>


Yeah I thought that too, that the realisation comes after the point of no return, I don’t know how you would help people to have that realisation without them attempting suicide.

I don't think you can, it's like trying to fake a near death experince. You might be able to do it by tricking the person and lying about the injection being deadly when it's not but that would be very unethical. Then it is just a mock execution.

The part about living a full life if not for suicide is true, many people who kill themselves could have gone on to overcome their problems and live happy lives, this is why it’s such a tragedy. But, people who are depressed and want to die will potentially try to kill themselves anyway. This service doesn’t enable suicide, even though it literally does, suicide is enabled by that fact that people who are depressed feel so alone. The fact that this service gives those people a space to openly and honestly discuss their reasons for wanting to die, is the counterintuitive way in which it prevents suicide. It’s not like suicide isn’t a thing, and this service allows people to do it; people do it anyway, this service just helps them make sure it’s actually what they want.

Maybe but I think that if we remove the scary barrier of actually having to kill yourself then it might lead to more people killing themselves. Having someone kill you and you killing yourself are two very different things even if you consent.
I also think that since suicide often is a pretty impulsive thing the only people who would go the "official" way would be the people that right now would go to therapy. It might be that this new program won't actually extend healthcare to any new patients.
I think an example of this is that there are very effective ways to kill yourself that are painless and will almost never fail. An example of this is using helium to do it, but this takes setup to order the necessary materials so people don't use it very often. Since it is often an impulsive thing people just use what is available to them in the moment.
those who oppose the legalization of euthanasia argue that it is morally wrong to intentionally end a life, and that allowing euthanasia could lead to abuse and coercion of vulnerable individuals
solve that, and the issue would no longer be an issue >

That’s a good point, I hadn’t though about abuse and coercion. Maybe there is a way to make the terms and conditions prevent this; I think requiring both a signature from the patient and their next of kin, along with a terminal diagnosis, ensures that in most cases euthanasia will be performed to prevent prolonged, unnecessary suffering. But I can still think of situations where this might not be the case, or at least the full case. >

Where I live (The Netherlands), euthanasia is legal in quite a broad range of cases, I’m pretty sure we’re the furthest along in this respect of any country. It’s well-regulated, and there don’t really seem to be any particular issues with abuse or coercion. It goes through your GP and requires a separate, independent doctor to sign off on it as well, so there are safeguards in place to prevent such issues. 
Though what does play a part in that as well is that the GP has a very central role in Dutch healthcare. Basically everyone has a GP, and they’ll generally know you pretty well already and have a pre-existing relationship, so they’re not some faceless doctor you’ve never really met before then. In most cases, they’ll have been involved and well aware of the health problems that lead to the euthanasia request in the first place. >

Not sure about what? Yeah, severe psychiatric disorders can serve as a basis for potentially granting a euthanasia request, what’s your point? >

For a 17 year old girl? Yes, she may be suffering, but her brain isn't even fully developed, and euthanasia seems like a frighteningly final solution to a problem, which at 17 she can't have tried too many treatments for yet.
In Psychiatry we generally try to avoid suicide, so granting euthanasia for it's disorders is not something I'd support. >

What 17 year old girl? Did you even read your own article? >

Swing and a miss! Never a good idea to trust the Daily Mail, frankly. 
She didn’t receive euthanasia, she requested it and was denied. Here’s a more reputable source with the actual story. >

Palliavtive care for a 17-year old commiting suicide, and euthanasia for a 25 year old, sorry.
The Netherlands are still fucked up. >

A valid worry with euthanasia and assisted suicide is that it is a way to practice eugenics. 
That the government of a country would further underfund and make like difficult for undesirables (disabled people, veterans, people with mental health issues, homeless, those in poverty, LGBT+, POC) to push them instead towards assisted suicide which would save them money and for fun eugenic reasons etc. 
This is pretty worrying. There isn’t guarentees agaisnt this in any assisted suicide issue.
If a country doesn’t have really solid social nets, this isninevitable. >

Okay yeah this has changed my mind the most. Anything the government can be involved in, you have to assume they will abuse it and use it for their agendas. I can definitely see mass scale coercion of certain demographics. >

Do give them a delta if they changed your mind. >

On the topic of abortion:

a few conditions I think should be met; abortion (in places where it’s legal) is pretty well regulated already, usually before 24 weeks of pregnancy, sometimes after 24 weeks in cases where the pregnancy will cause serious health problems for the baby or mother.

24 weeks is past the point of viability outside of the womb - it is possible, with medical intervention, to deliver a viable infant at 21 weeks gestation. An abortion after this point is comparable to infanticide.
On the topic of euthanasia:

it would save resources, particularly in hospitals that are keeping terminal patients alive. I have no problem with this, it’s entirely a persons choice, or their family’s choice, whether they want to prolong ur life as long as possible. But the option is there for people who want to end their suffering.

Many terminal patients end up on palliative care, where no major interventions to save the patient's life will be taken and treatment is more focused on making sure that the patient is comfortable and not in pain. When the patient dies, they die, but that's more nature taking its course rather than an active intervention.
In the case of actual euthanasia, legalizing it ultimately creates a system like what Canada has right now, where people who are disabled or otherwise need care or support are pressured into euthanasia because the government doesn't want to pay for it.
It may sound good to you, but Canada's euthanasia laws, which are by far the most permissive in the world, have created a culture not unlike that of Nazi Germany, in which the Third Reich used euthanasia to perform "mercy killings" on the disabled. >

The sad part is that if illegal it will all happen anyway in a way more harmful way. >

THe happy part is that more lifes are safe. >

Your plan for assisted suicide is absurd. You're spending time and money on something that will do absolutely nothing but make you feel better because you technically allow assisted suicide, even though most suicidal people won't actually use the service for any number of reasons (the wait list, the requirement to inform family, the legal meetings). This is basically just a version of security theater, where you spend a bunch of money looking like you're doing something while your actual impact is minimal. People will just buy a gun, jump off a bridge, or kill themselves in some other way. >

Assisted suicide in my eyes is just killing off a mentally ill person. That, to me, is fucked up. >

Assisted suicide could be the only way to end someone’s suffering. It’s not a way to get rid of them. Forcing someone to suffer for someone else’s morals seems more fucked up to me
That being said, there should definitely be strict guidelines on how and when assisted suicide is allowed to minimize the chance of it being abused or misused >

There is treatment for mental illness.  It isn't forcing someone to suffer for someone else's morals to suggest that the better avenue is to seek that treatment. >

It’s not that simple. Not everyone is treatable or easily treatable. For example, I counseled a person who had treatment-resistant depression and had tried 80+ medications and treatments throughout the course of their life with no improvement in symptoms. >

And did this person kill themself? >

No but they expressed that they had no desire to live >

Isn't that something that people whose mental illness is treatable sometimes also express?  Did you advise them to kill themselves? >

It wasn’t a sentiment that came out of irrational suicide ideation without even trying to seek treatment. It was the fact that this individual had been suffering feelings of immense sadness for all these years without any hope of getting better even though they had tried all these medications, therapies, and other treatments.
This person wasn’t talking like some crazy person who couldn’t think clearly. They were well aware of what they were going through. They were just done with life because they were suffering and nothing had worked for them. >

Do you think this person should kill themself? >

I think that if they really desire it, with proper medical intervention and guidance, they should be allowed that option. 
It doesn’t matter what I want or whether I think they should die, because I’m not the one suffering the way they are. But I think it’s wrong to force someone to endure suffering because someone else thinks it’s unethical for them to end their own lives. >


it provides a way to address and properly regulate these complex issues. Similar to the drug black market, where having zero regulatory bodies means that there is no control over the substances, which leads to even more harm. People will always want to use drugs, just as people will always want to die, the best we can do is provide them with a proper channel to reduce unnecessary suffering and inform them as much as possible. There will always be people who still kill themselves with self induced methods, but at least there will be some who use this service as a way to acknowledge they want to die, without having to make the final step alone. It removes the taboo from wanting to die, and offers them a way to end their life peacefully, rather than scared and alone. There are also many failed suicide attempts that end in horrific injuries and permanent disability, this would ensure the person suffers as little as possible. Also, many suicide survivors report that they regretted it immediately and are glad to be alive, having this application process allows people to take the leap, so to speak, and take the chance to see if they regret their decision without having to actually attempt suicide. Although, I’m not sure how accurate that last point is, I don’t know if it will actually have that effect.

I think that there is a huge difference between signing up for a suicide and actually trying it but failing. The change of mind often comes from the fact that they are beyond the point of no return and then realize that their problems could be fixed in another way. If you have suicide help then this will never occur because suicides won't fail.

it gives people autonomy and control over their own lives. I believe a person should be free to make any decision they want regarding their own life. It’s true that abortion also affects someone else’s life, but I’ll get onto that later. It’s true that assisted death also affects the lives of your loved ones, but that’s why the conditions must be met, and that’s something the person is free to consider when making their choice.

One thing you haven't considered is the situation when family members pressure the person into comitting suicide indirectly or more commonly indirectly by the person feeling like a burden. They don't want to die but that desire is outweighed by feeling like they are too much of a burden on their families.

it gives people autonomy and control over their own lives. I believe a person should be free to make any decision they want regarding their own life. It’s true that abortion also affects someone else’s life, but I’ll get onto that later. It’s true that assisted death also affects the lives of your loved ones, but that’s why the conditions must be met, and that’s something the person is free to consider when making their choice.

A problem that you have to take into consideration is that a persons ability to make a decision might be impaired. If the person is severely depressed they might want to die in the moment (Let's say a year) but maybe 2 years after that they would have been better and could have lived a full life if this service was not an option. >

Yeah I thought that too, that the realisation comes after the point of no return, I don’t know how you would help people to have that realisation without them attempting suicide. 
That’s a good point about feeling like a burden, but that’s why the family will be notified. A person who wants to commit suicide because they feel like a burden to their family, if you tell the family, chances are they will make an effort to help them see why this is not the case. 
The part about living a full life if not for suicide is true, many people who kill themselves could have gone on to overcome their problems and live happy lives, this is why it’s such a tragedy. But, people who are depressed and want to die will potentially try to kill themselves anyway. This service doesn’t enable suicide, even though it literally does, suicide is enabled by that fact that people who are depressed feel so alone. The fact that this service gives those people a space to openly and honestly discuss their reasons for wanting to die, is the counterintuitive way in which it prevents suicide. It’s not like suicide isn’t a thing, and this service allows people to do it; people do it anyway, this service just helps them make sure it’s actually what they want.