Legit question

Legit question.

For or against assisted suicide?

State your reason.

Is called suicide 'cause you kill yourself, otherwise, is a murder.

For, because if you want to end your life who is anyone but that person to tell them no, especially if they are sick or disabled.

I’m more for assisted genocide.

For, people should be able to do whatever the fuck they want with their lives and bodies as long as it has no negative effect on others.

for but needs massive controls. like terminal condition + signoff from vetted docs on 2 continents with file names randomized + cooldown period + yearly policy review +++

basically massive checks so that inconvenient people don’t disappear because... depression?

if you can prove your stage 4 fucked though i don’t see why the resources should be forced upon you against your will

Against, if life is bad enough suicide is easy. All assisted suicide will do, is kill people who aren't ready to die.

Yep. I feel people who don't get this are ignorant and just make baseless assumptions (i.e. cliches about how the "pain is temporary", etc.).

For.
Because if cunts can kill other cunts with a pull of a trigger and people still want guns everywhere in Burgerica, then people should have the right to die without being shot.

>kek’d and checked

But there's a difference between "right to refuse treatment plus palliative care for death with dignity" and full-on "assisted suicide."

suicide by cop being burger assisted suicide is kind apropos

>a popo

For. How dare anyone tell a terminal patient they have to either suffer or kill themselves in a way that the family has to suffer with finding their body or for those without the means to even do it. It's not for everyone but if you are going to die and suffer on the way out why can't you choose? We do it for our animals and they don't even have the luxury of getting to choose.

suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem

There are no permanent solutions to diseases with no cures

That's a cliché.

stage 4 brain cancer is not temporary you shitfuck
suicide in general is awful yes but ffs we are talking about terminally ill and the right to die

For.
It’s a right for everyone they can chose their time. If they need help I say let them get help. Prolonging their suffering is a disservice.
That being said, I would prefer they not if there is a reasonable chance of them getting some sort of treatment to give them a decent life.

It wouldn't bother me if termination of individuals were performed in a sensible manner. As in, people weren't lining up to die because they stubbed their toe, moreso that for whatever (other) reason, they sincerely could not function in society or even daily life. Whether they lack the means of reintegrating, whether they can't afford the means to alleviate their afflictions, whether every waking moment of their life is akin to some kind of sick joke or constant suffering. As long as people aren't going in because they got dumped, or because it rained. That would be like throwing away a perfectly good apple due to its being green instead of red. Then again, one has to wonder what would happen to society as a whole if we gave everyone a non-taboo means to end their lives with a surgical precision and ease. Maybe there would be enough food to eat. Maybe it would solve the lack of immediate jobs for the many who are already struggling to find work in a world that is progressively changing, and more resources could be directed towards greater problems where, in the real world, we cannot and often will not ever receive the kinds of coordination, logistics, and cooperation necessary to, say, end world hunger.

Is it a dark and scary thought? Goading the masses to go out with a whimper than instilling a desire to persevere and become more better? To stop telling them to grow, to become wiser, to live? To abandon the thought of making better what already is through some grand effort, to aspire to become "more", to solve
>the
problem? To instill a greater sense of obsolescence in ourselves? Is that what we want? Are we prepared to do that? Will we get to choose as a whole when that time comes?

Diseases with no cures have not been cured yet. AIDS used to be lethal. Now look at it, provided you have access to the resources, as all cures tend to be. Resources.

For

Many reasons, but I'll just pick because we have too many people on the planet already, so anything to decrease our overpopulation is welcome.

life is a temporarily solution to a permanent problem

Completely for it. But they don't do it if your depressed or for any mental illness, I wish they would. They try to put me on meds when I tell them I just want to die with lethal inject or somthing, not cool

For. If a person can both be declared competent and simultaneously refuse any other course of action than why NOT ensure it is done in a painless and sterile manner?

Just like needle exchanges. Things like a "good behavior/chang your mind waiting period" would be a good idea

For because end-of-life palliative care is one of the more painful things I've witnessed.

So you want people to suffer for ages until a cure is found, aids doesn't even have a cure, just treatments to make the person live a bit longer

Yep not cool. They are super ignorant of the pain.

to be fair there's been a significant amount of improvement in care for HIV - where it used to be a slow, drawn out death sentence that ended in you getting some other disease that kills you, now it's definitely possible to keep HIV from progressing into AIDS for a very long time, and to not actually die once it gets there. Not a huge impact on quality of life either.

good senicide

>taking the bait

are there a shitton of first world people getting hiv who need a higher quality of life or is it just a highly profitable third world medical category where condoms and darwinism would actually be better for everyone?

This is much more a problem and causes much more pain than the types of people making lifestyle choices that cause them to become hiv positive, then wanting symptom relief.

Unless it's just about the money.

im not interested in ever communicating to you or anyone through a format of doublethink or secrecy, be a man

I don't think I said I wanted that, user. When did I suggest that I want people to suffer for ages until a cure is found? When did I say there was a cure for AIDS? I did say that provided you have access to the resources, AIDS is no longer necessarily a death sentence. I also said that all cures tend to be resources. You would be mistaken to make the assumption that simply because cures tend to be resources, that a cure exists for AIDS, as having access to the resources necessary to combat the viral infections does not equate to having a cure. And, with resources, you will eventually find that a cure will lie among them.

Diseases with no cures have not been cured yet. You can live with AIDS if you have access to the medical means and are serious about it. That isn't to say that AIDS will never be cured.

They probably need a higher quality of life, all things considered.

>be a man
That doesn't make sense