How come if my dog is sick and I take him to get put out of his misery its ok? On a human its not? How come human laws don't apply to animals? I think of our dog as family and he's one of us?
The answer OP is looking for is: if you make it easy to kill people in pain you make it easier to kill people who aren't. This is true for any animal including dogs our law just cares about their lives less.
Bad example. In the US it's super cool to deny care for dollars. Illness and death are built into the system from for profit hospitals to health insurance and pharma pricing.
Edit: Downvote all you like, but Luigi isn't a folk hero without reason.
Hospitals want to drain your estate of every dime while insurance companies want you to die as soon and as cheaply as possible. It's a beautiful balance.
Countries that have assisted dying do not make it "easy". Especially when someone isn't physically ill, they throw every type of therapy and help at them to persuade them not to kill themselves.
You cannot put a person down for being sick. Even in countries where euthanasia is allowed, the person has to ask for it, under formal circumstances following formal rules.
That's totally besides the point. The reason humans get to say when a pet should be euthanized is just because animals aren't capable of deciding it and communicating it.
Nope, not when a perfectly healthy happy good dog is put down because the owner find it best, or when an animal shelter put down animals they can't find homes for, or when a Zoo put down young animals, because their cuteness has been expended, and the zoo doesn't want more grown animals.
In all these cases there is absolutely no reason to think the animal wants to die. So it is not about communication, it's because an animal is a thing you can own and do with what you want, as long as it isn't too cruel.
Oh for fucks sake, it is not allowed to be the decision of others, only the person that wants it, and only under certain circumstances, like being terminally ill and in pain.
It's actually way worse, because you can have a dog put down that is perfectly healthy, even when other people want to adopt the dog.
If you have a dog you literally own it, and the only regulation that protects the dog are rules against animal cruelty.
You cannot own a human being.
Unless this was a case of USA defaultism, slavery still exists. In fact there's more slaves today than ever before. 50 million slaves last I checked. Mostly because overall human population has obviously increased drastically too but I digress.
Also USA constitution exempts prisoners so still okay in a limited capacity.
Exactly, and when you could, it was also allowed to beat them to death, as long as they didn't die immediately, but it took a day or two. Those are the rules of the bible.
OK then you are more progressed than we are here in Denmark.
But our neighbor did exactly what I wrote, in her defense she was dying of cancer, but we and another family she knew both offered to adopt the dog, the dog was very fond of both of us, my wife walked it daily, and when we visited, the dog would jump on the couch and lie across my lap, which it did for nobody else. But she went ahead and had the dog put down anyway. Perfectly legal as it is done humanely.
My wife actually has trauma about the incident, because the vet came to her house, and my wife was there for support, and when my wife found the leash to hold him, he was so filled with joy because he thought they were going for a walk, but it was only to hold him while he was injected.
So here you can have perfectly healthy happy good dogs put down, even when 2 families were ready to adopt it.
Her reason for doing it was that she didn't want the dog to miss her after she died.
From experience, it was hard to have a healthy dog put down. It was my dad's dog and my dad had dementia. It was a very aggressive dog and killed other dogs in the pack. I had to keep convincing the vet it was a danger to have. It wasn't an easy process.
I had to keep convincing the vet it was a danger to have. It wasn’t an easy process.
If it wasn't your dog, you are not the one to decide, obviously your dad having dementia means he isn't fit to make the decision. You did well in this case. And I think the doctor was acting according to regulation.
But when you actually are the owner, it's a very different story, and our neighbor did exactly what I wrote, in her defense she was dying of cancer, but we and another family she knew both offered to adopt the dog, the dog was very fond of both of us, my wife walked it daily, and when we visited, the dog would jump on the couch and lie across my lap, which it did for nobody else. But she went ahead and had the dog put down anyway. Perfectly legal as it is done humanely.
My wife actually has trauma about the incident, because the vet came to her house, and my wife was there for support, and when my wife found the leash to hold him, he was so filled with joy because he thought they were going for a walk, but it was only to hold him while he was injected.
So yes you can have perfectly healthy happy good dogs put down, you don't even have to give a reason. They also do it at rescue shelters all the time.
Yes the story is sad all the way, the woman died shortly after. Some times life sucks, we were very good friends.
At least the new neighbors also seem nice.
My stepfather made use of Oregon's Death With Dignity law. Him scheduling his death a week out was... weird, but I'm always glad it was an option.
Though at one point a doc did legally have to inform him that instead of the painless and easy medical assisted death he could instead choose to stop eating or drinking.
Sorry to break it to you kids but billions of people all over the world literally eat animals every day.
Barbaric ? Perhaps, but it's fair to assume that 100% of your ancestors in the last 100,000 years have delighted in this activity as often as possible.
You may not wish to acknowledge this but the reality is: your beloved dog or cat is a lesser being, assigned very few rights.
Obviously if you have a pet dog then you treat that dog differently as you would a chicken living in a cage in a shed with 10,000 other chickens in cages but that dog's right to life is merely an extension of your rights as that dog's owner.
Good lord it is way past time to allow people to Euthanize themselves.
Mostly agree. I can also see the other side where there could be concerns about people being pressured into it for a number of reasons, so there should be some safeguards in place to prevent that (if there aren't already). I don't know enough about it to really suggest anything though.
Absolutely! There needs to be a clearly delineated procedure and safeguards in place. It is certainly something that should be done under the supervision of a medical provider.
Some countries allow it. The major difference is that other people cannot choose for you. Your family can't "put you down" but you can choose to have a doctor assist.
I agree in theory, but often the desire to end one's life is often symptom of a treatable disease, or short term situation. Less than 10 percent of people who survive a suicide attempt, latter try again and succeed. There would need to be a lot of safety net in place, just like there is for the terminal.
Honestly I think it could save people. Knowing there is a way out, so to speak, could prevent people from attempts on their own. Not to mention it would prevent traumatizing whoever finds a successful suicide. Needing proof that other treatments are inactive would get even more the help they need.
But I don’t think you comprehend how violent an act of suicide is in almost all cases.
It takes an insane level of commitment to go through with that the first time, more so for the subsequent attempts.
Also of the people who really aim to end it, succeed on the first try.
I don’t know about you, but if given the choice, I probably wouldn’t be here. There’s nothing particularly wrong with me physically, I just don’t want to be here.
Been the case over a decade ago. Pretty much back as long as I can remember. Still the case today.
I do agree with the point that a humane way out will probably have a net positive impact in almost all cases. Especially if it comes with “here’s a list of things you should consider doing to lessen the impact on your family and significant other” or something of the sort. Needless to say, but should be entirely optional.
I don’t think I agree with the “other treatments” mentality though. That just sounds like what the Americans are doing with their abortion clinics trying to emotionally blackmail people into not aborting their child by forcing you to listen to heartbeats and look at ultrasounds.
The interesting thing about suicide is that it can be "contagious". Also being under the influence increases the risk of it, not to mention access to a gun. This is some of the evidence that points to most suicides being an impulsive act. Having a plan already in place to go to the "euthanasia clinic" could curb some of the impulsive suicides. Completely understand the comparison to the stupid abortion clinic ridiculousness. It just seems like there needs to be a way to ensure the people using it are in the statistical group of multiple suicide attempts that end in success.
I'm sorry you feel like you don't want to be here. I absolutely understand that, there have been many times in my life when I felt the same. I don't know the right way to say this, but have you tried therapy or medication? Both have helped me at various points in my life, and it is a relief not to feel that way. I say this because it isn't too late for you. By the time I was truly feeling excited by living, I was diagnosed with a brain tumor. I hope you can find a path to looking forward to being here in the world most of the time.
Appreciate the kind words. I have had various approaches to try and “treat” this over the course of the last 15+ years, including the ones you named, like I mentioned, not exactly a new phenomena on my end.
If there was a suicide booth or a euthanasia clinic for people who just want to peace out, I’d have visited it 15+ years ago or any day since then, including today.
Also while I understand the notion that access to substances and firearms and whatnot might increase the risks of impulsive momentary courage (or stupidity), an average home and convenience store offer many items which can effectively facilitate the deed, don’t need to be super elaborate with hugging a grenade or slobbering on the barrel of a shotgun for an effective method… granted if the plan is to go out with a bang, who am I to stop it.
Sucks about the tumor though. May you easily outlive the expectations if you so desire
I'm so sorry, that sounds awful and so so exhausting. One last thing then I will stop promise, it's a bit annoying when someone keeps trying to fix you. At least I didn't recommend positive thinking. Like yes Cynthia I'm sure that will cure the cancer, why didn't I just think of that!
ECT has shown some really fantastic results in treating TRD. I'd recommend reading Shock: The Healing Power of Electroconvulsive Therapy by Kitty Dukakis. If nothing else it is a good read. And thank you. I wish you peace
I do wonder about that. My ex’s uncle decided that financial and legal issues were insurmountable so he could no longer be here. Obviously I have no idea whether a humane option would have been an option, but his issues were clearly temporary so any opportunity to intervene could have saved a lot of collateral damage. Including, while his family appreciated that they didn’t have to discover him, that cop shouldn’t have either
One other point that I think no one has mentioned yet is the importance of informed consent when treating people with otherwise fatal conditions. Surgery and other treatments e.g. chemotherapy for cancer incur a lot of pain and suffering in those going through it as well. A person can understand that all that suffering is for the greater good of extending their life, but for a pet that is far from the case, and they may in fact need to suffer more than if they weren't treated.
I love my dog with my whole heart, but I would never put her through chemo if she had cancer.
Pets are not intellectually capable of communicating their feelings or desires to humans, so it is up to us as humans to assess the quality of life of our animals in order to prevent them from needless suffering. There is nothing wrong with trying to treat animal illnesses, if you have the resources to do so and can make sure that the animal is maintaining a good quality of life--but that's sadly not always the case. We love our pets and we all want them to live happily forever after, but the sad truth is that they will eventually get old and sick and (unless they die suddenly) one of the most important acts of compassion that we owe them is giving them a humane end of life without suffering. It is sad. It breaks our fucking hearts. But it is our duty and our responsibility to them, and in a strange way, it is an act of love. We owe it to our pets to take care of them in life and in death.
Unlike pets, human beings are typically thought to have agency and the ability to express their own wishes regarding their end of life. We can't really decide that "ok, grandma is lives enough, time to put her down", because even if we can see that her quality of life has degraded, we understand that it is not our decision to make whether she can continue to try to live.
In some parts of the world, human beings do have the right to choose when to end their own life via physician-assisted suicide, especially in cases where they have some terminal prognosis where they know that their quality of life will not stay high if they continue to live. I don't envy being put in this position, and it's terribly sad to think about, but I do think that it's ethically the right thing to do to allow for that.
Uh, if you kill yourself early the healthcare system won't be able to extract every last dime of your wealth before you die. What, you think your family deserves to inherit it?
Democracy is, when the laws are NOT according to what you think.
Ideally the laws are according to what most people think, but this cannot be guaranteed. Therefore democracy is not the best possible form of government, but unfortunately no better one is known.
As someone else said: helping humans find a dignified death is legal in some countries.
Your second point is more complicated though: I don't know the laws in a lot of countries but where I'm from animals are strictly treated as property - emotional connection isn't taken into strong consideration at all when it comes to assessing their value when it comes to legal fights but they are treated like a distinct thing different from both humans and objects in a lot of other cases (e.g. dedicated laws like "unnecessary" animal cruelty is forbidden ).
About the reason you can discuss as much as you want, the two arguments I've stumbled across are:
there must not be a distinction in terms of value because that value must be purely subjective and cannot be assessed.
There is no objective way to classify animals based on emotional connection and therefore the law can't create categories.
Culturally we treat animals like different to humans all the time - even your dog is not treated "family" to the extreme a child would (think of child protection laws and what that would mean if they'd apply to a dog or a hamster). And now expand this to find a definition which covers both a cow someone has as a beloved pet or a meat animal.
Note that I'm trying to not say wether this is "right" or "wrong": morale categories and laws have some overlap but they are quite lose as soon as you get specific.
My primary source was an interview with a judge who went into an hour long discussion about how complex the relation between animals and the law is and how "emotional connection" and the need for the law to be objective and repeatable are an inherent contradiction.
In short:
It's a very tough question because there isn't the one correct answer. Law, morality and personal subjectivity collide and make a mess out of us.
Again: depends on the legal system that statement is not that easy in that generic form.
Ik specifically thinking about the situation in which a human no longer can communicate what they want:
In Germany there is the legal concept of transferring this kind of decision power in case you yourself are no longer able to do that. The "pulling the plug" situation: the individual can no longer state their wishes directly concerning the situation but left a binding document who has the decision power in their stead.
Now you could argue that this also is "the human has to want it" as they wanted the other person to have this life and death power.
This is a tough question. I've had to put down a dog and a cat. They were both basically messed up beyond any kind of reasonable care. Like we could have spent tens of thousands of dollars to keep them alive, but they would have been suffering. I haven't had a dog since that dog, and was almost brought to tears when I saw a dog like him last weekend, but it was cool because the owner let me pet it and it was super friendly.
Cats I honestly don't care as much about, I guess because cats don't really bond with people like dogs do. I see cats as more of a utility. You get a cat and it kills things. They're also way cooler, IMO. But cats like to get hit by cars, they're dumb as hell, you get another cat, it's fine. I guess dogs do too, they chase cars, they don't know any better. My dog was an inside dog (small breed). You can't do that with cats (or big dogs).
As for people... there are ways. I mean, once you're of legal age and if you aren't impaired, you can get a DNR (do not resuscitate) order. There are bracelets. Some people get it tattooed on them. If you're DNR and you go to the hospital, they can treat you with your consent, but if you cannot consent, they are not allowed to treat you. If they do, it's legally considered assault. So they won't do it. They will make you comfortable, but they will let you die. They won't do anything to quicken your death, either — except in some places where they will.
I believe anyone should be able to choose to have their life medically terminated, if they are suffering and of sound mind and body. I have no religious opposition to it. If someone I loved made that choice, I would be sad, but I would not tell them they can't. That's not for me to say.
I guess because cats don't really bond with people like dogs do.
I used to believe this, too, until I bonded with a cat. It's definitely a different relationship than with a dog but just as valid, in my experience. Their personalities are different from dogs and vary much more from cat to cat than dog personalities do.
I have one cat that is dumb as hell and another that is sometimes dumb, but surprisingly socially intelligent and really changed the way I understand cats.
I think it is easy to come to the conclusion that cats are not as social as dogs, because the way they communicate is very subtle and a bit counterintuitive to humans.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I absolutely do not think any less of people who bond with their cats (my wife, for instance — she was very upset when our last cat got hit by a car). I just don't. I like cats, but again, I see of them more... maybe "as a thing" is less humane than I meant to be. Maybe "as a force of nature" would be a better way? But not as a family member or friend. I like cats, but I like more the idea of cats, I guess.
And I consider myself a cat person.
I'm also on the spectrum, so I don't really bond well with people. It's easier with kids, who basically have a "if you're nice to me I will be nice to you" kind of ethos. Or adults who are exceptionally kind. Everyone else is like hard mode. I also realise I'm the weird one. So the experiences I speak from, I do not expect to be a base line for humanity.
This is apparently an insane hot take, but personally, I don't think it's okay.
It's okay to treat your dog as family and to reject the concept of "it's okay to kill him if he's in enough pain!", same as they would never even think of suggesting doing that to a human.
Because the foundation of everything related to legal framework we built, is human exceptionalism. And human exceptionalism has foundation in darwinian natural selection.
78 Comments
slazer2au@lemmy.world · 46 pts · 163d
In some countries it is.
LodeMike@lemmy.today · 42 pts · 163d
Including the U.S.
The answer OP is looking for is: if you make it easy to kill people in pain you make it easier to kill people who aren't. This is true for any animal including dogs our law just cares about their lives less.
cattywampas@lemmy.world · 43 pts · 163d
Another answer OP is looking for and probably doesn't want to hear: most people value human life more than non-human life.
CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 163d
Bad example. In the US it's super cool to deny care for dollars. Illness and death are built into the system from for profit hospitals to health insurance and pharma pricing.
Edit: Downvote all you like, but Luigi isn't a folk hero without reason.
fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 163d
https://www.cms.gov/priorities/your-patient-rights/emergency-room-rights
CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 163d
And for everything that is not solvable in an ER visit, go and die somewhere out of sight.
cattywampas@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 163d
Killing people is not the same as letting them die of natural causes.
CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 163d
Capitalist exploitation is a natural cause? That's a wild take.
bss03@infosec.pub · 6 pts · 163d
Next time, try it without the "Appeal to Nature" / Naturalistic Fallacy.
village604@adultswim.fan · 2 pts · 162d
But technically humans are part of nature!
Lol, how absurd.
OccamsRazer@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 161d
Hospitals want to drain your estate of every dime while insurance companies want you to die as soon and as cheaply as possible. It's a beautiful balance.
starlinguk@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 162d
Countries that have assisted dying do not make it "easy". Especially when someone isn't physically ill, they throw every type of therapy and help at them to persuade them not to kill themselves.
LodeMike@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 162d
Didn't say they did. Just "easier"
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 163d
You cannot put a person down for being sick. Even in countries where euthanasia is allowed, the person has to ask for it, under formal circumstances following formal rules.
Beacon@fedia.io · 8 pts · 163d
That's totally besides the point. The reason humans get to say when a pet should be euthanized is just because animals aren't capable of deciding it and communicating it.
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 162d
Nope, not when a perfectly healthy happy good dog is put down because the owner find it best, or when an animal shelter put down animals they can't find homes for, or when a Zoo put down young animals, because their cuteness has been expended, and the zoo doesn't want more grown animals.
In all these cases there is absolutely no reason to think the animal wants to die. So it is not about communication, it's because an animal is a thing you can own and do with what you want, as long as it isn't too cruel.
Beacon@fedia.io · 5 pts · 162d
That's not euthanasia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia
Quote:
slazer2au@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 163d
O.o
So it is allowed.
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 163d
Oh for fucks sake, it is not allowed to be the decision of others, only the person that wants it, and only under certain circumstances, like being terminally ill and in pain.
starlinguk@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 162d
Certain circumstances can be "being very, very depressed." You don't have to be ill or in physical pain.
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 162d
True.
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 35 pts · 163d
It's actually way worse, because you can have a dog put down that is perfectly healthy, even when other people want to adopt the dog.
If you have a dog you literally own it, and the only regulation that protects the dog are rules against animal cruelty.
You cannot own a human being.
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works · 15 pts · 163d
Anymore. Humans can be amazing and very cruel.
But yes, ask a veterinarian and they will tell you sadly why.
BurgerBaron@piefed.social · 14 pts · 163d
Unless this was a case of USA defaultism, slavery still exists. In fact there's more slaves today than ever before. 50 million slaves last I checked. Mostly because overall human population has obviously increased drastically too but I digress.
Also USA constitution exempts prisoners so still okay in a limited capacity.
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 163d
Privatized prisons are slavery too, you're right.
GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca · 5 pts · 163d
State-run prisons where labor can be required would also qualify as slavery by any definition.
BurgerBaron@piefed.social · 2 pts · 163d
Depends I guess if you view UNICOR as private or not since it's government owned. We call them crown corporations in Canada.
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 163d
Exactly, and when you could, it was also allowed to beat them to death, as long as they didn't die immediately, but it took a day or two. Those are the rules of the bible.
starlinguk@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 162d
Not here in Germany. You won't find a vet who will kill a healthy animal. Kill shelters are also not a thing. Ditto the UK.
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 162d
OK then you are more progressed than we are here in Denmark.
But our neighbor did exactly what I wrote, in her defense she was dying of cancer, but we and another family she knew both offered to adopt the dog, the dog was very fond of both of us, my wife walked it daily, and when we visited, the dog would jump on the couch and lie across my lap, which it did for nobody else. But she went ahead and had the dog put down anyway. Perfectly legal as it is done humanely. My wife actually has trauma about the incident, because the vet came to her house, and my wife was there for support, and when my wife found the leash to hold him, he was so filled with joy because he thought they were going for a walk, but it was only to hold him while he was injected.
So here you can have perfectly healthy happy good dogs put down, even when 2 families were ready to adopt it.
Her reason for doing it was that she didn't want the dog to miss her after she died.
RaoulDuke85@piefed.social · 0 pts · 163d
From experience, it was hard to have a healthy dog put down. It was my dad's dog and my dad had dementia. It was a very aggressive dog and killed other dogs in the pack. I had to keep convincing the vet it was a danger to have. It wasn't an easy process.
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 162d
If it wasn't your dog, you are not the one to decide, obviously your dad having dementia means he isn't fit to make the decision. You did well in this case. And I think the doctor was acting according to regulation.
But when you actually are the owner, it's a very different story, and our neighbor did exactly what I wrote, in her defense she was dying of cancer, but we and another family she knew both offered to adopt the dog, the dog was very fond of both of us, my wife walked it daily, and when we visited, the dog would jump on the couch and lie across my lap, which it did for nobody else. But she went ahead and had the dog put down anyway. Perfectly legal as it is done humanely.
My wife actually has trauma about the incident, because the vet came to her house, and my wife was there for support, and when my wife found the leash to hold him, he was so filled with joy because he thought they were going for a walk, but it was only to hold him while he was injected.
So yes you can have perfectly healthy happy good dogs put down, you don't even have to give a reason. They also do it at rescue shelters all the time.
RaoulDuke85@piefed.social · 2 pts · 160d
Damn. That's sad. It's nice yall were there during the dogs final moments.
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 160d
Yes the story is sad all the way, the woman died shortly after. Some times life sucks, we were very good friends.
At least the new neighbors also seem nice.
Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de · 18 pts · 163d
My stepfather made use of Oregon's Death With Dignity law. Him scheduling his death a week out was... weird, but I'm always glad it was an option.
Though at one point a doc did legally have to inform him that instead of the painless and easy medical assisted death he could instead choose to stop eating or drinking.
fizzle@quokk.au · 15 pts · 162d
God this is a weird thread.
Sorry to break it to you kids but billions of people all over the world literally eat animals every day.
Barbaric ? Perhaps, but it's fair to assume that 100% of your ancestors in the last 100,000 years have delighted in this activity as often as possible.
You may not wish to acknowledge this but the reality is: your beloved dog or cat is a lesser being, assigned very few rights.
Obviously if you have a pet dog then you treat that dog differently as you would a chicken living in a cage in a shed with 10,000 other chickens in cages but that dog's right to life is merely an extension of your rights as that dog's owner.
IWW4@lemmy.zip · 14 pts · 162d
Because of religious moralistic bullshit.
Good lord it is way past time to allow people to Euthanize themselves.
Spacehooks@reddthat.com · 6 pts · 162d
Death with dignity really should be more flexible than it currently is.
lightnsfw@reddthat.com · 2 pts · 161d
Mostly agree. I can also see the other side where there could be concerns about people being pressured into it for a number of reasons, so there should be some safeguards in place to prevent that (if there aren't already). I don't know enough about it to really suggest anything though.
IWW4@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 161d
Absolutely! There needs to be a clearly delineated procedure and safeguards in place. It is certainly something that should be done under the supervision of a medical provider.
DrSleepless@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 163d
Humans should be allowed to be put out of their misery as well
IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works · 13 pts · 163d
Some countries allow it. The major difference is that other people cannot choose for you. Your family can't "put you down" but you can choose to have a doctor assist.
Whitebrow@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 163d
And shouldn’t need to be terminally ill or old.
If I wanna peace out (humanely) at any age past adulthood, I should be able to.
its_prolly_fine@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 163d
I agree in theory, but often the desire to end one's life is often symptom of a treatable disease, or short term situation. Less than 10 percent of people who survive a suicide attempt, latter try again and succeed. There would need to be a lot of safety net in place, just like there is for the terminal.
Honestly I think it could save people. Knowing there is a way out, so to speak, could prevent people from attempts on their own. Not to mention it would prevent traumatizing whoever finds a successful suicide. Needing proof that other treatments are inactive would get even more the help they need.
Whitebrow@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 162d
I can see where you’re potentially coming from.
But I don’t think you comprehend how violent an act of suicide is in almost all cases.
It takes an insane level of commitment to go through with that the first time, more so for the subsequent attempts.
Also of the people who really aim to end it, succeed on the first try.
I don’t know about you, but if given the choice, I probably wouldn’t be here. There’s nothing particularly wrong with me physically, I just don’t want to be here.
Been the case over a decade ago. Pretty much back as long as I can remember. Still the case today.
I do agree with the point that a humane way out will probably have a net positive impact in almost all cases. Especially if it comes with “here’s a list of things you should consider doing to lessen the impact on your family and significant other” or something of the sort. Needless to say, but should be entirely optional.
I don’t think I agree with the “other treatments” mentality though. That just sounds like what the Americans are doing with their abortion clinics trying to emotionally blackmail people into not aborting their child by forcing you to listen to heartbeats and look at ultrasounds.
its_prolly_fine@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 162d
The interesting thing about suicide is that it can be "contagious". Also being under the influence increases the risk of it, not to mention access to a gun. This is some of the evidence that points to most suicides being an impulsive act. Having a plan already in place to go to the "euthanasia clinic" could curb some of the impulsive suicides. Completely understand the comparison to the stupid abortion clinic ridiculousness. It just seems like there needs to be a way to ensure the people using it are in the statistical group of multiple suicide attempts that end in success.
I'm sorry you feel like you don't want to be here. I absolutely understand that, there have been many times in my life when I felt the same. I don't know the right way to say this, but have you tried therapy or medication? Both have helped me at various points in my life, and it is a relief not to feel that way. I say this because it isn't too late for you. By the time I was truly feeling excited by living, I was diagnosed with a brain tumor. I hope you can find a path to looking forward to being here in the world most of the time.
Whitebrow@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 162d
Appreciate the kind words. I have had various approaches to try and “treat” this over the course of the last 15+ years, including the ones you named, like I mentioned, not exactly a new phenomena on my end.
If there was a suicide booth or a euthanasia clinic for people who just want to peace out, I’d have visited it 15+ years ago or any day since then, including today.
Also while I understand the notion that access to substances and firearms and whatnot might increase the risks of impulsive momentary courage (or stupidity), an average home and convenience store offer many items which can effectively facilitate the deed, don’t need to be super elaborate with hugging a grenade or slobbering on the barrel of a shotgun for an effective method… granted if the plan is to go out with a bang, who am I to stop it.
Sucks about the tumor though. May you easily outlive the expectations if you so desire
its_prolly_fine@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 161d
I'm so sorry, that sounds awful and so so exhausting. One last thing then I will stop promise, it's a bit annoying when someone keeps trying to fix you. At least I didn't recommend positive thinking. Like yes Cynthia I'm sure that will cure the cancer, why didn't I just think of that!
ECT has shown some really fantastic results in treating TRD. I'd recommend reading Shock: The Healing Power of Electroconvulsive Therapy by Kitty Dukakis. If nothing else it is a good read. And thank you. I wish you peace
AA5B@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 161d
I do wonder about that. My ex’s uncle decided that financial and legal issues were insurmountable so he could no longer be here. Obviously I have no idea whether a humane option would have been an option, but his issues were clearly temporary so any opportunity to intervene could have saved a lot of collateral damage. Including, while his family appreciated that they didn’t have to discover him, that cop shouldn’t have either
Taleya@aussie.zone · 10 pts · 162d
Religion, chiefly.
This is changing. In slow, small ways but it is changing. Where i live voluntary assisted dying has been enshrined in law since 2017
zxqwas@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 163d
Society does not value animal lives as much as human lives. You're free to draw your personal line elsewhere.
LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyz · 6 pts · 163d
Because legally, pets are chattel.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chattel
zifk@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 163d
One other point that I think no one has mentioned yet is the importance of informed consent when treating people with otherwise fatal conditions. Surgery and other treatments e.g. chemotherapy for cancer incur a lot of pain and suffering in those going through it as well. A person can understand that all that suffering is for the greater good of extending their life, but for a pet that is far from the case, and they may in fact need to suffer more than if they weren't treated.
I love my dog with my whole heart, but I would never put her through chemo if she had cancer.
unabart@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 163d
Dogs don’t pay taxes or create new parishoners.
r0ertel@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 163d
Ibfind it ironic that to put an animal out of it's misery is called being "humane" though to do it to another person is called "homicide".
village604@adultswim.fan · 3 pts · 162d
Well it's the definition of homicide, which is just death caused by another person.
remon@ani.social · 3 pts · 162d
Because humans apply higher standards to themselves then they do to other animals.
mrmaplebar@fedia.io · 3 pts · 163d
lightnsfw@reddthat.com · 3 pts · 161d
Uh, if you kill yourself early the healthcare system won't be able to extract every last dime of your wealth before you die. What, you think your family deserves to inherit it?
BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 162d
Because religion.
Karl@literature.cafe · 1 pts · 162d
Huhhh?!
homes@piefed.world · 3 pts · 162d
It depends on the state, actually. Some states allow that.
Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org · 2 pts · 163d
Democracy is, when the laws are NOT according to what you think.
Ideally the laws are according to what most people think, but this cannot be guaranteed. Therefore democracy is not the best possible form of government, but unfortunately no better one is known.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 163d
Jesus.
Frozengyro@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 162d
Surprised I didn't see this higher. Mostly it's due to religion.
Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 163d
As someone else said: helping humans find a dignified death is legal in some countries.
Your second point is more complicated though: I don't know the laws in a lot of countries but where I'm from animals are strictly treated as property - emotional connection isn't taken into strong consideration at all when it comes to assessing their value when it comes to legal fights but they are treated like a distinct thing different from both humans and objects in a lot of other cases (e.g. dedicated laws like "unnecessary" animal cruelty is forbidden ).
About the reason you can discuss as much as you want, the two arguments I've stumbled across are:
there must not be a distinction in terms of value because that value must be purely subjective and cannot be assessed.
There is no objective way to classify animals based on emotional connection and therefore the law can't create categories.
Culturally we treat animals like different to humans all the time - even your dog is not treated "family" to the extreme a child would (think of child protection laws and what that would mean if they'd apply to a dog or a hamster). And now expand this to find a definition which covers both a cow someone has as a beloved pet or a meat animal.
Note that I'm trying to not say wether this is "right" or "wrong": morale categories and laws have some overlap but they are quite lose as soon as you get specific.
My primary source was an interview with a judge who went into an hour long discussion about how complex the relation between animals and the law is and how "emotional connection" and the need for the law to be objective and repeatable are an inherent contradiction.
In short:
It's a very tough question because there isn't the one correct answer. Law, morality and personal subjectivity collide and make a mess out of us.
tyler@programming.dev · 2 pts · 163d
It’s murder if you do this to humans, not euthanasia. The human has to want it.
Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 162d
Again: depends on the legal system that statement is not that easy in that generic form.
Ik specifically thinking about the situation in which a human no longer can communicate what they want:
In Germany there is the legal concept of transferring this kind of decision power in case you yourself are no longer able to do that. The "pulling the plug" situation: the individual can no longer state their wishes directly concerning the situation but left a binding document who has the decision power in their stead.
Now you could argue that this also is "the human has to want it" as they wanted the other person to have this life and death power.
TheFrirish@tarte.nuage-libre.fr · 2 pts · 162d
People downvote but don't read the name of the community the post is coming from.
CannedYeet@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 162d
Found Kristi Noem's account
sudoMakeUser@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 163d
In my country they'll put people down for free as long as a doctor signs off on it.
cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 163d
This is a tough question. I've had to put down a dog and a cat. They were both basically messed up beyond any kind of reasonable care. Like we could have spent tens of thousands of dollars to keep them alive, but they would have been suffering. I haven't had a dog since that dog, and was almost brought to tears when I saw a dog like him last weekend, but it was cool because the owner let me pet it and it was super friendly.
Cats I honestly don't care as much about, I guess because cats don't really bond with people like dogs do. I see cats as more of a utility. You get a cat and it kills things. They're also way cooler, IMO. But cats like to get hit by cars, they're dumb as hell, you get another cat, it's fine. I guess dogs do too, they chase cars, they don't know any better. My dog was an inside dog (small breed). You can't do that with cats (or big dogs).
As for people... there are ways. I mean, once you're of legal age and if you aren't impaired, you can get a DNR (do not resuscitate) order. There are bracelets. Some people get it tattooed on them. If you're DNR and you go to the hospital, they can treat you with your consent, but if you cannot consent, they are not allowed to treat you. If they do, it's legally considered assault. So they won't do it. They will make you comfortable, but they will let you die. They won't do anything to quicken your death, either — except in some places where they will.
I believe anyone should be able to choose to have their life medically terminated, if they are suffering and of sound mind and body. I have no religious opposition to it. If someone I loved made that choice, I would be sad, but I would not tell them they can't. That's not for me to say.
theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 163d
I used to believe this, too, until I bonded with a cat. It's definitely a different relationship than with a dog but just as valid, in my experience. Their personalities are different from dogs and vary much more from cat to cat than dog personalities do.
I have one cat that is dumb as hell and another that is sometimes dumb, but surprisingly socially intelligent and really changed the way I understand cats.
I think it is easy to come to the conclusion that cats are not as social as dogs, because the way they communicate is very subtle and a bit counterintuitive to humans.
cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 163d
Oh, don't get me wrong, I absolutely do not think any less of people who bond with their cats (my wife, for instance — she was very upset when our last cat got hit by a car). I just don't. I like cats, but again, I see of them more... maybe "as a thing" is less humane than I meant to be. Maybe "as a force of nature" would be a better way? But not as a family member or friend. I like cats, but I like more the idea of cats, I guess.
And I consider myself a cat person.
I'm also on the spectrum, so I don't really bond well with people. It's easier with kids, who basically have a "if you're nice to me I will be nice to you" kind of ethos. Or adults who are exceptionally kind. Everyone else is like hard mode. I also realise I'm the weird one. So the experiences I speak from, I do not expect to be a base line for humanity.
theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 163d
forestbeasts@pawb.social · 1 pts · 162d
This is apparently an insane hot take, but personally, I don't think it's okay.
It's okay to treat your dog as family and to reject the concept of "it's okay to kill him if he's in enough pain!", same as they would never even think of suggesting doing that to a human.
-- Frost
starlinguk@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 162d
My cat suddenly became paralysed last year. What should I have done?
Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 163d
Like the Hammer Maniacs?
BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 162d
Because the foundation of everything related to legal framework we built, is human exceptionalism. And human exceptionalism has foundation in darwinian natural selection.
Tl;DR This is how world works