>

The trouble with this is that there is no way to draw a clear line. A foetus of a woman who was raped is still innocent, why should they be allowed to be aborted and others not? It becomes an issue of subjective morality, everyone will have different opinions as to what circumstances qualify for an abortion. The fact that you accept that in some cases abortion should be allowed means you acknowledge abortion is needed in some cases. If it’s impossible to draw a line between those cases, why not just make it an option for everyone, and instead draw the line between when a foetus becomes a baby. It’s much easier for everyone to agree that way, and you don’t have people being forced to have babies they don’t want just because they weren’t raped. People get pregnant all the time through lack of education and access to contraception, it’s a social issue, not an issue of people’s negligence. A mother who doesn’t want that child or can’t afford to raise it will suffer, and so will their baby, they won’t be able to give it a decent life. To me, it reduces suffering the most if we just allow anyone to have an abortion as long as they do it before the foetus becomes a baby. Which, as far as I know, is before 24 weeks.
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. >


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. >

Assisted suicide never heard that gag before. Sounds like murder >


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.

It is not necessarily going to be the person's or the family's choice. In a setting where assisted suicide is normalized, it will also end up being the government's choice even when the patient or their family want something else. This was an issue, for example, in the case of Charlie Gard, who was born with a rare genetic condition, denied treatment over his parents' express wishes despite the availability of private funds for his care, and died when his ventilator was removed.
A related concern is that allowing patients with rare disorders to easily die will make it harder to find effective treatments for those disorders. In Charlie's case, researchers were unable to learn anything about an experimental treatment because they were never able to try it. How many other opportunities for learning will be lost because it's easier to make someone die than to make someone well? >

But wouldn't that be just prolonging someone's suffering to experiment on them like a lab rat? Just read Charlie's wiki page and he wasn't denied treatment because of the rare condition itself, but because he had already so much brain damage that the experiment would be futile, he would never get better (and I don't believe that researchers would learn much from his case, but I'm not a specialist). I also don't think his ending is comparable to assisted suicide, as the only thing keeping this baby alive was a machine and without it he naturally died. >


But wouldn't that be just prolonging someone's suffering to experiment on them like a lab rat?

We have no way of knowing what the result of the experiment would have been. What we do know is that the research team - who know more about the potentials and limitations of their treatment than anyone else in the world - thought they could still help Charlie and advance their research even after his first seizures. It took several more months of deterioration in Charlie's condition before the researchers concluded he was beyond their help.

I also don't think his ending is comparable to assisted suicide, as the only thing keeping this baby alive was a machine and without it he naturally died.

It isn't the ending so much as it is the thought process. Charlie's parents wanted him to live. Researchers thought they could help Charlie. Money was not an issue. But the doctors at Charlie's hospital were so sure that Charlie ought to be dead that they sued for the right to make that happen and defended that right through multiple appeals.
Charlie's is hardly the only case where doctors have sued for the right to make sure that a patient dies. But in every case, the underlying argument is that the patient is better off dead. That argument is 100% transferable to assisted suicide. >

Wow you wrote a well thought out and intelligent essay. 
I think that this issue is a religious one. At the very heart of it if you see a person from conception to death as a created being designed by God you would come to one conclusion. If you do not believe that each person is more than an impressively smart animal then you would come to a different conclusion. At the heart of the matter is a belief in God. >

I was hesitant to touch on religion, because even people who aren’t religious still believe that voluntary death is wrong, so it seemed like it was more of a matter at the heart of our psychology. But you’re right, religious or not, we all still live in a society that has developed from and been moulded by various religious beliefs, it has an effect on our psychology no matter our beliefs. And yeah, I don’t know any religion that doesn’t see life and death as something sacred that shouldn’t be tampered with. >

I have a couple of questions, and one remark: 24 weeks is a lot later than in most countries, for regular abortion. Now, for the questions.
Why should euthanasia be much more restrictive than assisted suicide? The former requires a terminal diagnosis and signatures of the next of kin, in your estimation, the latter only a wait time and psychological evaluation? Also, why doesn't euthanasia require psychological evaluation then?
Why should euthanasia require the signatures of the next of kin? Is this not a highly personal decision? Should any other personal decisions require permission of the next of kin, in your view?
Why should all family members be notified? Is this not, again, a highly personal decision? Shouldn't the notifying of the family members be something that is left up to the patient, which they can decide for themselves during the psychological counselling? You might also want to consider an age limit. >

My thinking with euthanasia is that the patient, in a lot of cases after a terminal diagnosis, might not be fully capable of making that decision. I imagine their reason for wanting to be euthanised, is so that they can die surrounded by their family at a time of their choosing, instead of at any random moment, potentially in a lot of pain, and potentially alone. Having the next of kin signature ensures that the decision for euthanasia is being done for this reason, and has been agreed on as the best course of action by more than just the patient alone. A person receiving a terminal diagnosis might want to die out of an emotional response to their awful situation, they might make this call for the wrong reasons. 
Also, assisted suicide doesn’t require the signature of anyone else, because it is a highly personal decision, and any family member is very likely to not sign it. Nobody would willingly sign their family members suicide pass. But that’s what the other safeguards are for, the wait period and the notifying of the family. This is done to give the family plenty of notice about the situation and time to talk to their family member about it. 
You could apply the same measure to euthanasia patients and put them on a waiting list to give them chance to assess their own decision. But if you have a terminally ill patient who just wants to end their pain, I think it’s cruel to make them wait an extra few months. So instead they can get the go ahead if their family can agree that it’s for the best. >


My thinking with euthanasia is that the patient, in a lot of cases after a terminal diagnosis, might not be fully capable of making that decision. I imagine their reason for wanting to be euthanised, is so that they can die surrounded by their family at a time of their choosing

That's not something we can assume to be true for any case of euthanasia.
Also, if a patient is not fully capable of making the decision, they should not be able to make that decision at all. Euthanasia should only be granted to those who are fully lucid - at the time of the request - as far as I'm concerned.

they might make this call for the wrong reasons

Provided they've been sufficiently informed and counselled, I don't think it's ours to say what the right or wrong reasons are.
As for the second part of your comment, I think you should consider that not every family is free of conflicts. Legal restrictions in the way that you propose may lead to undesirable situations where spiteful family members block or interfere with these extremely personal decisions. At most you could consider requiring parental consent in the case of minors, I'd say. And even then you may want to lower that age limit. >

So I would have to ask my next of kin to be able to do it? Why would you ever include that? >

Euthanasia and suicide are pretty much the same thing but it didn't jake sense to legalize assisted suicide especially if you're gonna put a 6 month period to pay bills off on it. People who are committing suicide don't hate about bills, especially when it's probably one of the stressor that's making them suicidal. 
That's like saying we should ban all guns to stop criminals from killing people with guns. Criminals are repost offenders, which means they cannot purchase a gun, so if they have one they've already obtained it illegally. If they're willing to break that one, they probably intend to use it to kill. >

Do you believe paper abortions should be legal? >

Hmm, that is a tough one. There’s just way too many factors to consider with it, but it does still feel wrong to be forced into raising a child. I think the real solution to this problem is male contraception; as of now, the only guaranteed option is a vasectomy, which is a horrible procedure. But, an abortion is even more horrible for the woman to endure should it come to that, so it could be argued that it’s a man’s responsibility to get a vasectomy if he doesn’t want a baby, because then there’s no risk of him forcing a woman to have an abortion. But it’s very understandable why men don’t want to get a vasectomy, a less invasive solution, like a pill, is very much needed. 
So I think if the man knows he doesn’t want a child, it’s his responsibility to make sure there’s no risk of that (same goes for the woman, it’s her responsibility to take the pill if she knows she doesn’t want to get pregnant. Neither partner should rely on the other, it’s their own responsibility), but at the same time, I can see why men are less inclined to get a vasectomy and more likely to just rely on the woman taking the pill. If the woman still gets pregnant, I don’t think the man should then be allowed to opt out of raising the baby, since it’s on both of them. If the man knew he didn’t want one, and didn’t get a vasectomy, he should’ve then made it his responsibility to ensure the woman was taking the pill. He can’t expect her to undergo an abortion if he wasn’t willing to undergo a vasectomy, those two awful procedures seem somewhat equivocal in my mind. 
Then you have the issue where a woman could lie about taking the pill. You can’t exactly expect the man to sit there and watch her swallow the pill to ensure she’s taking it, that’s not healthy behaviour, but then also how can he be sure she’s taking it other than just taking her word for it. The woman could lie, knowing that the man can’t get out of raising the baby. 
I think the solution to this would be to have some sort of signed agreement beforehand. Once the pregnancy is already underway, I don’t think the man should be able to get a paper abortion, due to the reasons above. But if it’s in writing beforehand that if pregnancy occurs, the man doesn’t want to be a part of it, then I think that should stand. The woman is well aware of his intentions then, and it removes the incentive for her to lie about taking the pill. She knows that if she gets pregnant, it’s her own responsibility. However, I can’t really imagine signing a document like this will lead to many happy relationships. It’s not a great sign of commitment if you declare outright that you don’t want to raise a child. So this would deter women from being in a relationship with this man in the first place, but I guess that’s the cost of opting out of the responsibility.
Realistically, it’s something couples should talk about at some point in their relationship anyway. It’s important to be on the same page as each other with something like having a baby. I know as well that sometimes you might both agree you want an abortion, but then when the woman actually gets pregnant she changes her mind and wants to keep it. I think in this situation the onus is on the woman to take full responsibility. If you were both on the same page about getting an abortion, you can’t then expect the man to uproot his life because you changed your mind. But I don’t know how there would be any legal solution to this particular problem. >

One of your points in OP was that it gives people their right to bodily autonomy. Wouldn't this be true for paper abortions? Child support is taking labor from a man against his will. 
You also mention saving resources. Allowing paper abortions would also save resources. It would be desentivizing people being reckless and would reduce the number of people and abortions in the world. There aren't a large percentage of women doing this, but women will get pregnant and keep the child to then live off of the child support. There are famous example of this with celebrities, there are also statistics that can show this happens to non celebrities too. 
In my honest opinion, a women lying about being on the pill should be treated the same as a man taking the condom off even when she asks for him to wear a condom. I think that would fix that problem. 
I think the biggest reason paper abortions need to be legal are not for realitionships, but for hookups. Or in general for people having sex for pleasure and not thinking about the possibility of a kid. >

Do you think abortion should be legal in cases where people are doing it because they don't like the gender of their child?
It's their bodily autonomy right? Should the government step in to stop such practices? Someone might turn to thr black market if thr government were to not allow it.
Do we even want to force parents to raise kids of a gender they didn't want?
Is it disruptive for society if enough people do this to cause a gender in balance. >

I don’t think people should have to state their reason for wanting an abortion at all, so long as it’s still within the 24 week period of development. 
There could well be some long term issues that arise from this, like gender imbalance, but that’s a separate issue to having the bodily autonomy to get an abortion if you want one. That’s more of a social issue in countries where women still have less rights than men and people would prefer to have a son. In the western world, I can’t imagine it being too much of an issue, I don’t think many people would get an abortion just because it’s a girl and they wanted a son, people who would are definitely in the small minority. >

If it got to thr point it was an issue would you put restriction on abortion? In countries where it is more of an issue do you feel restrictions should be implemented? >

I don’t think so, like I say I think they’re two separate issues. I think people should have the right to an abortion regardless, that’s an issue of bodily autonomy and freedom of choice. Even in situations where new issues arise, like gender imbalance, I don’t think the solution should ever be to restrict freedom of choice. Even if it would solve the issue, you’re just reintroducing a new issue. It would be better to address the issue of gender imbalance with other, more productive methods, like improving gender equality so that there is less incentive to prefer one gender over the other. At its core it’s a cultural thing though, people want a son to carry on their family name and things like that, it would be hard to solve these things because it would require a cultural shift, but despite the challenges I still don’t think regulating abortions should ever be the solution. I think that’s a human right that everyone should have. >

I'm not schooled on the topic, my input would be sure....but we as a society need to agree upon the specificities of what would qualify the person or unborn child to be forever sleeped.  Otherwise sure, as long as its humane. >

Since you draw a distinction between euthanasia and assisted suicide, I don't understand the point of assisted suicide.  Euthanasia, as you describe it, is for the terminally ill.  These are people for whom there is no cure aside from death so they should have a choice between death and a diminished life that is a burden on their loved ones.  I understand that argument.
But assisted suicide?  If we take the terminally ill, out of the mix with whom are we left?
Most people who choose to commit suicide do so because of external factors such as loneliness, loss of a job, divorce, etc. or because of mental health issues such as depression, bipolar, or schizophrenia (often some combination of the two).  In other words, people choose suicide when other options do exist.  Why should we create a process for people to pursue suicide instead of the other options?  I cannot think of a situation in which it would be ethical to assist in someone's suicide when what they really need is therapy, medication, or simply companionship.  Why not take the money that would be used in enforcing the assisted suicide regime to help provide these treatments? >

Abortion: It should be legal to terminate a pregnancy throughout, because it is a serious bodily injury to the woman, and it is wrong to prevent people from defending themselves or getting medical treatment if they are suffering from a serious bodily injury.
Euthanasia: I don't disagree. If the person who wants to be euthanized is in their right mind, pass a psychological evaluation, are close to death, and it is signed off by qualified medical professionals, then I think it's fine.
Assisted suicide: Most people would only have a desire to die if there was something very wrong with them or their circumstances and they (most of the time, correctly) see death as the only way to escape their suffering.
Therefore, we have a moral imperative to help these people live a good life such that they no longer wish to die rather than give in to their self-destructive desire (which may be the product of harmful thinking like when one is depressed or incorrect beliefs like "my life will never get better).
We should focus on helping people who want to die to have a better life so that they don't want to die, not allow people to make a terrible, self-destructive (literally) decision. >

I agree about euthanasia and assisted suicide because I believe if you have a right to live, you should have a right to die.
But I disagree about abortion.
I believe abortion should be allowed only if a baby is a threat to mother’s health, that she will not survive during birth giving. 
Or if it is confirmed that baby will be disabled. 
Or if a woman was raped and didn’t consent she should have a right to abort.
However if a woman did consent to having sex, she should know the consequences of sex. Like what’s the original purpose of sex? Procreation.
There are a lot of methods to protect yourself from pregnancy though.
It is immoral to murder innocents, right? There is not a significant difference between baby before 24 weeks and a 2 year old kid. They have the same dna, what differs is the stage of development. And also unborn baby is not a woman’s body. Woman is simply a food supply for an unborn baby but it’s a separate organism.