It is in the best interest of everybody to offer assisted suicide at a set time and date instead of taking the matter into their own hands and leaving family, friends and first responders with the trauma of discovering a body.
Except they certainly haven't, both because of very limited resources and became they are probably in no condition to figure what they could or should try themselves and are dependent on doctors, family members and other people (who also might have only very limited capacity to help her)
What's the limiting principle here exactly? If we normalize the idea that suicide is a solution to any problem, it's inevitably going to start being used as a "solution" for more and more problems: treatable illness, poverty, old age, disability, dependence on those who'd rather not shoulder the burden of caring for you.
It's already happening.
What I say is that, for those cases where professionals have reasonable suspicion that it would happen anyway, offering a more humane option is the right thing to do. It shouldn't be an option to be offered lightly to anyone.
For example, here's the story of a disabled Canadian man who "consented" to euthanasia because he thought it was his only alternative to homelessness:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canada-eut...
In this case he withdrew his "consent" after strangers helped him out financially, but I'm sure there are other cases that didn't end so luckily.
As suicide gets normalised you can expect the concept of "consent" to get expanded even further beyond the bounds of decency.
The edge-case is that the person wants to become an early suspended customer of a cryonics organization. Already there have been successful suicides from people who stated they would have preferred to be suspended and have the very small chance of actually getting a second chance at some distant point in the future, but there are various legal obstacles as well as practical ones to that, and so these people are just as assuredly gone forever as anyone else.
Besides being complex, it's also an old issue. You might enjoy reading this case report from 1993 about a suicidal person who wanted to be cryopreserved: https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/library/complete-list-of-alc... He did eventually shoot himself, and unlike others there was at least a brain preservation in the end, but it's pretty far from an ideal one (and no one knows if even ideal preservation is good enough for future reanimation/emulation; I'd bet against it but obviously wouldn't rule it out). More recently, in late 2018 the first person was cryopreserved while using California's new end of life option act to hasten an otherwise painful demise from stage 4 cancer. (Short version: https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/library/complete-list-of-alc... Long version: https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/docs/alcor-case-report-a-199...)
I don't see how anyone can look at what's happening now in Canada, for example, and deny the existence of the slippery slope.
- She can schedule an euthanasia. - She can throw herself in front of a train. - She can hang herself somewhere. - Many many other "traditional" way.
The difference here is, if she schedule euthanasia, the people provide the service will have to finish everything up for her, and they should be less traumatise compare to the train driver in the hypothetical example.
We surely shouldn't take this lightly, but this is not wrong at all.
A killer set on killing will kill anyway, so maybe we could pair them up and have both happy?
The "they will do it anyway" argument is as absurd as it is dangerous.
Heh, it's not like it backfired in the past at all, is it?
If yes, then we should have places where one can go and absolutely get destroyed by meth or fentanyl or whatever's your choice.
I'm afraid the only difference between both cases is the economic burden they cause or not. The one with drugs increases it, while euthanasia decreases it. That makes me suspicious.
I read your argument and it seems like you're not actually considering the point of view from the woman who no longer wants to live.
You can read my other replies for more context, but what I see as a problem here is that all this will normalise death. By enabling it, we're one step closer of people resorting to this more easily, and having people that could recover just giving up early.
And yes, my stance is biased, I don't trust doctors that much.
No one healthy and of sound mind will choose to die. It isn't called "survival instinct" for nothing. This will not normalise death, it will not become a fad to die just because it's easy to do so. Despite the US having a very widely available and quick way to commit suicide (guns), the suicide rate in the US is not so much higher than in Germany - where it's more difficult to obtain guns.
I think legalising euthanasia is an act of love. It prevents unnecessary suffering for those who suffer the most, but only if those who suffer explicitly request it and under extremely strict regulations - like they do in the Netherlands.
I think your position about this is typical, but it's also (I think) primarily reasoned from the perspective of society, and not from the perspective of someone who is suffering.
Death is normal. You are going to die. I am going to die. We are all going to die.
https://www.uniting.org/community-impact/uniting-medically-s...
These exist in a number of countries and are seen to have favourable outcomes:
https://adf.org.au/insights/medically-supervised-injecting-c...
I differ, considering life as sacred, and worried though not surprised of how we're moving as a society from holding life as sacred, at least in appearance, to overtly disregarding it in this manner. On the other hand, as I mentioned in a different reply, I have a big difficulty trusting doctors and their "nothing else to be done".
If we look at it from a utilitarian angle.
Euthanasia - The one who apply to euthanasia get what one want - Those who assists get paid to do what that person sign up to do.
Other way - The one who commit suicide other way get what they want. - Those who witness got shocked. - Those who "clean up" get paid to do what that person sign up to do, but less amused than those who assist euthanasia.
I am not saying enabling euthanasia for all and granting access to it easily. However, for those who suffer so badly it could be one of the escape hatches.
I think, maybe, you weren't aware of it's legality; especially, in the Netherlands[1]?
[1] - https://www.government.nl/topics/euthanasia/euthanasia-assis...
Life is complex and it is not within me to fully comprehend everything that everyone around me is feeling, all I can do is help to the best of my abilities and respect others decisions.
As for the reason why this is an article, it's probably because this is quite new for a lot of people, like when antibiotics was first found. At first it was the news of the century and was advertised on the news, now it's just common practice and you don't even know when doctors use it on another human.
It also begs the question, are the people in these situations even mentally fit enough to make the decision rationally? With the limited context I have, I don’t think so.
There’d also a lot of reliance on the doctor’s “its never going to get better” - yet time and time again with physical ailments we hear of the impossibility of recovery yet many do recover.
Without euthanasia. A person in that situation can and will choose other means to kill himself/herself.
My gut just screams at me: this is wrong. And I cannot help.
The rational arguments do not convince me at all. Call me old fashioned or whatever but this is how I feel about it, and since there is an article about this I imagine that there might be certain interest in this being out of the ordinary.