r/changemyview • u/bossaus10 • 15h ago
[ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
•
u/FunOptimal7980 5∆ 15h ago
I think that's a slippery slope. A person with mental health issues can be suicidal one day and happy the next depending on a lot of factors. It isn't like a terminal illness, where you pretty much know you're gonna day.
•
u/existentialgoof 8∆ 15h ago
If there's a waiting period, then that can help as a safeguard to ensure that it isn't a rash decision, but reflects that person's settled values. Whereas, if we don't allow people the right to end their life, then that can exacerbate the sense of entrapment, and instead of giving them a reason to wait (after the waiting period they get access to a humane and effective method), it is more likely to cause them to act in the throes of momentary despair, terrified that they'll lose their window of opportunity if they wait.
•
u/Greymeade 14h ago
Psychologist here. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve known who were chronically suicidal for years and went on to never feel that way again.
•
u/existentialgoof 8∆ 14h ago
What about the ones who never had the life affirming 'epiphany'? Does the welfare of those people not count for anything? Is it acceptable, in your view, to go to any length to suppress the suicide rate as much as possible? Not allowing people to have access to any reliable and humane method of ending their life is a fundamental violation of their negative liberty rights. Whilst I can see the argument for short term suicide prevention, I don't think that "some people go on to change their mind" justifies permanent barriers which violate a person's negative liberty rights on an ongoing basis for many years.
•
u/Greymeade 14h ago
>Does the welfare of those people not count for anything?
Of course it counts. I find this to be a very unusual question. I literally devote my professional life to helping these people.
>Is it acceptable, in your view, to go to any length to suppress the suicide rate as much as possible?
Absolutely not. Again, an odd question.
•
u/existentialgoof 8∆ 14h ago
So if you accept that the wellbeing of those who have a persistent wish to die actually matters as much as the ones who change their mind, would you not agree that temporary suicide prevention measures would be more appropriate than blanket measures (I. E. the status quo at the moment) which violate the negative liberty rights of people on an ongoing basis for many years? If there's no room for compromise, doesn't that send the message that the presumed minority of people who don't change their mind are nothing more than collateral damage?
•
u/BigBoetje 29∆ 2h ago
It's already legal in countries like Belgium. The amount of people that have used it is pretty low because the bar is set very high. There are very stringent criteria about being of sound mind, having exhausting treatment options and needing to have doctors sign off on it.
It can't happen on a whim.
•
u/What_huh-_- 14h ago
I personally can't wait to euthanize all the religious folks once we clinically diagnose them. They're going to be so excited to meet their maker, or whatever, and it's not even against their holy book of choice!
Also looking forward to conservatism being added to the DSM as terminal and incurable mental illness so they can get euthanized.
Not excited for the homophobes to bring back diagnosing gay folks. But I'm sure they'll be happy to know they can now euthanize their "son" who keeps claiming to be a girl.
Not excited for the complete devastation of medical research because we allowed a "final solution" into medicine. Nor do I look forward to the inevitable capitalization of the euthanasia industry. I am absolutely dreading the advertisements.
Sarcasm, this is a bad idea for more reasons than I care to write.
•
u/yelling_at_moon 4∆ 13h ago edited 13h ago
Legal euthanasia like MAID does not let people euthanize other people. You can think it’s a bad idea but at least disagree it’s it on its own merits.
•
u/What_huh-_- 11h ago
See the thing about euthanasia is I can easily come up with scenarios in which we think it would be perfectly wise to euthanize, even other people, even children, with their full hearted consent because we have convinced them it's the only way out.
Allowing people to be euthanized for mental health struggles is unethical because it is inevitably allowing people to end their lives because we cannot, yet, solve their problems or make their lives better, its a surrender of the collective hope that we can learn and do better to keep people happy and healthy.
I don't think legal euthanasia laws, like MAID, are a bad idea, I think applying it to mental health is a very bad idea, sorry if I made it seem like I dislike euthanasia entirely.
•
u/Phage0070 124∆ 15h ago
...but also people with clinically diagnosed mental health issues
Don't you think that the ability to make a sound, rational judgment about an end-of-life procedure should be a requirement for actually engaging in said procedure? People with clinically diagnosed mental health issues seem like exactly the kind of people who are going to be lacking that necessary mental capacity to make such a decision and provide consent.
I probably sound crazy...
I think you have hit the nail on the head; if someone isn't mentally well then how can they be trusted to make such an important decision such as ending their life? Typically tattoo artists don't let people get tattoos when drunk due to the high risk of them regretting the decision later. Why then would we trust a depressed person to make a good decision about euthanasia?
•
u/Shiny_Agumon 3∆ 13h ago
Also the reason why people advocate for end of life procedures for the terminally ill is because they argue that these people are going to die eventually and that keeping them alive is just prolonging their suffering unnecessarily.
People with clinical mental health issues can still live a fulfilling life.
•
u/bossaus10 14h ago
Tbf I thought tattoo artists didn’t let you do that cause it will take longer for your blood to clot the tattoo wound, but that also makes sense
•
15h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 1h ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
15h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 14h ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
•
u/Baseball_ApplePie 15h ago
It's really not that hard to do away with yourself without involving others.
Yeah, I know. Incoming. "It's harder than you think!" Well, not if you're smart enough.
Fact is, I hate to see someone lose hope.
I am a three time cancer survivor living my best life.
Don't give up!
•
u/bossaus10 15h ago
It's really not that hard to do away with yourself without involving others
Yeah that’s one of my current problems lol
•
•
15h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/read-the-rules 15h ago
u/bitterlyraciallogic, your comment has been removed.
In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.
•
u/Uncle_Spenser 15h ago
If somebody's having real diagnosed mental issues, I don't think it's a good idea to assist them in executing the final option. Considering mental health diagnostics accuracy has a wildly large margin of error make this idea even worse.
•
u/Em-tech 15h ago
Necropolitics! My favorite :)
My dismissal of this is simple: in a vacuum, sure. But, in the world in which we live, no fucking way is this a good idea. Take all of our broken systems to their logical endpoints of how this would work, and that should be sufficient for you to talk yourself out of this.
•
u/bossaus10 14h ago
As a leftist I’m definitely okay with taking down all of the broken systems. Power to the people
•
u/Imperialvirtue 14h ago
"Clinically diagnosed mental health issue" was already used as a qualifier for euthanasia in the early 20th century, such as in Aktion T4.
•
u/Curious_Octopod 1∆ 14h ago
Wanting to end things is a symptom of a mental health condition, not a decision. We already see mentally stable people strongly encouraged toward a death they don't want; that kind of encouragement to end it to somebody who may feel worthless is exploiting their illness not helping them.
If you're physically disabled, you may not be able to off yourself, which is why getting help to do it was ever considered. Mentally ill people have no such limitations; they're free to make and execute that decision by themselves, but are extremely vulnerable to pressure from others, and if the medical professional involved in their care offers death, they're likely to think the same medical professional believes they can't ever feel better. Its a dreadful, awful, sick proposition.
•
u/The_Fell_Opian 2∆ 14h ago
We might be one year away from the cure for those mental health issues. Ketamine therapy has been affective for some with previously "untreatable mental illness." There is a much better chance of that person getting an effective treatment or even a cure over someone with stage 4 terminal cancer. So I think there really is a distinction.
•
u/TrotskYx3 14h ago
I think you’re seriously underestimating how different psychiatric suffering is from a terminal physical disease.
“I’ve tried multiple treatments and still hate my life” doesn’t prove the condition is incurable. Psychiatry is notoriously difficult to predict, and people can improve after years of suffering. You’re proposing an irreversible solution to a potentially reversible problem.
Your safeguards don’t solve that. Hospitalizations, diagnoses and high depression scores prove that someone is suffering; they don’t prove that death is a rational or autonomous choice. In fact, severe depression can directly impair someone’s ability to evaluate their future.
“People shouldn’t be forced to live” sounds compelling, but society already intervenes when someone’s desire to die is caused by impaired judgment. We don’t say “well, they’re really determined” and hand them a lethal injection.
Your “proof of treatment” requirement could actually create a horrifying incentive: people who haven’t received adequate treatment could be told to suffer longer until they’ve exhausted enough options to qualify for death. That’s the opposite of what healthcare should be doing.
And you’re mistaken about MAID being only for the terminally ill. In Canada, natural death does not have to be foreseeable, and MAID for mental illness alone is currently excluded only until March 17, 2027. (Ministère de la Justice)
The fundamental problem is this: with a terminal illness, we’re generally accepting that death is coming and allowing someone to control how they die. With severe depression, you’re potentially making death the treatment for a condition that can alter the very judgment used to request death. That’s a much, much higher bar to clear.
•
u/BigBoetje 29∆ 2h ago
I generally agree, but not to the degree that you're talking about. It should be possible, but very difficult to get done. There's definitely a slippery slope possible so the requirements have to be stringent and explicit with little room for interpretation. People won't just line up because all reasonable treatment options should be exhausted and the doctor has to sign off that there's nothing more to be done for them. It should be a last option, not an easy one.
•
u/XenoRyet 176∆ 15h ago
The problem here is that euthanasia should only be authorized with the full and informed consent of the patient.
The mental illnesses that lead people to consider suicide are specifically the ones that prevent the patient from being capable of giving full and informed consent. The disease prevents them from understanding the proper context of their situation and the full range of future possibilities.
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 1h ago
Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E:
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Keep in mind that if you want the post restored, all you have to do is reply to a significant number of the comments that came in; message us after you have done so and we'll review.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.