant to all treatment with tens to hundreds of seizures a day."

In what world is letting kids seize hundreds of times a day until they die preferable. I'm with the Dutch on this.

I read it. How many seizures a day is too many? 10? 20? 100? Does the socioeconomic resources of the parents need to be taken into account?

So you don't trust doctors to make a compassionate decision so kids should just suffer intense pain because of the slippery slope fallacy?

Doctors who are part of a nationalized healthcare system? No, I don't trust them because the attending doctors wouldn't make the decision. It would be given to a medical ethics board that is weighing the finite resource of healthcare against the needs of a single individual.

That’s not really how it works. Person has to want it, not the doctors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Who are you to decide what’s best for others? With serious mental health, they suffer terribly. Get out of our bubble. I don’t want to live homebound for years gasping for air. Most of these people are hidden in homes, nursing homes or other places rs so you never see the, so it’s easy to say tuff it out, but why should they? It’s not like someone like you is going around helping making peoples lives better.

And the next step is to declare the mentally ill incompetent and have someone or a board make the decision of MAID for them. Easy peasy.

People can’t even be involuntarily institutionalized and you think they’re going to get a lethal injection if we legalize euthanasia. You aren’t a deep thinker.

The Dutch are going to expand euthanasia to cover children who can't legally consent. Seems fine, right?

https://theconversation.com/dutch-government-to-expand-euthanasia-law-to-include-children-aged-one-to-12-an-ethicists-view-203961

Cool. Without delving into the merits, I will only note we aren’t in the Netherlands.

The person didn't even bother to read the article they linked to fermenter.

"That included, for example, children with untreatable brain tumours who developed relentless vomiting, screaming, and seizures in their dying phase. Or children with epilepsy resistant to all treatment with tens to hundreds of seizures a day."

In what world is letting kids seize hundreds of times a day until they die preferable. I'm with the Dutch on this.

I read it. How many seizures a day is too many? 10? 20? 100? Does the socioeconomic resources of the parents need to be taken into account?

So you don't trust doctors to make a compassionate decision so kids should just suffer intense pain because of the slippery slope fallacy?

Doctors who are part of a nationalized healthcare system? No, I don't trust them because the attending doctors wouldn't make the decision. It would be given to a medical ethics board that is weighing the finite resource of healthcare against the needs of a single individual.

That’s not really how it works. Person has to want it, not the doctors.

Children between the ages of 1-12 don't have ability to consent. They aren't persons.