this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
105 points (93.4% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35927 readers
899 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Asking legitimately not as a joke

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world 5 points 19 hours ago

I personally believe we should have the right to die, moreso as an individual choice than one a relative should make. We as individuals, who did not consent to living in this absolutely broken society, should have every right to just say one day, "Y'know what, I've had enough, I'm done." This comment will likely be controversial, and I am not encouraging anyone to commit suicide, seek help where and how you can, suicide can be a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

A friend of mine told me once she considered those who commit suicide (outside of terminal illness) to be cowards, taking the "easy" way out and leaving their loved ones to suffer. I argued back that how is it unacceptable for loved ones to suffer, but it's perfectly acceptable for the individual to suffer to keep the loved ones comfortable? And that's what mental health (tin foil hat time) is entirely about: not comfort for the individual, but comfort for the society.

It doesn't matter if you are completely disenfranchised with society, struggling to make ends meet, working multiple jobs with no benefits, eating the same meal 2-3 times a day every day to save money, none of that matters because you're not contributing to society/capitalism they way you're supposed to. When the VA was trying to force me onto SSRIs despite my objections due to the side effects they can have, I told them flat out I wasn't taking a pill just so I could be "productive" for a society that will let me die in the streets at the earliest and cheapest convenience. And no "pill" is going to fix how sick and broken we are as a society.

We as a species weren't designed for this kind of society, we're an analog species trying to adapt to a digital world we haven't had time to properly adjust to. We aren't designed to work 40 hours/week, 8 hours/day, 50+ weeks per year. We aren't designed to work ourselves to exhaustion and forego social interactions in the pursuit of more money to try and keep the lights on. And we are watching the largest transfer of wealth to the ultra-wealthy, making the Gilded Age look like child's play.

So I guess, to sum it up: I think everyone should have the right to end their own life, regardless of the reason, but I don't believe anyone should have the right to end someone else's life outside of already-established practices (DNR orders, "pulling the plug" as PoA, etc). We are too broken as a society to trust ourselves to choose when others should die, but we should absolutely be allowing individual's to end their own lives.

[–] pixeltree@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

From the perspective of someone who generally would prefer not to exist, because I don't trust my brain to make that decision. How we perceive reality can vary incredibly from it, suicide can seem not only an appropriate response to your situation but the only way to escape it one day, only to have the next day feel nowhere near as bad. In short, requiring other people's input and approval on your decision to die is a good thing. Medical assistance in dying SHOULD be legal and available everywhere, but it's important to make sure it's actually appropriate.

[–] r0ertel@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago

Good point about our perception of reality. If we have drugs available to us that can make us perceive reality as not that bad (or even good), then what if it's just a defect in our bodies that makes us feel like life isn't worth living? If our bodies are simply defective in producing the mood balancing hormones, then depression or other mood disorders can be treated with medicines, no different than taking a Tums when we overindulge on Thanksgiving.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago

So I want to start with the pretext that I’m a lifelong defender of euthanasia. I’ve watched my mom slowly die of brain cancer as she lost function.

That said, euthanasia is easy to combine with removal of the autonomy of the disabled and can lead to very bad places. Especially since less severely disabled people is a positive incentive for governments.

[–] leftytighty@slrpnk.net 1 points 20 hours ago

A person's relationship with their life is an interesting thing philosophically. You can't consent to it, and most of us feel you can't easily give it up either.

I don't believe this myself but you could rationally argue that having life and being required to keep living is a violation of your agency as a human being.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 127 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

I fully support being able to choose to end your own life with dignity. But in Canada there were reports of people encouraging the homeless and severely ill to do it, simply because it was cheaper and easier for the institutions if these people killed themselves.

Within a capitalist society, where the lives of those who do not produce profit are not valued, it can lead to some sickening discriminatory behavior from profit-driven institutions.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world -4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

How many of those people being encouraged are actually doing it tho? That should be the main issue, not the fact that people are encouraging them.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago

Nope. Bad take.

[–] grandkaiser@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

within a capitalist society

Besides slavery, I cannot think of any successful societal system to date that did not prioritize rewarding the productive and/or powerful. Not saying that you're wrong, just that it's far from exclusive to capitalism. (The bar for "success" here being a society that exists over many generations)

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago (12 children)

Socialism and communism are specifically designed to put the needs of the people first. ‘From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.’

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 59 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Misuse, or misjudging when to use it.

[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Exactly, if it's going to be a policy it needs to have extensive safeguards. Who can make the call? Under what circumstances? What are the consequences for malpractice?

Imagine a shitty person, insurance company or hospital preferring to prematurely kill you or someone you love because it's less effort and cheaper than trying to keep a person alive and help them recover. Because you know someday somebody will try

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

That's a good reason to have a process for euthanization that is as thorough as the one for letting people die slowly by cutting off feeding tubes or machines that assist with bodily functions. Or even like the Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) choice that people can make when they are of sound mind.

It is not a good reason to ban it and make everyone else suffer by dragging out death when it is an inevitability and the person is ready to go.

[–] schwim@lemm.ee 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Anyone can already euthanize themselves. We're all just a helium or nitrogen tank and trash bags away from our exit stage right.

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

“Oh you’re disabled and can’t work”

Let’s make disability benefits super low, so you are unable to survive, thereby you have to “choose” euthanasia.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 10 points 1 day ago

Current socio economic regime already works like this, at least within US and other third world locations, people are just in denial about it.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 30 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

For the record, I'm all for the right to medically and painlessly end one's own life if they so choose. That said...

It could potentially be abused in situations where someone has power of attorney or some other situation where they can make medical decisions on your behalf. That seems like a pretty easy thing to guard against, though.

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The sick and elderly may feel pressure to not be a burden to others.

[–] TokenEffort@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Do they not already? I work out a lot to prevent myself from being a burden if I'm older

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 11 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Overall yes, but that pressure might be magnitudes greater when there is "an easy way out".

[–] DrownedRats@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Again, there already is an easy way out. All that would change is the manner in which is happens and whether it happens professionally or not.

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 1 points 2 hours ago

There is an ever so slight difference between the appeal of jumping off a building, slitting your wrists, overdosing on some self-made drug cocktail, ... and having a professional inject you a syringe of carefully dosed substances which will make you comfortable drift off into the eternal void. Not just for the patient, but also everyone around them. In the past, I had to comfort a friend who was severely traumatised after a patient of hers jumped out of the hospital's window after receiving a terminal cancer diagnosis.

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 days ago (3 children)

And what is wrong with that?

I'll gladly remove myself and the burden of caring for me if it comes to an incurable illness. Better I leave my wife with more resources than drain all those and still leave.

And argon or nitrogen can easily be had at welding supply stores.....

load more comments (3 replies)

The hospital industrial complex doesn't get to make ass loads of money from keeping people alive just to suffer.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Choosing for yourself if you're of sound mind, I have no problem with.

Others choosing for you is rife with problems. Taking out family because they don't like you, you're too needy for them, to get at your will, etc etc.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

For assisted suicide, I think you just need to make sure it's the only option left to stop or prevent the suffering of a person (like an incurable disease, or debilitating conditions with no cure, etc.). You also need to make sure the choice is made with enlightened consent.

To allow someone to kill someone else is another level of complexity. The processes of gathering consent, and the reasons to proceed are extremely complex to make sure the decision is taken within the bounds of actual consent, especially if the person to be killed is not conscious or in a capacity to understand.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

In terms of yourself, it already effectively is legal. When was the last time someone was prosecuted for attempting suicide?

[–] cheers_queers@lemm.ee 7 points 1 day ago

that's the problem though. people try to do it themselves and often die painfully or survive with sometimes debilitating lifelong injuries. this way, it's on their terms but supervised by a doctor, and it's not a violent way to go.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

As a concept the idea of allowing total autonomy seems sound.

Implementing it as a practice where the government assists could see some perverse incentives to get people to kill themselves. Here's a real example

If the system can safeguard against these, perhaps, but it isn't a one and done safeguard but constant vigilance. Allowing others to put down people raises even more need for scrutiny.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

People with depression and other mental illnesses who aren't capable of making that decision will use it. It also makes it a lot easier to argue for cutting mental healthcare and other suicide prevention measures.

Honestly as someone who's struggled with depression for 20 years, and had a couple of attempts, the idea that the government may just decide there's no problem with me yeeting myself is terrifying.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›