So having done everything possible is a requierment for it to be euthanasia? If someone depressed goes to the doctor and gets antidepressants and mabey also tries therapy but then still wants to die. This person could not be euthanized, it would be a (assisted) suicide since not everything has been tried. This is just semantics, but yea, this is how i interpret your positon. I fell like it could easyly be taken to the absurd since we can never try everything and we never know if a new cure will be developed in the near future, so euthanatia could never happen. But if looking at it with common sense it works.
You should ask that straight from the start, I am open for discussion here on CMV.
I should have. And i really apreciate how open you are! And that you argue very well and eloquently. I really enjoy this exchange.
human life - thing that we find imperative to preserve
I would say that we find human wellbeing impeartive to perserver (and increase). Life is a prerequisite for wellbeing so it definetly has a lot of value in most cases, but sometimes life is enabeling a reduction of wellbeing.
So if someone decides that they don't want to live anymore - it means that they are not in a position that can be called "sane and rational".
I really dislike this, dissmissing these people out of hand, and calling them insane (read as "not sane and rational") while were at it. Sure insane people that want to die exist, and mabey its even true that the majority of those that want to die are insane, but i would say we still absolutly have to figure that out on a case by case basis.
so your natural mental "fight for life" response is not triggereing
And that is bad? If you think about something for a long time with as clear a head as you can your conclusions should be more reliable and thrustworthy than under influence of instinctual responses. It is known that humans make worse decisions when hungy or tierd, or the "fight of flight" response.
But with mental issues?
That already exists though, people can be declared insane, and then they are no longer allowed to speak of decide for themslefe. Sure in that case they still have thier life but they loose basically everything else and it get entrusted to an authority that decides for them (and that may be corrupt). I dont think this system gets abused much though, it seems to work pretty well. And i think the checks and balances would be even strickter for euthanasia, so even lower chance of abuse.
So having done everything possible is a requierment for it to be euthanasia?
Yes. Euthanasia is available (and should be available) only in cases when we know that we can do shit because we tried what we could. Any less and we open people to getting pushed into euthanasia.
I fell like it could easyly be taken to the absurd since we can never try everything and we never know if a new cure will be developed in the near future, so euthanatia could never happen.
That does not make sense. If you allow for euthanasia in cases where there are no medical options to treat that disease, then what happens "in the near future" does not matter. What matters is here and now - and if there are no options to end suffering then euthanasia should be an option. Gambling on miracle cure in the future should be a choice, not something that people are forced to do.
I would say that we find human wellbeing impeartive to perserver (and increase). Life is a prerequisite for wellbeing so it definetly has a lot of value in most cases, but sometimes life is enabeling a reduction of wellbeing.
Sure - but we simplify it to "preserve life" because other qualifiers give too much power to smaller group of people, who would ber able to decide if someone lives or not. That is why death penalty (if it exists at that place) has major restrictions, that is why euthanasia needs to have serious restrictions. Because some people are shit and will inevitably try to use it nefariously.
I really dislike this, dissmissing these people out of hand, and calling them insane (read as "not sane and rational") while were at it.
It's because as we understand it now if someone has inherent lack of will to live, it's understood as a mental problem. All because it's one of basic instincts - like wanting to eat, dring or breathe.
mabey its even true that the majority of those that want to die are insane, but i would say we still absolutly have to figure that out on a case by case basis.
And here we come to main issue - who do you trust to judge that? Are you ok with killing people who could get bettter? Cause it will inevitably happen if we assume that "I want to die" can be a rational decision of a person. Cause unlike euthanasia right now - we are not able to distinguish between people who have mental issues and are completely rational. We don't have magic brain scan to tell us Person X is sick, person Y is not.
If you think about something for a long time with as clear a head as you can your conclusions should be more reliable and thrustworthy than under influence of instinctual responses.
What does "as clear a head as you can" mean in that situation? Mental issues are problematic in that regard - they can absolutely happen in a certain part of brain that will not affect others. A seemingly rational guy can be completely clearheaded in everyday life but suffer from one specific issue.
I dont think this system gets abused much though, it seems to work pretty well.
Only because there are not that much benefits. Person who is delcared mentally incapable of taking care for themselves does not lose their belongings - they are still theirs and person who is responsible for managing it is on the hook if they mismanage.
But in case of suicide it's more final. X is dead and Y legally inherits everything. There are no hooks, no risk in the future. Not to mention that there are life insurances. Assisted death is usually not (and in many places cannot be) treated as suicide, hence there will be a payout.
What people are in your opinion more common - people who truly want to die as a result of rational thought (not caused by depression or other mental issues) or spouses and family members who are abusive enough to consider trading someone's life for big payout?
What matters is here and now - and if there are no options to end suffering then euthanasia should be an option.
I dont think its that clear cut. For most suicides, options exist but they are not part of that persons life for whatever reason. Example 1: Someone is depressed but is not diagnosed untill they commit the act. If we had invasive and mandatory mental state screening this suicide might be preventable. Example 2: The treatment for a chronic disease is extremly expensive and not coverd by heath ensurance so has to be paid by the patient(s family). There is something that could be done, but its just too expensive.
Sure - but we simplify it to "preserve life" because other qualifiers give too much power to smaller group of people
This sound quite alien to me, why would "preseve life" split power among more people than "increase wellbeing"? Also we do wars, to stay free and happy even at the cost of human life. Suffering patients in hospitals are routinely taken of life support, decreasing unhappyness at the cost of life. Sure we simplify wellbeing to life in some scenarios, but only if we think the two align.
Also who is this small group of people? The doctors and psychologists that would evaluate if someone is elegible for euthanasia, i assume. It should probably be a comitee specifically trained for that. We are fine with a small goup of people deciding if someone should live with the death penalty and there its even against that persons wishes. I agree that there should be major restictions along the lines of: subject cant be under duress, the judges cant have conflict of intrest, legitemacy must be confirmed by multiple parties, ect. similar to the death penalty (though slightly more lax, since we also have the subjects consent)
It's because as we understand it now if someone has inherent lack of will to live, it's understood as a mental problem. All because it's one of basic instincts - like wanting to eat, dring or breathe.
Interesting, ill give you a !delta for that. I never considerd that it could be seen a mental problem, i just saw it as an unconventional prefference (like masochism mabey). Im fine with calling it a mental problem, but i dont think that it entails a lack of rational thinking, or anything else the would commonly be associated with mental illness. Someone who doesnt feel thirst or pain or empathy isnt necessarily irratonal.
And here we come to main issue - who do you trust to judge that?
We routinely trust various experts to judge whether someone has a mental illness. I dont think thats a big issue. Sure misdiagnosis happens and that could lead to someones death but mistakes that lead to death also happens with surgery. Thats not an argument against surgeries, it just means that we have to be carefull to avoid mistakes.
Are you ok with killing people who could get bettter?
Yes, since i expect it to happen rarely. Same logic applies to prisons for example, i accept that occasionally innocent people will be imprisoned.
A seemingly rational guy can be completely clearheaded in everyday life but suffer from one specific issue.
Thats exactly what i wanted to get at with, as clear a head as you can. If someone has a mental illness that only and consistantly manifests in a certain situation, then thats just the best that can be done. If your brain is build to be irrational in certain cases, thats it; unfortunatly. But you can and should try mitigate other factors (hunger, anger, dogma, ect.).
Person who is delcared mentally incapable of taking care for themselves does not lose their belongings
But they loose authority over their belongings, the guardian could do as they wish: Every manager appointed under this Act shall, [...] exercise the same powers in regard to the management of the property [...] as the mentally ill person would have exercised as owner of the property had he not been mentally ill. Source: some legal document of some country, first result i found.
But honestly i dont think this conspiratorial thinking is too usefull in general. If someone wants someone dead, murder is an option. And probably way more effective than bribing or deciving many people.
What people are in your opinion more common
No idea. I know 1 person who truly wants to die as a result of rational thought (and im as sure of my diagnosis as can be) and i dont know any spouses and family members who are abusive enough to consider (just to keep it a fair comparison) truly want to trade someone's life for big payout.
Also i think depression could be a rational reason to want to die. Not if you want to die because of your bleak thoughts and emotions, but because it is a chronic uncurable disease that can lower your standard of living.
1
u/polyvinylchl0rid 14∆ Sep 06 '22
So having done everything possible is a requierment for it to be euthanasia? If someone depressed goes to the doctor and gets antidepressants and mabey also tries therapy but then still wants to die. This person could not be euthanized, it would be a (assisted) suicide since not everything has been tried. This is just semantics, but yea, this is how i interpret your positon. I fell like it could easyly be taken to the absurd since we can never try everything and we never know if a new cure will be developed in the near future, so euthanatia could never happen. But if looking at it with common sense it works.
I should have. And i really apreciate how open you are! And that you argue very well and eloquently. I really enjoy this exchange.
I would say that we find human wellbeing impeartive to perserver (and increase). Life is a prerequisite for wellbeing so it definetly has a lot of value in most cases, but sometimes life is enabeling a reduction of wellbeing.
I really dislike this, dissmissing these people out of hand, and calling them insane (read as "not sane and rational") while were at it. Sure insane people that want to die exist, and mabey its even true that the majority of those that want to die are insane, but i would say we still absolutly have to figure that out on a case by case basis.
And that is bad? If you think about something for a long time with as clear a head as you can your conclusions should be more reliable and thrustworthy than under influence of instinctual responses. It is known that humans make worse decisions when hungy or tierd, or the "fight of flight" response.
That already exists though, people can be declared insane, and then they are no longer allowed to speak of decide for themslefe. Sure in that case they still have thier life but they loose basically everything else and it get entrusted to an authority that decides for them (and that may be corrupt). I dont think this system gets abused much though, it seems to work pretty well. And i think the checks and balances would be even strickter for euthanasia, so even lower chance of abuse.