Discussion why do you believe that the government should control who gets assisted suicide and who doesn't

[Darkover]

I believe that the government should not be involved in deciding who can access assisted suicide, and that it should instead be left to individual to decide
when the time is right to leave without needing permission

i've been kept alive for 20 years against my will to live a miserable horrible lifetime by a controlling dominating government here in the uk

 

[Seered Doom]

I believe that the government shouldn't be interfering with our right to die.

 

[Unspoken7612]

"Assisted" is the key point.

Most people who attempt suicide but survive will never make another attempt again. Suicide is often a response to a temporary crisis that a person can bounce back from. Other people are coerced or groomed into suicide. I think it is completely appropriate to try and stop those sorts of suicide. More importantly, so do most of the public, and in a democracy that's the thing that matters - if you try and force your views on others you will be rejected.

I do, however, think people have the right to end their own lives, if they have made a sober assessment of their options and continued to express a desire to die over an extended period of time. There will necessarily need to be safeguards to protect those going through temporary crisis and those who are vulnerable, but that's not a big deal, you can always die later.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I don't. I believe that we should all be allowed to die painlessly and freely if we so wish to. I think that it's so fucked that we aren't allowed to die peacefully

 

[Darkover]

Most people who attempt suicide but survive will never make another attempt again. Suicide is often a response to a temporary crisis that a person can bounce back from.

the lifetime worldwide prevalence of suicide is around
1% that's 80 million people, and the one-year prevalence is around 0.01% that's 800,000 people,
the lifetime worldwide prevalence of attempted suicide is around
5% that's 400 million people, and the one-year prevalence is around 0.2% that's 16 million people

even if most who attempted suicide never make another attempt there still many 100s of million who do make another attempt in their lifetime

 

[cicatrezESP]

it makes me frustrated that there is constant interference, i think people should have the right to take their own life if they wish to. however, i think it's a complex issue. honestly i have trouble coming to my own consensus about it. but i think how it's handled in today's world is wrong. assisted suicide is actually legal where i am, but only if you have a terminal illness. it makes me want to get a terminal illness.... but even still, they want you to not be mentally ill at the same time... it's all these ridiculous stipulations. they want everyone to just stick around and be miserable forever i guess

 

[Emeralds]

One issue with assisted suicide is that you are involving someone else in your death. If you are asking someone else to help you, they do have a right to say no. They also have the right to decide under what circumstances they would agree to help someone. No one can force someone to help them kill themselves. If you are asking someone else to help you then you have to play by their rules.

I don't agree that people are being forced to live. No one is taking your choice away from from you. You still have complete autonomy over your self and free will. No one can actually stop someone if they want to end their life. The only people who are forced to live are people who are are so disabled that they require help to do it or people who are in jail and are being watched 24/7.

 

[Darkover]

I don't agree that people are being forced to live.

Many terminal illnesses come with significant pain and discomfort. Patients may wish to end their suffering but feel they must continue living due to a lack of viable options for a peaceful exit.

i didn't choose to be alive here at all and never would choose to come alive here

Institutionalization: people who are involuntarily committed to mental health facilities or prisons may feel forced to continue living in situations that they find unbearable.

many people do feel forced to live against their will, though it's not necessarily due to direct coercion. lack of legal avenues for ending one's life, Even people with chronic suffering, mental illness, or existential despair may not have access to options like assisted suicide, leaving them without a means to make that choice. This creates a kind of existential dilemma where they feel obligated to continue living despite a deep desire not to.

 

[Unspoken7612]

the lifetime worldwide prevalence of suicide is around
1% that's 80 million people, and the one-year prevalence is around 0.01% that's 800,000 people,
the lifetime worldwide prevalence of attempted suicide is around
5% that's 400 million people, and the one-year prevalence is around 0.2% that's 16 million people

even if most who attempted suicide never make another attempt there still many 100s of million who do make another attempt in their lifetime

Sure, but that's not actually a rebuttal. I didn't say "nobody should be allowed to kill themselves" or "nobody should be given a nembutal prescription to allow them to peacefully end their life". I'm probably in the top 1% for most liberal attitudes towards suicide.

The way I see it, without safeguards, if you could just buy nembutal off the supermarket shelf, every year around 15-16 million people will kill themselves due to a crisis that they would otherwise have gladly recovered from, if not more due to the increased ease of making attempts. That would be a bad thing. In my view, it would be even worse than the current situation where people like me who have a committed, sustained desire to die are instead forced to research complicated methods online or else choose riskier methods that are better known.

 

[Adûnâi]

There will necessarily need to be safeguards to protect those going through temporary crisis and those who are vulnerable, but that's not a big deal, you can always die later.

What's the point protecting people from death if it's inevitable? This lifecuck ideology is really weird. So what if their problems ae temporary? Life itself is. And every life ends the same. Why postpone it?

Again, any anti-suicide statement only makes sense under slavery. Which, I admit, makes total sense for survival. People have to be enslaved - children by their parents, men by women, and citizens by their king/president/Führer. What I oppose, however, is the idea of marrying liberalism with such a picture of a virile society. Liberalism kills - so why not do it in the most civlised manner possible, via legal suicide?

You may think I'm trolling, supporting zoophiles marrying dogs and such. I'm not. I'm merely seeing a liberal society with cringe vestiges of collectivism here. Which won't let it survive anyway, so why bother?

 

[cohomology]

Personally I think the government already controls too many things. Government controlling me, subjecting me to abuse and forcing me to do things I don't want to is one of the reasons why I want to escape from this world.

 

[Unspoken7612]

What's the point protecting people from death if it's inevitable?

Because most people quite enjoy being alive and I support them in doing so. It doesn't hurt me that others enjoy living.

I'm an existentialist, not a nihilist. People give their lives meaning, and that's great.

This lifecuck ideology is really weird.

Uh huh. That sentence is sufficiently ridiculous as to be its own rebuttal.

Again, any anti-suicide statement only makes sense under slavery. Which, I admit, makes total sense for survival. People have to be enslaved - children by their parents, men by women, and citizens by their king/president/Führer.

Most anti-suicide sentiment is altruistic, and I think it makes sense.

It's plainly silly to claim that children are enslaved by their parents - there may be some cases where that is a sensible statement to make, but mostly children are dependent upon and sheltered by their parents.

Your misogynistic statement is weird, and both morally and factually wrong. While anyone can be a victim of domestic abuse (including things like coercive control as well as violence), the victims are disproportionately likely to be women. No rational person thinks that men are widely held in slavery by women.

What I oppose, however, is the idea of marrying liberalism with such a picture of a virile society. Liberalism kills - so why not do it in the most civlised manner possible, via legal suicide?
I'm merely seeing a liberal society with cringe vestiges of collectivism here. Which won't let it survive anyway, so why bother?

I think your image of liberalism is unrealistic. Personally, I think liberalism is one of the main reasons Western societies are such great places to live, and we'd be much worse off without it.

None of the countries where suicide is illegal could exactly be called bastions of liberalism: https://www.25crimes.org/ - at best, maybe Bangladesh and Kenya will sometimes be praised for being relatively liberal compared to some of their neighbours and near-neighbours. The countries with legalised assisted dying are mostly amongst the most liberal in the world, like the Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the US.

 

[Darkover]

Sure, but that's not actually a rebuttal. I didn't say "nobody should be allowed to kill themselves" or "nobody should be given a nembutal prescription to allow them to peacefully end their life". I'm probably in the top 1% for most liberal attitudes towards suicide.

The way I see it, without safeguards, if you could just buy nembutal off the supermarket shelf, every year around 15-16 million people will kill themselves due to a crisis that they would otherwise have gladly recovered from, if not more due to the increased ease of making attempts. That would be a bad thing. In my view, it would be even worse than the current situation where people like me who have a committed, sustained desire to die are instead forced to research complicated methods online or else choose riskier methods that are better known.

I don't believe the government should control who gets access to assisted suicide, but I do think it's important to have safeguards in place. It's such a sensitive, irreversible decision that needs careful thought to ensure people aren't making the choice due to temporary circumstances, pressure from others, or a mental health crisis that might improve over time.

Having a process where the government or a medical body reviews each case can help ensure that people who truly want to end their life due to suffering can do so with dignity, but also that vulnerable individuals are protected from making a decision they might regret if circumstances change.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think there does need to be some gatekeeping though. What about minors and people under the influence of drugs or experiencing psychosis? How about unscrupulous relatives who want to bump of granny to get at their inheritance early?

I completely understand the frustration that governements and doctors have all the power though. I definitely don't like the idea that they get to assess whether our lives are bad enough to qualify. That bit should be up to us. I do think it needs regulating though to ensure people are of sound mind. As in- they understand the decision they're making.

It probably would be better if it wasn't government run in a way. Maybe there's too much incentive there to withdraw even more support from people who aren't paying in to the system- in the hopes it will push them to CTB. But, it would have to comply with a bunch of laws I imagine to keep it safe and sustainable- so- that would have to involve our governments on some level.

 

[Unspoken7612]

I don't believe the government should control who gets access to assisted suicide, but I do think it's important to have safeguards in place. It's such a sensitive, irreversible decision that needs careful thought to ensure people aren't making the choice due to temporary circumstances, pressure from others, or a mental health crisis that might improve over time.

Having a process where the government or a medical body reviews each case can help ensure that people who truly want to end their life due to suffering can do so with dignity, but also that vulnerable individuals are protected from making a decision they might regret if circumstances change.

It seems like we're largely in agreement. I'm not sure I see the same distinction you do between "government control" and "safeguards with each case being reviewed".

 

[Praying 4 a Miracle]

All adults should have access and the right to choose assisted dying. There's no one on Earth who knows better what it feels like to be in our body 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. A few safeguards like minimum age, minimum waiting period (maybe a year or two for example), no coercion, etc. but that's it. The decision should be up to us, regardless of the reason for suffering, not the people in power over us.

 

[KillingPain267]

I believe that the government should not be involved in deciding who can access assisted suicide, and that it should instead be left to individual to decide
when the time is right to leave without needing permission

i've been kept alive for 20 years against my will to live a miserable horrible lifetime by a controlling dominating government here in the uk

Exactly! It should be between the person and his doctor. Or it should be possible to buy Nembutal or something similar in a pharmacy over the counter. My body my choice.

 

[Gustav Hartmann]

What would it mean, if the goverments would not control who gets assisted suicide? One could get drugs like nembutal in the pharmacia. It would be like in good old days when one could buy sleeping pills without restrictions. Of course there has to be an age restriction, over 18 or at least over 65. And maybe you have to wait some time, a month or two, in order to avoid spontaneous actions. I don´t see a great danger of abuse. Sure you can murder someone with nembutal and let it look like suicide, but those collateral damages are acceptable on an overpopulated planet. Killing on demand comprises a much higer risk of abuse.

 

[whydidthishappen]

The operative word is control.
some form of oversight has to exist but even medically assisted suicide is too over regulated but the main issue is that they think it could be used as a form of murder like others have mentioned above. What would solve that issue is having people write a letter and testify to it like you have to do when writing a will. That would assure that no one is doing it under duress, clinically evaluated etc. but again… control, with legalization there would likely be a wipe out of many lower class citizens eventually and that's not very good for business is it ?

 

[Emeralds]

I don't believe the government should control who gets access to assisted suicide, but I do think it's important to have safeguards in place. It's such a sensitive, irreversible decision that needs careful thought to ensure people aren't making the choice due to temporary circumstances, pressure from others, or a mental health crisis that might improve over time.

Having a process where the government or a medical body reviews each case can help ensure that people who truly want to end their life due to suffering can do so with dignity, but also that vulnerable individuals are protected from making a decision they might regret if circumstances change.

What kind of safeguards should there be? People always say that but most of them just gloss over the details. It's easy to say in theory that there would be good safeguards, but a lot harder to put into practice. Everyone wouldn't agree what those safeguards should be or even under what circumstances assisted suicide should be given.

In cases of terminal illness or even a serious illness that has no cure ( even if it's not terminal), it's more clear cut. Other problems aren't so clear cut. How would they be able to determine that these other problems are hopeless and there is no chance that it will get better? Everyone has different problems.
How long would someone have to wait before they can say that they made a reasonable effort to improve their circumstances and they know it won't get better? How many different things would they have to try? Some people have more complex situations. It could take years before things may improve for them.

Then there is the problem of having doctors involved in cases where a person is healthy and wants to die for another reason. Why would doctors be involved if the person was healthy and doesn't require medical attention? It would raise ethnical concerns.

Who would be involved in deciding in these cases? It doesn't seem wise to involve government officials. They may have other motives than the persons welfare when making this decision. They could push people towards death in order to save money or use it to get rid of people they think are burdensome to society like the sick, disabled, homeless, etc.

I don't think that assisted suicide will be expanded until concerns like these are addressed and taken seriously.

 

[nihilistic_dragon]

It should not. My personal life is none of anybody's business. Your personal life is none of anybody's business.

 

[Just_Another_Person]

@Unspoken7612 Well said, I agree with you in everything, truly. An 18yo who is sad being all "I want to die, I will never love and be loved again" because his gf dumped him yesterday is a totally different case than a 70yo with cancer and without any family. Letting anyone have easy access to assisted suicide is a bad idea, at minimum a "trial period" should be enforced.

 

[glossble]

Ideally, in a world where the government treats people as equals such a government would not have the right to decide who is allowed to die and who is not. To me, this seems like a violation of human rights, not allowing someone to die when they want to is the same as killing someone against their will, you are simply taking away the person's right to control their own life.
But in reality, you will be involuntarily committed to a psych ward as soon as you speak about suicide and will be treated as a criminal or an insane person incapable of making rational decisions, while some real criminals sentenced to death, die in the most peaceful and painless way possible. Where is the logic? Because even terminally ill people sometimes suffer for months while they wait for approval for euthanasia

Of course, assisted suicide will still need to be low-key regulated in some way to prevent impulsive suicides, but at the end of the day it is the person's decision.