On a brisk day at a restaurant outside Chicago, Deb Robertson sat with her teenage grandson to talk about her death.
She’ll probably miss his high school graduation. She declined the extended warranty on her car. Sometimes she wonders who will be at her funeral.
Those things don’t frighten her much. The 65-year-old didn’t cry when she learned two months ago that the cancerous tumors in her liver were spreading, portending a tormented death.
But later, she received a call. A bill moving through the Illinois Legislature to allow certain terminally ill patients to end their own lives with a doctor’s help had made progress.
Then she cried.
“Medical-aid in dying is not me choosing to die,” she says she told her 17-year-old grandson. “I am going to die. But it is my way of having a little bit more control over what it looks like in the end.”
That same conversation is happening beside hospital beds and around dinner tables across the country, as Americans who are nearing life’s end negotiate the terms with themselves, their families and, now, state lawmakers.
The flip side of our ability to prolong life more and more successfully is that we equip ourselves to extend suffering more and more unbearably.
Puritanical attitudes around the right to die will impact a vast majority of people in terrible ways that will largely get ignored as on the other end of it the victims have no voice and often the family is mourning and wants to move on or just doesn’t even fully realize how terrible that end was.
But the doctors and medical staff…
The people I know well in those roles get upset when healthy patients take a turn for the worse and die when they had so much life before that. But by far the most upset I see them is when a family member of a patient decides because of beliefs to choose life prolonging options that are the equivalent of extended torture.
As our medical capabilities improve we really need to continually rethink just what it means to “do no harm.”
My grandpa passed a year ago now, COPD. Likely honestly a heart attack after all the steroid meds for his lungs created heart problems including a heart aneurysm. When he was diagnosed way back in 2006 they told us he had 5 years if he was lucky, I didn’t think he’d see me graduate HS. Well he had a lot more than 5 years in him but after about 2014 it was all shit. He started telling my grandma that he was ready to die, wanted to die, in 2018, he begged for it on hard nights. He tried to kill himself in 2021 and 2022. Both attempts left him strapped to a hospital bed “for his safety” as he struggled to breathe, he hadn’t been able to reliably breathe laying on his back for several years by then but they didn’t care as long as he lived.
I never felt anything but sympathy for him after those attempts. As someone with chronic lifelong asthma, I know how my end will go. I know what it’s like to suffocate and struggle to breathe and in case anyone wonders, it fucking sucks. It’s terrifying, it’s slow, and you know it’s coming. Panic is inevitable. He felt like that for nearly 10 fucking years. He told me once after it had gotten bad that he’d always felt so bad for me as a kid to have asthma but now he finally understood, he said I was so brave to have dealt with it for so long but in that moment I didn’t feel brave I felt lucky. When I use my inhaler I can breathe again, for him it just made him struggle less. For a long time I wished he would die, my absolute favorite person on the planet, and I wanted them dead. It destroyed me mentally for years. When he finally did die it was horribly sad and also such a massive relief for everyone to know that at least he wasn’t suffering anymore.
I say all this, partially to get it off my chest but mostly to say, if we are going to prolong life we need to also give people the option to check out. Life isn’t life without quality of health, it’s just suffering. Prolonging suffering makes use torturers, it’s not a saving grace. If we have the capacity to do this for our pets then people deserve the same mercy.
Ideas and times progress, maybe it’s time to change that oath to something along the lines of “do the least harm”.
Best thing to ask your doctor is what they would do in the same situation. They usually give you the bestg medical advice answer but their personal answer can be very different with what they have seen. Although some won’t answer that question which is in itself a kind of answer.
My mom was an RN and spent time doing basically everything. She said her time in oncology, geriatrics, and hospice made her never want to treat cancer or undergo prolonging, because the chance of it extending the quality life was slim and quantity isn’t worth it when it’s miserable.
She died of cervical cancer when I was 23 (it was stage 3 by the time she went in for dx, so she knew something was wrong and chose not to do anything about it) and the only treatment she got was oxycodone and having me get weed for her for the intense nausea that comes from smoking cigarettes on oxycodone. She was in hospice though.
I, similarly, probably won’t undergo treatment if I am similarly afflicted, unless our treatments evolve from a toxic cocktail to something with more chance of working and fewer horrible side effects.
yeah if we get crisper vaccines then great but radiation and chemo well there better be like a 99% chance of reversal.
There are actions you can take to catch it in Stage 1 or 2, which is far more treatable. You would also likely qualify for generic testing, which checks to see if you have generic markers which make you more likely to get cancer.
I’m aware. She chose not to go that route, and I can’t say I blame her really. She cared for both of her parents when they died of cancer, and having done that as well, yeah. I still wouldn’t go for highly toxic treatment either, even if it does have a better chance caught early. Screw that; I’m already full of medical issues, don’t need to feel worse.
I’ve already undergone genetic testing due to family cancer history. I’m clean for maladaptive genes, as far as they know for now (I have several unknown mutations, I get letters in the mail every few years when they figure one of them out). But the world is a lot more polluted than it used to be, and I haven’t always made the healthiest choices in life, so… meh.
Like I said, if treatments change maybe, but I’m not injecting a toxic cocktail. And a lot of early-detection cancers they find and treat aren’t ever going to kill a persons anyway because they are too slow growing. So even that early screening isn’t without risk.
We need a federal constitutional amendment of bodily autonomy. Abortions, tattoos, personal drug use, gender reassignment, plastic surgery, suicide, neuralink, etc. All the same issue: My body, fuck off. You can make it more complicated than that but it’s not.
It doesn’t matter whether you agree with face tattoos or not. Nobody is making you get one. It’s not your concern. An artist can choose not to give face tattoos, as a doctor can choose whether they want to give a vasectomy to a young child-free man. But the government should have no say about what a person is allowed to do or have done to their own body. The government can regulate to make it safer, but not disallow.
Though I mostly agree with you, I think its a more complicated issue than the picture you’re painting.
If I want to kill myself, it’s my life right? Only many times people get suicidal due to mental illness or hardship and don’t really want to does it’s more an “temporary issue”, if you will, that can pass with time, or can be cured with medication, therapy, or resolving the situation that caused the suicidal thoughts. So government steps in and outright stop you. Euthanasia laws exist to make sure that people only end their lives when there is no way for the person to continue living without suffering, and it requires some bureaucracy.
Facial tattoos? Sure, do what you want but I think many people underestimate the issues that will enter their lives if they get them. It might cost you a great job, you ready for that? I’d say regulations for that should require like 30 days for you to think about what you are about to do…
Gender reassignments? Sure, but… At what age are we going to allow that? I’ve seen way too many people saying it’s okay for any kid at 5 years old. I’ve seen some kids where at 5, it’s pretty clear that yeah, this kid is different. I’ve also personally seen 10 year olds where it was clear that the parents were pushing it on the child and then the school and everything around the child jumped on the bandwagon and kept supporting the parents decision z not the child’s decision.
Persona drug use, sure. There are more than enough drugs, however that WILL destroy your life. There is no good outcome for someone using meth, for example l, outside a medical treatment, perhaps. So you do outright forbid that. Same for opioids, or are you going to tell me that free availability of opioids is a good idea?
Vaccines, anyone? Thanks to anti scientific and illiterate conspiracy idiots, measles are back and brace yourself for polio. Those fuckers that spread this bullshit should be locked up for murder, IMHO. There is no personal choice with vaccines, you fucking take them, or you will cause the suffering of others around you so shut up and take them.
Hell, even things like seatbelts can, should, and must be forced by government because if you don’t, you get the idiots believing that seatbelts are dangerous because “insert stupid story here” so I let my 5 year old in the front seat right next to me, both without seat belt going 120kmh down the freeway. People like that should have their kids taken away, honestly, because they can’t be responsible for a cat, let alone a child.
Bodily autonomy is not as easy as it seems, a lot of idiots need to be protected from themselves, and the rest of us must be protected from those idiots too. By law.
Gender reassignments? Sure, but… At what age are we going to allow that? I’ve seen way too many people saying it’s okay for any kid at 5 years old.
Doctors and medical professionals should decide whether they want to perform gender reassignments, not the government. The medical professionals all seems to agree that they won’t perform a full gender reassignment until the patient is at least in their later teens. Anybody too young for gender reassignment is just being prescribed puberty blockers to give them more time to decide.
I don’t see any problem with just leaving it in the hands of medical professionals. Yea, some people may say it’s okay for 5 year olds to get a full gender reassignment, but those people aren’t doctors, and the process can’t really happen without a doctor involved.
The problem is there’s always some crackpot doctor who will make a poor, non-medically influenced decision and without regulation there’s no way to prevent it.
The “vaccines cause autism” guy was a licensed doctor, and I think we all agree he wasn’t making medically sound decisions.
Yeah, and that also got reversed and if you google the guy it shows “British disgraced former surgeon and medical research falsifier and antivaxxers”
You can’t always stop cheaters before they cause damaged, that is life, but you can punish him, learn, and move on.
“temporary issue”
your entire life is temporary.
Yeah and I think you perfectly understand what I meant by that.
How about shutting the fuck up and minding your own business and letting people live and die their own stories?
How about you calm down and don’t screech whenever you hear an opinion that doesn’t align with yours?
From your response I think it’s fair to assume that you’re an anti social ego centric asshole as you apparently don’t care about people around me. Either that, or, you didn’t read what I wrote and jut decided to screech because “opinion I don’t agree with in the first sentence so no need to actually read”
What I wrote is when people are a danger to mothers or themselves. You apparently are okay with people offing themselves by jumping off a bridge when they have a hard time in life whereas I would stop them and try to help them as I understand that people sometimes make the wrong decision and well, terminally wrong decisions is something I would like to prevent, unlike you.
If a person really is suffering permanently and there is no solution, then that is a whole different story. There too, though, you can help by allowing someone to die with dignity instead of splattering themselves on the pavement accidentally taking an innocent bystander with him.
Like it or not, you are not the only person on this world, there are people around you. You live in a society, so we need rules to ensure everyone can live as free and happy as possible without causing harm to others. You may not always like all the rules but they’re there because YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY PERSON ON THIS WORLD.
So stop being so anti social and yelling insults when you see an opinion you disagree with. Talk, or better yet LISTEN.
Bro, I’m not reading that 😂
Of course you don’t, twitter TikTok and Facebook taught you that the real truth can be done in under 140 characters and 20 seconds. Long attention spans and thoughtful reasoning is bad for your health!
Drugs can be regulated by availability, not by illegality of ingestion. It can be illegal to sell.
If circumcision is legal, gender reassignment should be as well. Both are voluntary genital surgeries that are medically unnecessary. I don’t agree with it, but it’s none of my business. That’s a decision for kids and their parents and doctors to make.
Seatbelts can be a condition of using public roads, same as the minimum drinking age of 21 is actually a condition for federal highway funding. Same for vaccines, you don’t have to but you can’t go to public school, get into stadiums, or fly in airplanes. And they should expect quarantine procedures in hospitals and higher health insurance, Do I think people should be vaccinated, absolutely, but if they don’t want to they should just face whatever repercussions are reasonable - but it doesn’t need to be illegal to be unvaccinated.
Like I said, you can make it more complicated, but I don’t think it is. Just because it’s legal, doesn’t mean it’s unregulated. The government can impose regs to make us safer and slow us down from trying to hurt ourselves, but they have no business imposing laws that limit a basic and fundamental human right, to decide what to do to their own body.
For suicide I would imagine a compassionate therapy rehab-like system. You get checked in and go through a few weeks, they try psychedelics or whatever might help you, and if you still want to when it’s through you get a permit and a lethal injection. Better than having people leap off bridges because they’re out of options. Or overdose on painkillers and burden the healthcare system. Or traumatize their family. By the way the government spends a lot of money on suicide barrier rails on bridges that could be better spent on treatment facilities like the one I’m describing.
Drugs can be regulated by availability, not by illegality of ingestion
I generally don’t disagree with you, but just want to point out that killing legal ways to get drugs usually doesn’t stop people from getting them, instead it just makes the black market flourish and makes it harder to make sure you’re getting clean stuff. When it comes to drugs, efforts need to be on education, prevention and rehabilitation, rather than criminalizing any part of the process
Agreed. I was thinking about prescriptions, not illegal drugs. But it’s clear with fentanyl and other prescription drugs that even that is not working. I think the government should be focused on purity, safety, and non-religious rehab. I don’t think the education part is really helping, except for websites like erowid.
But bodily autonomy only really covers ingesting. Perhaps that could make drug tests unconstitutional.
Perhaps that could make drug tests unconstitutional.
Heavily depends on the context, I’d say? Being drunk while driving should absolutely stay illegal, and having drug tests for that would be a necessity I guess
That’s like seatbelts, a condition for a privilege. We also condition that drivers have good enough vision, but that doesn’t violate any rights. I was thinking of drug tests for employment.
Ah, yeah, for employment that’s different, sure. That doesn’t really seem to be a thing here in Germany (might even be illegal?), so didn’t think of that
Circumcision is definitely not comparable with gender reassignments. Having said that, circumcisions should be illegal (unless for medical requirements) under 18. Let’s see how many people want to circumcise after 18 for their religion, won’t be many I can assure you
Seatbelts are required because of physics and sometimes we simply don’t allow people to be THAT stupid. Also, if you ever want to have a normal medical system, you can’t have people play Russian roulette because a Facebook post told them to.
Vaccines are not about your they are about your community. We either all vaccinate and live with less suffering or we allow “freedom” and invite more suffering because again some idiots read Facebook posts that told them… Vaccines should be mandatory.
We live in the 21st century, we live in a rather awesome world thanks to science and technology. You can’t pick and choose “oh but this science I don’t like so we’re not doing it”. If you don’t like science and technology, that’s fine, go back to a cave in the forrest and when you’re dead within the year, the problem has been resolved. So yes, you take your vaccine so others won’t have to suffer and no, you don’t get to learn “intelligent design” because it’s stone age bullcrap that will turn you into an idiot that will fight against scientific progress.
I wear seatbelts and I’m vaccinated but I believe in freedom for others. I wish I hadn’t been circumcised, and I think it should be illegal too. It was a violation of my bodily autonomy because I was incapable of consent. An overarching constitutional amendment is what is needed to clarify why circumcision has a different legal standing than other forms of genital mutilation of minors. But I think it shouldn’t be thought of as different. I don’t think 18 is a magical age of bodily autonomy. Abortion, or other bodily choices can be made independently at younger ages.
We don’t need these endless fights over corner-cases of freedom. You spend the time all at once to determine what bodily autonomy means, and what the government’s responsibility is in protecting that fundamental human right, and under what rare circumstances one’s autonomy can be limited. You can make conditions for privileges (seatbelts for roads, vaccines for travel/crowds), but you cannot force vaccinations or brain chips, or RFID implant tags, or anything on people.
I’ve been on opiates for the past decade and a half due to two failed surgeries. I’m not saying my life is perfect by any means, but I can guarantee that I’d be a worse parent and a lot less social without said opiates.
I do take tolerance breaks and I’m (usually) somewhat strict with my dosage, but still, it doesn’t necessarily “ruin your life” even if you don’t do all that.
Not arguing that it can’t be addictive, however. It absolutely can, but it is also possible to live with it.
It would also be a lot easier if it wasn’t completely bound to the current doctor you have to go through. Since my second surgery I’ve had ~12 different doctors, all with their own ideas about how things should be treated, and almost none of them have paid any attention to the fact that changing medication or dosages arbitrarily messes up my daily life every goddamn time. If I could just take care of it myself it’d be way less of a hassle.
Punishing people because they try to avoid pain is such a bad idea in the first place, as we’ll do almost anything if it’s bad enough.
I have no problem with people taking opioids as medication with the support of a doctor. Opioids have been used extremely irresponsible by doctors due to lack oversight and laws in the US, cussing a shit show, but there we get into legal and regulatory territories.
As long as it’s done responsible, any drug might be useful. Ive read great stuff about LSD in mental health treatment, and would love to see more.
You can probably imagine how it was to live through that time with chronic pain. I live in northern Europe and even here doctors went from reasonable to outright hostile at the mere mention of opiates. I had one doctor write angry letters to another doctor because she had written me a 3 month prescription instead of the usual one month at a time.
It’s taken them almost 15 years to trust me with a 6 month prescription at a time.
I can understand the reaction, you can’t deny the suffering that the abuse of opioids has caused in the world, I fully believe they might be a bit over protective with it, which sucks for you.
Either way, I have no problem with opioids, or any medication (hell, even meth) being used responsibily by doctors to ease suffering and cure illnesses.
I just think that those that are addicted (to anything, really) should be treated (forcibly if needed) and where possible cured from their addictions.
Prohibiting drugs indeed is not a good way to go, though I would not allow substances like meth or opioids readily available over the counter either.
I’d probably be okay with over-the-counter availability of opiates in regulated doses, but otherwise I agree with you. Meth in particular afaik doesn’t have any medical uses that other amphetamines wouldn’t do better, so I’m with you there.
It’s borderline impossible to cure someone from an addiction they’re not ready to fight themselves. You can lock them in, but then it’s simply prison with another name. Give someone a reason and the means to live a better life and they have a better chance of making it, in my opinion.
I wonder if you could grow your own papaver somniferum? It’s the same species as poppy seeds for bagels or baking. It’s grown ornamentally so I think it only “becomes” illegal when you milk the pods. Maybe it’s too fun, I don’t know I have no experience with opiates.
If I lived somewhere suitable I’d probably (eventually) try as I have some previous knowledge of growing …stuff.
With that said though, due to the local climate and amount of poppies you’d need even for a limited personal supply it’d be very suboptimal at best.
It’s also a lot harder to properly dose and keep your tolerance low with poppies unless you really know what you’re doing.
Gender reassignments? Sure, but… At what age are we going to allow that? I’ve seen way too many people saying it’s okay for any kid at 5 years old. I’ve seen some kids where at 5, it’s pretty clear that yeah, this kid is different. I’ve also personally seen 10 year olds where it was clear that the parents were pushing it on the child and then the school and everything around the child jumped on the bandwagon and kept supporting the parents decision z not the child’s decision.
CONCERN TROLL DETECTED!
-
The universally agreed age is 18 at the youngest for the thing you call “Gender Reassignment”, typically that refers to the surgery to turn one’s “Outtie” into an “Innie”, the youngest person ever to have this operation was 16 and had to go to Germany to accomplish it.
-
Personally seen 10 year olds having it pushed on them by the parents? First off, anecdotal evidence, second, this situation has never been confirmed to exist outside of one of those scam e-mails they send to old people… These “Wacky liberals forcing their kids to wear panties!” are a right wing boogeyman… judging on how you say Kilometers instead of Miles I’m guessing you’re from the UK, a lot of anti-trans propaganda there
-
The only medical transition options for a child are medications to delay puberty, which are of course, reversible.
We use miles in the UK.
Let me clarify the reassignment statement: I’ve seen a ten year old girl who always was the girliest girl in class over the period of a month suddenly do a 180, then claim that as of now she’s a boy. She did not transition yet, but as told, will be receiving puberty blockers.
On your point 3: I’ve found a lot of studies in support AND a lot of studies that do not support it. British NHS quite recently stopped prescribing those blockers as there is not enough evidence that they are safe or effective. I’d say the “of course” in your phrasing is not warranted.
On the "concern troll " nonsense, just because you read something you disagree with doesn’t mean the other person is trying to troll anyone. You’d get a lot more out of discussions if you wouldn’t start screeching right away
-
Facial tattoos? Sure, do what you want but I think many people underestimate the issues that will enter their lives if they get them. It might cost you a great job, you ready for that? I’d say regulations for that should require like 30 days for you to think about what you are about to do…
In an actually decent society so long as it’s not offensive it shouldn’t matter what is on your face. Why does this stop you from getting a job? That’s the issue right there. Then again in my ideal society at least capitalism and private businesses wouldn’t exist in the first place.
Persona drug use, sure. There are more than enough drugs, however that WILL destroy your life. There is no good outcome for someone using meth, for example l, outside a medical treatment, perhaps. So you do outright forbid that. Same for opioids, or are you going to tell me that free availability of opioids is a good idea?
Chances are you are a hypocrite here anyway even if you don’t realise it but ignoring that for now. Legalising even relatively dangerous things like opioids is necessary because ultimately people will do it anyway. By making it illegal or you are changing it where they get it from (clean, well regulated supply causing less damage vs buying stuff from criminal gangs), what effects it has on society (criminal gangs and lots of convicts), and how much you can actually help people.
Vaccines, anyone? Thanks to anti scientific and illiterate conspiracy idiots, measles are back and brace yourself for polio. Those fuckers that spread this bullshit should be locked up for murder, IMHO. There is no personal choice with vaccines, you fucking take them, or you will cause the suffering of others around you so shut up and take them.
People are going to hate this but I am not convinced about forcing treatment on people. Maybe if they have a recognized mental illness that makes them demonstrably irrational then I can understand it. I think COVID demonstrated that the concept of vaccine induced hurd immunity doesn’t always hold up as even after mass vaccinations in countries where the vast majority got the vaccine you still see infections and sometimes deaths. It’s better as an individual to have the vaccine, but as for benefiting other people? Seems pretty marginal now to be honest. I say this as someone who used to believe the whole concept of hurd immunity through vaccines. Maybe if we had more effective vaccines for covid…
Hell, even things like seatbelts can, should, and must be forced by government because if you don’t, you get the idiots believing that seatbelts are dangerous because “insert stupid story here” so I let my 5 year old in the front seat right next to me, both without seat belt going 120kmh down the freeway. People like that should have their kids taken away, honestly, because they can’t be responsible for a cat, let alone a child.
Seatbelts aren’t a bodily autonomy issue, no one is entitled to a car or to drive. To think otherwise is terrible Americanism. Driving is a privilege not a right. Get it through your damn head!
I partially agree on the drugs point. It shouldn’t be forbidden, but users of said drugs should be regarded as patients in need of medical care, forcibly if needed. There comes a point where these types of drug users can no longer care or decide for themselves, long before somebody must make the decision to steer them away from that end point. What is that based on? The hundreds of homeless drug users that are using in front of kids that i see every day. Somebody has to force their hands before it gets to that point.
And on forced medical treatment and vaccines it shows that you too don’t understand how vaccines work. No, vaccines don’t give 100% protection but it’s like wearing a bullet proof vest and get shot at. You still get injured but a shit load less than without. Some people get shot and still die (Bullets hitting US vests were allowed to push up to 2 inches into the chest, which CAN be lethal). Same with vaccines. You have to start thinking in %. Instead of 90% getting sick, now only 5% gets sick and instead of millions dying, only hundreds die.
The issue with vaccines is though that you need herd immunity. You need at least 90% vaccinated, better 95. Add in people that cannot be vaccinated (immuno compromised, people who are already very I’ll from something else, etc) and you have basically no space for healthy individuals to refuse vaccinations. If they do, vaccines will work less well.
See Covid for this, where loads of anti social illiterate fuckers, fueled by conspiracy nonsense form the internet, decided they knew better than doctors and medical professionals. We didn’t get enough people vaccinated, Covid went on, mutated, requiring more vaccines, which too were ignored and now Covid is here to stay. The good thing is that it severity has lowered to mostly being like the flu, but it is still out there and still kills (small amounts of) people. It didn’t have to go that far had we forced people to take the jab. Vaccines is not about freedom, it’s about responsibility. I don’t want to risk slowly dying while gasping for air just because you want to have the freedom to believe in conspiracy theories.
This " but muh freedom, I love conspiracies!" behavior is the reason that measles are back with a vengeance, and polio, FUCKING POLIO, is rearing it’s head again after being almost eradicated… It’s tiring and sad to see how self destructive we can be.
When your actions make you a (possibly lethal) danger to yourself or to others, you should be forcibly treated, absolutely.
Also COVID started mutating before the vaccines were even approved. YOU don’t understand vaccines or COVID. Not to mention you couldn’t even get a vaccine in time in some countries because of vaccines companies, copyright, and capitalism more broadly.
Because capital got injected like crazy (and improved technology) pharmaceutical companies managed to create a vaccine in record time. Claiming that capitalism caused delays is beyond short sighted.
Covid, like all life, mutates all the time, though few mutations make it big. Covid did manage to slowly mutatie due to the amount of people getting sick which was mainly caused by idiot politicians (hello Trump!) That didn’t wanted to isolate, or thought that Covid was a scam or something.
I do understand the basics of vaccines and Covid, because i read medical journals. It doesn’t matter though, because more importantly, I listen to the experts and I don’t read Facebook conspiracy posts or the “lone wolf’s doctors who know better than all experts who says that they want to enslave you!!”
If everyone had listened to the experts, Covid would have caused a lot less casualties, especially in the US where the orange retard caused so much death and suffering that he might as well get a nice place ect to hitler in hell.
Because capital got injected like crazy (and improved technology) pharmaceutical companies managed to create a vaccine in record time. Claiming that capitalism caused delays is beyond short sighted.
I am not talking about the development of the vaccine, I am talking about deploying it worldwide. Some countries couldn’t afford it. Others didn’t have the right infrastructure and personnel to use it even if they could Because of that and some political issues some countries took to making their own including Cuba and Russia.
I don’t follow conspiracy theorists. I don’t understand why you keep bringing them up.
The issue with vaccines is though that you need herd immunity. You need at least 90% vaccinated, better 95. Add in people that cannot be vaccinated (immuno compromised, people who are already very I’ll from something else, etc) and you have basically no space for healthy individuals to refuse vaccinations. If they do, vaccines will work less well.
I know what hurd immunity is and I said as much. Maybe try reading before you jump to conclusions.
Hurd immunity works really well for things like smallpox or measles because you have vaccines that prevent transmission effectively (not just symptoms, actual transmission and infection), and they don’t mutate very quickly so as to overcome the vaccines. It never worked perfectly against influenza because of antigenic shift meaning the virus mutates faster than you can make new vaccines to treat it. There are also too many varieties for a single vaccine to treat. HIV is the same problem on steroids, that’s partly why there are no vaccines for it. COVID vaccines face the same issue. This doesn’t mean that the vaccines are useless, or that they don’t help reduce hospitalisation - I never claimed this at all. Rather it means that by themselves they won’t eliminate the disease in their current state.
You specifically talk about hitting 90% of people vaccinated in order to create hurd immunity. That’s exactly what we have in the UK, yet still we see infections and deaths.
And on forced medical treatment and vaccines it shows that you too don’t understand how vaccines work. No, vaccines don’t give 100% protection but it’s like wearing a bullet proof vest and get shot at. You still get injured but a shit load less than without. Some people get shot and still die (Bullets hitting US vests were allowed to push up to 2 inches into the chest, which CAN be lethal). Same with vaccines. You have to start thinking in %. Instead of 90% getting sick, now only 5% gets sick and instead of millions dying, only hundreds die.
What makes you think I don’t understand vaccines? I probably understand them better than you do. Be honest did you know what antigenic shift was before I brought it up? Do you know what the difference between a killer CF8+ T cell and a CD4+ helper T cell is and what roles they play in the adaptive immune response? What’s the difference between a complement protein and an antibody?
I am not claiming vaccines do nothing. I myself have had three of them. What I am saying is this:
a) you can’t ethically force any treatment including a vaccine on someone outside of very specific circumstances like a mental health crisis
b) that the effectiveness of COVID vaccines were oversold to the public
c) that said overselling combined with other lies, exaggerations, bad policy and bad research created public distrust that has set back vaccine advocy and science advocacy for a decade or more
d) labelling anyone who has any concerns at all about COVID policy or vaccines as anti-vaxxer or anti-science only hurts advocacy, encourages misinformation, and discourages critical thinking
e) that we need more than just vaccines to fix COVID. That’s why we have other treatments and prophylactics like antiviral medicine. This is already used against other diseases like Influenza and HIV that show resistance to vaccination via antigenic shift.
Like it’s actually no wonder we have antivaxxers after everything your average pro vaccine person has done, on top of all the government scaremongering, hypocrisy and plain incompetence shown in the pandemic. If you want an example of what that looks like look no further than the UK, where I live. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partygate
The way you’re name dropping suggests you have a Wikipedia level knowledge of these things. The way you talk about Covid and how it was handled suggests you have a Facebook conspiracy theory level knowledge of the events that transpired.
Yes, ooohhh, a lot of mistakes were made. Yes, some government officials were huge irresponsible assholes.
None of that changes the fact that vaccines are not only important, they are vital in ensuring people won’t have to suffer from preventable illnesses. We NEED vaccines, like it or not.
What we as human beings also must do is start listening again to the experts, not to companies, not to politicians with their own agendas, and especially not to Facebook posts and YouTube or TikTok videos of self subscribed “lone wolf scientists”
None of that changes the fact that vaccines are not only important, they are vital in ensuring people won’t have to suffer from preventable illnesses. We NEED vaccines, like it or not.
I don’t dislike vaccines though. You haven’t actually listened to anything I am saying.
I am telling you it’s not ethical to force treatment on people. You can’t make people responsible for the actions of a virus. Forcing people can only lead to violence and even more anti-vaxxers.
Vaccines alone also are not sufficient or applicable for all situations. People claiming they are aren’t listening to the experts as you put it. They are a useful tool not a perfect one.
I hate to tell you this but listening to experts isn’t enough. They have to get funding somewhere. Individual systematic biases exist. Whenever reading scientific studies you should be looking for the conflict of interest section, for peer review, as well as the reputation of the publisher and the people writing the study. You also have to consider things like sexism, rascism and ableism and how it’s affected the scientific process in the past.
There’s already a job related to this - Bioethics. It’s complicated and also has to do with consent and state of mind for nearly every medical procedure, not just death.
Absolutely.
It must be tough to get to the end of your life and see nothing but people looking to profit off your passing.
Put me in a coffee can and blow it up or something.
I always said: “just put me out with the trash”.
The cost of anything death related is so immensly high, even the cheap options are too much imo.
Budget Cremation: they toss the body in a dumpster and set it on fire.
My mom said the same thing most of her life. When it came down to it, (bone cancer in her hip) she asked to be cremated, and her ashes scattered somewhere she’d never been. That’s hard to do, she’s been a lot of places.
Personally given how fucked my brain is from mental unwellness, I’d like my remains to be studied for whatever I can provide to the future of modern medicine.
Hey, it’s how 99.9% of the rest of life went! Lol
Humans are supposedly 60% water but for me, at least half of that has been replaced with coffee by now.
The woman in the article is 65 Years Old. She is old enough to remember some of the third places that were free to exist in.
Which probably makes it worse…
A lot of third places (aside from things like parks) did want people’s money. Malls, cafes, arcades…
What’s a third place?
Not home, not work.
Or school, for those young enough to still be going to school.
Ah yes, those places largely no longer exist.
The dying and dead are great people to fight for, you get to name ANYTHING your heart desires and claim you’re doing it for them.
The dying can contradict you and you can just blame it on delirium “See! They’re so crazy from illness that they think they don’t need me, that PROVES that they need me!”, and the dead will quietly let you exploit them for sympathy!
For the last 10 years I have been saying this should be legal. As long as you are determined to be of sound mind and not influenced by anyone, then let them make the decision. You will have many arguments against it (religion, could be cured unexpectedly) but it’s the patient’s decision.
The only argument would be if doctors and nurses should assist. This is a huge argument against state sponsored executions. Maybe a device that can safely and painlessly assist the patient could be a resolution.
So what you are saying is that we need some of those suicide booths that they had in Futarama.
You bring up a good point that it would be hard to find many doctors or medical professionals willing to focus their careers on euthanasia, as it goes against their oaths.
The “oath” isn’t legally binding. They should help those that are suffering no matter the expected end result.
The “Oath” isn’t why they can’t go around assisting in suicides. It’s because they will literally go to jail in the same way as a murderer
Are you not old enough to remember Jack Kevorkian?
I would love a Futurama world.
I’m in agreement. My concern is that this gives people in control the ability to feign choice. “They wanted this route” when in reality, it was murder.
Just need some decent protections in place for things like these.
I agree, it needs to be a very strict and regulated process. No power of attorney or anything like that. The person needs to undergo a psychiatric evaluation by two or three psychiatrist that specializes in suicidal thoughts or self harm. It needs to be a somewhat long process. But, I don’t want it to be a multi year process either.
In Canada, 2 doctors have to agree that the patient is of sound mind, wants Medical Assistance in Dying, and their condition meets the minimum legal threshold. I think that system has been working fairly well.
Sounds good…but in america…we’re prone to finding ways to fuck up.
deleted by creator
“Off yourself by X date and your designated beneficiary will receive a payout equal to 5% of the expected healthcare costs of managing your condition until your inevitable agonizing death! Act now and we’ll throw in an additional funeral package at no cost!”
I don’t know about the funeral package. Those things are expensive and you’re talking about insurance companies.
Hey I didn’t say it was even a decent package!
“Thanks for calling Joe’s Crematorium, you kill 'em, we torch 'em, what can I do for you?”
Burn it. Burn it all.
This is the largest reason why it has to remain illegal. Capitalism will find a way to make it marketable.
Death with dignity should be allowed and viewed with reverence.
All death is undignified. It’s the loss of the most precious thing we have. Only atheists view it as a cessation of being.
I disagree. Plenty of humans have lived wonderful lives. Death is inevitable. No reason why it can’t be managed as well as their life.
If anything, you’d think Atheists would value life more considering under that paradigm life is a finite resource that can and will run out.
I’m an atheist and I certainly value life more. I don’t believe in an afterlife, so that’s all you get.
But I also think that death can be very dignified. What can be very undignified is dying, especially if it is in a very agonizing way.
And that is why I support legal euthanasia. Forcing people to suffer something unbearable that is impossible to escape as long as they are alive is cruel.
Good old scarcity.
Yeah almost like an afterlife is a made up idea to convince people to be chill with dying in war
That being said, there are experiences no one really needs to go through. There’s no point to feeling the agonizing pain of end stage cancers. There’s no point to feeling calcium deposits or liver failure. If someone wants to skip those things and cut off a few months of suffering, I don’t blame them.
All the jabronis in this thread with “being able to decide when you die is BAD actually” have clearly never had a loved one painfully and slowly waste away in a shitty hospital bed praying for death every day.
People should have the right to decide when they decide to end the game of life. They should be able to make this decision with a qualified medical professional, preferably one who specializes in end of life care.
There are certain moments no one should have to endure. Really recommend the documentary “How to Die in Oregon.”
I work as an EEG tech. I see some really awful cases where there’s no hope for a meaningful recovery. Lawmakers should be required to do a month of hospice/palliative care rounds before signing any legislation on right to die. There is so much misinformation and misunderstanding surrounding what that care entails. The patients I see often don’t have the ability to make that choice and are left up on life preserving care for days to months at a time without any chance at meaningful recovery.
Forcing lawmakers to research a topic before deciding on it? This is America dammit! We don’t even make them READ the bills before deciding on them!
It should also be noted that these decisions primarily affect people who are too poor to afford to travel with their loved ones to places that currently allow assisted suicide. If you’re wealthy you are able to die how you want.
Mostly true, but there comes a point in poor health where you cannot travel at all, or fulfill the requirement of physically starting or engaging in the death process (if required), even if you’re rich as Croesus. This especially applies to end-term cancer, motor neuron diseases, etc. If you can’t drink through a straw, you can’t use your hands, or you can’t speak or otherwise make your wishes known, that excludes you from a number of programs that exist now.
In addition, there’s a catch-22 of how, when you are dying of a progressive disease like ALS or Huntington’s, every minute is bringing you closer to exactly the kind of suffering you want to avoid, while you may not yet be sick enough to physically qualify under the terms of that specific program or its country’s laws.
For example, if you were to want go to Dignitas in Switzerland, you are looking at a roughly 6 month lead time to get all the approvals and interviews and paperwork done, during which your disease may well progress to the point that even if you had a private plane and an army of carers to get you there, you would not be able to get there, or if you did, not be able to fulfill the requirements of the program. (They may have since removed this requirement as I no longer see it mentioned in Wikipedia, but back in the day if you could not pick up the cup or drink through the straw yourself, that was a complete disqualifier for Dignitas, understandably so.)
And even then, there are countries like the UK, and the number of people who could not travel and were forced to go through endless litigation with the government trying to get the right to end their suffering legally – but in doing so made it impossible to do on the sly without subjecting their survivors to legal jeopardy and possible accusations of murder. (Which is rather ironic, given that King George V was euthanized by his doctor with the royal family’s permission.)
I think a lot of that is changing, but not quickly enough. It’s still the age-old ongoing strife between people who can’t face their own inner baggage about the deaths of others, and people who just don’t see the point of needless terminal suffering.
For example, there are still methods anyone can use for autothanasia, rich or poor, like VSED, and today Nembutal is still fairly easy to get south of the US border – but even then if you have a personal carer that insists you do not have the right to end your physical suffering, and they squirt water down you throat or throw out your just-in-case meds, you’re screwed anyway.
I remember when this was a ballot initiative in CO.
I voted for it, but it was shocking to see just how much negativity there was surrounding it.
deleted by creator
No, it’s still on live support…
But what about the pharmaceutical company shareholders? Don’t they get any say in how long we need their products? Yes one person might be in terrible pain for years, but at least twelve people will make a lot of money.
Making suicide profitable surely won’t have any kind of twisted dystopian effects on companies…
With how much they can charge for every individual comfort, suicide will never be more profitable than suffering. It it was, we wouldn’t be having these debates.
It doesn’t have to be the most profitable in all scenarios to be an optimization aspect of business to cheapen services and increase fees. Long-term care has long-term costs, if it is cheaper to push somebody to suicide, there will be economical vectors that seek to exploit the opening for profit.
I shouldn’t need a reason.
This is not so much about giving you a reason than giving a doctor the legal option to assist you.
I understand. And, that doctor shouldn’t be able to deny my request.
Futurama suicide booths?
Futurama was parodying Star Trek, which came up with the idea.
Well, yes and no. I don’t want to be hacked to death inside an outhouse by a machine. But… maybe some kind of sleepy time tea and goooooogniiight.
I’d support it for any nation with free healthcare. But people are now going to be choosing between being with their families and not bankrupting them. I would not doubt it would be used to justify insurance companies not covering terminally ill patients because they only cover death for the terminaly ill.
Yeah, as great of an idea it is, it’s terrifying to envision this through the lense of American capitalists.
I think Kovorkian has the right idea, honestly.
I’m permanently disabled with a degenerative condition. Once I’m just surviving and not living, I’d love the freedom of a painless end. I watched grandparents suffer, I’ve watched them be kept alive through machines and drugs, I listened to my grandfather beg me for death… you’ll never change my mind that assisted suicide for the terminally ill is the ethical choice.
