2024: "Canada has approved medically assisted death for people who are late on their rent"
2025: "Canada has approved medically assisted death for unhoused persons"
2026: "Canada has approved medically assisted death for social parasites the disabled"
2027: "Canada has approved medically assisted death for adults and children with autism"
2028: "Canada has approved medically assisted death for those suffering from the effects of institutionalized racism"
2029: "Canada has approved medically assisted death for any First Nations, black, non-land-owning, or poor people who aren't already dead yet, and it's optional through 2030"
Yeah I support the right to a comfortable death, but there’s a hard line here of only for people who will die in the near future with or without intervention of a disease they’re suffering from a sufficiently advanced case of. And it needs strict controls including oversight by disabled people.
I’ve watched a person slowly and painfully waste away to a disease. But I’ve also seen people say my life isn’t worth living.
Choices still matter in drug addiction and it shouldn’t receive the final mercy we may choose to offer to the terminally ill who are unable to even end their own life. If they want to die then they should have to do it themselves without help.
Now you’re making yourself the arbiter of whose suffering is deserving of relief. Who are you to be the judge?
The difference is that drug addiction can be cured. Maybe we should try rehab first. If they're not clean or OD'ed after x number of years ok maybe then. But hell let's try first.
I still don't think that answers the question:
Why should anyone other than yourself be the arbiter of if your life should continue?
Because people under the influence of drugs don't always make choices that they won't regret when they're sober.
I have personally witnessed people that wanted to die while fucked up on legally obtained prescription drugs used as directed because the side effects are just that bad.
They don't feel that way once they're off that shit.
No one has suggested you would just execute a person on sight while they are under the influence.
In these situations there are interviews, evaluations and waiting periods to ensure the person is 'of sound mind' before proceeding.
So with that cleared up, I'll repeat my question.
Why should you get to be the arbiter of if someone else is allowed to die?
If they're truely of sound mind then I don't see a problem with it if they want to take the long night night.
That's the thing though. How could individuals struggling with addiction maintain clear and rational thinking?
Drug addiction cannot be cured. For many, it can be successfully treated, but it’s a chronic condition which requires a lifetime of treatment. Results vary widely, as does quality of life for those with addiction.
And nobody is saying attempts to treat a person’s addiction shouldn’t be tried first.
drug addiction cannot be cured
This dude never heard of LSD in his life
Nobody is being the judge, the individuals condition is what is preventing them from commiting suicide. And we have no moral obligation to carry out any action someone else wants, including killing them.
You are judging these individuals here, based on your morals. This isn’t about your morals, nor is anyone claiming that you are obligated to do anything. If someone else wishes to apply for this program due to their irremediable physical and/or psychological suffering, who are you to say they’re undeserving of the help, especially when it has nothing to do with you?
"Judging these individuals here"
Are you illiterate? Would you like to prove this statement to me?
"Nobody is claiming that you are obligated"
One is not obligated, this had nothing to do with me specifically.
"Who are you to say that they're undeserving of that help"
Because there is no obligation to enable an action based on a desire. This is simply you (and others who make this argument) carving out a moral imperative simply because it justifies something you already want (post-hoc justification).
Mixing insults with the straw man argument that this has anything to do with morality is a fallacious argument on its face. And feigning ignorance of the meaning of your own words while asserting an intellectual argument is peak mental gymnastics. And I’m not trying to justify anything— it’s you who is trying to justify denying people medically-approved care due to your stated morality and a refusal of some “obligation” that doesn’t actually exist.
Nobody but you is claiming any “obligation” to anything. This is matter between an individual and their medical providers, not one which involves you in any way. So, once again who are you to judge these people as undeserving of the state’s assistance if their medical providers approve them for it?
"That this has anything to do with morality"
You literally claimed that people have an inherent right, and even in this comment you are heavily implying that not providing assisted suicide is bad. (Both moral claims. In case you don't know morality is just a system of determining if something is good or bad).
"Nobody but you is claiming any obligation"
You are claiming that people have a right to be killed by a second party. That second party therefore has some obligation to fulfill that right.
I'm fairly certain that if everyone in the world refused to meet this obligation, you would still object because it violates the subject's wishes.
"I'm not trying to justify anything"
Besides of course permitting a second party to kill someone.
I'll accept that I'm trying to justify denying this right to have your desire to die fulfilled (as it simply doesn't exist for any other action or desire) because that is simply a moral argument, just like you are making moral arguments regardless of whether you are aware of it or not.
FYI mixing insults with an argument is not a logical error as commonly claimed. As long as it not part of the premises or reasoning any statement (insult or not) has no effect on the soundness of the argument. Also my argument wasn't that you made a moral claim, it's extremely obvious that you did I would never have bothered to point it out. The argument is that you are arguing for second-party homicide (and impermissible act) to be allowed based on some right to have your wishes fulfilled that simply doesn't exist.
Wow, what a hilarious rant full of outright lies and misinformation. Are you capable of telling the truth, or is your position so weak that you can’t make your point without repeatedly asserting debunked points such as imaginary “obligations” or by ignoring those with irremediable lifelong physical and/or psychological suffering as determined by medical professionals? Because you seem to want to use your own ignorance to judge these people rather than let professionals be the arbiters due to your own twisted morality.
It seems that you just want to see people suffer. Once again: who are you to judge whether someone should suffer rather than be deserving of relief? Why do you refuse to answer?
Do you literally not know what ethics is? You've acted like a complete and total moron in every reply on this post.
You realise you can sum your position to
If someone desires something
Then we should grant it despite any prohibition on active killing, ( presumably so long as it does not harm an individual other than the subject)
But this isn't actually accepted by virtually anyone, see suicidality for temporary conditions or just the fact that we have no apparent obligation to grant something based on mere desire.
The entire pro-euthanasia argument relies on basing moral principles on wildly variable emotions and sympathy.
More insults and more straw man arguments
The question is not whether or not someone should suffer, but whether it is permissible to kill another, or even a proper choice. Should assisted suicide be granted for temporary conditions? After all subjects of temporary conditions suffer too and they may even wish to die. If you say no, then clearly your decision making is able to override a desire of the subject. If you say yes, then there is no logical barrier to killing any momentarily sad person.
"Who are you to judge ... Why do you refuse to answer"
I've been answering this entire time. The answer is everyone is able to judge, there appears to be this underlying fundamental intuition and logic across humans that if followed leads to the statements I've made.
Feeling sad for someone and wanting to alleviate there suffering does not logically lead to "therefore we should actively kill them".
The question is not whether or not someone should suffer
That’s the only question. Because the standard here is “irremediable lifelong physical and/or psychological suffering”. By labeling such a person “momentarily sad” you’re not only judging them, you’re placing your judgement above that of medical professionals. You’re also lying about the necessary conditions for consideration for the program.
And aiding in a person’s suicide with their consent is not the same as simply killing them.
You can’t have an honest, rational discussion, like an adult, then there’s no point in continuing
I'd prefer if it was approved for everybody. Don't like living, and still feel that way after a mandatory counseling course you should be allowed to choose to end your life in a humane and clean way.
‘Mandatory counselling course’ sounds like not trying very hard just to rush to the next step. Something hitler would say if he was looking to save on gas.
That is too dangerous. If it sounds like I'm asking people who want to die to endure more suffering in order to ensure eugenics becomes relegated to the trash heap of history, it's because I am. I would rather let cancer patients wither away under painkillers than allow the state to use the forces of institutional bigotry to cleanse its undesirables, let alone overt extermination. In the United States, we would look back 20 years from now asking questions about why black people make up 75% of the medical suicides in Mississippi—or gypsies in the UK, or First Nations in Canada, or gays anywhere, or Jews everywhere—and I absolutely believe that no benefit will ever outweigh that, not ever, not even to heat death.
It's as simple as forbidding medical experts from recommending the procedure. Patients can request it on their own accord.
People are forbinned from trading stocks with insider knowledge, too. Tell me exactly what constitutes a recommendation, and I can find you a way to completely flout the rule while obeying the letter of it. I'll always be able to, you can't win that arms race.
What exactly is the motivation to kill people by assisted suicide from the individual doctor? People can do illegal things, you're right. What is the point of any law with your mentality?
That's a sophistical argument, I think I've made it abundantly clear that the point is potential for abuse, especially passed down from on high such as in the Welles Fargo scandal.
They are already offering it to people with disabilities
I should have guessed. And this thread is riddled with apologists slavering over it.
Maybe assisted becomes recommended, and recommended becomes prescribed?
2024: "Canada has approved medically assisted death for people who are late on their rent"
2025: "Canada has approved medically assisted death for unhoused persons"
2026: "Canada has approved medically assisted death for
social parasitesthe disabled"2027: "Canada has approved medically assisted death for adults and children with autism"
2028: "Canada has approved medically assisted death for those suffering from the effects of institutionalized racism"
2029: "Canada has approved medically assisted death for any First Nations, black, non-land-owning, or poor people who aren't already dead yet, and it's optional through 2030"
Yeah I support the right to a comfortable death, but there’s a hard line here of only for people who will die in the near future with or without intervention of a disease they’re suffering from a sufficiently advanced case of. And it needs strict controls including oversight by disabled people.
I’ve watched a person slowly and painfully waste away to a disease. But I’ve also seen people say my life isn’t worth living.
Choices still matter in drug addiction and it shouldn’t receive the final mercy we may choose to offer to the terminally ill who are unable to even end their own life. If they want to die then they should have to do it themselves without help.
Now you’re making yourself the arbiter of whose suffering is deserving of relief. Who are you to be the judge?
The difference is that drug addiction can be cured. Maybe we should try rehab first. If they're not clean or OD'ed after x number of years ok maybe then. But hell let's try first.
I still don't think that answers the question:
Why should anyone other than yourself be the arbiter of if your life should continue?
Because people under the influence of drugs don't always make choices that they won't regret when they're sober. I have personally witnessed people that wanted to die while fucked up on legally obtained prescription drugs used as directed because the side effects are just that bad. They don't feel that way once they're off that shit.
No one has suggested you would just execute a person on sight while they are under the influence.
In these situations there are interviews, evaluations and waiting periods to ensure the person is 'of sound mind' before proceeding.
So with that cleared up, I'll repeat my question.
Why should you get to be the arbiter of if someone else is allowed to die?
If they're truely of sound mind then I don't see a problem with it if they want to take the long night night.
That's the thing though. How could individuals struggling with addiction maintain clear and rational thinking?
Drug addiction cannot be cured. For many, it can be successfully treated, but it’s a chronic condition which requires a lifetime of treatment. Results vary widely, as does quality of life for those with addiction.
And nobody is saying attempts to treat a person’s addiction shouldn’t be tried first.
This dude never heard of LSD in his life
Nobody is being the judge, the individuals condition is what is preventing them from commiting suicide. And we have no moral obligation to carry out any action someone else wants, including killing them.
You are judging these individuals here, based on your morals. This isn’t about your morals, nor is anyone claiming that you are obligated to do anything. If someone else wishes to apply for this program due to their irremediable physical and/or psychological suffering, who are you to say they’re undeserving of the help, especially when it has nothing to do with you?
"Judging these individuals here"
Are you illiterate? Would you like to prove this statement to me?
"Nobody is claiming that you are obligated"
One is not obligated, this had nothing to do with me specifically.
"Who are you to say that they're undeserving of that help"
Because there is no obligation to enable an action based on a desire. This is simply you (and others who make this argument) carving out a moral imperative simply because it justifies something you already want (post-hoc justification).
Mixing insults with the straw man argument that this has anything to do with morality is a fallacious argument on its face. And feigning ignorance of the meaning of your own words while asserting an intellectual argument is peak mental gymnastics. And I’m not trying to justify anything— it’s you who is trying to justify denying people medically-approved care due to your stated morality and a refusal of some “obligation” that doesn’t actually exist.
Nobody but you is claiming any “obligation” to anything. This is matter between an individual and their medical providers, not one which involves you in any way. So, once again who are you to judge these people as undeserving of the state’s assistance if their medical providers approve them for it?
"That this has anything to do with morality"
You literally claimed that people have an inherent right, and even in this comment you are heavily implying that not providing assisted suicide is bad. (Both moral claims. In case you don't know morality is just a system of determining if something is good or bad).
"Nobody but you is claiming any obligation"
You are claiming that people have a right to be killed by a second party. That second party therefore has some obligation to fulfill that right.
I'm fairly certain that if everyone in the world refused to meet this obligation, you would still object because it violates the subject's wishes.
"I'm not trying to justify anything"
Besides of course permitting a second party to kill someone.
I'll accept that I'm trying to justify denying this right to have your desire to die fulfilled (as it simply doesn't exist for any other action or desire) because that is simply a moral argument, just like you are making moral arguments regardless of whether you are aware of it or not.
FYI mixing insults with an argument is not a logical error as commonly claimed. As long as it not part of the premises or reasoning any statement (insult or not) has no effect on the soundness of the argument. Also my argument wasn't that you made a moral claim, it's extremely obvious that you did I would never have bothered to point it out. The argument is that you are arguing for second-party homicide (and impermissible act) to be allowed based on some right to have your wishes fulfilled that simply doesn't exist.
Wow, what a hilarious rant full of outright lies and misinformation. Are you capable of telling the truth, or is your position so weak that you can’t make your point without repeatedly asserting debunked points such as imaginary “obligations” or by ignoring those with irremediable lifelong physical and/or psychological suffering as determined by medical professionals? Because you seem to want to use your own ignorance to judge these people rather than let professionals be the arbiters due to your own twisted morality.
It seems that you just want to see people suffer. Once again: who are you to judge whether someone should suffer rather than be deserving of relief? Why do you refuse to answer?
Do you literally not know what ethics is? You've acted like a complete and total moron in every reply on this post.
You realise you can sum your position to
If someone desires something
Then we should grant it despite any prohibition on active killing, ( presumably so long as it does not harm an individual other than the subject)
But this isn't actually accepted by virtually anyone, see suicidality for temporary conditions or just the fact that we have no apparent obligation to grant something based on mere desire.
The entire pro-euthanasia argument relies on basing moral principles on wildly variable emotions and sympathy.
More insults and more straw man arguments
The question is not whether or not someone should suffer, but whether it is permissible to kill another, or even a proper choice. Should assisted suicide be granted for temporary conditions? After all subjects of temporary conditions suffer too and they may even wish to die. If you say no, then clearly your decision making is able to override a desire of the subject. If you say yes, then there is no logical barrier to killing any momentarily sad person.
"Who are you to judge ... Why do you refuse to answer"
I've been answering this entire time. The answer is everyone is able to judge, there appears to be this underlying fundamental intuition and logic across humans that if followed leads to the statements I've made.
Feeling sad for someone and wanting to alleviate there suffering does not logically lead to "therefore we should actively kill them".
That’s the only question. Because the standard here is “irremediable lifelong physical and/or psychological suffering”. By labeling such a person “momentarily sad” you’re not only judging them, you’re placing your judgement above that of medical professionals. You’re also lying about the necessary conditions for consideration for the program.
And aiding in a person’s suicide with their consent is not the same as simply killing them.
You can’t have an honest, rational discussion, like an adult, then there’s no point in continuing
I'd prefer if it was approved for everybody. Don't like living, and still feel that way after a mandatory counseling course you should be allowed to choose to end your life in a humane and clean way.
‘Mandatory counselling course’ sounds like not trying very hard just to rush to the next step. Something hitler would say if he was looking to save on gas.
That is too dangerous. If it sounds like I'm asking people who want to die to endure more suffering in order to ensure eugenics becomes relegated to the trash heap of history, it's because I am. I would rather let cancer patients wither away under painkillers than allow the state to use the forces of institutional bigotry to cleanse its undesirables, let alone overt extermination. In the United States, we would look back 20 years from now asking questions about why black people make up 75% of the medical suicides in Mississippi—or gypsies in the UK, or First Nations in Canada, or gays anywhere, or Jews everywhere—and I absolutely believe that no benefit will ever outweigh that, not ever, not even to heat death.
It's as simple as forbidding medical experts from recommending the procedure. Patients can request it on their own accord.
People are forbinned from trading stocks with insider knowledge, too. Tell me exactly what constitutes a recommendation, and I can find you a way to completely flout the rule while obeying the letter of it. I'll always be able to, you can't win that arms race.
What exactly is the motivation to kill people by assisted suicide from the individual doctor? People can do illegal things, you're right. What is the point of any law with your mentality?
That's a sophistical argument, I think I've made it abundantly clear that the point is potential for abuse, especially passed down from on high such as in the Welles Fargo scandal.
They are already offering it to people with disabilities
I should have guessed. And this thread is riddled with apologists slavering over it.
Maybe assisted becomes recommended, and recommended becomes prescribed?