Hacker News Reader

Comment by gorjusborg | Hacker News Reader

The article reads like it is written by someone who does not agree with euthanasia to begin with, and who is trying to use classism as a tactic to quash it.

While it is interesting to think about how intractible problems for the poor can be minor issues to the rich, and how that affects one's decision to be euthanized, ultimately, it isn't the right to choose to die that should be taken away.

There are real cases where euthanasia is a compassionate choice. Outlawing it just forces people to suffer needlessly.

The authors appeal that the government is a uncaring cost optimizer pushing death on the poor misses (or misrepresents) the point. The issue isn't euthanasia, it is that living conditions of the poor are untenable. The solution shouldn't be to force them to live a long life through government enforced misery, should it?

View on HN

You are misstating the issue, as are most people who talk about euthanasia. It is not a matter of having "the right to die".

First of all, we are not talking about just letting people exercise this right by killing themselves, we are talking about suggesting they do and assisting them in the process. It's much less benign.

Second, it's not a matter of having the right or not, it's about defining the worth of a human life. We do not as a matter of policy, condone suicide. On the contrary we are invested in keeping people from committing suicide, with suicide hotlines, suicide prevention efforts, mental health initiatives and so on. So it should be self-evident that the crux of the issue is not self-determination, it's categorizing which people should be helped to die and which should be prevented from dying.

When you frame it like this, it becomes a much harder question, and it raises some grave concerns with regards to the cultural and institutional value frameworks that will go into making these decisions. No one who has seriously thought about euthanasia is surprised by what is going on in Canada, it's something we've been talking about for years.

This!

Right to die != Nudging people to make use of that right.

You are doing the same thing the author of the article is doing, trying to pretend there is one issue, combine them all into one, and say, 'look how bad (abortion, ahem, I mean) euthanasia is'.

If people are being coerced into dying, that is already illegal under coercion laws.

If people are opting into dying rather than live under a dystopian torture chamber, perhaps consider letting them out first?

Having the choice of death isn't a real issue here, despite what the article wants you to think.

If you read anything about abortion in my comment I'd really recommend trying to take a few steps back from the red & blue dichotomies because that's properly unhinged.

Yes, euthanasia is a two-fold problem and a strong social net would alleviate some of these issues. But that's insufficient for two reasons. First because some of these issues are cultural, e.g the value (or lack thereof) we put on the lives of the elderly and the disabled in the west, which is not solely driven by economic considerations. Second because euthanasia laws are being implemented right now and the social nets are not there, we are not discussing the theory of euthanasia we are talking about what's happening today and in the following decades for other western nations that will put it into effect. This is why we need to discuss the legal framework and its implementation. Euthanizing the poor is not acceptable, I don't think it needs to be said, and the solution is not to deny the problem and say "this is fine because euthanasia is important".

The abortion aside was not directed at you, per se, more drawing the obvious parallel between the tactics (at least in the U.S.) used in that argument and this. Conflating all the perceived complications and ills caused by a freedom, and drawing the 'logical conclusion' that the freedom should be removed is something done in that argument as well.

The recent back-sliding of abortion rights in the U.S. are a fresh reminder of how these tactics can preclude/drive political action, so it's worth recognizing that the tactics are similar.

> euthanasia is a two-fold problem

Widening it to two issues is still an over-simplification, and you're still starting with the assumption that euthanasia is 'a/the problem'.

How is anyone in Canada 'euthanizing the poor'? If people are being forced into choosing to die, that's wrong by itself and systems around the process should be adjusted to ensure that isn't happening, and people doing wrong should be punished. Placing blame on the freedom to choose to live is disingenuous.

I'm not widening it, I'm reframing it within the two-pronged perspective you've yourself provided: The "right to die" and economic inequality. And I'm showing you it doesn't fit within that perspective if only because of cultural considerations. I don't believe any problem of this sort has a countable number of facets. As for it being a "problem", it's semantics and entirely unimportant, call it an issue if you prefer.

I believe the article goes into details about how Canada is euthanizing the poor. You are talking about this from an extremely individualist perspective, individual people forcing other people to die is not the issue we're discussing, we are talking about systemic influences.

Again, euthanasia laws are not about the "freedom to choose to die", it is about defining the boundary between a suicide we seek to prevent and one we seek to assist. Unless you believe all people who wish to die should be assisted.

>The solution shouldn't be to force them to live a long life through government enforced misery, should it?

This misrepresents the original article, which argues that the legalizing euthanasia was predicted to cause people who couldn't afford proper care to kill themselves – be it by coercion or choice – a prediction which seemingly has been proven right here.

There are no pro/con "right to death" arguments being made in the article, only that these consequences are grim and indeed promotes behaviour of an "uncaring cost optimizer pushing death on the poor".

That's incredibly poor takeaway from the article. I couldn't see how it would be written differently by someone supporting euthanasia - would you be okay with handwaving that despite all these cases of abuse listed, it's all fine?

Of course the solution is proper social net.

That is a poor takeaway from my comment.

> Of course the solution is a proper social net

My point exactly. The real issue is not euthanasia, but the author is trying to had to make it seem like it.

As for the abuses, of course they should be addressed, directly. Not indirectly by outlawing euthanasia.

But it is nowhere proposing to outlaw euthanasia, do I miss something?

> was forced into euthanasia

> applied to die

> resorted to euthanasia

The article paints euthanasia as a negative. The implication is that it must be solved. Oh, and it recently became legal. What's the obvious solution?

The author doesn't write the words 'Outlaw Euthanasia', but do they really need to?

For someone making the case for strengthening social support for people who are choosing to die due to poverty, they are focusing on euthanasia a whole lot.

Manipulating or outright coercion of people in dire situation toward euthanasia is abuse, full stop. They could do something else and help them but now that the legal avenue opened, they do this instead. We must not criticize this?

Regardless whether euthanasia itself is negative or neutral or positive.

> The issue isn't euthanasia, it is that living conditions of the poor are untenable. The solution shouldn't be to force them to live a long life through government enforced misery, should it?

What about the solution where poor people also have a somewhat liveable life with no government enforced misery ?

Should the poor live untenable lives is the fundamental disagreement between you and the author I think.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com