I feel like more people should consider euthanasia. If caring for you is a huge physical and financial burden, and you're basically waiting to die anyway, why not just get it over with?
Most people with something terribly wrong are holding out hope for some new breakthrough -- some new drug or therapeutic treatment -- that will finally fix them. A lot of people can't quite commit to euthanasia because "what if they find a cure a week later?"
I think I should have the right to say "Nope. I'm done with this crap." I don't think other people should have the right to decide "Well, if you conveniently die now, we can still afford that vacation....um, I mean, we hate seeing you suffer! That's what I mean!"
That's just plain FUD.
They are all, "The patient, being of sound mind, jumps through a large bunch of legal hurdles to be permitted to exit peacefully and painlessly."
> "Most people with something terribly wrong are holding out hope"
We're talking about people inches from death here. If they had hope they would be in hospital. They no longer have hope, only pain.
> A lot of people can't quite commit to euthanasia because "what if they find a cure a week later?"
A lot of people want euthanasia as a barrier against fear... "There have been some terrible days, and I'm certain I'm dying, and as I die, it will get worse. If it gets intolerable, I can opt out... it's not intolerable today, so I can hold on another day."
There doesn't need to be legislation in the works somewhere on planet Earth for it to be a valid point to say "Yeah, that's a super bad reason to agree someone should die and here's why."
I stated up front I'm pro right to die. I have a Dread Disease myself. I'm abundantly familiar with the other side of the equation of "I want to check out now, thanks. I've had enough."
I did touch on that aspect in my comment. My Dread Disease is why I think I should have the right to decide "No, seriously, I've had enough. I want out and this is the only way out of this torturous prison called my defective body."
Yep, parts of Australia just approved a euthanasia bill and its full of so many restrictions there is next to no way it can be abused. I think the tl;dr is you have to have a terminal illness that will kill you in 6 months and which is causing you pain and you have to consent to it.
- https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-45117163 29 chooses physician assisted suicide because she was terminally mentally ill - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/world/europe/doctors-belg... a case where doctors were acquitted, but charged by a family member, of eeuthenasia a 40 year old who was depressed and autistic. Other family members supported the death. Also has another story of “ In the Netherlands, a doctor was acquitted in September after having been accused of failing to secure proper consent from a 74-year-old patient who suffered from Alzheimer’s and had been administered euthanasia by the doctor.”
I think this is an issue where the risk of abuse or misuse is very great. The accusation in the above case is that doctors did not attempt to treat the depression and instead allowed the patient to choose death. At 40.
Depression and Suicide is serious. I don’t want to go down a path where there’s some suicide checklist that includes “ok then, off you go” rather than trying to treat depression and help the patient.
I don’t think it’s FUD to discuss this and think about it with others. It’s important and not clear cut.
Just like palliative treatments, this is ultimate last resort of exclusion.
Presuming there is any reason it's depression, and one of the risks of depression treatments is increase in risk of suicide. Could lead to the same end, or even kill the patient anyway with other side effects. And when do you decide "garbage" therapies like counseling or socialization fail?
In the case above, the problem is that treatment requires the person to be committed, and person committed is declared not of sound mind. That's the catch-22 of euthanasia laws. You would have to change the part "of sound mind".
And then the doctors could be sued anyway, because some alleged treatment was missed. Either you trust the doctors made a diagnosis correctly or not.
That’s already about a minimum cost and minimum suffering exit. Many people’s choices are extreme pain or so drugged on opioids they effectively take an early exit either way. Adding a 3rd choice is really not about giving up hope, that’s long gone at that point.
Except that so many people botch their suicides, and then have to live a life that's really worse than death. Or they try again, some fail again. And again. And again. Each time with agonizing, terrifying, miserable results.
They usually have to hide their attempts, too, so they can't be surrounded by loved ones, can't talk about their plans or feelings with loved ones, and can't be in a familiar place for fear of being stopped.
Sometimes other people are unintentionally harmed as others risk their own lives to stop them, or the chosen method (such as running out in to traffic) inherently endangers the lives of others.
All this misery and terror could be avoided if there was a legal way to end one's own life safely, reliably, comfortably, without stigma, and with dignity.
(Source: Have been suicidal in the past and cracked this nut.)
See, for example, the Michelle Carter case.
This is a pretty standard way of staking out a position on this topic but I think it is quite misleading.
Laws regarding euthanasia have very little if anything to do with limiting the actions of someone who wants to die or protecting their "rights". After all they can't be prosecuted after they have passed.
Without some special provisions, a doctor or anyone else who assists in someone's death could be prosecuted for criminal homicide. And once you've carved out that exception you also have to devise a way to protect an individual from being killed by someone under the pretense of lawfully assisting with their suicide.
So it isn't really about the "right to die" but instead is about regulating homicide. I know that sounds strange, but there are several legal principles that could be described as "regulating homicide". For example committing homicide in self-defense or in order to protect someone or as part of a lawful military action.
In a nutshell, a right whose realization you cannot delegate to another person is not a bona fide right.
Of course, delegating suicide to someone results in homicide, so everything you write is spot on.
But the effect is only those who do not need help have the right to die; those who need help effectively do not.
There is the idea of "negative rights". These are rights that don't require the actions of a third party in order to be satisfied. For example, the right to not be assaulted only requires that other people not assault you. And the right to ownership of private property only requires that other people not take your property.
On the other hand a "positive right" can not be satisfied without active participation of someone else and if that right is to be guaranteed it may require that someone else be forced to do something. For example, the right to an education requires that schools, teachers, books, and other materials be provided.
The conceptual problem with positive rights is that they can only be guaranteed by infringing on someone else's negative rights. For example, the right to an education requires the forceable collection of taxes in order to fund the education system or perhaps the forceable assignment of careers to ensure enough teachers and administrators. Most people are willing to find a middle ground but that only goes so far as can be seen when people complain about high taxes or wasteful government spending.
The difficulty with your position is that it creates a situation where someone might have to be forced to kill someone despite their wishes. Let's presume that the law has been adjusted to permit someone to assist in your suicide without putting themselves in jeopardy of being prosecuted for murder (and relaxing the law like this has its own dangers). You still need to locate a person who is willing to help you. What if you don't know any such person? What if everyone you ask says that they don't want to participate? Can you assert your right and demand that someone be forced to assist you? Since you are asserting there is a "right to die" it only follows that your desire for assistance can't be denied, someone must force someone else to assist you.
The way out of this conundrum, in my opinion, is to realize that there is no such "right to die".
I would say, the proper interpretation of rights such as "right to education" or "right to die" is that nobody may stand in your way of exercising them, not that others must be coerced into provisioning roles.
(The coercive aspect is an interpretation taken by collectivist societies with regard to certain expensive needs.)
We could just call that "liberty". There is no need to argue about some nearly-infinite list of "rights to X" when that is all covered by the simple idea of being left alone. But the moment you say that you in order to excercise your "right to X" someone is obligated to provide something to you, then you are back into the coercion game again.
(Unfair reasons would be ones that have nothing to do with academic placement or ability to pay: right to education doesn't have to mean that a school has to take everyone who applies, and those who can't pay tuition.)
As a thought experiment you can simplify this a bit more by thinking about an even more basic necessity. Food. Is there a "right to food"?
That sounds like a positive right to me. It can only be guaranteed by someone else doing something for me (i.e. providing me with food). So why should I have to pay for my groceries? Shouldn't I be able to just go somewhere and get all the food I need because it is my right? If you say that I need to pay for it, then it certainly doesn't sound like a right to me, that just sounds like commerce.
Once you drop the requirement that someone else provide the food to me, then I would argue you aren't really talking about a basic "right" at that point. Certainly it is a necessity to live, but that doesn't mean that the universe will magically provide that necessity to me nor does it mean that someone else should be forced to provide it to me.
(An additional benefit is that it would help identify people who are suicidally depressed for not-reasonable reasons, and get them help, or at least someone to talk to.)
I have decided years ago and I do not see this changing significantly that once my mortgage is paid down -- which is approximately in eight years -- I just want to die, I will be 53 by then. By then the so called "bucket list" will be empty. I am living alone and this I can't see changing any time soon. Do not think I am suicidal or depressed -- I have three international trips booked for this year already and so on. I am just utterly practical. Nothing frightens me more than living with a slowly fading mind in a much more rapidly failing body.
Canada where I live has allowed medical assistance in dying since 2016 doesn't allow for this. I do not expect to be terminally ill and so I can't just decide, not even if I make a declaration ten years beforehands, that I want to end it in dignity and without pain. You can't. You can extend it far beyond where life is enjoyable, it is indeed the default expectation to do so but ending it, that's not allowed.
Yeah. See, I was diagnosed with T2 diabetes not long ago (AFTER I made the decision on when is the show over) and I can fully maintain a non diabetic blood sugar level with just diet and for the time being , I am doing so. It however greatly limits one of the biggest enjoyment in my life, namely food. THAT is the future -- as I age , more and more things I could do I won't be able to. I bought a rolling carry on for the first time today because I recognize running around with a stuffed backpack is not cutting it any more. Already I needed to limit how much I can sightsee on foot. All this. I am SO not interested in walking this path down to the bitter end.
But I’m very curious your motivation to pay off your mortgage before death. What is driving that? I always thought mortgage payment was a stress as it is to me. But if I were to die then I wouldn’t need to care about mortgage. If anything, I would pay less mortgage and spend more liberally in my final 8 years. Perhaps 4 or even 5 international trips.
It’s probably not possible to have a direct conversation with your nephew for whether he would prefer a house or more than 8 years with his uncle, but I think if you explore this concept you might be able to determine his preference and that could lead to extending your plan by a few years.
One of the things I really found helpful from family members, and I have an uncle like this, is the life advice I’ve received. I didn’t get financial help, but being able to run through scenarios and ask about business and life plans has been super helpful. Another person in my life died and left letters to be opened in case of certain events. Those letters are helpful, but very different from being able to learn from and interact.
I respect your view (and share your fear of decay), but please don't rule out depression; you might not be able to accurately diagnose yourself. A clergyman friend once said, after someone committed suicide, that depression is a disease that can be fatal.
I know a guy around your age after a divorce decided to move in with some younger roommates in SV, even though he had plenty of money to live alone. He did this to stay socially engaged.
EDIT: I recall there have been a few studies where people became more satisfied with their life as they aged. I hope this is the case for you.
Learn to ride a motorcycle. More fun than you'd think.
See an eclipse from the totality. More fun than you'd think.
Get a dog. Maybe not quite as fun as it looks, but pretty fun.
Go see an Above and Beyond show at one of the huge, outdoor festivals. More fun than you'd think.
Take a cruise.
Not being flippant here. I suspect that there are a few more things you could easily add to your bucket list that you might really enjoy.
Most of the elderly (about 6 people) with whom I've spoken are disgusted at even mentioning something like this (70-85 year old men and women from western Europe). This sentiment may change as new cohorts age out.
The overlap between "unable to care for oneself and a burden on caretaker" and "unable to consent" is probably pretty large.
However, I'm seriously worried that this opinion might change once I'm at that point.