Live data from Hacker News

The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

politico.eu

31–40 of 131 posts

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#31
post #26
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, I suspect the law has some provisions for determining the validity of a DNR based on the condition of the person at the time of signing it, in the same way it does for a will and testament.

Giving second parties control over the bodily autonomy of a first party because of second party opinions (with the notable bright line exception being first party acts of violence toward others) is not part of any society in which I wish to participate.

Does this mean that anyone who wants to kill themselves at any time should be allowed to do so?

If they lack the ability to do so for some reason should they be assisted?

Is that should a moral imperative?

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#32
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving second parties control over the bodily autonomy of a first party because of second party opinions (with the notable bright line exception being first party acts of violence toward others) is not part of any society in which I wish to participate.

Does this mean that anyone who wants to kill themselves at any time should be allowed to do so? If they lack the ability to do so for some reason should they be assisted? Is that should a moral imperative?

I have never heard anyone rational, even in pro choice forums, say it should be a free for all. Put age limits on it since children have developing minds and lack the perspective to make such choices. Put awareness/rationality checks on it the same way we do any other medical procedure with informed consent. Unless the person is being purposefully isolated and kept from others, which is an edge case, I don't see a scenario where an invalid would be unable to find someone understanding to assist, thus the fear of being "forced to kill" FUD I hear often isn't realistic.

Obviously the best thing to do is to minimize the numbers of people who end up in such situations by addressing root causes. But that is something society has proven unwilling to deal with at scale. There will always be some people who have intractable suffering, with no tolerable outcome possible, and they deserve a peaceful way out.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#33
post #2

I have said this more than once here, and hate how much it defines my life so imagine people might be annoyed by seeing it again, but I have been suicidal for a long time because of medical errors and the ensuing heath/life issues. I don't want to be. Nobody who is wants to be. Some people SAY they want more than anything to be gone but at the end of the thread, if you pull hard enough, they just want the suffering,…

> I don't want to be. Nobody who is wants to be. Some people SAY they want more than anything to be gone but at the end of the thread, if you pull hard enough, they just want the suffering, whatever it is, to end.

As someone who was once suicidal (but got past it) I can totally vouch for this.

And that's the problem: suicide is irreversible, so it's a good idea to have a protocol in place to make sure that all the other possibilities really have been exhausted before folding up the tent. I'm alive today because I was able to entertain the possibility that I might be wrong about death being the only way out even though at the time I was pretty damn sure I wasn't. And I am mindful of the fact that just because I was wrong doesn't mean everyone in a similar situation is.

It's a tough problem.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#34
post #21
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your happy but very drunk friend wanted to tapdance on the edge of a tall building, would you restrain them if necessary? Or if someone high on shrooms was trying to drink bleach? A suicidal mind is often one caught in the temporary throes of delusion and irrationality, even if it comes from internal wiring going haywire instead of external substances. Preventing someone from killing themselves is in their best in…

> A suicidal mind is often one caught in the temporary throes of delusion and irrationality The trouble is when this idea becomes circular, e.g. "anyone who would choose to kill themselves even though their life doesn't seem that bad to me must be in the temporary throes of delusion and irrationality." In other words, to apply your proposal would require determining whether someone is "in the temporary throes of delu…

Most of the time it's not very hard to figure out if a suicidal impulse is temporary, though. As a basic filter, ask several times over the course of a week and see if they're consistent.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#35

There are many things to talk about here, but this is part of why I posted this to Hacker News: The deeply shocking story on such a controversial issue was irresistible, and became a top news item all over the world overnight. Pothoven’s name was soon trending on Twitter in Italy. News reports repeating the false claims were published from Australia to India to the United States. Yes, the article touches on many thin…

The interesting thing to me is that supposedly reputable news sites like The Washington Post [1] were taken in by this piece of disinformation, when it took the author "all of 10 minutes to figure out the truth". Have they sacked all their journalists and now just copy random crap off social media, or what?

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/05/an-anguishe...

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#36

There are many things to talk about here, but this is part of why I posted this to Hacker News: The deeply shocking story on such a controversial issue was irresistible, and became a top news item all over the world overnight. Pothoven’s name was soon trending on Twitter in Italy. News reports repeating the false claims were published from Australia to India to the United States. Yes, the article touches on many thin…

The interesting thing to me is that supposedly reputable news sites like The Washington Post [1] were taken in by this piece of disinformation, when it took the author "all of 10 minutes to figure out the truth". Have they sacked all their journalists and now just copy random crap off social media, or what? [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/05/an-anguishe...

Writing of all sorts is currently under enormous financial pressure. Many "journalists" are no longer on staff with adequate pay, but are underpaid freelancers with no benefits. Local papers are shutting down in droves. Etc.

It's a huge crisis and there's no good way to talk about it.

I do freelance writing and blogging and I've been dirt poor for years. There is a long history of me either commenting on how the world expects good writing for free, which simply doesn't work, or me complaining about my situation in specific. The reaction on HN is pretty consistently hostile. I've often basically been told to STFU and go get a real job.

I have yet to find some means to adequately convey that it's a system-wide issue. It's not just one whiny loser.

This is a global crisis impacting the quality of our journalism, and that impacts political freedom and many other important things.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#37
This is the most aggressively anti-human thing I have ever seen, possibly even more than ISIS or cartel executions, because at least the perpetrators of those atrocities know that they are doing evil, even if they're unrepentant, which is more than can be said of the doctors in this situation.

I have been suicidally depressed, institutionalized. I'm better now. I suppose if I actually attempted to kill myself, but failed, paramedics that find me ought to let me go, or perhaps even finish me off if, say, I am in agony due to the method I used? Why wouldn't they, since after all, I've clearly chosen to die of my own free will? Yet, I now know that I was mistaken during my depression. Life is not about hedonism, not about maximizing pleasure experienced, which inevitably, inexorably, leads one to the conclusion that if there's just not a lot of enjoyment in one's life, and this has been persistent, then perhaps checking out is a good idea?

The path an individual life may take is unknowable, both to society and to an individual themself, even if the individual has attempted suicide. Negate this, and all human rights are instantly negated, as now all there is, is predicting who might be better off dead, as there is after all, no point in prolonging their existence, and they should be encouraged or gently nudged to at least consider the path of least suffering, because this will end their pain and decrease the overall suffering of the humanity. This is all because we have deluded ourselves into thinking that we and they know how their lives will play out. We do not, and no one knows, and therefore they must have certain rights, to maximize the near infinite potentiality of the individual human.

Society and government must not ever approve of this. I didn't believe euthanasia (and this is euthanasia, the real case is even worse than the original story) in the case of the terminally ill was a slippery slope, but then we get this case, seemingly out of nowhere, from an ostensibly enlightened, progressive, European country. I now see that making exceptions for the terminally ill is not safe, it just won't stop there.

And why is the approval of the laws and society sought anyway? Suicide is a mechanically trivial action. You can literally order poison hemlock off Amazon, no assistance is needed, and anyone committed to kill themselves obviously has no regard for their society, as they plan to deprive their community of any benefit they could have given it. Therefore, they should not expect society to sanction their ill-considered desires.

Dostoevsky predicted all of this 150 years ago. Read Crime and Punishment if you disagree with me, yet deign to consider yourself an intelligent, educated person.

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#39
post #26
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, I suspect the law has some provisions for determining the validity of a DNR based on the condition of the person at the time of signing it, in the same way it does for a will and testament.

Giving second parties control over the bodily autonomy of a first party because of second party opinions (with the notable bright line exception being first party acts of violence toward others) is not part of any society in which I wish to participate.

Say someone blackmails you to compel you to sign a DNR. Should that be considered valid? Or should another party be able to determine whether the legal order is valid?

Re: The Euthanasia That Wasn’t

#40

Not euthanasia, but how would you call it ? I mean sure, was she given a lethal injection in a clinic ? Well, no. Is this not euthanasia ? Why the hell not ? 1) the girl is in fact dead 2) because she wanted to die (after being locked up in youth services for years, including months in an isolation cell) 3) the "original event" is that she was ("probably") raped at school. Repeatedly. She has never divulged what actu…

Because euthanasia is a good thing, a mercy that you allow your fellow human being suffering the harshest of cruelties the world forces upon us, and this was not a good thing.

Euthanasia is saying we love you and there's nothing else left we can do to help you. What happened to this girl seems to be the opposite.

Post reply on HN