I do disagree with you a bit. MAID isn’t like a take-a-number system, I don’t think it would be aiding impulsive suicidal thoughts. There is a doctor involved who should be on the hook for how and why the call to permit MAID is handled. That’s not perfect though.
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 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.
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.
I do disagree with you a bit. MAID isn’t like a take-a-number system, I don’t think it would be aiding impulsive suicidal thoughts. There is a doctor involved who should be on the hook for how and why the call to permit MAID is handled. That’s not perfect though.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.