You are missing the point. You are doing that right now. You are deciding that they shouldn’t die now, but later. You are deciding when other people should die.
By that logic I am deciding when an arbitrary number of people die by choosing not to kill them. I guess theres a sense in which thats technically correct, but it seems like its stretching the terminology a bit
Not at all. The default stance would be “I do not care one way or the other if someone has access to MAID.”
By taking a stance against MAID, you are in fact deciding that they should not be able to die now. No one is asking you to personally do the killing, but you take umbrage with the idea that it would be accessible to people, so you are therefore deciding that they should be die now, but later.
We already have a very dysfunctional healthcare system. It’s a real concern that people might turn to MAID because they cannot access healthcare. The article linked above cites at least one example of this. I think this concern is even greater with mental health cases, since our mental healthcare system is even more dysfunctional. Why are we offering MAID for people with mental health issues when we can barely offer proper healthcare for people with mental health issues? That’s a legitimate concern. If you want to frame that concern as me being as a nosey person who wants people to live in suffering then you can, but that’s not a very productive way to hold this conversation.
I am not advocating for a stance for or against MAID. I have not stated my position on it. All of my comments are pointing out a flaw in your argument that I observed.
My phrasing provides an accurate description of the situation. Perhaps you think it’s skimming over some nuance. But I’m phrasing it that way to draw attention to what kind of decision it is. I’m not sure if it’s a decision anyone should really be making outside of a wartime triage situation.
I never said it was a decision for just anyone or an easy one. I said it’s a decision that requires context and nuance.
It’s like deciding who gets donated organs, when does a doctor declare brain death, when do you shut off the machines or give a large morphine dose, etc.
They’re hard decisions. They need to be made with care.
This implies that we need to make these decisions. The other decisions you listed are decisions that we need to make. But who receives medical decision in dying is not a decision we need to make. That’s a decision we choose to make.
You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that’s clear
I will choose free will.
Deciding not to allow MAID is also deciding who lives and dies, and how. But denying people the right to die can be a cruelty all on its own. This is a decision we need to make. It’s healthcare, it’s quality of life, it’s managing suffering and pain with consent and thoughtfulness.
Deciding not to kill people is not deciding who dies. If this is really a decision we needed to make then it seems odd that nearly every other country in the would gets on fine without making it.
I can see you making a case that it’s merciful, but we also need to acknowledge the potential for abuse that does occur. Like the case article mentioned: the woman who applied for MAiD because she couldnt afford affordable housing accommodations that met her needs. Would this really a mercy killing, or just killing off our most vulnerable because we can’t be bothered to help them?
except it doesn’t just because maid has been authorized it automatically happens. that decision is as it has always been placed with the one asking for it.
That’s true, but it doesn’t contradict what I’m saying. The person making the decision is the patient, but someone does need to authorize it. And in authorizing it/not authorizing it, that physician is quite literally making a decision about who lives and dies.
I’m not really in the mood to keep going in circles about this.
then lets not circle back around to who is involved and look at the results of not allowing it. the alternative is failed suicide attempts and long term suffering. assuming we can treat or make people jump through hoops or find some kind of grand arbiter just prolongs suffering and helps us look the other way as we force people poorly trained or in immense pain to figure it out themselves or put themselves/others in legal jeopardy in addition to suffering. If I have the right to life as long as it is not at the expense of others than i have the right to end it.
This kind of seems like a better outcome to me though? Like, that’s better than a successful suicide attempt, no?
. . . and long term suffering
It’s not necessarily the case that someone with a mental illness is doomed to a life of extreme suffering. That’s an ablest mindset, and it does disservice to that community. When someone is in their darkest moment and unsure if things are going to get better, we should be giving them hope, not saying “you’re right, you’re doomed, but don’t worry you can kill yourself”.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean about the legal stuff.
To decide if the person should live or die?
Denying someone MAID is also deciding if the person should live or die. You just don’t like the “or die” part of that decision.
You are correct. I don’t trust people to decide when other people should die.
You are missing the point. You are doing that right now. You are deciding that they shouldn’t die now, but later. You are deciding when other people should die.
By that logic I am deciding when an arbitrary number of people die by choosing not to kill them. I guess theres a sense in which thats technically correct, but it seems like its stretching the terminology a bit
Not at all. The default stance would be “I do not care one way or the other if someone has access to MAID.”
By taking a stance against MAID, you are in fact deciding that they should not be able to die now. No one is asking you to personally do the killing, but you take umbrage with the idea that it would be accessible to people, so you are therefore deciding that they should be die now, but later.
We already have a very dysfunctional healthcare system. It’s a real concern that people might turn to MAID because they cannot access healthcare. The article linked above cites at least one example of this. I think this concern is even greater with mental health cases, since our mental healthcare system is even more dysfunctional. Why are we offering MAID for people with mental health issues when we can barely offer proper healthcare for people with mental health issues? That’s a legitimate concern. If you want to frame that concern as me being as a nosey person who wants people to live in suffering then you can, but that’s not a very productive way to hold this conversation.
I am not advocating for a stance for or against MAID. I have not stated my position on it. All of my comments are pointing out a flaw in your argument that I observed.
To decide whether their situation warrants MAID or not.
Yes, that is to decide who will live and who will die
Sure, go ahead and pretend there’s no nuance and phrase it that way.
My phrasing provides an accurate description of the situation. Perhaps you think it’s skimming over some nuance. But I’m phrasing it that way to draw attention to what kind of decision it is. I’m not sure if it’s a decision anyone should really be making outside of a wartime triage situation.
I never said it was a decision for just anyone or an easy one. I said it’s a decision that requires context and nuance.
It’s like deciding who gets donated organs, when does a doctor declare brain death, when do you shut off the machines or give a large morphine dose, etc.
They’re hard decisions. They need to be made with care.
This implies that we need to make these decisions. The other decisions you listed are decisions that we need to make. But who receives medical decision in dying is not a decision we need to make. That’s a decision we choose to make.
Deciding not to allow MAID is also deciding who lives and dies, and how. But denying people the right to die can be a cruelty all on its own. This is a decision we need to make. It’s healthcare, it’s quality of life, it’s managing suffering and pain with consent and thoughtfulness.
Deciding not to kill people is not deciding who dies. If this is really a decision we needed to make then it seems odd that nearly every other country in the would gets on fine without making it.
I can see you making a case that it’s merciful, but we also need to acknowledge the potential for abuse that does occur. Like the case article mentioned: the woman who applied for MAiD because she couldnt afford affordable housing accommodations that met her needs. Would this really a mercy killing, or just killing off our most vulnerable because we can’t be bothered to help them?
except it doesn’t just because maid has been authorized it automatically happens. that decision is as it has always been placed with the one asking for it.
That’s true, but it doesn’t contradict what I’m saying. The person making the decision is the patient, but someone does need to authorize it. And in authorizing it/not authorizing it, that physician is quite literally making a decision about who lives and dies.
I’m not really in the mood to keep going in circles about this.
then lets not circle back around to who is involved and look at the results of not allowing it. the alternative is failed suicide attempts and long term suffering. assuming we can treat or make people jump through hoops or find some kind of grand arbiter just prolongs suffering and helps us look the other way as we force people poorly trained or in immense pain to figure it out themselves or put themselves/others in legal jeopardy in addition to suffering. If I have the right to life as long as it is not at the expense of others than i have the right to end it.
This kind of seems like a better outcome to me though? Like, that’s better than a successful suicide attempt, no?
It’s not necessarily the case that someone with a mental illness is doomed to a life of extreme suffering. That’s an ablest mindset, and it does disservice to that community. When someone is in their darkest moment and unsure if things are going to get better, we should be giving them hope, not saying “you’re right, you’re doomed, but don’t worry you can kill yourself”.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean about the legal stuff.