People with dependents are one case that comes to mind when considering why this might not be a great idea. Elderly people with no dependents are one example I can think of why this might not be the worst thing in the world.

But in general I tend to agree that there should be some means to humanely end ones own life that doesn't automatically presume insanity. I think there's probably a reasonable middle ground to be had between the extremes of whenever and never.

I believe, if one feels they've done everything they wanted to do and are happy to leave this world, there should be an easy way out. These individuals shouldn't be obligated to justify their decision to society or anyone else, as it is a deeply personal matter.

I'm happy to go: I've experienced everything I wanted to. The longer I exist, the more living is becoming a burden to me.

Re: dependents, should you not be allowed to kill yourself if someone (let's say a selfish spouse rather than your infant child) depends on you? That might even be the reason you don't want to live anymore...

At least in the case of children I don't think one should be able to since the cost of caring for them is transferred to society. It's also pretty shitty for the children to lose their parent. Is the death of a parent worse for the children than witnessing that parent be in a perpetual state of misery? Harder to say.

I can agree on children, was thinking about the other case

I can't wait for everyone to be able to find the help they need, without any reason other than needing it, can easily, quickly, reliably and euphorically get help with their problems so they can have a fair chance and enjoying this awesome thing called life.

Sure, buddy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

More realistically chronically ill, mentally ill, and disabled people will be increasingly pressured into this "alternative" by the medical and welfare systems, as is already happening in canada. Exactly as predicted years ago by disabled people, exactly as dismissed then as a slippery slope. It's not a fallacy when there's prior art!

I'm curious to learn more. Do you have any references re. Canada?

> Roger Foley, who has a degenerative brain disorder and is hospitalized in London, Ontario, was so alarmed by staffers mentioning euthanasia that he began secretly recording some of their conversations.

> In one recording obtained by the AP, the hospital's director of ethics told Foley that for him to remain in the hospital, it would cost "north of $1,500 a day." Foley replied that mentioning fees felt like coercion and asked what plan there was for his long-term care.

> "Roger, this is not my show," the ethicist responded. "My piece of this was to talk to you, (to see) if you had an interest in assisted dying."

> Foley said he had never previously mentioned euthanasia. The hospital says there is no prohibition on staff raising the issue.

Canada, where the healthcare is “free”, but if you cost too much they’ll encourage you to kill yourself.

https://reason.com/2022/09/07/some-canadian-health-care-pati...

I'm not going to link to specific articles or examples because people will meticulously comb the ones I choose to dismiss them individually, when the real issue is about systems and incentives on a broader scale.

The program is called "medical assistance in dying" commonly referred to as MAID. A lot has been written about it the last few years. As you look, I highly recommend prioritizing the words of disabled and chronically ill writers, over those of their families and other supporters of it. It's a complex issue but IMO the only correct way to approach it is focused on the people most likely to make use of it.

FWIW, I wasn't taunting you to get a reply I could poke holes into. What you describe seems like a plausible outcome to me; I was just curious about a write-up (even if anecdotal).

I know, I wasn't trying to accuse you of that but am cautious from experience on this specific issue on here. A lot of other people are reading and this is flamewar magnet for the "rationalist" crowd that is overrepresented both on HN and in supporting euthanasia. It's also something I've been following and involved in for years, but I don't have a concise primer or easy introduction to it. It's hard to know what is relevant or where to start.

Here is an example of the sort of thing we were worried about, and that was dismissed as a slippery slope. This person doesn't want to die per se, the support she needs is understood and achievable, but it will not be provided. Suicide is offered instead.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/woman-with-disabilities-nears-...

Here's a blog post written around the time when the "forseeable death" restriction was removed a couple years ago. It touches on and predicts specific cases that have since happened as described.

https://socialwork.ubc.ca/news/social-justices-poor-cousin-d...

Thanks!

You linked to a page explaining the logical fallacy, did you even read the wiki article?

Regardless, if this somehow led to a significant percentage of the population committing suicide, wouldn't that mean we're not doing something right in society?