• M500@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      My wife and I are not having kids. If we are very elderly, we talk about how we would want to do something like this once the other one goes. We assume we will be alone as no one we know is having kids and we are all aging out of baby making age.

      • the_q@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Kinda the same situation for me and my wife. I don’t want to be so old I can’t function and I certainly don’t want my wife to have to experience this life alone, but I really don’t want to be here.

  • Illuminostro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    The only reaon I’m still is because I’m the caretaker of my mother, who has dementia. When she goes, I go. I would prefer it to be painless. Medically assisted suicide should be legal.

      • ripcord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I know you’re trying to be supportive, but you don’t know their situation, what they’ve done in their life, and why they’ve chosen this. It comes across like you know better or that they can’t already know what they want and what the ramifications are.

        • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          And you don’t know if the other person is crying for help, wants to talk or really decided to give up. Never bad idea to at least give a chance for a conversation - especially online where people can just ignore you if they feel like it.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Because if your body can no longer be used to make money for rich people through your labor, the government is pretty much okay with you being dead as you are less of a tax burden.

    Only the pharmecutical industry is against this because people dying early cuts into their profits of shoving meds down their clients throats that treat symptoms but don’t cure them endlessly.

    Everyone else is pretty much happy to see anyone who can no longer be bled dry being ground to dust.

    • Drusas@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      While all of that is true, it ignores the simple fact that we provide more dignity to our pets than to other humans when it comes to terminal illness. Pets? Euthanasia is considered humane if the animal is suffering and can’t be helped. Humans? Hah, fuck you. Suffer until you die.

      • the_q@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Well animals deserve it. They’re perfect. Humans by and large fucking suck.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    It’s like anything, regulating it is safer than pushing it underground.

    If we lived in a civilized society we’d all have healthcare and they could require x amount of counseling or requiring some kind of waiting period and we’d likely see a drastic decrease in heat of the moment incidents.

    People wouldn’t risk most “at home” methods if there was an alternative that required a slight postponement.

    And if it self identify people who desperately need mental healthcare, we’d likely see a decrease in mass shooters as well since most are suicidal and feel they have no exit. If they expressed interest in a program with mandatory counseling, lots of innocent bystanders as well may be saved.

    We need to start thinking about what really helps and not just going with gut feelings.