"First, by delaying access, this might provide a means to accelerate systemic improvements. However, it’s unclear why we should expect this. Housing and health care are facing systemic problems, and there’s no clear connection between them and MAiD."
The clear connection is the existence of living people who need solutions to those systemic problems. The more "Sophia"s who cannot afford a home that makes their chemical sensitivities bearable who are dead, the less reason we would have to come up with a systemic solution to the problem of housing for people with chemical sensitivities.
"And even if there were such a connection, it would be wrong to use patients now as a means to getting better care for those in the future."
It seems like this would have to depend on the particulars? Is the suffering of these desperate suicidal people (or the costs associated with extralegally killing themselves, whichever they prefer) so much worse than being euthanized that it is worth giving up solutions to systemic problems? This is not at all obvious.
Or are you saying that it is simply always wrong to violate a person's wishes for their own body? Because, no. We should value more than just people's wishes (although their wishes are important)--we should value them and their lives. If my brother is suicidal, I'm going to do just about everything I can to stop him killing himself, even if he has a stable, informed preference for death, because I value him and not merely his wishes.
Yes, I understand that. But the question is the source and cause of their suffering. My work has been focused on eliminating those things and assuring folk have an at least equal right to live with dignity, despite restrictions rather than ending their life as a first option. And over the last 30 years few who have supported "Death with Dignity" have wished first to concentrate on the improvement of the life faced with challenges rather than its simple termination.
Gee, “As long as I have”…since August. I’ve been covering this subject since 1998. It’s not about a “better world” argument, a title at once dismissive and cure. It is about the use of medical termination as an easy answer in complex circumstances where better care and support might permit one to life with dignity despite restrictions. You really need to read the critiques before you attempt a full argument.
It’s about giving people who are suffering the right to end their suffering. Death is inevitable. We should be able to choose to go peacefully, with dignity.
I believe that another concern in case of mental health is "abnormally biased towards this particular decision even if generally able of decision-making", see Noah Smith's example with depression: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/the-perverse-incentives-of-euthanasia
"First, by delaying access, this might provide a means to accelerate systemic improvements. However, it’s unclear why we should expect this. Housing and health care are facing systemic problems, and there’s no clear connection between them and MAiD."
The clear connection is the existence of living people who need solutions to those systemic problems. The more "Sophia"s who cannot afford a home that makes their chemical sensitivities bearable who are dead, the less reason we would have to come up with a systemic solution to the problem of housing for people with chemical sensitivities.
"And even if there were such a connection, it would be wrong to use patients now as a means to getting better care for those in the future."
It seems like this would have to depend on the particulars? Is the suffering of these desperate suicidal people (or the costs associated with extralegally killing themselves, whichever they prefer) so much worse than being euthanized that it is worth giving up solutions to systemic problems? This is not at all obvious.
Or are you saying that it is simply always wrong to violate a person's wishes for their own body? Because, no. We should value more than just people's wishes (although their wishes are important)--we should value them and their lives. If my brother is suicidal, I'm going to do just about everything I can to stop him killing himself, even if he has a stable, informed preference for death, because I value him and not merely his wishes.
Yes, I understand that. But the question is the source and cause of their suffering. My work has been focused on eliminating those things and assuring folk have an at least equal right to live with dignity, despite restrictions rather than ending their life as a first option. And over the last 30 years few who have supported "Death with Dignity" have wished first to concentrate on the improvement of the life faced with challenges rather than its simple termination.
Gee, “As long as I have”…since August. I’ve been covering this subject since 1998. It’s not about a “better world” argument, a title at once dismissive and cure. It is about the use of medical termination as an easy answer in complex circumstances where better care and support might permit one to life with dignity despite restrictions. You really need to read the critiques before you attempt a full argument.
If you are that familiar with the issues, you might try actually responding to his arguments.
It’s about giving people who are suffering the right to end their suffering. Death is inevitable. We should be able to choose to go peacefully, with dignity.