News

The flip side of our ability to prolong life more and more successfully is that we equip ourselves to extend suffering more and more unbearably.

Puritanical attitudes around the right to die will impact a vast majority of people in terrible ways that will largely get ignored as on the other end of it the victims have no voice and often the family is mourning and wants to move on or just doesn't even fully realize how terrible that end was.

But the doctors and medical staff...

The people I know well in those roles get upset when healthy patients take a turn for the worse and die when they had so much life before that. But by far the most upset I see them is when a family member of a patient decides because of beliefs to choose life prolonging options that are the equivalent of extended torture.

As our medical capabilities improve we really need to continually rethink just what it means to "do no harm."

We need a federal constitutional amendment of bodily autonomy. Abortions, tattoos, personal drug use, gender reassignment, plastic surgery, suicide, neuralink, etc. All the same issue: My body, fuck off. You can make it more complicated than that but it’s not.

It doesn’t matter whether you agree with face tattoos or not. Nobody is making you get one. It’s not your concern. An artist can choose not to give face tattoos, as a doctor can choose whether they want to give a vasectomy to a young child-free man. But the government should have no say about what a person is allowed to do or have done to their own body. The government can regulate to make it safer, but not disallow.

It must be tough to get to the end of your life and see nothing but people looking to profit off your passing.

Put me in a coffee can and blow it up or something.

For the last 10 years I have been saying this should be legal. As long as you are determined to be of sound mind and not influenced by anyone, then let them make the decision. You will have many arguments against it (religion, could be cured unexpectedly) but it's the patient's decision.

The only argument would be if doctors and nurses should assist. This is a huge argument against state sponsored executions. Maybe a device that can safely and painlessly assist the patient could be a resolution.

Death with dignity should be allowed and viewed with reverence.

All the jabronis in this thread with "being able to decide when you die is BAD actually" have clearly never had a loved one painfully and slowly waste away in a shitty hospital bed praying for death every day.

People should have the right to decide when they decide to end the game of life. They should be able to make this decision with a qualified medical professional, preferably one who specializes in end of life care.

I work as an EEG tech. I see some really awful cases where there's no hope for a meaningful recovery. Lawmakers should be required to do a month of hospice/palliative care rounds before signing any legislation on right to die. There is so much misinformation and misunderstanding surrounding what that care entails. The patients I see often don't have the ability to make that choice and are left up on life preserving care for days to months at a time without any chance at meaningful recovery.

It should also be noted that these decisions primarily affect people who are too poor to afford to travel with their loved ones to places that currently allow assisted suicide. If you're wealthy you are able to die how you want.

But what about the pharmaceutical company shareholders? Don't they get any say in how long we need their products? Yes one person might be in terrible pain for years, but at least twelve people will make a lot of money.

I remember when this was a ballot initiative in CO.

I voted for it, but it was shocking to see just how much negativity there was surrounding it.

I'd support it for any nation with free healthcare. But people are now going to be choosing between being with their families and not bankrupting them. I would not doubt it would be used to justify insurance companies not covering terminally ill patients because they only cover death for the terminaly ill.

I shouldn’t need a reason.

I think Kovorkian has the right idea, honestly.