Submitted by d5dq t3_11e4fdy in massachusetts
homefone t1_jacl8sv wrote
Reply to comment by Crazyhellga in A renewed push to legalize ‘medical aid in dying’ by d5dq
>why drag it out and make it very miserable physically and emotionally for the dying and their families?
Because of exactly this. Dying people may view themselves as a burden and essentially commit suicide to not feel like that. This is part of why Mass courts have ruled against medically assisted suicide.
Edit: You cannot disagree with the majority opinion on this subreddit without getting hard down voted.
SouthShoreSerenade t1_jacomy4 wrote
>Dying people may view themselves as a burden
I'm going to say something awful.
I've seen enough dying people in my life to know that they ARE a burden, almost universally, when that death is drawn out. A horrible burden, one that saps the strength, the will, the hope, and the light out of the people that care for them.
Any dying person that wishes to avoid being that terrible burden on the ones that they love have the God given right to make the choice not to be that burden, and government and a falsely polite society have no right interfering with that.
Dementia has struck every elderly blood related person on my dad's side of the family. Already I can see it coming for him. I know it will come for me too. I will not let my loved ones have to babysit me while I scream in fear, soil myself, and try to call police on the threatening "intruders" who have loved me their entire lives. It's not happening.
socialist_frzn_milk t1_jae6cld wrote
This isn’t an awful sentiment, people with severe dementia and Alzheimers ARE a huge burden and the people in my family who have died of it would have been mortified to know the hardship it placed on their loved ones. Death with dignity is always preferable.
homefone t1_jacqik8 wrote
>Any dying person that wishes to avoid being that terrible burden on the ones that they love have the God given right to make the choice not to be that burden, and government and a falsely polite society have no right interfering with that.
No. Feeling like a burden is not a justification for suicide. It's not normally, and that doesn't change at the end of life. And how will we be certain that every medically assisted suicide will be done to someone that can actually consent to it? Dying people are not known for their mental faculties.
>I've seen enough dying people in my life to know that they ARE a burden
And so, you'd prefer they feel pressured to kill themselves because of it?
3720-To-One t1_jad0j9r wrote
You’re right.
Let’s force dying people to needlessly suffer, because letting them go out on their own terms it makes you uncomfortable.
I’m sure if you were the one slowly dying an agonizing death, you’d feel different.
If you don’t want a euthanasia, don’t get one.
Miami_Vice-Grip t1_jad0q3v wrote
I don't really view any life generally as anything that special/beautiful. It seems like you are arguing for a position that doesn't hold water. Like, they are only killing themselves because they feel they are a burden? Well two things, they are literally already going to die anyway regardless of their feelings, and they literally are a burden on the others.
Normally the rationale behind not wanting suicides is that the people have more life to live or the issues they have are temporary. Neither of those apply here.
Like I get the instinct to be against it, but it's a unique situation compared to "traditional" suicide. It's also not like anyone is forcing people to die.
If the worry is that others with power of attorney would like, trick people into signing up for MAID or something, that's a whole other issue.
All of this unless I'm not understanding what you're saying correctly
homefone t1_jadb6kt wrote
The rationale against prohibiting suicide is that human life is the most valuable thing in the world. That's why offenses which violate human life are the most heinous crimes one can commit.
Suicide is not pain mitigation. It's forcefully snuffing out someone's life, and it can't be undone. The fact that we're discussing this as just another medical treatment and not a nuclear option is exactly what concerns me here.
socialist_frzn_milk t1_jae6k5i wrote
“Forcefully snuffing out someone’s life” who often cannot remember their own name, or the names and faces of the people they love, or even remember to go to the bathroom on their own.
This is a life worth living to you?
homefone t1_jaeemc0 wrote
>“Forcefully snuffing out someone’s life” who often cannot remember their own name
This is borderline eugenics. There are a lot of groups of people who can't remember their own name, and therefore, can't consent to be euthanized.
Whether that's a life worth living to me or anybody else is irrelevant, what matters is if euthanasia for the dying is worth the ethical rabbit holes it creates, and I don't think it is.
socialist_frzn_milk t1_jaef276 wrote
So…you just selectively edited my post and either didn’t read or didn’t bother to address the rest of it. Good work. Just like every anti-choice activist on Earth. Sentimentalizing human life and pretending that medical freedom doesn’t matter if it makes YOU personally uncomfortable.
Also, I’d love to know how allowing terminally ill patients to choose their time and manner of death is some sort of “rabbit hole”.
homefone t1_jaegtyx wrote
>Sentimentalizing human life
...That's supposed to be bad?
>So…you just selectively edited my post and either didn’t read or didn’t bother to address the rest of it
I did address it. What you wrote seems to imply that people who can't remember their own names etc. have lives not worth living. In that case, yeah, I do find it prudent to point out the fairly obvious eugenic implications of that argument. And, whether you think someone in that condition has the faculty to consent to be euthanized.
>Just like every anti-choice activist on Earth.
I'm still waiting on how this is connected to abortion?
socialist_frzn_milk t1_jaeikg1 wrote
Sentimentalizing human life is connected to being anti-choice and if you can’t see how, you’re absolutely anti-choice.
And the fact that you think that there would be no psych eval or screening process in place boggles my mind. What, did you think doctors would just blow terminally ill patients’ heads off with shotguns if they decided to die with dignity?
Miami_Vice-Grip t1_jaewqlk wrote
shrug I feel like it's not that big a deal. Killing people who don't want to die is basically one of the worst things you can do to someone, but EoL situations get trickier. All humans are going to die eventually. Like I think you and I are imagining very different scenarios here. The people that MAID would apply to aren't people who have a full rich life that "could have been" if they didn't get the treatment.
Like, we put our pets to sleep if they are suffering and there's no hope left, yet we force ourselves to live through that same pain until the end. You say it's not for pain mitigation, but if someone's remaining "life" is just bedridden pain, how exactly is it cruel to allow them the choice of ending it?
But again, as long as we can all just agree that NO ONE IS FORCED TO USE THIS OPTION, similar to abortions, if it's not for you, then just don't do it. You can get upset about it, but ultimately, there's nothing after life aside from decomposition. The people who die don't give any shits anymore, and so if it's gonna happen anyway, might as well have some vestige of control.
Are there potentially people who would/could bully their family member into agreeing to be euthanized? I mean, I guess so? We already allow other people to decide to pull the plug on life support (I know it's different), we also allow family members to coach people into/through medical procedures just in general.
Worrying that someone who is actually qualified for MAID will decide to end themselves solely because of "pressure" from caregivers seems like such a specific stretch that should not block the whole idea from happening.
Implement MAID, and then see if anyone is abusing it. I mean, you also have the doctors, they aren't stupid, they are used to dealing with people who are seeking specific procedures while under duress/fear/pressure, and this would be no different.
Also, MAID is already a thing in many places around the world, so whatever worries you have about it, just like, Google if they actually happen or not. Clearly in these places where it's legal for years haven't had any complaints grievous enough to shut the whole thing down.
SouthShoreSerenade t1_jae1op5 wrote
I'd prefer a scumbag like you not to decide the fates of others.
3720-To-One t1_jacoy3r wrote
Okay? And when the writing is already on the wall, why force EVERYONE involved to have to needlessly suffer more than they already have to?
homefone t1_jacqzcr wrote
>why force EVERYONE involved
Yes, this exactly right here. People will be pressured to kill themselves, even if they don't want to, because the option is there and dying people think themselves a burden. That's not right.
3720-To-One t1_jacwub1 wrote
You seem to miss the part where they are already dying, and the writing is on the wall.
But you’re right, let’s force them and their families to continue to needlessly suffer for absolutely nothing.
Nobody’s forcing you to euthanize yourself.
If you don’t want a euthanasia, don’t get a euthanasia.
homefone t1_jada8p9 wrote
Modern pain mitigation is, overall, very good and we are one of the best states for healthcare. The idea that every terminally ill person is suffering badly and wants to die as soon as possible is just wrong.
None of that addresses the fact that the option of euthanasia will encourage people who don't want to kill themselves to do so. Or the possibility that someone incapable of consenting to suicide would do so.
3720-To-One t1_jadfnd7 wrote
Or how about… let the patient decide?
Crazy idea, I know.
socialist_frzn_milk t1_jae73pc wrote
Oh hey, it’s the same argument people use to argue against reproductive choice. No one has argued that every terminally ill person wants to die, and personally, I’d love to see some statistics on your assertion that assisted suicide will pressure people into killing themselves.
homefone t1_jaee5xd wrote
> Oh hey, it’s the same argument people use to argue against reproductive choice.
This is a red herring, and anyways, I support abortion rights.
>No one has argued that every terminally ill person wants to die
I didn't argue that either. I argued that the availability of euthanasia to the terminally ill will encourage people to take that choice, regardless of whether they want to or not.
>I’d love to see some statistics on your assertion that assisted suicide will pressure people into killing themselves.
You can't poll the terminally ill or dead.
socialist_frzn_milk t1_jaeffc0 wrote
You argued that the availability of assisted suicide will cause more people to commit suicide while completely ignoring that these are not always the only options. “Dignity” is whatever a terminally ill patient decides it is, and if it’s “put a needle in my arm while I am surrounded by family and friends and let me go to sleep peacefully”, that is absolutely their right and you have no business taking it from them.
Oh, and it turns out you don’t have to poll the terminally ill or dead to know that you’re talking out of your ass, because the NIH already says you’re wrong. This study shows there was absolutely no statistically higher risk of disproportionate effect on “at risk” groups: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652799/
Seems to me that you’re trying real hard not to say “But it makes me feel icky!”
homefone t1_jaegauh wrote
>that is absolutely their right and you have no business taking it from them.
No it isn't.
>Oh, and it turns out you don’t have to poll the terminally ill or dead to know that you’re talking out of your ass, because the NIH already says you’re wrong: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652799/
This analysis concerns whether racial minorities and other "vulnerable groups" are targeted for euthanasia. That's not I've been talking about.
socialist_frzn_milk t1_jaeiene wrote
In order for your argument to make any sense you would HAVE to be talking about at-risk groups, because otherwise you WOULD be talking out of your ass and there’d be no point continuing this.
And “No it isn’t” is something a child says when they’ve lost the argument. It IS a right, and you do not get to strip someone of their dignity because you don’t agree with their medical choices.
homefone t1_jaejgxw wrote
>HAVE to be talking about at-risk groups
No.
>It IS a right, and you do not get to strip someone of their dignity because you don’t agree with their medical choices.
I don't think it's a medical choice, I think it's killing oneself. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If you're saying it's a right, you need to show that it's a right.
socialist_frzn_milk t1_jaejzgm wrote
End-of-life decisions are medical decisions. You don’t get to pretend that they’re not. And since you are not interested in arguing like an adult, I’m about finished wasting my time.
Wentailang t1_jacvu65 wrote
maybe we shouldn’t have hospitals, since it pressures people to get checked into them if they otherwise would want to stay home. it’s not fair to the minority of people who prefer to suffer, so let’s take away everyone’s freedom of choice.
homefone t1_jad9qkt wrote
Usually, hospitals try to keep people alive, not dead. There is no equivalence here.
Wentailang t1_jadbhmo wrote
my point is “a few people might feel pressure if they have multiple options, so no one should have any options” sounds utterly ridiculous in any other context. i do understand where you’re coming from, and that euthanasia is higher stakes, but we shouldn’t be torturing millions of people so that thousands might accidentally stop suffering a couple months early when they actually wanted to draw it out.
and to answer the inevitable follow up, i don’t see why it’s easier to advocate keeping euthanasia banned when we could instead be advocating for doctors not being allowed to suggest it, or not be allowed to give it to non-terminally ill patients.
homefone t1_jadcepi wrote
And equating euthanasia to "just another option" is what concerns me.
Pain mitigation is very good for most terminally ill people. The idea that euthanasia is anything but a nuclear option for the few cases where pain is prolonged and unmanageable is disturbing. Suicide is not pain mitigation. It's death.
The reason why we shouldn't allow it at all is because, no matter what, some families will mention to their ill, and because you will inevitably euthanize someone who couldn't have consented to it. There are too many ethical problems with it.
Wentailang t1_jaddbed wrote
i feel like this is a fundamental difference we probably won’t be reconciling, but i do see where you’re coming from and apologize if i came off a bit dickish. while i do still support it, you’ve at least helped add some more nuance to my stance. thanks for bearing with me.
copenhagen120 t1_jacpric wrote
Why not give them the agency to make that decision for themselves? Trust me, not giving them the choice doesn't make it any better.
My father-in-law is terminally ill, and for him the only thing worse than the physical pain is the emotional distress of knowing that his last days will be be a painful drain of emotional and financial resources on himself and the family he's leaving behind.
I really can't emphasize the agency part enough. Getting a terminal diagnosis is so emotionally difficult, partly because you're officially at the end of the line. There's nothing you or anyone else can do to keep the fight going. You've been stripped of agency in your fight to live, and you don't even have the agency to decide to end it if that's what you want. It contributes to the powerlessness of a terminal diagnosis in such an unnecessary way and is heartbreaking to witness.
homefone t1_jactmvn wrote
Look, I've been through similar circumstances. I would've never wished for that person to feel it necessary to kill themselves to avoid any burden of mine or somebody else's. As soon as that pressure exists, it can't be ethical suicide.
And, unless every case of medical suicide is undergone by a person 100% able to consent to such, legalizing this process amounts to state sponsored murder.
3720-To-One t1_jad0w24 wrote
THEY ARE GOING TO DIE AN EXCRUCIATING DEATH.
Why are you so in favor of state-sponsored torture?
We literally euthanize our pets when their time is done so they don’t have to suffer.
Why can’t you have that compassion for a human, who’s going to die anyways, and who wants to be able to go out on their own terms.
Chippopotanuse t1_jae7dtc wrote
Disagreeing with majorities often comes with folks booing you.
Yes. That’s how it works.
You are as free to hold whatever unpopular opinions on end of life decisions you want.
And we are equally as free to boo you.
homefone t1_jaedv73 wrote
>You are as free to hold whatever unpopular opinions on end of life decisions you want.
I'm in the majority, however slight. Do you not remember the ballot question we had about this issue not too long ago? The pro-euthanasia side failed. What is unpopular on this subreddit doesn't reflect the Bay State.
>And we are equally as free to boo you.
And you're as equally free to express your dissent and have a meaningful conversation with me like an adult, as I've done with quite a few people here. The whole point of a state subreddit is to have a sense of community and discuss issues with your neighbors. I guess that's too much.
Chippopotanuse t1_jaemgcg wrote
The ballot question. Yes. Sure. The 51/49 majority from the 2012 ballot question? That’s your basis for claiming you are in a majority view in 2023? Interesting.
Since this seems to be a subject you care about, I’m sure you are very familiar with the far more recent poll by Suffolk that found that 77% of Massachusetts residents believe a mentally sound adult with an incurable, terminal illness should have the legal option of asking a physician to prescribe aid-in-dying medication to end their suffering. Nearly 16% opposed and 7 percent were undecided.
Where are you getting information that a majority of Massachusetts residents oppose assisted suicide?
homefone t1_jaeohx5 wrote
>Where are you getting information that a majority of Massachusetts residents oppose assisted suicide?
From the last legitimate test we've had on the issue. What people say in polls and what people vote for varies dramatically.
Chippopotanuse t1_jaep7hp wrote
So 2012.
Got it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments