You are missing the point. You are doing that right now. You are deciding that they shouldn’t die now, but later. You are deciding when other people should die.
Not at all. The default stance would be “I do not care one way or the other if someone has access to MAID.”
By taking a stance against MAID, you are in fact deciding that they should not be able to die now. No one is asking you to personally do the killing, but you take umbrage with the idea that it would be accessible to people, so you are therefore deciding that they should be die now, but later.
I am not advocating for a stance for or against MAID. I have not stated my position on it. All of my comments are pointing out a flaw in your argument that I observed.
I never said it was a decision for just anyone or an easy one. I said it’s a decision that requires context and nuance.
It’s like deciding who gets donated organs, when does a doctor declare brain death, when do you shut off the machines or give a large morphine dose, etc.
They’re hard decisions. They need to be made with care.
You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that’s clear
I will choose free will.
Deciding not to allow MAID is also deciding who lives and dies, and how. But denying people the right to die can be a cruelty all on its own. This is a decision we need to make. It’s healthcare, it’s quality of life, it’s managing suffering and pain with consent and thoughtfulness.
except it doesn’t just because maid has been authorized it automatically happens. that decision is as it has always been placed with the one asking for it.
then lets not circle back around to who is involved and look at the results of not allowing it. the alternative is failed suicide attempts and long term suffering. assuming we can treat or make people jump through hoops or find some kind of grand arbiter just prolongs suffering and helps us look the other way as we force people poorly trained or in immense pain to figure it out themselves or put themselves/others in legal jeopardy in addition to suffering. If I have the right to life as long as it is not at the expense of others than i have the right to end it.
That’s a good point, but I think it’s where I think you need someone with intimate knowledge of the situation to decide.
deleted by creator
Denying someone MAID is also deciding if the person should live or die. You just don’t like the “or die” part of that decision.
deleted by creator
You are missing the point. You are doing that right now. You are deciding that they shouldn’t die now, but later. You are deciding when other people should die.
deleted by creator
Not at all. The default stance would be “I do not care one way or the other if someone has access to MAID.”
By taking a stance against MAID, you are in fact deciding that they should not be able to die now. No one is asking you to personally do the killing, but you take umbrage with the idea that it would be accessible to people, so you are therefore deciding that they should be die now, but later.
deleted by creator
I am not advocating for a stance for or against MAID. I have not stated my position on it. All of my comments are pointing out a flaw in your argument that I observed.
To decide whether their situation warrants MAID or not.
deleted by creator
Sure, go ahead and pretend there’s no nuance and phrase it that way.
deleted by creator
I never said it was a decision for just anyone or an easy one. I said it’s a decision that requires context and nuance.
It’s like deciding who gets donated organs, when does a doctor declare brain death, when do you shut off the machines or give a large morphine dose, etc.
They’re hard decisions. They need to be made with care.
deleted by creator
Deciding not to allow MAID is also deciding who lives and dies, and how. But denying people the right to die can be a cruelty all on its own. This is a decision we need to make. It’s healthcare, it’s quality of life, it’s managing suffering and pain with consent and thoughtfulness.
except it doesn’t just because maid has been authorized it automatically happens. that decision is as it has always been placed with the one asking for it.
deleted by creator
then lets not circle back around to who is involved and look at the results of not allowing it. the alternative is failed suicide attempts and long term suffering. assuming we can treat or make people jump through hoops or find some kind of grand arbiter just prolongs suffering and helps us look the other way as we force people poorly trained or in immense pain to figure it out themselves or put themselves/others in legal jeopardy in addition to suffering. If I have the right to life as long as it is not at the expense of others than i have the right to end it.