You can always pick an extreme example of drooling, pants-shitting, etc. etc. But the problem is that "option to die" usually morphs into "duty to die" and then into "involuntarily dying."
“Usually” is doing a metric shit-tonne of work there.
Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws
11–20 of 247 posts
Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws
#12You can always pick an extreme example of drooling, pants-shitting, etc. etc. But the problem is that "option to die" usually morphs into "duty to die" and then into "involuntarily dying."
Does it now? Can you cite any examples?
Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws
#13Quoted post unavailable.
How is it an example of mediocrity?
Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws
#14Quoted post unavailable.
I love how the conversation inevitably turns into “Torturing your grandma is evil!” vs “They're coming to kill your babies!”.
Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws
#15Quoted post unavailable.
Not sure what's mediocre about euthanasia, but I'd be curious to read about your past writings on this tendency towards mediocrity.
Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws
#16Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws
#17No post body was provided.
Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love how the conversation inevitably turns into “Torturing your grandma is evil!” vs “They're coming to kill your babies!”.
Quoted post unavailable.
I do not have to agree with anything you said, to admit that the Slippery Slope should probably be taken off the fallacies list at this point.
Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws
#19> The law was later amended to allow people who are not terminally ill to choose death, significantly broadening the number of eligible people. Critics say that change removed a key safeguard aimed at protecting people with potentially years or decades of life left. Here's the thing. If I want to die at 80 because I don't want to live past that point, that is my choice. Even if I have no "illness". If I don't want to…
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.
Re: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws
#20> The law was later amended to allow people who are not terminally ill to choose death, significantly broadening the number of eligible people. Critics say that change removed a key safeguard aimed at protecting people with potentially years or decades of life left. Here's the thing. If I want to die at 80 because I don't want to live past that point, that is my choice. Even if I have no "illness". If I don't want to…
> 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).