PDA

View Full Version : Willful Euthanasia



Rudolf Miller
August 17 2012, 02:44:12 PM
It's getting more and more common, especially under baby boomer Americans, that there are clauses in wills that specify no intervention in medical emergencies, (DNR/DNI), no life sustaining treatments, and of course the less legal but more prevalent 'don't you ever put me in a nursing home' family discussions.

One thing that is currently frowned upon in society is a person's right to control their life in the sense that they want control before a medical emergency occurs. The key here is the medical emergency. Not everyone gets their medical emergency. Some people just slowly go downhill, taking quality of life with them. Yet they aren't allowed to discuss how their life will be managed.

My purpose of the discussion is this.. why is it that a person isn't allowed to set up quality of life parameters that don't need a medical emergency to come into effect?

Or a dirtier way to ask it, why isn't a person allowed to choose how/when they want to die that doesn't need an intervening medical emergency in old age.

Dark Flare
August 17 2012, 02:46:52 PM
Potential for abuse is the only counter argument I can see to allowing it. That and it'd be a shitty job for whoever was administering the lethal whatever.

KathDougans
August 17 2012, 03:08:11 PM
Not sure on this, but I think that in the UK, some >50% of the Health and Social security budgets are spent on older people. Maybe 100+ Bn total for those two things alone. Which is something like ~15% of the UK total government spending, I think ?

There'd be a fair amount of pressure on people to end things. The government would turn a blind eye, or make trivial statements, because the savings would be so large.

An older person, who may already be having feelings that they're being a burden on people, despite being in good health, may become more and more isolated and depressed.

Conversations may have meanings added to them.

"tax on petrol up again", "look at those house prices", can be read as "why aren't you dead yet? we could use your house" or similar.

Zeekar
August 17 2012, 03:24:52 PM
Its legal in Switzerland afaik. See how they perform and if there is no large scale abuse I really don't see why it shouldn't be allowed.

indi
August 17 2012, 03:41:59 PM
When certain conditions are met, it's legal in the Netherlands. One of those conditions is that there is 'suffering' that 'cannot be born' and without 'relief in sight'. Another is that the person requesting it is capable of doing so. The doctor has the right to decline, by the way. Not all doctors are willing to do this, and they should not be made to.

In cases like Alzheimer's it is possible to write up a document that states you want euthanasia to be performed under certain conditions, while you are still capable of this decision. Then it will be executed. It won't if you are far gone in dementia and 'would have wanted this', no matter how true it is.

I watched a harrowing documentary on CPR performed on the elderly. Many carry declarations that they too don't want this in case of a medical emergency. They end up with broken ribs and very few are revived. Those that are usually suffer from a life of severely lower quality. I think it's time we have the debate when a medical treatment 'makes sense', especially for elderly people. I'm not saying we should just let them die or suffer pain, but if you prolong the life of a 90 year old with 2 months (with corresponding low quality of life) for no reason other than that you can.. I don't know. The cost is rising enormously and I know I would not want it to happen to me.

Smegs
August 17 2012, 04:48:11 PM
It's your life, do with it as you will. As long as you are not hurting anyone else, as i see it, it's your choice.

ValorousBob
August 18 2012, 12:00:53 AM
I believe Oregon allows people to choose euthanasia under some strict guidelines. Multiple visits from a psychologist to determine sanity/consent and a year waiting period to rule out hasty decisions stick in my mind as the main requirements.

This idea is also the main source of the Obama Death Panel bullshit that was plastered all over the American news a while ago. The US has the same problem KathDougans described the UK as having. We spend disproportionately more on stalling death among the very elderly than we do on preventative care that would actually improve quality of life. The stats on how much we spend are out there, but it'd take some digging and I don't think you guys care that much about the exact numbers. Originally, the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) (http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vb8vs/eli5_what_exactly_is_obamacare_and_what_did_it/c530lfx) included a committee that would determine which procedures/medicines/surgeries are cost-ineffective/useless/pointless and not cover them under public insurance. It's still in there, but since ObamaCare was originally "single payer" I believe the committee now primarily just exempts private insurance from having to cover these services, but I'm not sure tbh. This concept of a committee used to save money/time is what the GOP/Fox exaggerated into Obama having a "Death Panel" that decided who lived and died or something.

As a result of that, I'm not sure if America will be able to have a serious conversation about willful euthanasia without someone connecting it to death panels. :-/



EDIT: Oh and as for my personal opinion on the matter, someones life being so shitty that they want to be euthanized just depresses the shit out of me. Philosophically speaking I see no reason you shouldn't have control over when your life ends. Practically speaking, my dad is sorta starting to get old and I know if he wanted to be euthanized it'd be really difficult. Personally, I think I'd rather live a full life, enjoy retirement, repair any damaged relationships, and then die unexpectedly so I wouldn't see it coming and the grief wouldn't be dragged out.

indi
August 18 2012, 02:12:55 PM
To add to ValorousBob's post: the euthanasia possibility has been here for many years now. I can't say that family members hinting "aren't you dead yet" hasn't happened yet since people are :people:, but this is certainly not the norm. A doctor would not agree to someone just requesting euthanasia as that certainly doesn't constitute the type of suffering required and he/she would face a stiff penalty (cases are routinely examined).

Euthanasia has happened - often and usually at request of patient - in the past and it continues to happen around the world. A sudden, painless death is what anyone would prefer but the truth is that that is not given to us all. I would draw comfort from the mere possibility of ending it if I could not bear it anymore, if I were ever in that situation.

SAI Peregrinus
August 19 2012, 01:43:52 AM
This is more my mother's specialty than mine. She's a member of the Kaiser Permanente Bioethics committee, and did her Master's thesis on Advance Directives and Do Not Resuscitate orders.

http://bioethicalmatters.com/?p=374
http://bioethicalmatters.com/?p=306
And quite a lot more on there.

Personally, I think voluntary autoeuthanasia should be allowed.

Cue1*
August 19 2012, 03:45:02 AM
This links into so many other debates and topics it's not even funny. The advancements in medicine that allow us to prolong human life so ridiculously long it's stupid are the same advancements we praise doctors for discovering/creating. It's also worth nothing that one of the big cloak and dagger groups that will be against this in every single way is the hospice profession, as something like this will basically put the entire profession into a serious depression.

Ethically, I'm on board with the it's your life crew. I have, and most likely always will believe in absolutely everyone's right to choice, personal liberties and all that jazz, but at what point is the line drawn?

Mynxee
August 20 2012, 02:55:17 PM
When certain conditions are met, it's legal in the Netherlands. One of those conditions is that there is 'suffering' that 'cannot be born' and without 'relief in sight'. Another is that the person requesting it is capable of doing so. The doctor has the right to decline, by the way. Not all doctors are willing to do this, and they should not be made to.

In cases like Alzheimer's it is possible to write up a document that states you want euthanasia to be performed under certain conditions, while you are still capable of this decision. Then it will be executed. It won't if you are far gone in dementia and 'would have wanted this', no matter how true it is.

I watched a harrowing documentary on CPR performed on the elderly. Many carry declarations that they too don't want this in case of a medical emergency. They end up with broken ribs and very few are revived. Those that are usually suffer from a life of severely lower quality. I think it's time we have the debate when a medical treatment 'makes sense', especially for elderly people. I'm not saying we should just let them die or suffer pain, but if you prolong the life of a 90 year old with 2 months (with corresponding low quality of life) for no reason other than that you can.. I don't know. The cost is rising enormously and I know I would not want it to happen to me.

If CPR must be administered, you are (in the words of my EMT instructor) already dead. The intent of CPR is to keep someone's brain viable until they can potentially be helped in a hospital setting. CPR rarely brings anyone "back to life"...I think I recall my EMT instructor talking about something like a 5% chance of that. As someone who's been in a situation of having to administer CPR to a very old, very ill person, I admit all I could think of was "Why the fuck are we doing this?! Let the poor woman go." On a lighter note, a friend's 90-something aunt didn't ever want that happening to her so she proudly announced and showed off her first tattoo, "Do Not Resuscitate" in Old English letters right across her bony old chest!

I'm a believer in an individual's right to end their life as they see fit, or to issue instructions beforehand making their wishes known. Besides legality issues in many states here in the U.S. I think what holds a lot of people back--both the individuals desiring release from life and anyone who might assist them--are concerns about negating life insurance payouts if a death is ruled a suicide. If palliative care that removes pain while awaiting a "natural" end means one's spouse gets a $500K life insurance payout as opposed to potentially $0 for willful overdosing that could be ruled a suicide, it's easy to see how conflicting the choices can be. And even if the law permits self- or assisted euthanasia, it may not mean that insurance providers have to change their policies. It may sound crass to think of financial matters in this context, but knowing their loved ones will be financially supported to some degree is often a matter of great concern and comfort to terminally ill people who have life insurance.

indi
August 20 2012, 07:24:43 PM
When certain conditions are met, it's legal in the Netherlands. One of those conditions is that there is 'suffering' that 'cannot be born' and without 'relief in sight'. Another is that the person requesting it is capable of doing so. The doctor has the right to decline, by the way. Not all doctors are willing to do this, and they should not be made to.

In cases like Alzheimer's it is possible to write up a document that states you want euthanasia to be performed under certain conditions, while you are still capable of this decision. Then it will be executed. It won't if you are far gone in dementia and 'would have wanted this', no matter how true it is.

I watched a harrowing documentary on CPR performed on the elderly. Many carry declarations that they too don't want this in case of a medical emergency. They end up with broken ribs and very few are revived. Those that are usually suffer from a life of severely lower quality. I think it's time we have the debate when a medical treatment 'makes sense', especially for elderly people. I'm not saying we should just let them die or suffer pain, but if you prolong the life of a 90 year old with 2 months (with corresponding low quality of life) for no reason other than that you can.. I don't know. The cost is rising enormously and I know I would not want it to happen to me.

If CPR must be administered, you are (in the words of my EMT instructor) already dead. The intent of CPR is to keep someone's brain viable until they can potentially be helped in a hospital setting. CPR rarely brings anyone "back to life"...I think I recall my EMT instructor talking about something like a 5% chance of that. As someone who's been in a situation of having to administer CPR to a very old, very ill person, I admit all I could think of was "Why the fuck are we doing this?! Let the poor woman go." On a lighter note, a friend's 90-something aunt didn't ever want that happening to her so she proudly announced and showed off her first tattoo, "Do Not Resuscitate" in Old English letters right across her bony old chest!

I'm a believer in an individual's right to end their life as they see fit, or to issue instructions beforehand making their wishes known. Besides legality issues in many states here in the U.S. I think what holds a lot of people back--both the individuals desiring release from life and anyone who might assist them--are concerns about negating life insurance payouts if a death is ruled a suicide. If palliative care that removes pain while awaiting a "natural" end means one's spouse gets a $500K life insurance payout as opposed to potentially $0 for willful overdosing that could be ruled a suicide, it's easy to see how conflicting the choices can be. And even if the law permits self- or assisted euthanasia, it may not mean that insurance providers have to change their policies. It may sound crass to think of financial matters in this context, but knowing their loved ones will be financially supported to some degree is often a matter of great concern and comfort to terminally ill people who have life insurance.

Nothing to add to the CPR thing. That aunt is a smart cookie :) There comes a time when the decision not to have that performed on you anymore is a valid one.

As for the suicide/money thing, I hadn't considered that. I'm pretty sure in most cases here it would not apply, as most of the 'unbearable suffering' is of the type that will result in death sooner rather than later. Euthanasia is also strictly speaking not suicide, here. Would have to look into it if you'd really want to know. I guess it means that when legislation is passed, it should be made to apply to insurances and all other related fields as well.

cheeba
August 20 2012, 09:58:37 PM
if you havent, watch this.


http://vimeo.com/25239708

Lallante
August 20 2012, 11:08:23 PM
Can we also have a thread about compulsory euthanasia?

Sacul
August 21 2012, 01:15:21 PM
Can we also have a thread about compulsory euthanasia?

fourfingersfrankie is the first in line?

This entire subject has had me puzzled for years seeing as we have the doctrine of 'autonomy of the body'.....just not when it comes to killing yourself in a decent and gracefull way.

Glad its decently organized in Holland.

Zeekar
August 21 2012, 01:21:14 PM
Can we also have a thread about compulsory euthanasia?

You can have it but I'm quite sure the general consensus would be against it. It is radically different to end your own life because of severe decline in your quality of life compared to a state ordered execution for what ever reason.

XenosisReaper
August 21 2012, 04:26:02 PM
if you havent, watch this.


http://vimeo.com/25239708

Stop reminding me...

Good video though

smuggo
August 21 2012, 07:29:03 PM
I think that there is too much suffering amongst children in the Far East.

[srs]

There's been a case in the UK surfaced again recently that piqued my interest (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19249680).
TL;DR a man left with 'locked in' syndrome after a stroke has been campaigning to allow someone to euthanise him without fear of prosecution. His case was knocked back by the High Court but no doubt he intends to appeal.

It's a really tragic case and I think a person who is suffering from an incurable physical ailment which drastically reduces his quality of life, should be allowed to control their fate and end their own life in a controlled and dignified way, and if they require assistance that should be given to them. However, as far as the 'establishment' is concerned it would open up a massive can of worms if this chap wins his case.

cheeba
August 27 2012, 11:47:12 AM
However, as far as the 'establishment' is concerned it would open up a massive can of worms if this chap wins his case.

Would it really? He could have gone to dignitas in switzerland. People in other countries like the netherlands can also end their own lives. States like Oregon and Washington also have rules allowing it and more states have proposals in the pipeline.

The guy was campaigning so he could end his life in the comfort of his own home, which I think should be a basic human right.

In the end the poor man committed suicide by refusing food. Really sad.

Jason Marshall
August 27 2012, 07:51:50 PM
If someone wants to die, then let them.

Also, if someone wants to put a DNR on file or on a wristband paramedics need to respect that. I would rather die than live a life with anymore medical debt.

Zeekar
August 27 2012, 07:59:09 PM
If someone wants to die, then let them.

Also, if someone wants to put a DNR on file or on a wristband paramedics need to respect that. I would rather die than live a life with anymore medical debt.

You should never have to think like that.

JForce
September 6 2012, 01:23:55 AM
I recommend anyone interested in this watch that Terry Pratchet video posted on page 1, it's great.

Some key points:

A person in the UK can't really do anything - same here in NZ. We've had a few people prosecuted here for helping their old parents etc to die, and even the prosecutors and everyone involved think that it's a dumb law - but the law is the law etc.

So the people in the video (Brits) go to Belgium where it's legal if you're a Belgian, but not for people outside. So they go to Dignitas in Switzerland. There are funny little things, like the place people die is in an Industrial area as it's not allowed in a residential area. There are multiple checks by Doctors and Shrinks etc, and the person has to be able to take the liquid themselves without help.

It's actually very odd watching a person die in a "normal" fashion (i.e. not an accident/sudden etc).

The key take-aways for me were that in Switzerland it's actually legal to end your life because you just don't want to live anymore. Doesn't have to be a medical thing, you can just give up and be over life, and end it.

The other thing I find interesting is that it's far more often (I would think) that people who don't plan ahead have issues - where they can't drink the liquid themselves, but someone else is trying to end their life on their behalf. This is where the majority of issues are I would think.

For me it's very simple - if someone wants to die, let them. I'm happy with a few checks in place to provide assistance should they just be having a shit time, but ultimately if that's what they want to do then go for it.

Hel OWeen
September 7 2012, 01:42:45 PM
This entire subject has had me puzzled for years seeing as we have the doctrine of 'autonomy of the body'.....just not when it comes to killing yourself in a decent and gracefull way.


+1

This seems so illogical.

To add absurdity to the matter: in Germany, suicide is a punishable crime ... go figure.

Don't take away that only remaining dignity and let me end my life in a way I choose. And if I'm not able to do it myself, help me do it, goddamnit!

Synapse
September 14 2012, 07:16:27 PM
I made this post for the stem cell thread but it fits better here.

I have long believed that people havent really come to terms with their power over life and death. Even though some people think they believe in life as sacred it's pretty clear to me that society has almost never acted on that belief.

We kill thousands in accidental wars, we make decisions like "if we stop the war now, it will kill more people than we're killing because it will become a civil war"

We have a level of killing that is acceptable for modern convenience, such as auto accidents. If everyone had to take the bus at a loss of convenience you could probably drop vehicle deaths near 0. But we're ok having those people die for economic and personal convenience. You can draw factory animal farming into this if it suits you. We're quite casual about killing other beings so we can eat them, even while every year another proposal of "this is what makes us special over animals" gets shown the door by another scientific study showing we're more similar than you think.

Similarly on the creation of life side. Having babies is just fucking casual. Sometimes literally. We let anyone make new lives, regardless of how horrible and short that life is likely to be.

Basically, life and death have been in each of our hands since the beginning. I think it would do humanity some good to look at that fact in the eye, come to terms with the reality that we kill other animals and our own on a regular basis as part of living, and that we create new lives with even less consideration.

A careful assessment of how to use these powers to best support the species and feed ourselves without pretending that every life is absolutely sacred would probably save a lot of real lives, give us a moral platform for the killing that must be done, and in the process allow most of us to face death with more dignity.

Al Simmons
September 30 2012, 04:23:27 PM
I made this post for the stem cell thread but it fits better here.

I have long believed that people havent really come to terms with their power over life and death. Even though some people think they believe in life as sacred it's pretty clear to me that society has almost never acted on that belief.

We kill thousands in accidental wars, we make decisions like "if we stop the war now, it will kill more people than we're killing because it will become a civil war"

We have a level of killing that is acceptable for modern convenience, such as auto accidents. If everyone had to take the bus at a loss of convenience you could probably drop vehicle deaths near 0. But we're ok having those people die for economic and personal convenience. You can draw factory animal farming into this if it suits you. We're quite casual about killing other beings so we can eat them, even while every year another proposal of "this is what makes us special over animals" gets shown the door by another scientific study showing we're more similar than you think.

Similarly on the creation of life side. Having babies is just fucking casual. Sometimes literally. We let anyone make new lives, regardless of how horrible and short that life is likely to be.

Basically, life and death have been in each of our hands since the beginning. I think it would do humanity some good to look at that fact in the eye, come to terms with the reality that we kill other animals and our own on a regular basis as part of living, and that we create new lives with even less consideration.

A careful assessment of how to use these powers to best support the species and feed ourselves without pretending that every life is absolutely sacred would probably save a lot of real lives, give us a moral platform for the killing that must be done, and in the process allow most of us to face death with more dignity.

This is a really good post. I think places like Switzerland, where someone has the right to euthansia, that seems much more dignified and respectful than here in the UK where someone like Tony Nicklinson has to have a long court battle to do what he wants with his own life.

Rudolf Miller
October 12 2012, 04:56:41 PM
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-10/09/assisted-suicide-study

Relevant

Crystalline Entity
October 15 2012, 09:42:31 AM
I support willful euthanasia but as has been raised, we can be as careful as possible, put in high social/mental checks in place but in some cases there will always be almost unconscious or very very very very mildly implied pressure. That is what the courts and legislators want to avoid.

Even a hint of somebody being pressured to end their life is morally repugnant, i think we could all agree on that. Imagine an older person in a care home with a reasonable to large amount of savings, could there be almost unconscious/inferred pressure?

I think the answer to this would be some very high hurdles to cross (interviews with 3 separate psychologist/psychiatrists with and without family there, medical experts/pain experts) in order to be able to end your own life. That way people could die at home with a court sanctioned medical professional observing proceedings and being surrounded by the love of their family as they peacefully drift away. Instead of :switzerland:

CE

Lallante
October 15 2012, 09:56:51 AM
You seem to be implying that "not wanting to burden others" is not a valid reason for wanting to kill oneself. I'm not sure I agree.

Crystalline Entity
October 15 2012, 10:37:40 AM
I suppose it could be a valid reason, but I am saying any pressure is not. A person must come to the view that they want to reduce the burden on their family themselves, it should not be suggested too them.

Lallante
October 15 2012, 06:58:40 PM
I suppose it could be a valid reason, but I am saying any pressure is not. A person must come to the view that they want to reduce the burden on their family themselves, it should not be suggested too them.

Fair enough

OrangeAfroMan
October 16 2012, 10:12:34 AM
To add absurdity to the matter: in Germany, suicide is a punishable crime ... go figure.


I haven't looked into this at all but I'm guessing it might have something to do with 'attempted suicide,' for the purposes of attention seeking. I see this at least once a day in the ER.

Also, +1 to Synapse

Jason Marshall
October 24 2012, 01:57:50 PM
I suppose it could be a valid reason, but I am saying any pressure is not. A person must come to the view that they want to reduce the burden on their family themselves, it should not be suggested too them.

This is where I am at. I have failed to break even in life. Its purely a financial/burden thing for me. If I am un-able to improve the life of those I love then I sure as hell will not let myself become a burden. The moment I'm confident Lisa will be able to handle life without me I will check myself out.

Varcaus
October 24 2012, 01:59:55 PM
I suppose it could be a valid reason, but I am saying any pressure is not. A person must come to the view that they want to reduce the burden on their family themselves, it should not be suggested too them.

This is where I am at. I have failed to break even in life. Its purely a financial/burden thing for me. If I am un-able to improve the life of those I love then I sure as hell will not let myself become a burden. The moment I'm confident Lisa will be able to handle life without me I will check myself out.

:(

Rudolf Miller
October 24 2012, 02:07:19 PM
I suppose it could be a valid reason, but I am saying any pressure is not. A person must come to the view that they want to reduce the burden on their family themselves, it should not be suggested too them.

This is where I am at. I have failed to break even in life. Its purely a financial/burden thing for me. If I am un-able to improve the life of those I love then I sure as hell will not let myself become a burden. The moment I'm confident Lisa will be able to handle life without me I will check myself out.

Not sure whether to pat you on the back because you have to conviction to do what you feel is right for your family or be sad for the same reason...

Zeekar
October 24 2012, 03:00:47 PM
I suppose it could be a valid reason, but I am saying any pressure is not. A person must come to the view that they want to reduce the burden on their family themselves, it should not be suggested too them.

This is where I am at. I have failed to break even in life. Its purely a financial/burden thing for me. If I am un-able to improve the life of those I love then I sure as hell will not let myself become a burden. The moment I'm confident Lisa will be able to handle life without me I will check myself out.

Get psychiatric help immediately.

Jason Marshall
October 24 2012, 03:12:21 PM
I suppose it could be a valid reason, but I am saying any pressure is not. A person must come to the view that they want to reduce the burden on their family themselves, it should not be suggested too them.

This is where I am at. I have failed to break even in life. Its purely a financial/burden thing for me. If I am un-able to improve the life of those I love then I sure as hell will not let myself become a burden. The moment I'm confident Lisa will be able to handle life without me I will check myself out.

Get psychiatric help immediately.

Thanks to FMAR I have a therapist and Psychologist I see at least once a month. Paying them is part of the expense I'm having problems justifying. It doesn't make senes to maintain something that costs more to maintain than what it brings in.

Zeekar
October 24 2012, 03:20:47 PM
Something went very wrong with how you were brought up if you see humans as things...

Jason Marshall
October 24 2012, 03:25:19 PM
Something went very wrong with how you were brought up if you see humans as things...

I don't see myself as a thing. I was using it as an analogy. But I feel horrible not being an effective member of society and see the negative impact I have on others quality of life.

I have rights, but one of those rights is not being provided the cost of living. I think that their is enough wealth and kindness in the world that everyone should be given this right, but thats not the world I live in. I have a huge impact on the quality of life of those I love and something has to change. I don't want to die, but I don't want to live off of my loved ones forever so if I cant dig myself out of he hole I am in then euthanasia is really a very good option.

Varcaus
October 24 2012, 03:32:05 PM
Have you talked to her about this I've got the feeling she proably doesn't keep you around for money mate.

Jason Marshall
October 24 2012, 03:33:34 PM
Have you talked to her about this I've got the feeling she proably doesn't keep you around for money mate.

Yes, but im not going to say more about it.

Synapse
October 26 2012, 06:42:37 PM
Just reading the last few posts, we need to remember here that estimating the value of a life (ESPECIALLY YOUR OWN) is extremely flawed.

Not only because we are all absolute slaves to our hourly biochemistry...

There is no way to be unbiased, and frequently we have a negative bias on ourselves. Family and friends around you might be able to make a better choice but even they can't see what kinds of things might come down the road at which you'd be a virtuoso.

It may not objectively true that each one of us has a calling, but given the flexibility of the human platform and the extreme range of things humanity needs done, I'd wager its a safer bet to stay as long as possible to see what impact can be made. This gets closer to an absolute truth as the pace of technical and societal change increases, meaning an even larger breadth of human ability is needed in the space of one lifespan.

Take military ability for example. Infantry and cavalry skill was the only thing needed for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. Someone good at artillery would be a fucking miserable wreck in ancient rome or working for bavarian knighthood. Come the napoleanic wars that guy is literally god as far as military planning goes. He stays that way through 1900 or so and suddenly we don't need him anymore, we need tank commanders. 30 years later fuck tanks we need pilots....15 years after that nuclear physicists are the front lines. Right now someone who can take out infrastructure quickly and quietly dominates...pretty soon we're going to need robot drivers I guess.

My point is, not only can you ABSOLUTELY NOT say that you're objectively useless now, but the longer you're around the closer you get to certainty about being absolutely needed. I made the point about military technology but I think we're socially and informationally developing at the same pace. It's only a matter of time before we all have a chance to be heroes in our own way.

Finally, Its not proven but entirely plausable that depression and intelligence go hand in hand. They say you need to be at least competent in order to recognise your own incompetence, and that seems reasonable to me.

Hel OWeen
October 27 2012, 09:25:33 AM
Take military ability for example. Infantry and cavalry skill was the only thing needed for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. Someone good at artillery would be a fucking miserable wreck in ancient rome or working for bavarian knighthood.

I understand what you're trying to say, but that example ("artillery") might not be the best one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_engine#Ancient_siege_engines).

Synapse
October 30 2012, 05:12:38 AM
Take military ability for example. Infantry and cavalry skill was the only thing needed for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. Someone good at artillery would be a fucking miserable wreck in ancient rome or working for bavarian knighthood.

I understand what you're trying to say, but that example ("artillery") might not be the best one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_engine#Ancient_siege_engines).

yeah you're probably right.

theBlind
October 31 2012, 02:16:32 PM
How do we measure what our life is worth?
To me, the simple mathematics of money gained vs money spend is not taking enough factors into account.

Just as important is our effect on the people around us. Even if we do cost them money.
Personal example: We own a house, 3 story building. Since some 30 years, a friend lives in the upper flat. He moved in when he was working construction. He was unknown to us by then, but was recommended to by a colleague of his we knew. He lost his job some years afterwards and was never able to find work for the last 20 years at least, with hurting knees and back problems, construction worker standard, you might call it.
So he started helping in the house. He'd do some cleaning in and around the house, he'd sweep the street, small stuff. He was greatly burdened with being unable to support himself. This only got worse as the years went by and he couldn't find full-time work for 2 decades, only some hourly based jobs like mowing a lawn.
He still lives in that flat on the third floor, the rent paid by social services (which means minimum rent). He cooks lunch for my dad, himself and myself, which we pay for. Because he lives up there, my dad and I can't renovate the upper floor, create the possible two flats from the rooms present and rent those out. There is a definite opportunity cost by the way the arrangement currently is. We're not hurting for money, but the situation could be better, specifically we could be building up a surplus instead of just getting by.

Yet I consider him part of my family. I would never want him to leave or suggest any change in our arrangement. As long as i remember, he's been part of that house, part of what makes it home to me. When my grandmother couldn't keep up her housework in the last 10 years of her life, he gradually stepped up and took those over. Washing clothes, hanging them out to dry, cooking lunch, cleaning the house. Later on, he'd help her bathe, make her bed - a thousand small things. Most of them we could have bought for money, but then some stranger would have come into our house to do that work. Instead, my dad and I had a friend help my grandmother (his mother).
By now, granny has passed away and he's still there, keeping my dad company. Something I can't do because I've moved out years ago because of work.

We can't measure our lives impacts on others by money alone. But as always it's much simpler to compare some numbers than to add up all the ways we actually help and influence others. It just does not tell the whole story. Or even half of it.

Dark Flare
November 5 2012, 10:33:40 AM
I suppose it could be a valid reason, but I am saying any pressure is not. A person must come to the view that they want to reduce the burden on their family themselves, it should not be suggested too them.

This is where I am at. I have failed to break even in life. Its purely a financial/burden thing for me. If I am un-able to improve the life of those I love then I sure as hell will not let myself become a burden. The moment I'm confident Lisa will be able to handle life without me I will check myself out.

Get psychiatric help immediately.

Thanks to FMAR I have a therapist and Psychologist I see at least once a month. Paying them is part of the expense I'm having problems justifying. It doesn't make senes to maintain something that costs more to maintain than what it brings in.

Please move to a country with free healthcare.

Mi Lai
November 5 2012, 11:04:35 PM
I'm pro-euthanasia for various reasons.
> Pragmatical: There will be people attempting / succeeding in it, and I find it more dignified if people can do it in a relative 'nice' method, compared to options 'amateurs' may choose. A simulated 'died in his/her sleep' to me is prefferable then finding an either dead or even alive damaged body from train / knive / jump over balcony / whatever. If people with a deathwish are treated seriously, it might even have potential to have people helpfully interfere. If not, those people and their relatives can be helped by getting them the knowledge for a relatively peacefull and clean death. aving experience, I know what I preffer.

Another thing is (to put it a bit harsh) that in the near future, people still need to die of something. Medical science is getting better and better in keeping the human body alive (in the West, heartconditions and cancer used to be the primary causes of death, with the better treatment of hartconditions, cancer is now taking a lead, and the new fear is people dying of dementia). In my opinion, a policy on euthenasia is prefferable then to just rucktsichtslos treatment of people for very little to no improvement of quality of life.

> Philosophical: I believe you are the owner of your own body, and should be able to do to it what you want, as with other property.

Pacefalm
November 10 2012, 04:06:55 PM
Having been confronted with this issue several times, I feel that choosing a relatively gentle death should be allowed over being forced to live in agony or suicide in a terrible way. Having said that, it is a choice that should be considered very carefully and not an impulse decision.

I think everyone regularily has thoughts of suicide, making those thoughts 'easy' to act on is the wrong way to go. Emphasis should be put on recommending treatment first where possible. But in the end after all is said and done, euthanasia must be allowed if there is no other way. Denying someone euthanasia is immoral.