Euthanasia

[vimothy]

it's the idea of the state operating a system of euthanasia

 

[vimothy]

Then I ask, again: who says it has to be up to the state?

well it doesnt does it. in which case euthanasia is just an act which anyone can perform at any time and theres nothing to discuss, in the same way that youd never describe yourself as being in favour of suicide.

 

[Mr. Tea]

not really

Ok, you've lost me completely now. If you accept that it doesn't have to be run by the state, then what is so awful about allowing people with no quality of life, and no realistic prospect of that changing, from having recourse to a way to end their life that's dignified and free of pain?

 

[vimothy]

euthanasia is an act, ultimately (and literally). however, we are discussing it's legal status and management by the state.

 

[Mr. Tea]

well it doesnt does it. in which case euthanasia is just an act which anyone can perform at any time and theres nothing to discuss, in the same way that youd never describe yourself as being in favour of suicide.

That's not true at all. Someone who is paralysed cannot jump off a cliff, can they?

 

[vimothy]

but they can be euthanized by anyone, in principle, theres nothing magic about ppl operating on behalf of the state

 

[vimothy]

when ppl discuss the ethical status of euthanasia they're generally talking about a policy regime in which it's legal and managed, they're not talking about the act itself

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

ppl operating on behalf of the state

legalizing euthanasia ≠ people performing it on behalf of the state

there are a number of states in the U.S. where assisted suicide, tho not euthanasia, is legal, and anyone can go to a willing physician

(the difference between assisted suicide and euthanasia being one of supplying the means vs active participation in the act itself)

this argument about "the state rationally managing suicide" is one of yr typical tangents

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

they're generally talking about a policy regime in which it's legal and managed, they're not talking about the act itself

no, that's just what you're talking about

 

[Mr. Tea]

when ppl discuss the ethical status of euthanasia they're generally talking about a policy regime in which it's legal and managed, they're not talking about the act itself

Ok, well I think we're just going around in circles because I don't see what's so terrible about that. And I think the wishes of a person who is suffering to an extreme degree to exercise sovereignty over their own life are a lot more important than your squeamishness about it being "dystopian".

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

the real question is whether you value an individual's right tho choose their time and manner of death vs the potential downsides of legalizing euthanasia

and whether you think it's better to place an onus of criminality - in addition the onus of the act itself - on the family and caregivers who carry out euthanasia now, than it is to place euthanasia in a legal framework

like abortion, the ideal would be for the need to never arise, but if they're going to happen, better have them happen within a legal framework

 

[vimothy]

legalizing euthanasia ≠ people performing it on behalf of the state

there are a number of states in the U.S. where assisted suicide, tho not euthanasia, is legal, and anyone can go to a willing physician

(the difference between assisted suicide and euthanasia being one of supplying the means vs active participation in the act itself)

this argument about "the state rationally managing suicide" is one of yr typical tangents

in the same way, ppl performing open heart surgery != ppl performing it on behalf of the state. nevertheless ...

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I personally think an individual's right to choose their manner of death outweighs all the concerns about legalization

but beyond that - the potential downsides of legalized euthanasia can be addressed in legislation and implementation

you're never going to eliminate them but you can try to minimize them

whereas the right to choose your time and manner of death is either a right you have or don't

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

in the same way, ppl performing open heart surgery != ppl performing it on behalf of the state. nevertheless ...

nevertheless what

boss tbh what are you even on about here besides vague dystopian handwaving

 

[vimothy]

and what are the "concerns" in your view?

 

[vimothy]

nevertheless what

boss tbh what are you even on about here besides vague dystopian handwaving

nevertheless the state manages open heart surgery, you cant simply turn around to your buddy, who after all who is suffering to an extreme degree and has full body sovereignty and perform such an operation without any kind of oversight.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

and what are the "concerns" in your view?

the obvious ones people have enumerated

legal euthanasia being used as a cover for murder (to get at inheritance or etc)

the potential sanctioning of suicide by people whose conditions - physical and/or mental - could improve with care, time, etc

and yr line of vague dystopian handwaving

 

[Mr. Tea]

in the same way, ppl performing open heart surgery != ppl performing it on behalf of the state. nevertheless ...

Define "on behalf of".

If a qualified doctor tells me I need heart surgery, I'd be pretty foolish to dismiss her opinion. (And doubly foolish to do so just because she was an employee of the state - I'm actually pretty OK with the idea of state-provided medical care, when I look at what insurance costs in the USA. As if for-profit companies are going to be inherently more trustworthy! )

But nobody is arguing that state-employed Life Quality Assessors should go around saying "Your life seems to be quite shit, just sign here and we'll take care of that for you", or whatever silly straw-man scenario you're imagining here.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I would ask you @vimothy

given that euthanasia is performed, do you think it's preferable to criminalize the people who perform it, rather than putting it within a legal framework?

 

[Mr. Tea]

nevertheless the state manages open heart surgery, you cant simply turn around to your buddy, who after all who is suffering to an extreme degree and has full body sovereignty and perform such an operation without any kind of oversight.

Then we... ensure some oversight is in place?

Seriously, what am I missing here?