Especially as a human can normally consent to death but a pet can’t
It is actually legal in Canada, you have the right to kill yourself there
Technically, if you’re successful, you have the right to kill yourself anywhere. Don’t let your dreams be dreams. I’d absolutely pull the plug on myself if the time came where I just wanted to fuck off. Hard to arrest and take a corpse to trial.
The problem is by the time you’re bad enough to say “fuck this” you may not be physically able to pull the plug. My dad had terminal cancer. One day he thought he was just tired and went up to take a nap. He laid down and never sat up again. He died a week and a half later. Unfortunately for my dad my state didn’t allow for terminal patients the choice to end their life. As of this year it is allowed if you have a doctor saying you have less than 6 months to live.
Same with my mom and cancer. One Saturday she took a long nap and missed a pain medication dose, as my dad thought she’d be better off getting the rest. Never got back up unassisted and was gone within 10 days. She never would have opted for euthanasia anyway, super Catholic, but it was crazy how fast, and then how slowly, the whole thing unfolded.
I have multiple plans in place for myself if I end up facing down the same fate. Religion wasn’t catching for me so if I get a terminal diagnosis, I’m living it up and then Irish goodbying. Really sorry about your dad.
Sorry to for your loss buddy :(
The “at large” folk are the same folk that justify what Trump and other war powers, terrorists et al do by killing other humans (i.e. murder) for the sake of ideology. It’s the same thing. These people’s silly books make it so that you can’t off yourself because it’s a “sin”. They’re ok with you suffering without limbs on a daily basis without proper healthcare, die during childbirth, etc. Quitting life prematurely thoughl? No, that’s clearly way worse to these people.
Because we value humans much higher than animals.
^* human life, not humans. Being confined like a potted plant is considered acceptable for a person in a coma or with a severe disabilities, but not for a pet.
Uh the number of people crating their pets seems to disagree with this assertion.
People who do crating don’t think they’re confining anything or doing anything bad tho
yeah exactly. The person above said that “Being confined like a potted plant is considered acceptable for a person in a coma or with a severe disabilities, but not for a pet.” but it sure seems to me like people think that it’s fine to confine pets as well.
That’s why there are no homeless, unfed, untreated medical conditions, and slave labor! 🌈🌞🦄
Well, I just said “higher” not “above all else” and the animal bar isn’t that high to begin with.
Money > humans > pets > wildlife > farm animals
Religions and doctors “vowing to protect life.” Especially religious doctors “vowing to protect life” even when the life means just pain and suffering that can’t be properly eased with pain meds either, because you know, the dying person might get addicted to the meds. That’s obviously worse.
In my country, when an elder person is too sick and “ready to be euthanized”, they just stop giving them water and let them dry to death. It can take weeks. They do give some pain medication, but there is no way of knowing what amount is enough. You’d imagine that dying that way is pretty damn painful yet they don’t have a way of communicating that. But if they OD’ed, it would be murder so better let them suffer!
But also, euthanizing animals is becoming more taboo too. Many pets live in pain, relying in “pet mobility carts” and medications. Antidepressants for cats, epilepsy meds for dogs… Vets prolong the suffering for money, for people who can’t accept facts and do the kind and right thing. Animals have no way of communicating about side-effects from medications. Endless rehoming is thought to be better than letting go.
the Wise know that sometimes, their time has come whatever was created must either perish or have eternal life
My grandfather got that treatment. Fuck religions.
I am indeed sorry that Doctors who misunderstood the Bible did that to your grandfather.
To artificially prolong life in pain and suffering is extremely immoral
Lets be honest, most humans do not view pets as equals to a human. Valuing our own species over others is just part of our biology. (not saying that I agree with this view)
If people had the legal responsibility to keep paying thousands or tens of thousands (or potentially more) to keep a pet alive at its senior years, then like… I bet like 50% of pet owners will either become bankrupt or go to jail for animal cruelty.
Laws are just written with humans prioritized… I mean… humans have healthcare¹, pets do not.
A human in an emergency situation arriving in a hospital, and they are legally required to give treatment even if the person cannot pay at the time¹, a vet can legally refuse to treat a pet in an emergency until the owner pays (not saying that would refuse, but they could).
(¹restrictions apply, varies by country)
One could argue that if euthanasia is legal, then there would be situations of: “Hey, granny is kinda taking too much resouces… maybe we should just pull the life support?” or “Okay my child has cancer and takes up too much of my money, and all this money would be wasted if the treatment fails, I’m gonna talk to the doctor and end this parasite once and for all”
One could argue that if euthanasia is legal, then there would be situations of: “Hey, granny is kinda taking too much resouces… maybe we should just pull the life support?” or “Okay my child has cancer and takes up too much of my money, and all this money would be wasted if the treatment fails, I’m gonna talk to the doctor and end this parasite once and for all”
Which is exactly why I’m in favour of euthanasia for humans on a moral level (people should be able to decide their own fate) but against it on a societal level (it will likely result in people getting pressured into “choosing” death.)
The harm of the people who are unable to choose death (a.k.a commit suicide) on their own suffering is a lesser evil compared to people who want to live being pressured into dying (in my view).
Right?! For example in Canada they have “MAID” (Medical Assistance in Dying) and it’s a good start but recently they tried to add mental disorders to it and it’s really itchy for me.
Yeah I got major downvotes on here once for saying MAiD for mental health problems seems ripe for abuse. Isn’t suicidal ideation a symptom of many mental health issues? And the state is just going to help people fulfil those urges rather than treating the underlying illness causing them? Seems crazy to me
Short answer: religion.
“Only God can take a life”… except when it an heretic, a non believer, a sinner, …
Killing believers = sin
Killing non believers = " the work of God"
And pets are animals and “you can do as you please”.
It’s honestly kind of depressing. I went all out for my dog’s end of life care, ensuring it was as dignified as possible and he was as comfortable as he could be, and I hate the idea that if I were to ever come down with Alzheimer’s or something, instead of going on my own terms in the comfort of my home with people I know and love, I would instead be kept alive as long as possible and then probably die with indignity, terrified and confused and not recognizing anyone around me or even my own self.
On one hand I am glad of what I was able to do for my dog, I loved him to death. I just wish that I could be afforded that same dignity when it’s my turn to go.
because animals aren’t sentient. they also have far shorter life spans.
also pragmatically, we are not willing to spend as much or invest as much in animal medical care as we do human medical care.
I’m not going to spend 30K to save my dog/cat, but I sure as would my spouse or child.
because animals aren’t sentient.
That very much depends on your definition of Sentience. The most basic one is just “the ability to sense and feel”, which means a lot more things than humans are sentient.
they also have far shorter life spans.
Some sharks and turtles want to have a word with you.
The word for human-level awareness is sapience. All animals are sentient by definition.
Most well cared for dogs and cats are euthanized when they are at the natural end of their lifespans and no longer have a good quality of life. Bodies grow old and die. It doesn’t matter how much money we invest in medical care, human or animal. At best it can buy a few more (often painful) months or years.
Euthanasia is most often chosen when life is no longer enjoyable for the patient. I think the moral question the OP is posing is why we offer this kind relief to companion animals and not have this option for ourselves.
Because pets aren’t leaving anyone large sums of cash in their will.
Surely some of the pets of eccentric millionaires have money left to them that will go to someone else when they die. 🤔
Much of it comes from Christian theology.
Suicide has long been considered one of, if not the, worst possible sins in Christianity. At least in the Catholic tradition, sins can be forgiven by confessing your sins to a priest and having them absolved. But you can’t do this with suicide. Per Christian theology, even a murderer or child molester can some day repent, beg forgiveness, and be forgiven of their sins. They won’t be absolved from the earthly consequences of their actions, but they’ll be forgiven in the next life. That is a core message of Christianity - no actions are truly irredeemable as long as you still draw breath.
But with suicide, this isn’t possible. You can’t confess your sins after you’re dead, and suicide means that your last act on Earth will be a mortal sin. I suppose you could maybe do confession along with assisted suicide. Maybe you have a priest on hand, swallow the poison, and then immediately confess your sin. But most religious scholars would likely argue that doesn’t work. Your contrition has to be genuine for it to count.
Anyway, pardon the digression. But this really is the root of it. Even in modern Western societies. Even among people who aren’t themselves active Christians. Even among those who’ve never stepped inside a church. Secular Western society is still heavily influenced by Christian philosophy. A strong aversion to suicide in any form is a part of this. For most Christians, voluntarily signing up for euthanasia is the easiest direct path to eternal damnation that one can achieve. The only quicker more direct way would be a murder-suicide. We’ve never had that same worry with animals. Christian theology doesn’t assign souls to animals. And even if it did, they would have no moral blame for us choosing to put them down.
It sounds plausible, until you see the map of countries that have some sort of legalized euthanasia. The only few that do have it are Christian or christian heavily influenced countries.
Because most of the members of the society (people) belive that people have souls and animals don’t.
ha ha okay
because of WW2 and the experiences made there.
if euthanasia was legal, it would be immediately used against some kind of disadvantaged group, which is why it’s kept forbidden.
Why would those disadvantaged groups agree to being euthanized?
Agree or persuaded.
How do you imagine that would work?
I live in a country that allows for euthanasia and it’s not like you just walk into a doctor’s office and ask for a suicide pill. It’s a long process involving multiple doctors and psychological assessments.
"Carr said that since Track 2 MAiD was implemented in 2021 – which allows patients who are not terminally ill to be euthanized – people with disabilities are targeted “for medical assistance in dying when they are not dying” and “that has certainly changed people’s interactions with the health care system quite dramatically.”
She said: “People with disabilities are now very much afraid in many circumstances to show up in the healthcare system with regular concerns because often MAiD is suggested as the solution to what is considered to be intolerable suffering that happens to be caused by some of the things that this committee addresses like poverty and the situations that people with disabilities disproportionately find themselves in compared to other Canadians.”"
MacAulay walked the committee through what his department knew, thus far, saying the first case that came to light occurred last summer where the caseworker repeatedly pushed the notion of MAID to an unnamed veteran who had called seeking help with post-traumatic stress.
A second occasion reported happened last May where the same caseworker provided assisted dying information to a veteran.
Another incident is alleged to have happened in December 2021, said MacAulay. It involved a veteran who contacted the department to ask questions about MAID. The committee had already heard testimony about that event during a previous hearing last month.
The fourth known case apparently happened in 2019, where a veteran called VAC specifically asking for information about assistance in taking his own life.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/veterans-maid-rcmp-investigation-1.6663885
Probably for budget reasons. Someone comes up with an idea that the state should cut spending on the sick and elderly and start campaigning about how we should be focusing healthcare on only the fit and the strong to save the nation. Then we just need to make the patriot pill easily available and remind sick people of how big of a burden they are.
I know, that was a bit far fetched and personally I think the terminally ill should have a way to leave with dignity instead of jumping off bridges or driving into oncoming traffic.
Someone comes up with an idea that the state should cut spending on the sick and elderly and start campaigning about how we should be focusing healthcare on only the fit and the strong
That’s already the case with private health insurance.
I think the terminally ill should have a way to leave with dignity instead of jumping off bridges or driving into oncoming traffic.
Where I live euthanasia is available in case of “suffering without chance of improvement”, which includes mental health issues in very rare cases (and only after every treatment option has been exhausted).
The last few years there has been some discussion to allow for euthanasia for people who feel they have “completed their life”. As in: elderly who don’t want to spend their last few years in an old peoples home wearing adult diapers slowly withering away. They had a good life, they feel like there is nothing left for them to do on this earth and just want a dignified death on their own terms. There is something to be said for that.
This document says they did.
I’m pro-euthanization but if we’re going to get into a consent in fascist countries debate then I think it’s not very hard to fake.
Euthanasia is already legal in some countries.
And is already predominately targets some disadvantaged groups.
Source?
In my country euthanasia has to be required by the person wanting to ending. Nor the government nor any other person or organization can ask for this procedure to be done to an unwilling person.
The person has to require twice, and be evaluated by a comitee of medical doctors to ensure that it has a chronic disease that could not be cured and that it’s causing ongoing pain that would not get better with medication.
https://www.sanidad.gob.es/gabinete/notasPrensa.do?id=6823
Statistics on it doesn’t point to it being “targeted to anyone”. More so, there are many people who ask for it and cannot get it in time and die of natural causes before the procedure could be done.
A disturbing portion of the populace gets off on cruelty
Assisted suicide is legal in my state and 12 others…
Because you need to control humans, but there is no need for pets.
In fact, it seems that euthanasia and abortion are more difficult where religion is stronger.
At least in the States, I believe it’s for religious and financial reasons. Correct me if I’m wrong, but allowing someone to off themselves could be condemning them to hell. Also, to be cynical, medically assisted “checking out” is the easier, cheaper way out, instead of burning through money in a hospital.
Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with ending the suffering of a terminal illness. Prolonged suffering is unnecessary, and a person should have the right to go out on their own terms.
I’m saying that insurance companies are greedy and want to make more money from the terminally ill, at the expense of the suffering of the patients and their families.
United Healthcare was recently caught paying nursing homes not to send elderly in medical distress to the hospitals, to save on costs.
Yeah, I think their attribution is off. Hospitals and care homes make money off of medical care for elderly and chronically ill/disabled patients from Medicare/medicaid, so there can be a perverse incentive for care providers to perform more testing and treatment than is medically necessary or advisable. Like chemotherapy for people who don’t even have cancer. Additionally, medical technology or pharmaceutical companies sometimes pay doctors for prescriptions, so there can be an even stronger incentive to provide specific treatments, even if they’re inappropriate for the patient at hand.
Insurance companies are on the opposite side of the spectrum when it comes to perverse incentives- they benefit from as few and as inexpensive treatments as possible, regardless of the reason (partially, they also sometimes have contracts with medtech and pharmaceutical companies- second link below). Whether claims for treatment are denied and the insured forgoes care, then dies; claims bounce around in the denial and appeal process for long enough that the insured dies; or the insured can be fully treated quickly and cheaply, the insurance company benefits. When they approve and pay claims for longer term or more expensive care, they consider the company to be losing money, instead of simply allocating money that they had already earmarked for general claim payments to specific insureds/recipients.
I left a job in liability insurance, which is actually very different from health insurance, but they both operate on some similar principles (and under similar bounds) of contract law, risk assessment, etc., because I didn’t agree with the ethics of it and couldn’t rationalize it to myself anymore. Even internally, at every level of interaction, we always phrased our goal as paying exactly what we owed, not as little as possible though. The concept of a company officially and openly naming a role “denial nurse” is wild to me. It feels like something I’d see as the joke answer in an hr training video about legal compliance at my old company.
Kudos to you for not selling your ethics.
I mean, it took me a few years, but the more I learned, the worse it got.
The psyche often refuses to believe what it finds distasteful, abhorrent, until it simply can not. It sank in, and you took action, rather than stay for “practical reasons.” Credit where it’s due.
Nothing remotely like this was said.
@TrickDacy what does ending the suffering of a terminal illness mean ??
Nothing to do with what was said and should be a personal choice. But I’m not participating in a weird conversation you tried to create here based on things no one said.
@TrickDacy why should suicide be a personal choice ??🤔🤔🤔
Obvious reasons but
I’m not participating in a weird conversation you tried to create here based on things no one said.
Your trolling is weak
