Hacker News Reader

How do you tell the difference between someone suffering from depression that wants to die but could cure their depression and someone that just wants to die? Depression is an illness and it makes people do and say all kinds of things they wouldn't normally.

What if you are 80 and just have low testosterone and want to die but then you start trt and things really get a lot better? Which "you" wanted to die and which should get to make that decision? What is the authentic you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

I'm all for making people's lives better. But people deserve the choice of what treatment they will or won't accept. That's what informed consent is about. We don't force surgeries on people just because they have a good prognosis; the person still has to consent to the surgery (if they are capable).

Even if there is a treatment with a very good prognosis that could magically make you happier, you deserve the right to say "no" anyway. So let's absolutely make sure somebody is informed and of sound mind before we put euthanasia on the table. But let them have agency over their own life after that.

Feel it is likely you are over estimating modern medicine’s ability to judge if someone is of sound mind.

There are some difficult philosophical questions here. If someone has an ailment, that is causing their mind to think euthanasia is the answer, but if they had the treatment to the ailment, they would no longer think so, are they of sound mind? I'm not sure where the line is on that, and i think its far from obvious.

Agreed. Likewise though, there's an ethical dilemma the other way: Is it acceptable to force treatment on someone?

These are not easy questions and while I personally believe that assisted dying legislation will prevent a lot of needless suffering, I also believe there will be people effectively killed by this who could have otherwise had fulfilling happy lives but couldn't see the path out of the woods or were unable to make that journey.

I thought the Canadian standard required that the problem be incurable.

At some point, you just accept that people get to make important choices about themselves, and will sometimes make ones that don't necessarily make sense.

Percentage of people that plan to kill themselves, but simply fail to do so because something minor happens to interfere is not small; as in they do not end up committing suicide and never try again.

If someone really wants to kill themselves, no reason to make it easy, it should by definition be hard to do, since there is no undoing it.

If someone wants to kill themselves and is physically able I very much doubt that going through the legal process would be the easy way out.

How does an old man in a wheelchair kill himself? Why should it be so hard for him? What if he fails? He gets to live even longer in more anguish and humiliation?

90% of suicide survivors do not attempt again.

Why is that?

Research shows that those who attempt suicide once statistically speaking have distinct risk factors and characteristics which are notably different than those who attempt again; among other notable differences, their last attempts statistically speaking are more likely to be lethal. Simply put, they’re not comparable.

Example of related research:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.6051...

Not going to give advice on committing suicide, understand your point, and as it relates to myself, I am fine dealing with the situation regardless of what happens. Study the topic since I was a child, understand it well, and if you believe such rights are needed, then it’s up to you to make them real before they are needed. Posting anonymously online will have little to no impact.

I have incurable cancer and I'd really like to die on my own terms. Why should that be hard? Today it is still way too hard in most of the world (including in countries that have MAID). Also, it's not just about it being "hard". Sure I could blow my brains out, but I'd like to have the option to die with my loved ones by my side without traumatizing them (or getting them in potential legal problems).

Obviously, significant percentage of people if they were in your situation would likely relate to your wishes to be in control, it’s completely reasonable. Also, reasonable that prior to you being in the situation that it’s likely that the topic was not pressing for you.

Most people don’t want to think about intentionally dying, it’s unpleasant, frequently results in emotionally sensitive exchanges, etc — so they simply avoid the topic.

Basically, being terminally ill is separate topic from the comment you replied too, which relates to legalized assisted suicide for non-terminally ill people; realize OP comment potentially covered it, but at least for me, that was not an issue.

Not the best at exchanges like this, but sincerely hope you are able to find the resolution you seek.

I'm not considered terminally ill yet by most "official" definitions (you have to have months to live). I'm lucky to have a cancer that so far response to treatment to slow it down substantially. This is relevant to the discussion because it means I'm more or less in the same position as the non-terminally ill people you are talking about. In my locale there are euthanasia laws, but they require that I suffer unbearably before euthanasia is allowed. I do not like this prospect one bit. I'd much rather die before reaching that phase. So the reality is that people's discomfort with death will potentially cause me great suffering. This makes this discussion very personal to me. Even though it might seem to you my situation is substantially different.

Thanks for clarifying, unlikely I am able to say anything that would be of use, but it’s obvious you’re actively trying to find solution that works for you. Again, thank you!

I hope 80 doesn’t look like that for most people. Even aging rock stars are still moving at 80:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Jagger

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_McCartney

Willie Nelson is almost 90 and still touring:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Nelson

To be fair, these people are not most people. All have a LOT of money to throw at their health. Also at carers, cooks, healthy living, and all the modern conveniences that make old age bearable. Same with William Shatner, he’s 91 now!

My parents are 78 and 80. Old age is slowly catching up with them. But my dad can still stay out in the yard for hours at the time and until Covid, my mom was still tutoring friends kids and grandkids in advanced math. She is still completely comfortable with driving from my hometown 5 hours to where I live - a place with some of the worse traffic in America. They were not “rich”. My mom is a retired school teacher and my dad is a retired factory worker. They retired at 55 and 57.

My dad still keeps active and he practices karate katas multiple times per week.

Maybe but it seems like your parents have their health and were taking care of themselves.

I'm in my thirties. I'm already suffering from obesity, have chronic pains in the wrists and shoulders and leg, and my hearing and vision are starting to deteriorate, and I've had multiple bouts with gout that leaves me barely able to walk for months at a time.

If my thirty's are already this bad, I can't imagine lies in store in my 40's, never mind 80's.

Many people say this when they’re young. Almost no one goes through with it. Maybe the drooling isn’t as bad as you think.

How is this knowable when barely anyone has access to assisted suicide outside of a few small states/countries? And even then, drooling does not qualify in most.

OP mentioned various alternatives.

Assuming you are referring to:

>I will buy a gun, or jump off a bridge, or freeze to death, or O.D. on heroin, or something else if I have to. But I shouldn't have to.

Those are not equivalent to the experience of dying with assisted suicide.

Overdosing on heroin very much is. You’ll leave an uglier corpse given the blackening of the extremities but you fall asleep and then you suffocate.

Everyone is different, some people have a very difficult time dealing with even minor issues. Also, based on the way most people live their lives, I don’t think the average person truly understands what’s ahead, or if they do, pretend they’ll magically escape it. Personally, I am fine with my future regardless of what happens, but it’s not surprising to me some either don’t want to grow old or are caught off guard by the reality of old age.

>Almost no one goes through with it.

I don't necessarily share OP's sentiment, and I think it's great that people don't go through with it, but I strongly believe that the option should legally be afforded to them.

According to https://theconversation.com/in-places-where-its-legal-how-ma... (as of 2019) between 0.3% and 4.6% of all deaths are assisted suicide or euthanasia in jurisdictions where it’s legal.

The paper they report on further notes:

pain is not the main motivation for PAS (physician-assisted suicide)… The dominant motives are loss of autonomy and dignity and being less able to enjoy life’s activities.

The point of the article is that in Canada at least, many people go through with it.

I think the reason people don't end up killing themselves is that actually committing suicide is technically difficult, and terrifying. If one doesn't have access to specific drugs, how does one do it without making a horrible mess that their loved ones would have to clean up?

Even if one can somehow avoid the mess, suicide tells the people who are left behind that one chose death over them; it's a terrible message that most people, justifiably, don't want to send.

A medical decision that leaves little to no trail is a much better outcome for everyone.

> the state should not be able to mandate that that's how I spend the last 10 years of my life

The number of things that the state should not be able to mandate but does is immense. Unfortunately “should not be able to” is irrelevant in modern society. For some reason we all accept constant overreach into private affairs they affect no one else.

Could you give other examples? It seems to me that the balance between individual freedom and restrictions is pretty good in most western countries (I don't know much about other continents).

Conscription...done.

Well conscription almost doesn't exist any more in western countries. And I don't think it's a good example of something that doesn't affect anyone else, the idea is to train people in case of a war. Having people able to defend the country seems quite useful for everyone in unstable times.

Is Switzerland not a "Western country"? Several other countries in Europe (and many more throughout the world) still have conscription.

Even the US still requires you by law to register for the draft[1] and technically still has the legal right to conscript you[2], though since 1973 they (as a matter of policy) no longer do this:

> However, conscription remains in place on a contingency basis and all male U.S. citizens, regardless of where they live, and male immigrants, whether documented or undocumented, residing within the United States, who are 18 through 25 are required to register with the Selective Service System. United States federal law also continues to provide for the compulsory conscription of men between the ages of 17 and 45 and certain women for militia service pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution and 10 U.S. Code § 246.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_Sta...

I don't know...person going along living his life, gets drafted, sent to war and dies. He wasn't bothering anyone.

He's not affecting anyone else until after you draft him.

While it may be useful for the country, it is certainly at odds with individual freedom.

While there isn't much mandatory military service left in western countries, it is far from gone. And this doesn't speak to the countries with the potential to draft, which is many.

There was a lot of talk about conscription being gone in Europe, up until 2014.

Then that whole Crimea thing happened.

Since then, no European country had dropped conscription, and several have re-instituted it.

The West is not uniform. Some parts of it are far enough from serious threats that they don't need conscription. But this is only possible because there are other countries to serve as a buffer, and they generally do have conscription.

(Well, or you're on a different continent entirely, and that is your primary defense.)

If we own our lives, then surely the ultimate decision that we should be allowed to make is whether to continue with it or end it.

I think this is a really good point.

I support people being able to have autonomy over their lives (and their deaths). But, as you say, we need to eliminate effective coercion and this has a lot of implications.

For example, no one should ever feel that this is a way out of crippling medical debt or debt they may leave to their family.

So if you think about it, legalizing euthanasia is essentially predicated on having an adequate social safety net, access to mental health resources and access to health care, all of which I support.

>If I want to die at 80 because I don't want to live past that point, that is my choice.

I think most reasonable people can agree with this. It gets more complicated when its a depressed 20 year old saying it.

People here are talking about this as if it’s the suicide booth from Futurama. It’s not.

The overwhelming majority of cases are extensions of palliative care made by people of sound mind.

>The overwhelming majority of cases are extensions of palliative care made by people of sound mind.

That's the case now, and I fully support the right of someone who is suffering or otherwise debilitated due to age, disease or injury to end their life with the full support of the medical establishment. What will the outcome be if the law is expanded? Will people who might otherwise survive and live long, healthy and productive lives opt for euthanasia if the course of treatment means huge medical bills that will forever immiserate them and their families? It is one thing to support giving people control over their own lives and their own suffering, and another to create all sorts of financial incentives, for patients, insurers, hospitals and doctors to consider euthanasia as an alternative to treatment.

Here’s an idea. I’m a 25 year old in Canada without any particular gift or grace of intelligence. Unless I want to work at Walmart for the next 30 years and survive in government housing, life is pointless.

So… I might as well grab a car, execute the greatest crime in my power for the sheer fun of it, and demand euthanasia at my sentencing.

Now I’ve got quite a moral dilemma for the judge. If you grant me my wish, I will die completely unrepentant and my victims will be denied a sense of justice forever. Death was my wish, their suffering my parting joy. If you don’t, how dare you keep me alive against my will.

If you think this is obviously wrong, why?