Hacker News Reader

Comment by a8da6b0c91d | Hacker News Reader

Physician assisted suicide is a super slippery slope. I'm stunned when thinking people advocate.

Really? This is probably the most common anti position ... and its effectively a filibuster. I have absolutely no doubt that we can properly define the conditions for medical assisted suicide (as other nations have done). Lastly, on a more personal note -- it is clear that anyone with the "slippery slope" argument has never lost a loved one to a protracted decline into the inevitable dirt sleep.

It works very well in countries such as the Netherlands, I've seen that first hand in cancer cases. It is the most dignified thing to do for a thinking person. Do you have examples where a large percentage of the cases are obvious malpractice?

I have long planned that I will do everything in my power not to stay on life support, and recommend you do the same for the sake of your family and your sanity.

> not to stay on life support

It's not such a simple decision. I know someone who was on life support and minimally conscious and recovered from there to more or less normal health.

It would be better to specify something like: no life support provided there is also no cognitive ability for 2 months.

That gives at least a chance of recovery.

There is a difference if you had a car accident and are 20 years old or if you are having terminal cancer at 80.

It's actually regulated quite well here in te Netherlands. Strict protocols to follow by at least two "independant" doctors. Doesn't mean stuff never goes "awry" though.

is "awry" better or worse than the status quo?

Awry as in: there recently was a case in which a doctor disregarded protocols in several cases; this was undetected for quite a while. This always leads to discussions here in NL, not about euthanasia practice in general, but about the amount of control and the ethical "framework" surrounding the protocols.

Perhaps glibly tossing out a country with a strongly collectivist ethos that sees the government provide fully-funded, universal care for those with long term illness, as an example of why voluntary euthenasia would work well in a country where "Devil take the hindmost" appears to be the approach is not the best.

I'm generally a fan of voluntary euthenasia. But pretending there's no scope for abuse, especially in a country where the single biggest cause of personal bankruptcy is illness, is at best hopelessly naive.

> not to stay on life support

Ceasing or preventing disproportionate medical measures is a very different thing than decisively murdering somebody. To my understanding, living wills already allow the former.

>decisively murdering somebody

Is that what Scott Adams was proposing? I'd think you'd be hardpressed to find someone who is interested in decisive murder.

Edit: lostlogin - you're right. Those horrors exist. I'm not from the U.S. so I forget that such medieval concepts are still in practice. Again, the great irony - the right to die is not allowed but can be forced on you.

The US. Drones and the death penalty are what I have in mind. And neither of those are going away soon. Not that many countries are any better, we just don't have the money to keep up.

> I'm stunned when thinking people advocate.

So you come out swinging with a combined ad hominem and argument from incredulity. Brilliant!

Pointing it out with a logically equivalent blaming statement probably isn't going to help.

It would be better to suggest an alternate wording: "People who are capable of higher level thinking and who are directly affected by a given issue may want to carefully consider whether or not advocating for a given solution will bring an overall positive impact to the issue. I'm surprised Scott Adams is wishing harm on others while at the same time appears to be ignoring the complex issues related to the government sanctioning assisted suicide."

Clearly Adams is grieving. From experience, having a parent suffer sucks. Losing a parent is even worse. Suicide is a complex issue and I respect the fact others consider how difficult it can be to legislate it properly.

Edit: clarified the 'assisted' portion of the argument.

> Pointing it out with a logically equivalent blaming statement probably isn't going to help.

It wasn't meant to help the OP. I have no belief a logical and reasoned conversation could occur there. It was meant to help those reading it determine what methods were used. It does help those unfamiliar with structured reason and Socratic thought principles.

> It would be better to suggest an alternate wording:

I completely reject your alternate wording. Make it your own, not mine.

We're talking about the same government that hands out death-by-protracted-torture penalties in the War on Drugs. "Are you insane?" is a logical, rational counterargument to the question of whether that government should be inferring a person's death wish. It is not even a slippery slope for an American assisted suicide law to kill someone with a heroin overdose for having a hopeless life owing to them being trapped in permanent solitary confinement owing to conviction on heroin possession.

Indeed. And the mother of friend of mine had to search for her own slippery slope so she could fall out of a window to end her life to end the constant pain of the tumors in her bones.

I had the relatively good luck of having my parents die quick and clean death - but still there were traumas that needed years to heal. My father spend in vegetative state only 48 hours - and the load was unbearable. Having to live with that for months or years - I am sure that no person would like to cause that to their children and relatives.

Ending the suffering soon is good for the patient, but is even better for the ones they loved. I don't want to burden anyone when my time comes and I insist on the right of going away the way I want to and not the way fate decides.

Life is a slippery slope. We need to deal with death like grownups.

To address your fears, we should have simple, straightforward protocols for how this would work.

I would say exactly the opposite. To the extent euthanasia might be called for we need unspoken nod and furtive protocols. Explicitly legitimized murder by doctors is a horrible idea.

we need unspoken nod and furtive protocols.

That pretty much guarantees the twisted version where the kids kill off grandma for the house.

You're not really giving any reasons why you oppose it. I am for it because it would greatly reduce suffering.

Why?

I'm (at least in my own judgement) a 'thinking' person. I'm involved in the medical field (in prehospital emergency medicine). Finally (as it may be relevant), I'm a fairly socially conservative person.

I am in favor of physician assisted suicide. I'd be interested to hear your concerns about it.

> super slippery slope

In countries where it is practiced, the slope appears to have a sufficient coefficient of friction.

I disagree entirely with you. That comes from an emotional place though as I had to watch my amazing grandmother die a slow painful death of suffocation for nearly three years. She begged to die, but we could do nothing. My grandfather (who was with her for over 50 years) confided to me that he considered quite heavily granting her wish, but the threat of legal persecution meant he couldn't. At least she got to be at home for those years, and when she finally passed, it was over quickly.

Slippery slope into what—mass suicide cults? This is a completely vacuous "argument".

It is something that should be monitored and have strict conditions on the age of the patient, maladies suffered, level of consciousness, and time spent attempting to cure.

That said, it should be weighed the morality of keeping a thousand people alive to die slowly and painfully so that one person might not get put down before their time.

To expand on this. How do you decide when it is appropriate for euthanasia? Is it only for terminal patients? Patients with chronic incurable diseases? What about people with Huntington's and are otherwise healthy? Are depressed people who can't bring themselves to commit suicide afforded access to physician assisted suicide? If a demented patient had previously requested not to be killed earlier, but now in their demented state the family, who are now responsible for all medical decisions, request it. What do we do?

Base it on a system that is already working:

http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/holland-background...

EDIT: oh dear, I did not read the rest of this article. It is actually vehemently opposed to Euthanasia and quite interesting (though very biased).

"The study found that, in spite of the fact that medical care is provided to everyone in Holland, palliative care (comfort care) programs, with adequate pain control techniques and knowledge, were poorly developed"

That is ridiculous. I spent hours with a friend recently receiving the most extraordinary palliative care, in his own home, before deciding to euthanize (fortunately he died the day earlier).

How do you decide when it is appropriate for the police to use lethal force?

I think you've fallen into the trap that the world should only implement perfect solutions.

> Physician assisted suicide is a super slippery slope

This has been disproven by the countries that have implemented it and not "slipped...unless you have some evidence of it being slippery?

Well, abortion is a similar example.

Where I live abortion has been allowed since I don't know when.

Doctors have been able to opt out from assisting. This fall politicians and pro abortion started making noise about how doctors that wouldn't participate should lose their license.

So, there is your slippery slope I guess.

> This fall politicians and pro abortion started making noise about how doctors that wouldn't participate should lose their license.

That's a terrible example of a slippery slope. It sounds like the slope is so not-slippery that the best they could do was make a lot of noise about how things should be. If the slope was slippery, shouldn't they have easily passed a bill with very little friction?

go on...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com