Hacker News Reader

It seems like it's perhaps the natural progression of an extreme sense of individualism. In an age where individual choice is elevated to the highest level possible, it naturally follows that someone should have the option to end their lives whenever they want.

I think this view falls short because it seems to count the chances of someone making an uninformed mistake as an acceptable consequence of preserving individual choice. Personally, I can't agree with this view. I often state that my desire is to protect and preserve life when it comes to suicide and am met with backlash over "inserting myself into other people's lives." When the reality is I've been close to several suicides (due to my community role) where the general community consensus was that the person was dealing with a complex mental health issue and the medical system more or less failed them.

I don't propose to win anybody to my side, but I think the whole topic requires a lot of nuance and shouldn't be simplified.

Really well said. It is an excruciating situation to be in. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

You say the whole topic requires a lot of nuance and shouldn't be simplified and I say (while agreeing with you in the general case) there is no nuance when it comes to relieving a person from suffering. I get you've witnessed suicides that shouldn't have happened [1], but I had to watch a close relative of mine be in a state of excruciating pain for weeks while slowly dying from cancer. No drugs would help her. She lay there, first screaming, then begging to die, then when the agony became unbearable she'd lie there in between consciousness and unconsciousness, unable to perceive so much of it. From time to time her mind would clear up and I'd see the immense pain in her eyes. The country I'm from doesn't allow euthanasia even in such extreme cases. In that moment, I hated the doctors so much — despite knowing their hands were tied. Even more, I resented the society that would prohibit helping someone in such a state due to its idealistic views of the value of life — views that had never been exposed to the horrors I'd seen.

Perhaps you'd argue this too was a case of the medical system failing the person, but I believe that, lacking the knowledge or technology to truly help someone whose illness has progressed so far, we must help as much as we can, even if it means living with the thought of taking someone's life.

Sorry for the stream of consciousness; I don't know how to wrap this up.

[1]: I say as if there are suicides that should happen. ._\

> there is no nuance when it comes to relieving a person from suffering

What if the person is suffering from a mental health crisis that modern medicines can treat? I'm not trying to be obtuse, and I understand what you mean by suffering is akin to what you described, but my point is that written in that way, it's not clear. This is precisely why the conversation needs to have nuance, because we all have wildly different experiences with suicide, and we need to fully understand the various factors driving it before we open the gates to assisted suicide.

> Perhaps you'd argue this too was a case of the medical system failing the person

Why would I argue that? I think you misunderstood my argument. In cases where someone is attempting suicide because of a treatable mental health condition (i.e., a chemistry problem in the brain that can be relieved through modern medicine), I think we should be cautious about killing them without at least attempting to treat the underlying issue.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is that, in many cases, suicide is not an individual act. A father of three with a family dependent on him who decides to commit suicide is very much impacting the lives of his family members. Again, nuance is warranted.

Ok, I think I see your point. However, I still deeply believe MAiD option is a must-have for a healthcare system to be humane.

Euthanasia is not suicide. The decision to end a life under most euthanasia or assisted suicide legislatures involve third party medical professionals and psychologists that ascertain the capability of the person to make the decision to end their life and the necessity of that fact in balance with their suffering. Suicide happens outside of society and one's immediate support group (family, friends, etc). Euthanasia is not that at all, family, friends even if possibly not at peace, at least they're forewarned and can intellectually understand there's a "why" of a person's need to die.

I think it's very reductive and naive to equate the two. To deny a person's ability to end their life with dignity is, in my opinion, very inhumane.

Its a matter of opinion where you draw the line between suicide or euthanasia. This implies that no one here has the high ground in calling the others idea of it "reductive" or "naive".

In actuality it's a matter of law, not opinion.

Which is derived from opinions using democratic processes.

Putting a bullet in your own head is simply impractical. You have to have a gun, then aom correctly.

I would absolutely prefer to be sedated and killed medically but of I do not have this option I will jump in front of a train, or build my own azote based contraption.

I want to choose for me, th1t's it. We have the way more difficult and impacting choice of having the ability yo have children, sucide is a personal thing.

Hiring a professional costs a lot of money. Like euthanasia is only for rich people who can afford it. The ludicrous thing here is that you geniuses are actually discriminating saying only rich people should be allowed to off themselves.

> I want to choose for me, th1t's it. We have the way more difficult and impacting choice of having the ability yo have children, suicide is a personal thing.

So what if a child makes this personal choice? Should we stop it? No right? Is the reason because the child is not sane enough or mature enough to make the right decision?

What criteria makes a person sane enough to make that personal choice? Is it an arbitrary age? Say 18?

> Hiring a professional costs a lot of money. Like euthanasia is only for rich people who can afford it.

I do not know where you maybe but my expectation is that everything health is free (except for some minor stuff).

A medicalized euthanasia absolutely is in scope of that.

> What criteria makes a person sane enough to make that personal choice? Is it an arbitrary age? Say 18?

We collectively decided that 18 is an age when someone is fully responsible for their everyone (which is biologically incorrect). For lack of a better reference, yes 18.

> Think logically.

That would entail considering the other differences between a bullet and assisted suicide other than risk of botching or pain experiences, which you are clearly not doing.

It is trivial to think about the differences. It is rational and harder to think about how they are the same horrific act.

Under your world at 18 every teenager can be immediately separated from their parents and taken to a suicide room where they have an option to choose between several different suicides each administrated by a professional who will guarantee a painless death. There's gas chamber, sharp shooter, decapitation and lethal injection. Every person the minute their 18 is offered this and forcefully walled off from their parents so their parents won't influence their individual freedom.

Additionally there should be public suicide rooms where a person can walk in of their own free will and be instantly gassed to death. One on every corner because freedom.

Imagine you had a depressed teenage son/daughter. He's depressed because his girlfriend just broke up with him. In several years he won't be depressed and he'll look back at his depression and see how stupid it was. But at 18 he has freedom, so I encourage him to go get his head blown off by a professional executioner. his parents were able to stop him at 17, but the minute he turns 18 they can't do shit and Now he's dead. Is this right? Is this total worship of individual freedom the correct thing to do?

If you're not thinking rationally, which you CLEARLY aren't then you would be incapable of seeing this nuance because it is the LOGICAL consequence of what you support.

I don't think your argument here is so much logical as it is emotional. I'm not judging or criticizing for that, it's an emotional issue at its core.

I think you could have a very, very high threshold for administering euthanasia though, which would be a long cry from having public suicide booths ala Futurama.

It’s logical but the axioms are emotional. They late rationally the same if you have an emotional reaction to one and not the other then your emotions have no basis in logical consistency.

The point here is to show that there is no difference but emotions are what create the illusion of a difference.

There is a huge objective difference that has nothing to do with emotion, and you can only equate them by dismissing those differences.

Let me get this straight the only difference to you for suicide and euthanasia is the risk of a botched job.

So your saying if my 18 year old daughter wants to kill herself because of say borderline personality disorder which is treatable I cannot intervene if she asks a professional to lethally inject her but I can intervene if she wants to hang herself and the reason is only because she might mess up the hanging?

It’s like hey you’re killing yourself? Let me save you from doing it improperly here’s the number for a guy that can do it professionally.

This is your “logical” argument?

> Let me get this straight the only difference to you for suicide and euthanasia is the risk of a botched job.

Also method, motivations, acceptance by family members, doctor approval, etc.

> So your saying if my 18 year old daughter wants to kill herself because of say borderline personality disorder which is treatable I cannot intervene if she asks a professional to lethally inject her

You wouldn't need to as no responsible medical professional would authorize euthanasia in that case.

> This is your “logical” argument?

No, it's your misrepresentation of my logical argument, which has consistently been more logical than your emotional argument.

Question, are you Christian? Is that influencing your complete rejection of suicide at all?

>Also method, motivations, acceptance by family members, doctor approval, etc.

Then tell me your criteria here. Doctors aren't trained specifically in euthanasia as these are arbitrary criteria rather then expert opinions. So the criteria must be established. You can't force doctors to make up an expert opinion when one doesn't exist yet. So because you advocate for this then you must tell me what exactly your criteria is? If you don't have one then you don't really have an argument.

>You wouldn't need to as no responsible medical professional would authorize euthanasia in that case.

Again what is the criteria that the medical professional authorizes? He doesn't have anything other then his own personal opinion right now. If you want to codify euthanasia into law then you need to have SOMETHING to codify. What is it? What is the criteria?

>No, it's your misrepresentation of my logical argument, which has consistently been more logical than your emotional argument.

I never misrepresented anything. You never presented an argument. You'll note my responses to you haven't been representing anything. They've been asking questions. Questions you never answered. Now with this post I'm further focusing my questioning to get a detailed answer.

>Question, are you Christian? Is that influencing your complete rejection of suicide at all?

No I'm rational. Actual Scientific data influences my rejection of suicide. On the other hand I don't think any data is involved with your rejection of it. Which is fine, morals are never rational in the first place.