Live data from Hacker News

Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?

nytimes.com

21–30 of 39 posts

Re: Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?

#21

The devil is in the (implementation) details. Canada has had some pretty serious abuses of their right to die system. Oregon's right to die somehow doesn't attract all that bad press. Maybe there's no perfect implementation for right to die, but it'd probably be better if the error fell to the side of "if in doubt, don't".

I would quintiple-check any such claims of abuse. It's usually just clickbait and outright lies.

Re: Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?

#22
post #3

Of course they do. Unless a person is clearly insane and unable to comprehend what they are doing. It is inhumane and cruel to prevent someone suffering like that from dying - the very thought of it almost makes me cry, and i'm not a very empathic person. And yes, mental illnesses are a particularly terrible case. Being insane does not mean not having a debilitating, painful and incurable - whether or not outright te…

>> But i understand that one is unapproachable because of immediate Aktion T4 = Nazi = BAD association and will probably remain so for a very long time.

IMHO this would not make the TOP 5 for reasons why people may consider this unapproachable.

Re: Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?

#23
This is much more nuanced than many people realize.

Assuming you want to commit suicide by a sensible cocktail of drugs: - something against the anxiety

- something that puts you into a deep sleep

- something against the muscle spasms

- something that stops your heart / breathing

From the top of my head that would be: - ketamine

- propofol / thiopental

- potassium chloride

Most of these things are not available legally, you need a doctor to help you acquire them.

To implement the protocol in a way that prevents unnecessary suffering you need someone to administer the injections, preferable a professional.

Last but not least you might not want to be alone, but be accompanied by loved ones.

All involved people might face criminal charges, in some jurisdictions even not trying to resuscitate would be a crime.

Re: Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?

#24
post #10
post #3

Of course they do. Unless a person is clearly insane and unable to comprehend what they are doing. It is inhumane and cruel to prevent someone suffering like that from dying - the very thought of it almost makes me cry, and i'm not a very empathic person. And yes, mental illnesses are a particularly terrible case. Being insane does not mean not having a debilitating, painful and incurable - whether or not outright te…

> Unless a person is clearly insane and unable to comprehend what they are doing Like the person in the article who obviously is suffering from purely psychosomatic issues.

So you want her to suffer? If so how much time should she suffer while trying to find a remedy to her illness, psychosomatic or not? 1 year? 5? 30 years of suffering every day?

Re: Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?

#25

This is much more nuanced than many people realize. Assuming you want to commit suicide by a sensible cocktail of drugs: - something against the anxiety - something that puts you into a deep sleep - something against the muscle spasms - something that stops your heart / breathing From the top of my head that would be: - ketamine - propofol / thiopental - potassium chloride Most of these things are not available legal…

Wouldn't an inert gas cylinder and a mask be sufficient? There's a history of accidents where victims suddenly pass out in enclosed, poorly-ventilated spaces (caves, etc), and even worse, people who go help them will themselves succumb to the same thing.

Re: Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?

#26
post #13

Lately I am becoming convinced everyone deserves the right to take their ball and go home. Maybe one day this will be considered an inalienable human right. But pushing people to take this decision should be criminalised as murder.

> I am becoming convinced everyone deserves the right to take their ball and go home.

But if people can decide to check out and do so painlessly, the Ponzi relying on everyone toiling and paying rent/taxes might collapse, so we can't have that!

Re: Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?

#27

The devil is in the (implementation) details. Canada has had some pretty serious abuses of their right to die system. Oregon's right to die somehow doesn't attract all that bad press. Maybe there's no perfect implementation for right to die, but it'd probably be better if the error fell to the side of "if in doubt, don't".

I would quintiple-check any such claims of abuse. It's usually just clickbait and outright lies.

Here's a pretty good article which is by no means exhaustive.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/06/canada-...

One of the more surprising stories about MAID involves a Canadian veteran and paralympic, who was entitled to have a wheel chair lift installed at her home, and was instead offered the equipment to end her life because the lift was too expensive. This was something Trudeau had to address:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/christine-...

Re: Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?

#28

This is much more nuanced than many people realize. Assuming you want to commit suicide by a sensible cocktail of drugs: - something against the anxiety - something that puts you into a deep sleep - something against the muscle spasms - something that stops your heart / breathing From the top of my head that would be: - ketamine - propofol / thiopental - potassium chloride Most of these things are not available legal…

Wouldn't an inert gas cylinder and a mask be sufficient? There's a history of accidents where victims suddenly pass out in enclosed, poorly-ventilated spaces (caves, etc), and even worse, people who go help them will themselves succumb to the same thing.

Even then you’d want a medical professional to supervise the procedure to ensure its efficacy, it being free from pain and avoid crippling but non lethal attempts.

Also not every person that expresses the desire to die should necessarily act upon that momentary desire.

By enabling a supervised procedure, that mandates counseling, such cases could be recognized.

Re: Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?

#29
post #5

Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die? Rights are not applicable here. How exactly would you stop them from self termination?

I think this is an issue where formalities and details really matter quite a lot. Of course, it is not possible to absolutely prevent anyone from self-terminating if they are sufficiently motivated but "self-termination" tends to have legal/criminal aspects attached to it. Thought experiment: if it is decided that a person without a Terminal Illness indeed has a right to die "would this or would this not completely n…

I think this is an easy thought experiment. If a person is considered a danger to others and not just themselves then involuntary hold is warranted given that the alternative often ends in termination by cop to protect the public. If they are only a danger to themselves then there would no longer be a need for involuntary hold if the only danger is truly just to themselves and in reality it isn't really even a danger given they consented to it whereas harm to the public can not be consented to. This is one of the rare cases where it is really their body, their choice.

Re: Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?

#30

This is much more nuanced than many people realize. Assuming you want to commit suicide by a sensible cocktail of drugs: - something against the anxiety - something that puts you into a deep sleep - something against the muscle spasms - something that stops your heart / breathing From the top of my head that would be: - ketamine - propofol / thiopental - potassium chloride Most of these things are not available legal…

It is not terribly complicated for most people given access to the right drugs. Right to die groups in Switzerland successfully use a single large dose of a barbiturate, either injected or taken orally (in the latter case, an antiemetic is usually also given to prevent vomiting). Barbiturates are also favored, where available, for medically assisted dying in the United States.

The larger problem is access to the drugs. Barbiturates are not favored for most other purposes due to the high abuse potential. I believe is why they are not recommended for this purpose in Canada, for example.

Post reply on HN