[thrwaway69]

The thing is why does everyone seem to forget here that some people don't have money, resources, family, environment or location to get access to many things that could help. Poor people surely will get happy if they get money, right? Surely therapy without a single worry in life will help them, right?

Do you tell others to think about how happy you could be in a few years when they are sad? No, you don't.

Do you encourage systematically poor people to suck it up because things will get better?

Same mentality is used to justify racial injustices and inequality. Things will get better in future so suck it up for the movement. These people are in pain and should be able to stop it if they see it not worth it. Obviously there can be some time period such as a year or two before you can access euthanasia. Otherwise, it's cruel to let people suffer for years in false hopes.

[ElFitz]

I don't know how things work where you are, but I tend to reason based on the context and environment I know.

Over here, we have a universal social security. While imperfect, incredibly bureaucratic, and hard to navigate at times, it ensures everyone can get access to most if not all medical care, for free for those who are in extremely precarious financial situations.

But that is a political and social choice that was made in this country decades ago, and it is true it is not the same in many other places.

Now, I want to believe this isn't what you meant, but another way to read your response could be "It'll take too long and it's too hard, too expensive, to help poor people out of their pain. We should instead let them put themselves out of their misery"

[thrwaway69]

> Another way to read your response could be "It'll take too long and it's too hard, too expensive, to help poor people out of their pain. We should instead let them put themselves out of their misery"

No. We should never stop trying to help people but if the help is causing suffering to others. It should not be done beyond a reasonable duration. What that reasonable duration is - I don't know. 2 years? 5 years? A decade? All are valid answers. It is highly contextual.

Regardless of that, having legal euthansia is better than not having it at all.

See - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23915237

[ElFitz]

Then we agree. I'd add a matter of means to the duration. Simply having someone fill out a form and wait 2, 3, 5 or 10 years isn't enough. There needs to be an actual process, with the intention and means to help figure out what other solutions we can offer, and try them out where appropriate.

Funny you referenced this comment. I actually wrote it :-)

[thrwaway69]

Wait I referenced the wrong one but you replied to the correct one already. Yeah I don't think duration alone is enough as mentioned in the other comment.

I believe in planned euthanasia. If I am getting crunky and old, there is a point where I would consider a peaceful death and celebrate it myself. I will have chance to say goodbye. Similarly, a depressed person after trying reasonable number of methods and spending enough effort, should be able to consider it as an option. Not everyone will end up hopeful and that's fine. We shouldn't try to pressure or shame that. Currently, too many people end up ruining their life through failed attempts. Many end up dying who could have been saved if they had legal system and society that gave them an alternative option. Many are currently suffering with terminal illness or mental health problems that won't be fixed any time soon. All three categories will benefit from a legal euthanasia system.

There are people who live through the day thinking that they could end it all if things go too wrong. It can stem from unhealthy environment but it might not always be that way. These people are ready to get help if they have a choice in the matter.