8 ms·

As someone for whom this is a real life practical issue, not some idle philosophizing, even asking the question is repugnant to me. I have incurable cancer and

As someone for whom this is a real life practical issue, not some idle philosophizing, even asking the question is repugnant to me. I have incurable cancer and at some point I will decide "enough is enough" and I'd like to be euthanized by a doctor. The doctor will then have to decide if my suffering is sufficiently unbearable and only if he comes to that conclusion is he allowed to do it. He'll have to justify his judgment to a committee and if they disagree he can (theoretically) be prosecuted for murder. This is insane and caused by assholes who believe human life is sacred or some such bullshit. (I'm in The Netherlands.)

chii 5y ago
> be euthanized by a doctor. I wonder if suicide is just easier at this point...
- oleander73 5y ago
  It is, but there are complications. My parents are still alive and I'd like them to be present (and they'd like to be present), but when you are present at a suicide you automatically become suspected of 'assisting' and that is not something I want them to have to go through when they are mourning.
tartoran 5y ago
But euthanasia should not be allowed on a whim. For terminal diseases or other suffering it is more than warranted, but for folks who are going through a depressive episode and want to end their life, they may take a rash decision that they’d regret later. For you, I hope you’re not going to go through too much suffering and will be able to enjoy some quality moments before you leave us.
- kartikay26 5y ago
  > That they’d regret later You can’t regret stuff when you’re dead
  - oleander73 5y ago
    I don't know if you're being serious or not, but this is actually a profound point that a lot of people don't seem to grasp (maybe because they don't really believe in death being final). If you take this point seriously then it follows that there is only one important thing to do before you choose to die: Make sure your friends and family understand your choice and can live with it.
- usrusr 5y ago
  > they may take a rash decision that they’d regret later Sorry to be that guy, but: "how?" Our inacceptance of suicide and related concepts is entirely based what it does to others
  - refurb 5y ago
    No it’s not solely based off that. It’s also based off our knowledge of people who feel suicidal who later go on to lead happy and productive lives. Assisting every person who feels suicidal is likely to assist in the death of plenty of people who would later have happy lives.
    - oleander73 5y ago
      If the people that remain behind are at peace with the decision it doesn't really matter 'what might have been'. Also, taking away the 'easy' option means that a large number of people will do it in a way that is more gruesome and much harder for the people left behind.
      - Brian_K_White 5y ago
        So what? This is unfortunate but in no way implies that a valid response is "might as well just help them instead". That's not better. Hearing someone even present this sort if argument makes me wish I could turn their lack of empathy back on themselves. How about we have psyche tests and anyone who would so lightly let other people die, are killed themselves? Somehow I bet you would say that's immoral and outrageous.
        oleander73 5y ago
        The psyche test would be great. That way anyone who wants to die only has to take the test.
      - dTal 5y ago
        >If the people that remain behind are at peace with the decision it doesn't really matter 'what might have been'. The problem I have with this is that it also justifies murder. As long as the rest of us are cool with it who cares what the murder-ee thinks?
louwrentius 5y ago
At least we in NL have access to Euthanasia. Frankly I would like to see Futurama style suicide boots. OK, the latter may seem extreme, but why do we have all the liberty in the world to create life, including a lot of suffering, but not to end our own? In America, Euthanasia doesn’t seem like an option, but access to guns solves that option in practice. Terrible, but the hard reality. In the end, It is about quality of life not quantity of life?. And everything in the medical world should be focused on that. For example, don’t put people on ventilators when there is no possibility of recovery. Anyway, @Oleander: I wish you the best under the circumstances and that you may get what you wish for.
- oleander73 5y ago
  There are actually a number of countries (and US states) that now have euthanasia laws. We got there first, but that also means we didn't get to learn from anyone. There are certainly problems with the Dutch laws, but there is no political will to change it, because it works 'well enough'. I've extensively studied the Dutch euthanasia law and practice and think I know the right things to say to convince the doctor, but it really shouldn't have to be that hard.
  - louwrentius 5y ago
    Fair enough, Verder mee eens! Heel veel sterkte!
- Deinos 5y ago
  The irony being... isn't euthanasia the ultimate freedom? If it is our body, and we have full autonomy as long as we aren't causing direct harm, the "American Way" should be to allow the freedom of choice as to what happens to said body.
  - refurb 5y ago
    And you are free to commit suicide in the US. From what i understand most laws making suicide and attempted suicide are no longer enforced or were changed. What’s we don’t do is make it easy for someone else to assist in your death. That opens up an entirely different can of worms and anyone who thinks that’s an easy change to make is delusional. It’s fraught with issues and one needs to tread carefully.
achillesheels 5y ago
Sir, that is the social contract you agreed to when living your life - that it is good to live it. Please do not disparage the legitimate consideration of human life as precious with corruptible bureaucracy which presupposes you are too stupid to make decisions about your health. I, for one, believe it is your body ergo your natural right!
Brian_K_White 5y ago
And it's a real life practical issue for me that there be no wiggle room or ambiguity, ever, in any context, about whether it's OK to kill me. Even if the doctor on the scene doesn't know me personally and I'm not capable of making my arguments to him and defend my self from his, say, religious belief that I'll be in a better place or have outlived his concept of usefulness or worth. It makes sense to me that this is not something that can be done conveniently. It makes sense to me for the system to be rigged such that errors always result in "did not kill when should have" rather than "killed when should not have".
- oleander73 5y ago
  One of the rules is that two independent doctors need to be sure that you want to be euthanized, so this is already covered and has nothing to do with the ridiculous judgment of whether I am suffering enough.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  I'm not aware of anyone who is advocating involuntary euthanasia. I've no doubt that someone is but it is far outside of the mainstream, even among those who support an unconditional right to euthanasia. In all current implementations and all the ones I've seen proposed it has to be actively sought by the patient who is to be euthanized. Your comment seems like more than a little bit of a strawman.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_euthanasia#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_euthanasia#United_... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-voluntary_euthanasia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-voluntary_euthanasia > I've no doubt that someone is but it is far outside of the mainstream […] Your comment seems like more than a little bit of a strawman. For now perhaps, but sometimes the inclined plane has a low coefficient of friction: > Evidence of widespread evasion of such safeguards in Belgium and the Netherlands, where assisted suicide had previously been legalized, was dismissed as “anecdotal,” while the widening of its application in those countries, from the consenting adults originally envisaged, to children and the mentally ill, was waved away as the product of a different “medico-legal culture.” In essence, the court said, it can’t happen here. > This was not just an incidental point. This was central to the court’s reasoning, the thing that allowed it to ignore the precedent set in Rodriguez. Legalizing assisted suicide, relaxing the prohibition in place for centuries in virtually all Western countries, need not open the floodgates, as feared. It could be limited to consenting adults, of sound mind, in the last agonizing stages of a terminal illness – the sorts of people who had come before the court in Carter and Rodriguez, the sorts of cases that had moved the public to support their cause. > Yet here we are, in 2020, considering whether to legalize assisted suicide for non-terminal cases, for the mentally ill, even for children – sorry, “mature minors.” * https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-on-assisted-suicide-the-slope-is-proving-every-bit-as-slippery-as/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-on-assisted-... * https://archive.is/hFXjJ https://archive.is/hFXjJ
akudha 5y ago
There was this young Indian guy who sued his parents for bringing him into this world (to make a point). This sounds absurd, but it also makes one think - I and I alone should decide what to do with my life, no? Especially if I haven't had kids. Why should some politician, religious leader or bureaucrat decide if I have suffered enough?
- oleander73 5y ago
  Agreed. Although I do believe you have a moral obligation to attempt to make the people who care about you understand your thought process and ideally agree with your decision.
10122018 5y ago
Hey Oleander, I'm not sure if you will see this reply as I'm a little late to the "party" but if you would like somebody to chat to anytime, please put an email address or something in your bio so I can get in touch (or I've put an email address in my bio that you could reach me at). I see from taking a quick look at a couple of your previous comments that you might appreciate a postcard, even from a stranger. Please don't feel any obligation whatsoever to respond, for you have no obligation to me whatsoever. I'm just putting this out there from one human being to another. I don't know your circumstances at all, you might have a hundred friends and family members to talk to and support you, but you might have very few or none at all. Or you might be happier to be left alone. I don't know. In any case, if you would like somebody to talk to, even just once or infrequently, please don't hesitate, because I do very much know what it is like to suffer (not in the same way that people like yourself with cancer do) and I think many people do not understand how unbearable and terrible suffering can be. I find the question itself, being posed by the title of this article, as repugnant as you do. In any case, whether or not you wish to respond or correspond any further, I do wish you well and I hope that you are spared as much suffering as possible. I will continue to fight for as long as I live, with the limited resources I have available to me, for what I see as an inalienable right for people to choose a happier or at least more comfortable but shorter life than a prolonged and miserable one. I am sorry that life dealt you this hand. Life isn't fair, suffering isn't equally distributed, and anyone who thinks they have a right to decide whether another person's suffering is, as you put it, sufficiently bearable, is being callous or ignorant in a way I simply cannot understand.
- oleander73 5y ago
  Thank you for your kind reply. I'm actually doing pretty good. I'm not currently in pain and plan to die before I am. I figured out a good way to end my life myself should my euthanasia request be denied. I've always been a proponent of the right to die when you wish and my current situation has given me more time to think about this and made me empathize even more with people who want to die for whatever reason. I too try to spend a portion of my time to fight for this important freedom.
DoreenMichele 5y ago
Thank you for your eloquent comments in this discussion.

chii 5y ago

> be euthanized by a doctor. I wonder if suicide is just easier at this point...

oleander73 5y ago
It is, but there are complications. My parents are still alive and I'd like them to be present (and they'd like to be present), but when you are present at a suicide you automatically become suspected of 'assisting' and that is not something I want them to have to go through when they are mourning.

tartoran 5y ago

But euthanasia should not be allowed on a whim. For terminal diseases or other suffering it is more than warranted, but for folks who are going through a depressive episode and want to end their life, they may take a rash decision that they’d regret later. For you, I hope you’re not going to go through too much suffering and will be able to enjoy some quality moments before you leave us.

kartikay26 5y ago
> That they’d regret later You can’t regret stuff when you’re dead
- oleander73 5y ago
  I don't know if you're being serious or not, but this is actually a profound point that a lot of people don't seem to grasp (maybe because they don't really believe in death being final). If you take this point seriously then it follows that there is only one important thing to do before you choose to die: Make sure your friends and family understand your choice and can live with it.
usrusr 5y ago
> they may take a rash decision that they’d regret later Sorry to be that guy, but: "how?" Our inacceptance of suicide and related concepts is entirely based what it does to others
- refurb 5y ago
  No it’s not solely based off that. It’s also based off our knowledge of people who feel suicidal who later go on to lead happy and productive lives. Assisting every person who feels suicidal is likely to assist in the death of plenty of people who would later have happy lives.
  - oleander73 5y ago
    If the people that remain behind are at peace with the decision it doesn't really matter 'what might have been'. Also, taking away the 'easy' option means that a large number of people will do it in a way that is more gruesome and much harder for the people left behind.
    - Brian_K_White 5y ago
      So what? This is unfortunate but in no way implies that a valid response is "might as well just help them instead". That's not better. Hearing someone even present this sort if argument makes me wish I could turn their lack of empathy back on themselves. How about we have psyche tests and anyone who would so lightly let other people die, are killed themselves? Somehow I bet you would say that's immoral and outrageous.
      - oleander73 5y ago
        The psyche test would be great. That way anyone who wants to die only has to take the test.
    - dTal 5y ago
      >If the people that remain behind are at peace with the decision it doesn't really matter 'what might have been'. The problem I have with this is that it also justifies murder. As long as the rest of us are cool with it who cares what the murder-ee thinks?

louwrentius 5y ago

At least we in NL have access to Euthanasia. Frankly I would like to see Futurama style suicide boots. OK, the latter may seem extreme, but why do we have all the liberty in the world to create life, including a lot of suffering, but not to end our own? In America, Euthanasia doesn’t seem like an option, but access to guns solves that option in practice. Terrible, but the hard reality. In the end, It is about quality of life not quantity of life?. And everything in the medical world should be focused on that. For example, don’t put people on ventilators when there is no possibility of recovery. Anyway, @Oleander: I wish you the best under the circumstances and that you may get what you wish for.

oleander73 5y ago
There are actually a number of countries (and US states) that now have euthanasia laws. We got there first, but that also means we didn't get to learn from anyone. There are certainly problems with the Dutch laws, but there is no political will to change it, because it works 'well enough'. I've extensively studied the Dutch euthanasia law and practice and think I know the right things to say to convince the doctor, but it really shouldn't have to be that hard.
- louwrentius 5y ago
  Fair enough, Verder mee eens! Heel veel sterkte!
Deinos 5y ago
The irony being... isn't euthanasia the ultimate freedom? If it is our body, and we have full autonomy as long as we aren't causing direct harm, the "American Way" should be to allow the freedom of choice as to what happens to said body.
- refurb 5y ago
  And you are free to commit suicide in the US. From what i understand most laws making suicide and attempted suicide are no longer enforced or were changed. What’s we don’t do is make it easy for someone else to assist in your death. That opens up an entirely different can of worms and anyone who thinks that’s an easy change to make is delusional. It’s fraught with issues and one needs to tread carefully.

achillesheels 5y ago

Sir, that is the social contract you agreed to when living your life - that it is good to live it. Please do not disparage the legitimate consideration of human life as precious with corruptible bureaucracy which presupposes you are too stupid to make decisions about your health. I, for one, believe it is your body ergo your natural right!

Brian_K_White 5y ago

And it's a real life practical issue for me that there be no wiggle room or ambiguity, ever, in any context, about whether it's OK to kill me. Even if the doctor on the scene doesn't know me personally and I'm not capable of making my arguments to him and defend my self from his, say, religious belief that I'll be in a better place or have outlived his concept of usefulness or worth. It makes sense to me that this is not something that can be done conveniently. It makes sense to me for the system to be rigged such that errors always result in "did not kill when should have" rather than "killed when should not have".

oleander73 5y ago
One of the rules is that two independent doctors need to be sure that you want to be euthanized, so this is already covered and has nothing to do with the ridiculous judgment of whether I am suffering enough.
asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
I'm not aware of anyone who is advocating involuntary euthanasia. I've no doubt that someone is but it is far outside of the mainstream, even among those who support an unconditional right to euthanasia. In all current implementations and all the ones I've seen proposed it has to be actively sought by the patient who is to be euthanized. Your comment seems like more than a little bit of a strawman.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_euthanasia#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_euthanasia#United_... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-voluntary_euthanasia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-voluntary_euthanasia > I've no doubt that someone is but it is far outside of the mainstream […] Your comment seems like more than a little bit of a strawman. For now perhaps, but sometimes the inclined plane has a low coefficient of friction: > Evidence of widespread evasion of such safeguards in Belgium and the Netherlands, where assisted suicide had previously been legalized, was dismissed as “anecdotal,” while the widening of its application in those countries, from the consenting adults originally envisaged, to children and the mentally ill, was waved away as the product of a different “medico-legal culture.” In essence, the court said, it can’t happen here. > This was not just an incidental point. This was central to the court’s reasoning, the thing that allowed it to ignore the precedent set in Rodriguez. Legalizing assisted suicide, relaxing the prohibition in place for centuries in virtually all Western countries, need not open the floodgates, as feared. It could be limited to consenting adults, of sound mind, in the last agonizing stages of a terminal illness – the sorts of people who had come before the court in Carter and Rodriguez, the sorts of cases that had moved the public to support their cause. > Yet here we are, in 2020, considering whether to legalize assisted suicide for non-terminal cases, for the mentally ill, even for children – sorry, “mature minors.” * https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-on-assisted-suicide-the-slope-is-proving-every-bit-as-slippery-as/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-on-assisted-... * https://archive.is/hFXjJ https://archive.is/hFXjJ

akudha 5y ago

There was this young Indian guy who sued his parents for bringing him into this world (to make a point). This sounds absurd, but it also makes one think - I and I alone should decide what to do with my life, no? Especially if I haven't had kids. Why should some politician, religious leader or bureaucrat decide if I have suffered enough?

oleander73 5y ago
Agreed. Although I do believe you have a moral obligation to attempt to make the people who care about you understand your thought process and ideally agree with your decision.

10122018 5y ago

Hey Oleander, I'm not sure if you will see this reply as I'm a little late to the "party" but if you would like somebody to chat to anytime, please put an email address or something in your bio so I can get in touch (or I've put an email address in my bio that you could reach me at). I see from taking a quick look at a couple of your previous comments that you might appreciate a postcard, even from a stranger. Please don't feel any obligation whatsoever to respond, for you have no obligation to me whatsoever. I'm just putting this out there from one human being to another. I don't know your circumstances at all, you might have a hundred friends and family members to talk to and support you, but you might have very few or none at all. Or you might be happier to be left alone. I don't know. In any case, if you would like somebody to talk to, even just once or infrequently, please don't hesitate, because I do very much know what it is like to suffer (not in the same way that people like yourself with cancer do) and I think many people do not understand how unbearable and terrible suffering can be. I find the question itself, being posed by the title of this article, as repugnant as you do. In any case, whether or not you wish to respond or correspond any further, I do wish you well and I hope that you are spared as much suffering as possible. I will continue to fight for as long as I live, with the limited resources I have available to me, for what I see as an inalienable right for people to choose a happier or at least more comfortable but shorter life than a prolonged and miserable one. I am sorry that life dealt you this hand. Life isn't fair, suffering isn't equally distributed, and anyone who thinks they have a right to decide whether another person's suffering is, as you put it, sufficiently bearable, is being callous or ignorant in a way I simply cannot understand.

oleander73 5y ago
Thank you for your kind reply. I'm actually doing pretty good. I'm not currently in pain and plan to die before I am. I figured out a good way to end my life myself should my euthanasia request be denied. I've always been a proponent of the right to die when you wish and my current situation has given me more time to think about this and made me empathize even more with people who want to die for whatever reason. I too try to spend a portion of my time to fight for this important freedom.

DoreenMichele 5y ago

Thank you for your eloquent comments in this discussion.