author:self_made_human euthanasia
You've given me the idea for a very good medical comedy about a critical care doctor who either disagrees with the concept of euthanasia, or bumbles around never quite being told which patients are involved.
He, or she, holds the record for most lives saved or resuscitations performed. In a very British manner, the actual doctors responsible for euthanasia are very vexed by his tendency to immediately save their patients, and they're in a cat and mouse game of taking turns murdering and unmurdering any given patient.
The hospital brass are desperate to figure out a way to not award him excellence awards, because it's just plain old embarrassing at this point.
I can foresee potential to change the plot to get more demographic appeal. The life saving male doctor versus the ice queen no-nonsense German euthanasia dom. Or getting Rowan Atkinson to play the male lead.
It might be delightfully British. We can fabricate end of season drama by having them come to blows, and then have them either start to fuck over a corpse that comes alive (because their thrusting counts as CPR), or when they realize that they can game both metrics if they cooperate to keep the bodies clinically dead for long enough to fool the coroner.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
21hr ago
Really? Okay? What if I say 5% is massive, or not massive? You can make the same fuss either way. There are people who are categorically against the euthanasia of even a single person, and people who think that every human should be euthanized. What do you have to say to them?
Do you have an intuitive or even an intellectual understanding of how miserable the average death is? Did you remind yourself that euthanasia is meant to replace that inevitable, often painful and undignified death, with one that doesn't draw out the inevitable and lets people go out on their own terms?
Please, if you accuse me of being miscalibrated, then produce your own ISO calibrated standards. I remain in earnest anticipation, and until then, this is probably the queerest objection in the thread.
Hang on, please explain to me, ideally without referencing slippery slopes at all, what is the precise issue with this 29 year old woman with depression being offered euthanasia?
I try not to brow-beat people with my credentials any more than I can help, but I have experience in both psychiatry and being severely depressed. It would take far worse to make me seek euthanasia, but my depression wasn't as bad as it can truly get. Some forms of dysfunction and agony can truly be hard to discern from a distance. You see a pretty young woman in the prime of her life being consigned to death by uncaring doctors.
I see a tortured soul, who has consented to her doctors trying everything they can feasibly try. If you don't believe me, you can look at the article. Her every day is utter misery, we have no idea how to fix her, at present. And we've tried, tried oh so hard, with no results. I had reasons to cling to life even when my brain screamed it was pointless to get out of bed, I do not care to dictate beyond a very limited extent, how much others should really tolerate.
She is an exception. 99.9% or more of depressed people are not recommended euthanasia. She went through all the loops and hoops, she didn't change her mind. Her very right to do so was challenged, and when I initially engaged with the article, being adjudicated in a court of law. The rules are being followed.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
23hr ago
Did you take that seriously? I would hope not, because the joke was that it's hard to get responses from participants in euthanasia because they're dead. If it's meant to be an educational aside, I appreciate it.
Thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful reply. An AAQC report is the least I can do.
I agree that we disagree on some fundamental values. The policy I've envisioned is a compromised one, a version that is sanded down to increase its political palatability. I have more extreme views, I believe we should allow anyone who is of sane mind to opt for euthanasia (with massive caveats that they need to demonstrate their sanity and show that they aren't making that decision on a whim). However, I must hasten to point out that my policy recommendation isn't meant to be disingenuous, rather, it is a system I would genuinely be content with. If we had it in place, I wouldn't immediately switch to lobbying for suicide booths next to every bus stop.
We're all going to die! I might be a transhumanist, one that considers living for a quadrillion years as software running on the carefully rationed Hawking radiation from a black hole in the post-stelliferous era to be a nice retirement, but even I don't think we can live for literally forever. Heat Death is likely to be a bitch.
Putting those aspirational stretch goals aside, we are really all going to die. The terminal stage of illness just makes that expiry date more... obvious. It becomes less of a hypothetical end to the story of your life, and more of a realization that the novel is about to end, there aren't many pages to flip.
As I've noted elsewhere, Switzerland has had assisted dying since 1941. All but nonagerians don't remember a time before some form of legal euthanasia. That is multiple generations, and they are a functional and wealthy society where the elderly seem quite content.
I consider this to be a very strong existence proof that a society can stably accept euthanasia without devolving in the directions many fear.
I was recently challenged by iprayiam to prove that 5% of all deaths being MAID is an acceptable state of affairs. Interrogating it , I found out I was wrong, but wrong in the direction of underestimating the potential proportion of deaths that would likely be unproblematic candidates. And I mean going by your stricter definition, restricting ourselves to the terminally ill.
Humans have got a good thing going. Most of the usual causes of death in human history are largely irrelevant in the West. Heart attacks used to be nigh universally fatal, half the kids used to die in childhood. Now, we've dealt with that, but still have to deal with chronic disease which stubbornly resists our best efforts.
I will have to look into it, but this gives me the strong impression that their system is quite similar to the British one. I can only hope their GPs are paid better and work fewer hours.
I disagree with this framing. All regulators tend to have some degree of moral consensus (or at least a majority vote). This fact only comes to conscious awareness when you face the fact that the regulators disagree with your own opinions, and then desire representation. I would expect that the final report is likely the outcome of internal deliberation, and usually internal dissent is squashed (bad) or consensus achieved. We don't know, there might be true euthanasia maximalist in there who are annoyed that they didn't get their way. I doubt most systems are like the US Supreme Court, in the sense that dissenting opinions are prominently featured in the final output, it not the verdict.
I don't see a cause for concern? It seems quite clear to me that a person with, say, moderate dementia + moderate COPD + moderate arthritis can have a quality of life that's as awful as someone with a really bad case of any of the above. Multiple factors can work together to reduce QALY/DALY. When you get old enough, just about everything starts breaking down, it's a race to see which one kills you. Even the young can draw the short straw.
[I will pause here since I'm traveling right now, but I would ask that you hold off on replying since I intend to add a lot more to my reply. Unless you really want to, in which case don't let me stop you!]
More options
Context Copy link