i always said suicide shouldnt be such a federal issue. whats the big deal if people wanna dip early. life really aint that precious. i think if u stubbed ur toe in the morning and decide youve had it you should be able to go to the suicide clinic and check out.
ive spent half my life waiting for someone to convince me otherwise
like as long as there arent loopholes so that people cant go around "suiciding people", and obviously medical facilities need to be able to be able to maintain a good reputation. but as long as these two issues are ironed out i say open season.
i dont have the book so i cant cite the quote but one of my stoicism dudes agrees: "live if it suits you, if not you can go back where you came from"
Ultimately, if you want to commit suicide, there is nothing to stop you. But as soon as you start including other people in the process, it gets suspicious.
They can try to stop you but unless they take away all the tall buildings and the petrol cars and the paracetamol they are not gonna succeed. They can try to talk you out of it but that's a good thing, I think.
An excellent summary of the situation. Like you I hope in Britain we’ll be able to find a sensible middle way. A free vote is a good start.
Canada does seem to be a good case study for the slippery slope side. I wasn’t aware of the Oregon legislation, which seems thorough and defensible. The Canada stats are widely quoted by those against. Are there any Oregon equivalents?
Wiki also reports on the impact more widely which, again, heads off most of the slippery slope arguments.
> An independent study published in the October 2007 issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics reports there was "no evidence of heightened risk for the elderly, women, the uninsured, people with low educational status, the poor, the physically disabled or chronically ill, minors, people with psychiatric illnesses including depression, or racial or ethnic minorities, compared with background populations."
The reason abortion in America became such a totemic culture war issue is precisely because the issue was taken away from politicians in Roe v Wade. It meant that Republicans could say whatever they liked about abortion without ever having to deal with the consequences of those ideas being placed into law. As soon as they could put their views onto the statute books, it became clear quite how devastatingly unpopular their position was.
Right. I agree that having the court decide gives the politicians a way to posture without consequences.
It's interesting that the right to die in Canada was imposed by their supreme court, not by politicians. I wonder if that's what's causing their MAiD laws to extend so far beyond everyone else's.
I think you and I share a lot of perspectives, but I don’t agree with this:
> It is still necessary in America to have a strong opinion on abortion and a moderate opinion might cause you to be excluded from polite society.
I think this perspective is common among people outside the U.S. about the U.S., but I have never felt pressed, or felt the desire to press someone else to take a hard line on abortion. I am unequivocally moderate on the issue. I’d argue that polite society, whatever that might mean here, is more likely to recognize how it is reasonable to hold positions on either side of an issue that is rife with gray areas.
When I was younger and knew college-aged women who’d had accidental pregnancies and had chosen to abort, their more conservative friends did not chastise or condemn them but were sympathetic to their plight. The tendency I saw was that regardless of politics, people generally saw it as a miserable situation where there were no good options. Of course if one’s version of America relies on media portrayals, such bland compassion and understanding does not make for compelling news and isn’t routinely reported.
I don’t have the breadth of experience you do, but I lived happily in the UK for a short while and love the people there.
It isn’t a popular or marketable perspective, but I do believe part of the impression people get of the U.S. as a hopelessly divided nation is a result of the amount of interest that is generated by portraying it that way. The U.S. continues to make all kinds of errors for which I apologize as a citizen, but it’s possible that differences of opinion within our borders aren’t quite as insoluble as they may increasingly appear.
Because those who oppose it leap straight to religion so there’s no rational discussion with them and those who support it have become equally zealous and dismiss the many legitimate concerns about safeguarding the elderly, where to draw the line, how mental illness factors in and other issues that are real no matter how many activists try to pretend they’re not
But I’m guessing the replies to this post will prove my point that the people who want us to ‘talk about’ this issue actually mean they want us to shut up and listen
I am quietly confident that Parliament will end up in the right place on this one despite the media's worst efforts.
I just read this amazing post about how the modern media’s pursuit of controversy over rational debate poisons everything. I hope rational debate prevails.
So a reasonable attempt to incorporate all views, not just parrot the focus group tested lines of the activists on both sides
I used to be a kneejerk supporter of legalised assisted dying but the more I learn about the places it’s actually in place the more certain I become that real safeguards with teeth need to be a part of this. But sadly we live in an era where in the culture wars on any issue compromise is seen as selling our and the activists go fully extreme every time
Letting people die with dignity when it’s their choice sounds so simple and right in theory, in the real world it’s a practice filled with disturbing outliers and real genuine issues that need to be discussed maturely, rationally and with respect, I don’t see a desire to do that on either side
i always said suicide shouldnt be such a federal issue. whats the big deal if people wanna dip early. life really aint that precious. i think if u stubbed ur toe in the morning and decide youve had it you should be able to go to the suicide clinic and check out.
ive spent half my life waiting for someone to convince me otherwise
like as long as there arent loopholes so that people cant go around "suiciding people", and obviously medical facilities need to be able to be able to maintain a good reputation. but as long as these two issues are ironed out i say open season.
i dont have the book so i cant cite the quote but one of my stoicism dudes agrees: "live if it suits you, if not you can go back where you came from"
Ultimately, if you want to commit suicide, there is nothing to stop you. But as soon as you start including other people in the process, it gets suspicious.
wrt including other people, sure it gets suspicious.
but wrt your first point, if you want to commit suicide there are hundreds of things at least trying to stop you
They can try to stop you but unless they take away all the tall buildings and the petrol cars and the paracetamol they are not gonna succeed. They can try to talk you out of it but that's a good thing, I think.
An excellent summary of the situation. Like you I hope in Britain we’ll be able to find a sensible middle way. A free vote is a good start.
Canada does seem to be a good case study for the slippery slope side. I wasn’t aware of the Oregon legislation, which seems thorough and defensible. The Canada stats are widely quoted by those against. Are there any Oregon equivalents?
There are. Overall the numbers in Oregon are much lower ("From the beginning of 1999 through the end of 2015, a total of 1,545 people - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Oregon_Ballot_Measure_16#Impact) and they are more likely to be cancer patients.
Wiki also reports on the impact more widely which, again, heads off most of the slippery slope arguments.
> An independent study published in the October 2007 issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics reports there was "no evidence of heightened risk for the elderly, women, the uninsured, people with low educational status, the poor, the physically disabled or chronically ill, minors, people with psychiatric illnesses including depression, or racial or ethnic minorities, compared with background populations."
The concern of some disabled people is that they will feel pressured into ending their lives in order to reduce the burden on their loved ones.
The reason abortion in America became such a totemic culture war issue is precisely because the issue was taken away from politicians in Roe v Wade. It meant that Republicans could say whatever they liked about abortion without ever having to deal with the consequences of those ideas being placed into law. As soon as they could put their views onto the statute books, it became clear quite how devastatingly unpopular their position was.
Right. I agree that having the court decide gives the politicians a way to posture without consequences.
It's interesting that the right to die in Canada was imposed by their supreme court, not by politicians. I wonder if that's what's causing their MAiD laws to extend so far beyond everyone else's.
ah, abortion was america's brexit, i see
I think you and I share a lot of perspectives, but I don’t agree with this:
> It is still necessary in America to have a strong opinion on abortion and a moderate opinion might cause you to be excluded from polite society.
I think this perspective is common among people outside the U.S. about the U.S., but I have never felt pressed, or felt the desire to press someone else to take a hard line on abortion. I am unequivocally moderate on the issue. I’d argue that polite society, whatever that might mean here, is more likely to recognize how it is reasonable to hold positions on either side of an issue that is rife with gray areas.
When I was younger and knew college-aged women who’d had accidental pregnancies and had chosen to abort, their more conservative friends did not chastise or condemn them but were sympathetic to their plight. The tendency I saw was that regardless of politics, people generally saw it as a miserable situation where there were no good options. Of course if one’s version of America relies on media portrayals, such bland compassion and understanding does not make for compelling news and isn’t routinely reported.
I agree with you on this. Perhaps I was being flip or thinking of politicians when I referred to polite society.
FWIW I lived in the USA for 25 years and only came back to England recently.
I don’t have the breadth of experience you do, but I lived happily in the UK for a short while and love the people there.
It isn’t a popular or marketable perspective, but I do believe part of the impression people get of the U.S. as a hopelessly divided nation is a result of the amount of interest that is generated by portraying it that way. The U.S. continues to make all kinds of errors for which I apologize as a citizen, but it’s possible that differences of opinion within our borders aren’t quite as insoluble as they may increasingly appear.
The general answer is no
Because those who oppose it leap straight to religion so there’s no rational discussion with them and those who support it have become equally zealous and dismiss the many legitimate concerns about safeguarding the elderly, where to draw the line, how mental illness factors in and other issues that are real no matter how many activists try to pretend they’re not
But I’m guessing the replies to this post will prove my point that the people who want us to ‘talk about’ this issue actually mean they want us to shut up and listen
I am quietly confident that Parliament will end up in the right place on this one despite the media's worst efforts.
I just read this amazing post about how the modern media’s pursuit of controversy over rational debate poisons everything. I hope rational debate prevails.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-147581101
Yes but the key word is debate
So a reasonable attempt to incorporate all views, not just parrot the focus group tested lines of the activists on both sides
I used to be a kneejerk supporter of legalised assisted dying but the more I learn about the places it’s actually in place the more certain I become that real safeguards with teeth need to be a part of this. But sadly we live in an era where in the culture wars on any issue compromise is seen as selling our and the activists go fully extreme every time
Letting people die with dignity when it’s their choice sounds so simple and right in theory, in the real world it’s a practice filled with disturbing outliers and real genuine issues that need to be discussed maturely, rationally and with respect, I don’t see a desire to do that on either side