• dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s Canada. We aren’t the smiling plucky canucks that the international community thinks we are. We’re tired, boss. We have some of the worst incidence rates for opioid addiction in the world, the most expensive real estate, politicians that actually don’t do anything except self-deal and play culture war games, a massive overpopulation crisis, a jobs crisis, a grocery cost crisis (all told, they call it a cost of living crisis). They literally invented MAID so that people with terminal cancer can take the painless path out, but now it’s being discussed for literally anyone who is feeling mentally unwell.

    • elscallr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      They literally invented MAID so that people with terminal cancer can take the painless path out, but now it’s being discussed for literally anyone who is feeling mentally unwell.

      The people opposed to medically assisted death used this as an argument against it. I disagreed with them, didn’t expect that to really happen.

      I still don’t disagree with its use here. If a person’s life is not their own to take then they have no autonomy at all, but still… it’s jarring to see it actually being used this way.

      • Trantarius@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        If a person’s life is not their own to take then they have no autonomy at all

        That’s just not right. Autonomy isn’t some absolute, all or nothing thing. If it was, then everybody would have “no autonomy at all”, because we’re not allowed to commit crimes.

        Of the full range of possible actions, killing yourself is a relatively small portion of those. Considering that death eliminates all possible future actions, I’d argue that preventing a suicide (of a person that’s not dying anyway) actually preserves more autonomy than the alternative.

        • Gabu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re just arguing out of an emotional position and trying to rationalize it. If a person wants to die, it’s their right to be able to do so. That doesn’t mean society should just say “fuck it” instead of providing proper mental care, however.

          • jasory@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            “You’re just arguing out of an emotional position”

            So where did they make an emotional argument?

            “It’s their right to be able to do so”

            And here you are inventing positive rights!

            Where does this right to any action come from? If you are paraplegic do you have a right to walk? How would this right be granted? Do you have a right to psychically expel your kidneys (an apparently impossible task)?

            The fact that you are unable to perform an action does not entail that others must perform it for you.

            • Gabu@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              A cursory glance at your post history tells me more than enough to know I should just ignore you.

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes it is and not being allowed to harm innocent people isn’t a violation of your autonomy and never was. Grow the fuck up.

          Considering that death eliminates all possible future actions

          Highly debatable