Don’t get me wrong, I am not against people choosing on their own accord to go. Even if I think there are caveats with that because I don’t consider people to ever be able to completely grasp their decisions and make decisions autonomously. We’re after all limited creatures. I suppose in cases of extreme disease assisted suicide non the less represents a rational personal choice.
What keeps me from supporting an institution such as MAiD is how economic pressures can greatly affect the question of who dies and who dies when. If a person has the resources to pass in a comfortable environment, like a nice home in a calm part of town, they will consider assisted suicide much later in their trajectory than the person who has hardly any next of kin and no financial resources to install, say, the necessary aids at home. The former individual does not spend their last days in a stressful hospital environment. Of all examples I could give this is probably in the category of least extreme. As long as this contradictory aspect exists MAiD and everything like it will fail to live up to promises. Off the top of my dome I’m not able to name any regions where this would not be the case, even Sweden or Switzerland have dirt-poor strata that would be negatively affected.
In the actual free world where we have healthcare the mandates for treatment come from the physicians and the advice from medical professionals. It is far from perfect, but it is the best recommended care.
I would carefully disagree here. Would freedom not mean that the recipient of medical care gets to ultimately decide? Considering the state of the world, free world is a contradiction in adjectives. Especially here. I know this is a pedantic ask with it’s scope, but I’m trying to nudge you away from a certain centrisms.
Well, until you solve affluenza, they are already getting better care at their leisure while those who have less resources and support are already languishing. This is always going to be the case. If you can convince people to actually fund and support the necessary care measures and support networks, I’m all for it.
I realize that we might be talking entirely different languages here. For one, I do not at all hold the belief that social constructions have eternal qualities to them. Secondly, affluenza is a second order phenomenon to private wealth. Maybe third order phenomenon, as economic behaviour precedes it, standing in the middle between affluenza and private wealth. To me that’s putting the horse before the cart a bit which doesn’t compute.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not against people choosing on their own accord to go. Even if I think there are caveats with that because I don’t consider people to ever be able to completely grasp their decisions and make decisions autonomously. We’re after all limited creatures. I suppose in cases of extreme disease assisted suicide non the less represents a rational personal choice.
What keeps me from supporting an institution such as MAiD is how economic pressures can greatly affect the question of who dies and who dies when. If a person has the resources to pass in a comfortable environment, like a nice home in a calm part of town, they will consider assisted suicide much later in their trajectory than the person who has hardly any next of kin and no financial resources to install, say, the necessary aids at home. The former individual does not spend their last days in a stressful hospital environment. Of all examples I could give this is probably in the category of least extreme. As long as this contradictory aspect exists MAiD and everything like it will fail to live up to promises. Off the top of my dome I’m not able to name any regions where this would not be the case, even Sweden or Switzerland have dirt-poor strata that would be negatively affected.
I would carefully disagree here. Would freedom not mean that the recipient of medical care gets to ultimately decide? Considering the state of the world, free world is a contradiction in adjectives. Especially here. I know this is a pedantic ask with it’s scope, but I’m trying to nudge you away from a certain centrisms.
Well, until you solve affluenza, they are already getting better care at their leisure while those who have less resources and support are already languishing. This is always going to be the case. If you can convince people to actually fund and support the necessary care measures and support networks, I’m all for it.
I try to avoid isms, they are not good for you.
I realize that we might be talking entirely different languages here. For one, I do not at all hold the belief that social constructions have eternal qualities to them. Secondly, affluenza is a second order phenomenon to private wealth. Maybe third order phenomenon, as economic behaviour precedes it, standing in the middle between affluenza and private wealth. To me that’s putting the horse before the cart a bit which doesn’t compute.