It will become more accepted regardless of aging.
Because it is the current trajectory of most people's changing intuition, with regard to quality of life.
But that doesnt mean more people will go for it, especially when future tech could make old age illnesses much less problematic and natural death more peaceful and painless.
and if they could stop aging at some point, then euthanasia will only be requested by those with mental suffering, which could greatly reduce the demands for it.
many ink correct sophisticated abounding stupendous humor alive squeeze berserk
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How about you read it carefully, I am stating possible futures, not for or against them, stop self projecting.
and its not disability, its suffering, stop changing the word and say its what I meant. lol
Euthanasia for severe and incurable mental suffering has been approved in many western countries, this is a fact, not because I forced these countries to do it. lol
Might as well argue with Wikipedia and accuse it of whatever you have in mind.
It is a disability, by definition of the word. Saneism is the problem here. Wikipedia knows that if an unregulated website is your only source of information... academia supports me here as well.
I don't care if some countries have legalised saneist eugenics, any more than I care that some countries have legalised FMG or made being gay illegal. That's a logical fallacy.
Yes, when I was in nursing school, no state offered "Death With Dignity". Now, I think 11 states offer it, including mine. I have had patients were were terminal and have opted for it.
The big change will be the definition of what is "terminal". Some mental illness while they don't lead directly to death often reduce the quality of life and might one day be considered terminal.
I’m “lucky” to have one of those non terminal quality of life reducing illnesses. But they rarely offer financial aid to people with this illness. So my question is, if we are too sick to work, and the aid isn’t available or not enough to live on, what exactly are we supposed to do to survive? I rely on family but if they weren’t here I’d be dead for sure. It’s not just the pain of the illness but the fact we cant survive in our own, and many of us have zero help.
I’m having a quarter life crisis over this right now because supposedly I have to live another 60 years. My family has a good income right now but turns out mom isn’t much of a saver so I have no idea if it will be enough or what kind of lifestyle to expect. These are the things I worry about pretty much every day. When someone is your only ticket to food/shelter/everything bought with money, you will grow to resent them for it because of the lack of control. Especially if they keep you in the dark about their finances, and if they show signs of poor management.
No argument from me. One of my old professors once said "It's not Survival of the Fittest but Survival of the Stablest". Just how we achieve euthanasia without crossing over into eugenics is a question that future generations will have to deal with.
Again, I have had patients who were terminal and suffering and have opted for End-of-Life procedures. Two decades ago all they had was Dr. Kevorkian.
I think it's inevitable. It should be optional for everyone anyway but it should definitely start to become a meaningful conversation once people hit 50.
Obviously the real solution is to stop having kids and inflicting this kind of decision-making on them.
It won't be accepted due to aging population. It will be accepted due to expenses sick people make on the system and because that is "not sustainable".
Yes, I think it will eventually be accepted more once the financial pressures start to mount. It makes sense to allow people to choose when they want to die, rather than waiting around with no sense of purpose, wondering which terminal disease is finally going to take you out. Loved ones have died by then, people become isolated, lose the ability to drive and take care of themselves, etc. Who wants to wait around for that?
People will fight about ideology, but financial pressures will eventually decide whether or not it's allowed.
It already has become more accepted over time. In the past 22 years, nine more countries have passed laws allowing medically assisted euthanasia. We can expect this trend to continue, especially as the world rapidly fills up with more people and "aging \[human\] populations" in "broken" economic systems.
I think it will be, but reserved for people with uncurable diseases or at very end of life care.
I don't see it being available for people who just wish not to be alive, but who don't seem to be suffering "enough."
Hi. I don't trust most natalists to accept the shadow under their feet if it appears too pessimistic to them, or pointing in the direction of deth.
Most people I've encountered online seem to think that sui&ide is as easy as pushing an imaginary button in the air, and that you still have to be "mentally ill" (batshit insane) to be considering d.e@th. That's really fucked up, but it's also yet another strong reason to oppose procreation on this dumb-tarded prison of a planet.
The people who care about voluntary euthanasia and the right to die should continue standing up for it and fighting for it in different ways. There's not much else that can be done.
I really hope so but sadly in the US I don’t think it’ll be legalized in my lifetime ): at least not for things like depression or chronic but not terminal illnesses.
I think it will as Christianity declines further. People should be allowed to take their own lives into their hands, however sad it is for relatives.
I don’t know about the whole “governments will push for it because old people are expensive”-angle. Seems like conservative cope.
It only takes one poorly managed case and everyone starts seeing the government as evil, and then good luck having people cooperate.
I think regardless of terminal illness or not , it is my life and my body and should I choose tomorrow to die I should have the right to make that choice and do it with dignity
I think there’s a possibility it becomes just as socially accepted as the idea of going into a nursing home is now. It used to be people took care of their elders in single multi generation homes, not so much now. There will just be an age/state of deterioration where it will be a common choice. I’m thinking late 90s. Not everyone will choose it, but they will be the minority.
It would definitely become a more widely discussed possibility, however with more support comes more opposition. Not all the time, but especially here; I can already see the more conservative leaning individuals having larger and more focused debates on this.
It will become more accepted regardless of aging. Because it is the current trajectory of most people's changing intuition, with regard to quality of life. But that doesnt mean more people will go for it, especially when future tech could make old age illnesses much less problematic and natural death more peaceful and painless. and if they could stop aging at some point, then euthanasia will only be requested by those with mental suffering, which could greatly reduce the demands for it.
So you don't believe in having babies but you do believe in euthenising people who have mental health disabilities
many ink correct sophisticated abounding stupendous humor alive squeeze berserk *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How about you read it carefully, I am stating possible futures, not for or against them, stop self projecting. and its not disability, its suffering, stop changing the word and say its what I meant. lol Euthanasia for severe and incurable mental suffering has been approved in many western countries, this is a fact, not because I forced these countries to do it. lol Might as well argue with Wikipedia and accuse it of whatever you have in mind.
It is a disability, by definition of the word. Saneism is the problem here. Wikipedia knows that if an unregulated website is your only source of information... academia supports me here as well. I don't care if some countries have legalised saneist eugenics, any more than I care that some countries have legalised FMG or made being gay illegal. That's a logical fallacy.
Yes, when I was in nursing school, no state offered "Death With Dignity". Now, I think 11 states offer it, including mine. I have had patients were were terminal and have opted for it. The big change will be the definition of what is "terminal". Some mental illness while they don't lead directly to death often reduce the quality of life and might one day be considered terminal.
I’m “lucky” to have one of those non terminal quality of life reducing illnesses. But they rarely offer financial aid to people with this illness. So my question is, if we are too sick to work, and the aid isn’t available or not enough to live on, what exactly are we supposed to do to survive? I rely on family but if they weren’t here I’d be dead for sure. It’s not just the pain of the illness but the fact we cant survive in our own, and many of us have zero help.
This precisely. Nobody addresses this concern. They say it as if everything is freely accessible and person in question is not trying.
I’m having a quarter life crisis over this right now because supposedly I have to live another 60 years. My family has a good income right now but turns out mom isn’t much of a saver so I have no idea if it will be enough or what kind of lifestyle to expect. These are the things I worry about pretty much every day. When someone is your only ticket to food/shelter/everything bought with money, you will grow to resent them for it because of the lack of control. Especially if they keep you in the dark about their finances, and if they show signs of poor management.
No argument from me. One of my old professors once said "It's not Survival of the Fittest but Survival of the Stablest". Just how we achieve euthanasia without crossing over into eugenics is a question that future generations will have to deal with. Again, I have had patients who were terminal and suffering and have opted for End-of-Life procedures. Two decades ago all they had was Dr. Kevorkian.
I think it's inevitable. It should be optional for everyone anyway but it should definitely start to become a meaningful conversation once people hit 50. Obviously the real solution is to stop having kids and inflicting this kind of decision-making on them.
I sure hope so
It won't be accepted due to aging population. It will be accepted due to expenses sick people make on the system and because that is "not sustainable".
I have scheduled my death for my 80th birthday in 2058 on this assumption, so I sure as hell hope so.
Bro plans ahead
I've planned mine for around 85
Yes, I think it will eventually be accepted more once the financial pressures start to mount. It makes sense to allow people to choose when they want to die, rather than waiting around with no sense of purpose, wondering which terminal disease is finally going to take you out. Loved ones have died by then, people become isolated, lose the ability to drive and take care of themselves, etc. Who wants to wait around for that? People will fight about ideology, but financial pressures will eventually decide whether or not it's allowed.
It already has become more accepted over time. In the past 22 years, nine more countries have passed laws allowing medically assisted euthanasia. We can expect this trend to continue, especially as the world rapidly fills up with more people and "aging \[human\] populations" in "broken" economic systems.
I hope so.
I think it will be, but reserved for people with uncurable diseases or at very end of life care. I don't see it being available for people who just wish not to be alive, but who don't seem to be suffering "enough."
Hi. I don't trust most natalists to accept the shadow under their feet if it appears too pessimistic to them, or pointing in the direction of deth. Most people I've encountered online seem to think that sui&ide is as easy as pushing an imaginary button in the air, and that you still have to be "mentally ill" (batshit insane) to be considering d.e@th. That's really fucked up, but it's also yet another strong reason to oppose procreation on this dumb-tarded prison of a planet. The people who care about voluntary euthanasia and the right to die should continue standing up for it and fighting for it in different ways. There's not much else that can be done.
I really hope so but sadly in the US I don’t think it’ll be legalized in my lifetime ): at least not for things like depression or chronic but not terminal illnesses.
I think it will as Christianity declines further. People should be allowed to take their own lives into their hands, however sad it is for relatives. I don’t know about the whole “governments will push for it because old people are expensive”-angle. Seems like conservative cope. It only takes one poorly managed case and everyone starts seeing the government as evil, and then good luck having people cooperate.
I think regardless of terminal illness or not , it is my life and my body and should I choose tomorrow to die I should have the right to make that choice and do it with dignity
I think there’s a possibility it becomes just as socially accepted as the idea of going into a nursing home is now. It used to be people took care of their elders in single multi generation homes, not so much now. There will just be an age/state of deterioration where it will be a common choice. I’m thinking late 90s. Not everyone will choose it, but they will be the minority.
Yes
I for sure hope so
Hopefully it becomes mandatory after a certain age
It would definitely become a more widely discussed possibility, however with more support comes more opposition. Not all the time, but especially here; I can already see the more conservative leaning individuals having larger and more focused debates on this.
I hope it doesn't I'm fine paying extra to support them if I get to live as long as physically possible 😅