And unfortunately, not even suicide is an option in some cases.
My personal approach to, say, terminal cancer is to get doped up enough to get everything in order and then end it before the cancer can. Use the good weeks I have and avoid the long tail of suffering.
But if you’re ripped from a relatively healthy life by a stroke or accident, there’s nothing you could do.
Here in Germany, you can give a legally binding statement about what to do if you’re incapacitated (Patientenverfügung), but that doesn’t cover things like euthanasia, just organ donation, shutting off machines and stuff like that.
Nådestøt is a word we have in the Norwegian language, it means mercy-blow or mercy-stab.
It’s interesting to think centuries ago men were kinder to their enemies than we are to our sick and old.
They respected their enemies’ suffering and wishes, more-so than we respect the suffering and wishes of a patient today.
Oh I think we still respect that by and large. Ask any doctor or just, they’re 100% on board. And I’m pretty sure, most people are in favor too.
The problem is, that life as a concept is framed as so incredibly valuable, that every tiny hint there might be someone “rescueable” being euthanized is an argument for “slippery slope” and thus literally Hitler.
Your second statement is in conflict with your first. No, we don’t respect their suffering or their wishes. We have other priorities that completely supercede them.
What we do is pay lip service while completely overruling them in practice.
Of course this is a conflict, that’s my entire point.
Humans, and especially societies, are always full of internal inconsistencies. If everything would be logical and consistent, we wouldn’t need politicians.
You don’t get to hide behind this and stay cordial. You don’t get to excuse indifference and tolerance of forcefully overruling the deathwish of the suffering.
Your opinion means nothing. It’s fleeting, performative and inconsequential. You’re still accepting the restraints put upon the people who wish to die.
You personally are fine with people who restrain people who suffer and want to die to end it. You are fine with the enforcers of natural death being unyielding to the will of the restrained.
You don’t really give a shit.
You’re only temporarily acting like you’re on the right side because we’re currently having a conversation about it and the right and wrong of it is kind of obvious for the most part.
Public opinion overrules law if the public really cares. If it doesn’t, it’s not a democracy.
The public doesn’t care to right this wrong. You don’t care.
If you or I end up in that situation, if we end up deciding we want to end it, then no matter how much we want to die we won’t be allowed to.
If I really wanted to get the fuck out of there and find something to kill myself with I would be strapped down and force fed if necessary.
If I still had strength they’d get someone big and strong to physically hold me down as they strap me to the bed.
That’s not okay. That’s wrong.
And unfortunately, not even suicide is an option in some cases.
My personal approach to, say, terminal cancer is to get doped up enough to get everything in order and then end it before the cancer can. Use the good weeks I have and avoid the long tail of suffering.
But if you’re ripped from a relatively healthy life by a stroke or accident, there’s nothing you could do.
Here in Germany, you can give a legally binding statement about what to do if you’re incapacitated (Patientenverfügung), but that doesn’t cover things like euthanasia, just organ donation, shutting off machines and stuff like that.
Nådestøt is a word we have in the Norwegian language, it means mercy-blow or mercy-stab.
It’s interesting to think centuries ago men were kinder to their enemies than we are to our sick and old.
They respected their enemies’ suffering and wishes, more-so than we respect the suffering and wishes of a patient today.
Oh I think we still respect that by and large. Ask any doctor or just, they’re 100% on board. And I’m pretty sure, most people are in favor too.
The problem is, that life as a concept is framed as so incredibly valuable, that every tiny hint there might be someone “rescueable” being euthanized is an argument for “slippery slope” and thus literally Hitler.
Your second statement is in conflict with your first. No, we don’t respect their suffering or their wishes. We have other priorities that completely supercede them.
What we do is pay lip service while completely overruling them in practice.
Of course this is a conflict, that’s my entire point.
Humans, and especially societies, are always full of internal inconsistencies. If everything would be logical and consistent, we wouldn’t need politicians.
We. Do. Not. Reapect. Their. Wishes.
Period.
I used the word conflict and you latched onto it. The one you should have paid intention to was the word “supercede”.
You can throw semantic hissy fits as much as you want, that doesn’t change the reality.
We also respect other’s freedom of speech, unless it’s libel. We respect your right to roam wherever, unless it’s a restricted area.
And finally, the populations of many countries support e.g. abortions, but some countries restrict it anyway.
You seem not to understand the difference between public opinion and legislation.
Fuck you.
You don’t get to hide behind this and stay cordial. You don’t get to excuse indifference and tolerance of forcefully overruling the deathwish of the suffering.
Your opinion means nothing. It’s fleeting, performative and inconsequential. You’re still accepting the restraints put upon the people who wish to die.
You personally are fine with people who restrain people who suffer and want to die to end it. You are fine with the enforcers of natural death being unyielding to the will of the restrained.
You don’t really give a shit.
You’re only temporarily acting like you’re on the right side because we’re currently having a conversation about it and the right and wrong of it is kind of obvious for the most part.
Public opinion overrules law if the public really cares. If it doesn’t, it’s not a democracy.
The public doesn’t care to right this wrong. You don’t care.