Physcisian assisted suicide

Is the opposition to physician assisted suicide just based on Christian dogma, or are there legitimate concerns?

A common argument against allowing physician assisted suicide is that people who suffer from treatable conditions could be coerced by family members or medical professionals into "ending it" due to personal factors (financial, social, ect.). I thought this argument was a little ridiculous after first, but after I started working as a hospital insurance specialist last year, I honestly think it has a lot of merit to it.

TLDR: Americans will use it to kill people who could live for the money

*at first

Why is it that killing a dying, suffering animal is considered an act of mercy but doing the same to a human makes you a terrible person?

Couldnt you put ethics rules/laws in place like you do with literally everything else in the medical system?

Because human life is more precious apparently. That's why people HAVE to die in puddles of their own piss, shit and puke, weeping from agony. Because those precious moments have to last as long as possible...

It took about 3 minutes of working in a nursing him to realizes assisted suicide is the right answer. Seriously just take these people in to see these seniors suffering.

Any system can be abuses, and people in any profession can be corrupt. But doctors have some of best and most educational first-hand experience with death and dying, and the vast majority seem to be quite wise on the matter.
Pressure from family members is a legitimate issue, but checks and balances could be put in place to limit such a thing. As is, lots of families keep their loved ones "alive" long after they should die or would want to. In my opinion that's even worse.

"Thou shalt not kill"

Humans and animals are obviously not on the same anthropomorphic scale. It's a similar reason why meat-eaters have no problems seeing a dead fish or chicken, a little more discomfort at seeing, say, a calf or piglet dead beside it's mother (OMG, humans take care of their young also!), and -- unless you have a taste for African bushmeat -- feel just a little weirded out seeing a gorilla or chimp get shot.

>inb4 'hard' edgelords say nothing bothers them in the slightest.

I think it's OK in the case of terminal patients who are obviously in pain. Not for the general public.

The concerns are religiously-fueled in a lot of people, but there is also merit to 'slippery slope' arguments even among secular people. If physician-assisted suicide became more commonplace, would the life of all seriously ill patients (not necessarily just terminal) be considered cheaper or less convenient? Would there be pressure to off yourself and save the state and your family money?

My wife's mom's best friend got assisted suicide in Switzerland. She was late 50s, had had cervical cancer several years back, but chemo and hysterectomy cured it for the time. Last year it came back, and they found tumours in the remains of her genitals, her stomach lining, and her bladder. She had low odds of surviving 12 months according to the doctors, and I think she just had zero interest in a second round of all the hassle and pain of chemo and a long-drawn out slowly weakening death and shit.

Animals dont have metacognition

Passive physician assisted suicide is legal IIRC
The pretty much let my great aunt die, and pretty much everyone was relieved, her daughter, my grandma, her brother. Everyone was happy that she didn't have to go through more misery.

Naturally a doctor who has accumulated enough mercy debts would feel like his title should be executioner. Whereas the implied emphasis is to go out on your own terms. It's not like the doctors don't give you keys to success, drugs, guns, etc.

Mercy deaths*

Difficult to ensure, just with law, that the person isn't being coerced by family.

I suppose if the person has no money to speak of, and no will...

For the younger, there is the problem that pain is temporary, and the condition may not be as fatal as originally thought.

...and then you get into these situations where the person can no longer communicate or isn't considered sane. Most people in such states are under custodianship and have given their power of attorney to a family member.

Then there's the problem of finding a doctor who will do it. Few and far between.

It does suck that we treat our pets with more humanity than our humans in this regard though.

You can, in America, opt for Hospice care with pain management and no life support (including feeding tubes), which is pretty close, as well as not being at all unusual. Few people last more than a few weeks under Hospice care (in fact, if you last more than two months, you're no longer eligible under some plans).

If they are in a nursing home, and not hospice care, that rather suggests either they've no fatal condition and/or they want to live.

They'd have to be a real scumbag to push their family member to their death.

Still a personal freedom to choose when you will die is one of the greatest freedom a human could have. The right to physician assisted suicide is a humane way of dying if you have a incurable, painful and terminal condition. Its one that must be offered.

>They'd have to be a real scumbag to push their family member to their death.
As an old guy who has seen it far too many times - a lot of families are really nasty when it comes time to die. (And statistically, families suing one another over a will actually happens more often than not.)

I've just been really lucky not to actually belong to one of those.

I'm not that old, ~29, but I've experienced an old guy die within the last year. I won't comment on the emotional side of things, but from what I've heard, the immediate families were more interested in the money. It was only the secondary family members that helped him through the last days.

>thou shalt not kill
>proceeds to kill half his tribe for worshipping a golden calf

The real reason assisted suicide was opposed was because the church feared that everyone would start killing themselves to go to heaven faster.

It certainly developed due to Christian interpretation of philosophy during the Scholastic period, but is accurate in their assessment of a potential concern that falls outside of dogmatic thinking. But even Aristotle rejected suicide as something that would be an injustice/detrimental to the state, although I've never really known why he thinks it would be considering that such an instance of self-harm would be final, and would limit any further injustices to the state by way of a character that is not virtuous. The person in question would be dead after all.

Why should it have to last even a few weeks? A lethal dose of barbiturates would finish you off much more quickly. No suffering. No misery. No indignity.

There's a simple solution to this. Say "no".

>They'd have to be a real scumbag to push their family member to their death.

Many, many families in the modern world are total and complete garbage. Laws should exist to prevent them from acting like the monsters they are.

In most jurisdictions where it's already allowed, a few different doctors have to sign off on it, as well as a psychiatrist. They do screen for family pressures. And while scumbag selfish human garbage do exist, I like to believe they are more the minority. As least my family isn't like this... Further, you have to be mentally sound. Dementia or vegetative states automatically rule you out.

The woman I know who got assisted suicide (see: ) was a single child, unmarried with no family of her own, and only one younger half-sister who was estranged from her. Apparently she didn't tell this half-sister of her plans, and the two hadn't spoken for a few years, and she was kind of devastated after the fact.

As I see it, Christian dogma