This is where voluntary euthanasia, as is being practiced in Canada, would be suitable option.
I wouldn't want to continue living if I was a burden on society and my family.
I wouldn't want to continue living if I was a burden on society and my family.
Most importantly: even to the very last second, the patient's decision matters and is final. And procedure requires to iterate reminding patient's agency over and over again.
Having that moral debate out of the way, far more interesting is that euthanasia only ever has a place in a functioning healthcare system and social security system that puts the person's interests in the center. That is, by the time an elderly person do becomes eligible, it's never because they are a "burden" to their families or society.
In fact, it's extended to psychiatric patients as well. People with severe clinical mental illness can be eligible. Paradoxically, it's been observed that a sizable chunk of patients do have the paperwork, but actually don't go through with it. Just the mere thought that it's a non-controversial, accepted option which negates taking matters in your own hands is enough for them to keep going. Again, it's not a "get out of jail free" card. You do need to go through a lengthy procedure with many evaluations, and only after all other options are exhausted, before you become eligible.
I would want to be euthanized if in my old age I lost who I am. That is, severe dementia or Alzheimer's. The moment I can't remember who my kid is, that's when I'd want to be euthanized because at that point, it's a living death. (I saw my mother go through this with her mother).
However, at that point, I'll have lost the ability to consent to be euthanized. Heck, I might even fight someone trying to put me down.
The idea of making such a 'death wish' as a middle age person for your old age seems fine now. But the 80 year old you will be a different person than the 30-year-old, 40-year-old, 50-year-old, 60-year-old, and even 70-year-old you.
There is such a thing as nuance in the world and we can use that to decide when a death wish could be executed. In fact, we already have some limited forms of such death wishes in the form of DNRs. That hasn't caused the extinction of humanity from 14yo fantasies and most people don't see it as some terrible slippery slope.
If I had such a directive on myself I could revoke it at 50, 60, 70, or 80 while I still have my faculties. That moots the "I'm a different person" argument.
But, I should point out how horrible dementia is. It's a disease with no cure that causes you to be a different person, one with partial memories of the world that is constantly upset and confused because nothing makes sense or lines up. Imagine constantly wandering out into the street trying to head back to your childhood home or trying to find a long dead spouse or childhood friend and wondering why you never see them anymore. Imagine constantly reliving the death of a spouse if someone can't redirect the questioning. Imagine waking up old and not remembering how you aged. Imagine not recognizing yourself in the mirror. Now imagine your child crying at your bedside because you don't remember them. (all stuff that happened to my grandmother).
Yup, if I get dementia I'd be a different person, one that is in constant pain and confusion and causes constant pain to the ones I loved the most. I'll choose in that scenario for the rest of my life to be put down (even though I know it's not something I could necessarily choose).
For a variety of reasons I won't go into, 14- year old anon291 would think 30-year-old anon291 had lost his mind and was speaking gibberish...
From my own perspective 16 years ago I'd be incapable of making decisions.
Your point lacks nuance.
How would you address DNRs? Do you think they are wrong? Why or why not?
You said:
> I would want to be euthanized if in my old age I lost who I am.
I pointed out that, from my perspective 15 years ago, the man I am today has 'lost who I was'. Thus, if I were to apply this generally, 14-year-old me should probably want to kill myself.
Now, perhaps at age 60 I say 'I want to die if I lose myself'. But then, as dementia sets in (if that happens, most old people do not necessarily experience it). Who exactly determines that? How do you know I don't have agency as a potentially dementia-stricken 90 year old? What if at 91, in my dementia, I say I don't want to die. Who do you go with? 60-year-old me that you've determined has 'agency'? Or the person standing in front of you, who may have changed his mind.
Probably an uninterested 3rd party like a doctor with family consent.
> How do you know I don't have agency as a potentially dementia-stricken 90 year old?
I assume you've never even met someone with dementia. It's beyond obvious.
> What if at 91, in my dementia, I say I don't want to die.
Fine, revoke the order. However, had you ever met someone with dementia you'd know that's not something they'd come up with.
> Who do you go with?
You keep trying to make this a "the decision was made years past controlling today" argument, but what you go with is the most recent decision. Even erring on the side of "well, they may or may not be lucid when they rescinded their death wish so just to be safe we won't follow through".
> 60-year-old me that you've determined has 'agency'?
WTF are you talking about? I never said that "60 year old me has immutable decision making capability!" You keep trying to make that argument, but again, that's a strawman. What decision do you go with? Well, just like DNRs or organ donation, you go with the most recent decision made. Every day you have a "death wish" order you have the option to revoke it, so present day you ALWAYS has the option to revoke it. In otherwords, this isn't a decision controlled by 60 year old you, but instead controlled by the daily choice to keep or eliminate it. In otherwords, 90 yo you with all your faculties by doing nothing continues to approve of the order. If you don't approve of it, you can terminate it at any time.
And again, because it is exactly analogous but you continue to dodge answering the question: How do you feel about DNRs? What if the person after an accident changes their minds and they do want medical intervention. What happens?
It's a simple answer, medical intervention is given.
Strawman: That I'm arguing such directives can't be changed. My argument, that such directives are completely changeable at any point in time.
That is the nuance you ignore and avoid with your silly "14-year-old me decision". 14 year old you can decide to be a firefighter, 15 year old you can change that decision.
60 year old you can decide to die if they get dementia, 70 year old you can undo that decision.
It's not complicated and we handle this sort of thing all the time in medicine and life.
It translates to: “We are all free to make decisions for ourselves, but not “you”..and not “that”..”
At the end of the day, we can only live our lives. And can’t control others. We have to be consistent when it comes to the definition of ‘free’.
It is not dissimilar to the idea of children choosing gender transition. Do I have an opinion? Yes. Does it matter? No. Ditto with reproductive rights.
We have to define ‘freedom’ and stick to that definition. “My body, my choice” should fit to all bodies.
If living is pain, physically or mentally..let them go. It is an act of compassion. We do it for animals all the time. Suffering is suffering.
No it's not, and these sorts of reductive absolute statements completely turn me off against allowing any kind of euthanasia.
This is an incredibly difficult problem that causes us to question the existence and causes of free will.
If freedom to make decisions about one’s own body is conditional, then it’s not ‘Freedom’. There ought to be another word for it.
The real question is why are governments so keen to legalise euthanasia?
My view is its about population management. It eases the expenses, clears out the dead wood, etc. Governments really do think it is right that they should choose how long their citizens are around for, even if they say otherwise - its about control. I don't even think it's the only strategy they have to manage the population, nor even the most common one.