With the discussion of whether assisted dying should be allowed in Scotland befing brought up again, I was wondering what other people thought of the topic.

Do you think people should be allowed to choose when to end their own life?

What laws need to be put into place to prevent abuses in the system?

How do we account for people changing their mind or mental decline causing people to no longer be able to consent to a procedure they previously requested?

  • Geek_King@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    9 months ago

    It bothers me that in the U.S., we extend that courtesy to pets who are suffering from terminal issues. But we expect loved ones to hang on and suffer for no real reason other then the vague notion that the imaginary sky man would disapprove.

    My grandma passed away 2 months shy of her 101st birthday. I visited her a few weeks before she passed, she was gaunt, skeletal, couldn’t see us and was reacting to hallucination caused by their body slowly shutting down. She didn’t even know my Mom and I were even there, and when we told her her daughter was there to see her, she said “No, I don’t believe it” while staring blanking into the corner of the room. She wasn’t suffering from dementia, it was cancer that came back which was killing her. What reason would we not allow a loved pet to suffer though that, but a blood relative, hell yeah, let them lay and suffer for weeks, months, years.

    I don’t have any grand ideas on how to prevent abuse, I just think it’s humane to not let a thinking being suffer needlessly.

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s the same for the young end of the spectrum, I’ve seen lots of kids and adults who were born with a bad disability to be permanently wheelchair bound unable to care for themselves or even communicate. But “they were breathing on their own when they came out, so we can’t do anything about it now” because sky daddie might be mad

      And then ofc the whole stress added onto the parents who will have to primarily care for the child for the rest. Of. Their. Lives.

      • MisshapenDeviate@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        9 months ago

        I think a legitimate concern for that one is what do you define as a disability worth terminating the baby’s life for. Some would likely abuse it for eugenics.

        • cm0002@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          Good investment and R&D for better early pregnancy testing would be a good start, if we can accurately predict disabilities early enough for an abortion it would head off a lot of issues later on

          But for post birth disabilities, yea, but it’s hard to even have that conversation because many would just shut the conversation down entirely with “life is life” or some BS like that

          • DessertStorms@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            9 months ago

            if we can accurately predict disabilities early enough for an abortion it would head off a lot of issues later on

            That literally already is eugenics.
            And the fact that you consider people advocating that disabled lives have just as much value as abled lives as “BS” tells me you really don’t care, because even if you won’t admit it, you are a eugenicist.

            • cm0002@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              ^ see, found one already lmao

              Yea no, to cross the line into eugenics the state or other authority needs to mandate that X or Y disabilities need to be aborted even over the objections of the parents

              Simply giving the parents and their doctors the tools and legalities to detect and come to their own decisions, is not

        • snooggums@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Not being able to live without any assistance and no hope of improving seems like a reasonable criteria. In fact, with that criteria they can remove the assistance and let the child (or adults) suffocate and die right now, but they can’t use drugs to ease the suffering and speed up the process or it is ‘murder’.

          There are many things we can put in place to mitigate the concerns about eugenics, like requiring two doctor’s to agree that it is appropriate in addition to consent of family/guardians/other legally responsible persons.

            • snooggums@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              With minimal reading comprehension you could have inferred that the assistance in the example was breathing for the person since they would suffocate without the assistance.

              Im the hopes of avoiding a similar stupid post, that does not mean I think anyone who need needs a machine should die. That was an example of a situation where doctors can currently let a patient die through ‘inaction’ by removing the assistance that is taking care of vital functions like breathing. Think brain dead people or someone whose cancer is so bad that they refuse care that could keep them alive, but have no option to end the suffering faster.