Who decides on the duration of the waiting period? Why can’t people be in charge of their own lives? Especially people in their 80s, they have earned the right to agency.
It reminds me of OB/GYN providers that deny childless women sterilization procedures – even when they are in their 30s – ostensibly on the risk that the woman might change their mind about having children. Some people know things for certain and there is a 0% chance they are going to change their mind.
Yes, irreversible decisions warrant deep consideration. But denying a full grown adult control over their life decisions is cruel and unduly authoritarian.
If you walk in very drunk asking to be euthanised, one would hope that they would have to wait until you are no longer drunk to confirm you really want to be euthanised. Then, who decides on the waiting period?
Likewise if a traumatic event clouds your judgement (as some events can do), it's not unreasonable to make you wait until your judgement is sound. Then someone has to decide on the waiting period.
Potentially this can be studied statistically. Just collect data regularly after an event (such as binge drinking event) to evaluate how quickly people's judgement stabilises. That way we may find that the death of a spouse doesn't cloud the judgement, in which case the waiting period is 0.
Convincing your drunk friend to go to the suicide clinic and kill himself is the absolute pinnacle of "thing that's the most hilarious thing in the world while you're smashed but is absolutely horrifying the second you wake up the next morning".
Anecdotally, I've heard that there's a strong link between heavy boozing and suicide, especially via firearm. One wonders if it's determined people needing courage, or drunk people becoming determined.
You can't access MAID in Canada any faster than 90 days unless you are at immediate risk of losing your faculties such that you couldn't make the choice. You need multiple specialists to assess you and sign off on it etc.
Why do you assume he did? Specifically, why do you assume he started it in response to his wife's death rather than completed it in response to his wife's death?
> why do you assume he started it in response to his wife's death rather than completed it in response to his wife's death?
Are you saying if someone buys a rope and ties a noose, then lets it sit there for at least 90 days, then they can use it to hang themself after a bad day and that's not suicide in reaction to the bad day?
I'm not sure, I assume good faith on HN, so I'd guess that it was in the works for a a while? But yeah, it's 100% not a process that can be done in a week, like, for sure.
Absolutely. The thing is, guyzero told a nice little story in which the speed and seamlessness of the process were portrayed as a positive aspect. If it turns out those details were completely incorrect, then he was being extremely misleading with the way he told that story, and any emotional feel-goods one might get from it should be just as invalid as negative knee-jerk reactions.
That tends to not be what happens-- instead, the correction is used as a rebuttal against people who don't like it, but the correction and its implications aren't considered by people who liked how the story went in the first place. Even now, that comment is the top one in this thread, and it has not been edited to add any additional clarification or corrections.
Is there any country in the world with laws allowing assisted dying that actually allows what you describe, or is it a fantasy that’s irrelevant to the actual policies we’re discussing?
The user you're responding to is very clearly presenting a hypothetical argument, not something that actually exists.
The GP asked "Who decides on the duration of the waiting period? Why can’t people be in charge of their own lives?"
And the OP is making that point that (a) there must be someone in a position to make that decision, and that (b) there must be some waiting period.
In fact, if as you imply there are no countries that allow walk-in assisted euthanasia, that's a point in favor of the OPs point, because it suggests that we do widely recognize that there have to be some limits to individual freedom in this area.
i dont think id characterize those as limits on individual freedom, as much as a requirement of individual freedom. you actually have to want it, vs a whim where you might be drunk and not make the choice you wanted
Yes, it's true that for the choice to be a free one you have to actually want it, but making another person the arbiter of that reduces freedom insofar as there will be people who do freely want it and are forced to wait, or who freely want it and are rejected due to being able to prove they want to to the arbiter's satisfaction.
Making sure someone has actually done the deep consideration necessary for an informed decision of a certain magnitude is not cruel, authoritarian, or denying anyone their agency. It's simply making sure they're actually using their agency.
Requiring someone be of sound mind before making permanent decisions is reasonable and pretending it's not only makes it possible for people to make permanent -- and in this case, deadly -- mistakes because you don't want to inconvenience someone else.
Like you said, if you're 100% clear headed and you know you want to die, you'll be able to do it in two weeks just the same as you could in one. If you're going to have euthanasia it's more important to me that it be absolutely clear the people doing it are capable of making that decision in that moment than making it as easy and quick as possible. If you're not of clear mind to make the decision in the first place, you're not of clear mind to make the decision not to. Whether you said six months or a year ago that you want to die when your wife dies is irrelevant, you don't have the mental faculties at that moment to confirm you want to do it.
And this isn't choosing to end your life in isolation, this is asking someone else to kill you. They have the right to know that there is as little chance as possible you would regret this a week, month, or year from now if given the opportunity.
> Yes, irreversible decisions warrant deep consideration.
I think you’ve answered your own question there. Deep consideration is not usually something done quickly, and arguably depth of consideration improves when others are involved to provide additional perspectives.
“People should be in charge of their own lives” sounds superficially like an appealing principle, and in an abstract sense is a worthy one - but reality is messy at the edges, and we know that the concept of informed consent has nuances. There are many circumstances where it would be unethical to grant someone’s request even if they swear blind that it’s what they really want.
The same reason that pills come in blister packs and bridges have nets-if you add a delay to methods for ending one's life, a significant portion of people change their minds.
One is to prevent unsupervised actions from taking place. This is usually to empower younger people to reconsider.
The other is supervised. This is usually to empower older to people to consider their options.
We can agree to disagree on what supervision means, but a bridge net and a mandatory process without a (subjective) additional waiting period, are very different situations to me.
Would you feel the same way if the waiting period were objective? Say a study was performed with varying wait periods, the percentage of people who changed their minds and opted out was tracked, and the final length was set somewhere on this curve to minimize both the delay and the number of people who may have changed their minds. There are ethical problems with that precise setup, but you get the idea.
The human psyche is a frail and changeable thing-a pause in a long-held mental routine can lead to greater consideration at any age, not just for the young.
The issue is that every OB/GYN has seen patients that regret the decision. And for most they will have seen instances where that regret ultimately led to suicide.
Do you really want to be the doctor that didn't press for more consideration for a patient that ultimately takes their own life?
I get the idea of giving women control but as a doctor it's also their right to refuse a procedure to not bear that burden. It's similar to the theory of justice that states it's better for 99 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent person to be punished.
It's easier to deal with a lot of angry patients vs one that commits suicide.
At least with the euthanasia there's not really going to be any rebounding patient regret to deal with!
How common is this, really? I think you would have to weigh the chances of someone going through multiple specialists (psych evaluation, obgyn, possible other referrals) over the course of months and then magically they come to regret the procedure well into their full adulthood? At that point you might as well say that people shouldn’t be allowed cosmetic surgery, lasik, or braces.
It’s not common at all - on the contrary, the majority of ob-gyns have never seen a patient return and express regret about their voluntary sterilization, let alone know of one who was driven to suicide by it. I don’t know how this commenter came up with the idea.
Everyone should be in charge of their own lives. Except doctors, who should shut the fuck up and do as their told. And people with moral and religious objections who should shut the fuck up and keep paying for this. And people who’d like to sell a kidney, who should shut the fuck up and understand that it’ll be taken after they’re dead when it’s of no value to them.
Nobody's forcing people with religious or moral objections to commit suicide. If they object to paying for others to do so, then they can stand with the people who have similar objections to paying for a military. Or with the people wondering why the churches those religions people belong to aren't paying taxes.
I don't even know where you're going with that kidney comment.
> Why can’t people be in charge of their own lives?
I think the obvious counterpoint is that MAID is about people enlisting others to help kill them, which is no longer merely "being in charge of their own lives".
Right, but if the vending machines with suicide pills are specifically for suicide, then the help of others is still very much necessary. And of course, you'd want to prevents kids and drunk people from using the machines, so you'd need some kind of a gatekeeper.
And that point you've ended up right back at MAID.
Even with a pill machine every person involved in the process of setting is facilitating each suicide. This is not the same as recognizing that someone who hangs themselves has a right to do so.
The question is just as much about us as it is about them.
I guess there are many perspectives on this; these are questions that touches on many serious ethical and philosophical topics: health care, the value of life, death, autonomy, ...
There is a tendency in our time to think about all issues in terms of economy. I think that's wrong, that we shouldn't think about life and death as economical questions, that it is a reductive discourse. Others might disagree, of course
For example, is this really a question about being in charge of one's own life or about what services that should be offered in a society? I guess that's also a link to the OB/GYN example you give; at least some health care professionals might think it is unethical to damage an organ or body that's working: primum non nocere
Others, who have another philosophical view on what health care is, may say that the society should offer the services that people want or need
Grown adults are prevented from making decisions all the time. Wearing a seat belt for example. Why should it be OK to force someone to wear a seat belt all of the time, but not OK to have a waiting period if someone decides they want to die?
Well, partially, because it’s hell on the first responders to have to clean up a fatal accident scene, which is made worse if the death(s) could have been prevented.
I don’t disagree, but you are making the case for regulating grown adults. For the parent post “who decides how long the waiting period should be?” The answer is society. Right now society says none, but it shouldn’t be looked upon in horror if that changes. If I had to choose, I’d choose seat belts optional over on-demand euthanasia.
> But denying a full grown adult control over their life decisions is cruel and unduly authoritarian.
You’re assuming a clear state of mind and perfect circumstances. Suicidal thoughts are very common in depression. I would say giving people with depression access to euthanasia is more cruel than forcing them to seek help. Suicidal thoughts are also common in people who are struggling financially or people who have curable ailments but no access to healthcare. I would also say letting people kill themselves because they are poor is also much more cruel than denying them euthanasia.
Bodily autonomy is important but we still require you wear seatbelts when you drive.
Well, any person involved in the process of making something real? And that would include doctors right? Why doesn't doctor/health professionals opinion matters if they are the ones actually executing the request?
Full-grown adults in a society don't live alone - others opinion matters too.
Should the doctor have control over his life? Or just his patients?
And how exactly is the doctor supposed to distinguish between those who have a “0%” chance of changing their mind and those who have a 1% or 5% or 10% chance of changing their mind?
It reminds me of OB/GYN providers that deny childless women sterilization procedures – even when they are in their 30s – ostensibly on the risk that the woman might change their mind about having children. Some people know things for certain and there is a 0% chance they are going to change their mind.
Yes, irreversible decisions warrant deep consideration. But denying a full grown adult control over their life decisions is cruel and unduly authoritarian.