Venting I don't know why the idea of assisted CTB so frowned upon?

[trappedinthislife]

Just want to vent again I guess. Recently I saw someone on Reddit talking about how hard their life is because of their many medical problems, which requires lots of operations and their health kept worsening. The person is clearly in a lot of pain. And that is not the only story - I have seen so many stories of people suffering a severe disorder that they have to live the rest of their life with, and with the nature of aging, it only worsens with time.

When I see these people, I have a silent hope: that something happens and they get a painless death. An accident, a failed surgery that leaves them dead, whatever. I always want to ask these people "if you can painlessly die now, would ya?" Not all of them would say yes but I can't imagine all of them saying no either. It's a weird thing to say but I believe some lives are better ditched. It's like what we do with pets when they're in too much pain. Like how it's possible for fruits to be "spoiled", it's possible for the human body to spoil as well. And when someone is living in a clearly rotten body, all they feel is pain. They won't be able to experience beauty, they won't live happily.

In Canada assisted death is legal and I have heard so many people laugh at that idea and I'm like... why? Why hold on to life so dearly? maybe this is because I don't understand how some views the world but I fail to see how it makes sense to keep a clearly painful person around.

To love is to let go. Even when it hurts. Am I wrong?

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

It's not about saving lives because we all die anyway so you can't save a life . It's about controlling others

 

[ASp4E]

To love is to let go. Even when it hurts.

I like that description.
Indeed I feel like loving someone means you often put their desires above your own. In cases like this, escaping unbearable suffering (for example) is probably far more beneficial to them, than avoiding loneliness or grief would be to you. So you'd pick the former and not go against their wishes, even if it hurts.

Some people choose to see it from their perspective, and are happy for them when they're gone, knowing that they're now "in a better place" so to say. I'm glad those kinds of people exist.

 

[JKFleck]

From the authority's pov's answer:
Dead people can't pay taxes and make rich people richer

 

[4everHeartBroken]

It's not about saving lives because we all die anyway so you can't save a life . It's about controlling others

INTERESTING response! I've never thought about it like that before…. "It's about controlling others" seems to be quite accurate.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

Pro lifers want to prolong a life for as long as possible so that they can forcefully contribute to society and pay taxes

 

[Linda]

Part of the reason is that there is a slippery slope between assisting someone to ctb (and I presume you mean assisting for altruistic reasons) to pushing someone to ctb for evil reasons (such as you want to get your hands on their money). If assisted suicide became common, we would have to get to grips with the problem of figuring out where one ends and the other begins. In the messy world we live in, that could be quite difficult at times.

I think assisted suicide ought to be more easily available, but I'm also aware of some of the problems that could arise if it was.

 

[UKscotty]

It's a dangerous area. If the rich and powerful could, they would encourage us to CTB.

People with mental health issues are seen as a drain and a burden on society, the elite would prefer us dead.

Any legal euthanasia would need to come with robust mechanisms to prevent a massacre.

I don't understand the argument about everyone alive to pay taxes. Unwell people drain a lot more than their productivity back to society.

 

[Relic]

I don't understand the argument about everyone alive to pay taxes. Unwell people drain a lot more than their productivity back to society.

A large part of taxpayer money is written off as expenses for the social services. At the same time, actual services provided are minimal, and even these are sometimes covered with crowdfunding. The difference has to end up somewhere, but it's probably not going back to society. The European social system was created at the expense of military spending, so the situation is most likely going to change soon anyway.

 

[sinfonia]

Because life still has it's temptations, even when you're in a world of pain. A small light at the end of a dark tunnel can be enough to keep a person going. And letting go isn't always as easy as it sounds (especially if you have loved ones).

 

[sickofthisht]

How is it that if my cat is unwell and won't get better it can get put out of its misery but for a human you have to stick it out till the bitter end. It is incredibly fucked up

 

[untothedepths]

Probably as some people have said it could lead to a slippery slope, but I also think it boils down to religious beliefs chiefly. Suicide to some is one of those unforgivable sins and people don't know what degrees of it are ever okay, ergo, the reason may be why we try so hard to prevent suicide. The problem is, in my opinion, society has no real care to truly take care of one another, even treats people inhumanely, and expects everyone to live under horrible conditions without no real care to have a solution. Recently the SCOTUS ruled that it was essentially illegal to sleep outside in public, which makes being homeless obviously illegal, which now will give hundreds of thousands of people criminal records which will be unable to find work, which they already had trouble with due to not having a steady address, mental health concerns, and possible addiction problems. This is not to mention that jail and prisons are an enormous drain on taxpayers money, and it is better for those who can be possibly rehabilitated to try to reenter. However, there is also the element of human exploitation that goes on in these systems in the form of what is essentially free labor, which I am sure some greedy capitalists really love. I find it pretty ironic how the USA cries about China being inhumane yet they are steadily just trying to become some sort of christian authoritarian hellhole, especially with the new rulings passed. USA would love if 40%+ of the population can become revolving doors for cheap labor. It would be no different than China having workers live at their job.

Anyway, I could keep going on about this. Essentially what I am trying to say here is, I am a pro-choice person through and through. I believe, since no one has a choice being born, no one has a choice with some illnesses they are given, and sometimes terrible things happen to people they cannot control, it is then the choice of the person to reclaim their life for whatever reason they see fit. No, I don't believe in it being forced upon anyone at all. I will never advocate that. But, I find it absurdly cruel and hypocritical how society claims to care about the lives of suicidal people without actually showing that we care. If we did, money to help support one another would not be some massive issue.

 

[dazed.daydreamer]

This might be controversial, but I think it makes sense to leave suicide in the hands of the person alone (not talking about euthanasia for the terminally ill). That way the person generally has to be 100% committed to dying in order to go through with it. I do think there should be less stigma around suicide, and that painless, clean methods should be available to make it easier for both the person committing and for whoever finds them afterwards. But assisted suicide for mental health (as in active involvement during the act of suicide, not just providing resources) could be ethically questionable—what if the person changes their mind at the last moment, but can't communicate that desire in time to stop the process? And involving others could bring them serious guilt as well, even if the person really wanted to die.

This might be controversial, but I think it makes sense to leave suicide in the hands of the person alone (not talking about euthanasia for the terminally ill). That way the person generally has to be 100% committed to dying in order to go through with it. I do think there should be less stigma around suicide, and that painless, clean methods should be available to make it easier for both the person committing and for whoever finds them afterwards. But assisted suicide for mental health (as in active involvement during the act of suicide, not just providing resources) could be ethically questionable—what if the person changes their mind at the last moment, but can't communicate that desire in time to stop the process? And involving others could bring them serious guilt as well, even if the person really wanted to die.

TLDR my ideal scenario would be that suicide is still a solo journey, but without barriers to accessing clean, low-pain methods like N or SN

 

[betternever2havbeen]

I feel like the Canadians are so lucky with their system but at the same time it's fucked it for the rest of us because to most people what's happening in Canada is quite concerning. People keep using it as an excuse not to ever have it here in the UK. I suppose because the homeless and depressed have been allowed to CTB? Not really sure how true it actually is as I only hear about it from the pro-lifer type people who think the government is killing people off.

So basically because of this "slippery slope" theory that might not ever even happen, terminal people will have to suffer in agony to the bitter end. It's sickening and inhumane to let people's bodies torture them like that. Even if it was just cutting the dying process (a few days/weeks) short I'd be happy. There are signs pointing to people being in this stage of actively dying, then there's no argument-it's just shortening the natural process of death. The human body hangs on way too fucking long. But people just think "slippery slope" so we can't EVER have it. There's literally nothing that would convince them I don't think, good way for them to end any discussions about it. But a lot of people are also very on board with it here in the UK as well.

 

[trappedinthislife]

Yep I think this would be the ideal scenario.

This might be controversial, but I think it makes sense to leave suicide in the hands of the person alone (not talking about euthanasia for the terminally ill). That way the person generally has to be 100% committed to dying in order to go through with it. I do think there should be less stigma around suicide, and that painless, clean methods should be available to make it easier for both the person committing and for whoever finds them afterwards. But assisted suicide for mental health (as in active involvement during the act of suicide, not just providing resources) could be ethically questionable—what if the person changes their mind at the last moment, but can't communicate that desire in time to stop the process? And involving others could bring them serious guilt as well, even if the person really wanted to die.

TLDR my ideal scenario would be that suicide is still a solo journey, but without barriers to accessing clean, low-pain methods like N or SN