[squigz]

> I guess we can explore both, but I'd ask you to research how these laws are already affecting families too in new ways on places where eutanasia is already legal.

Can you provide some reading? Because this doesn't really mean much by itself.

> It's easy on older -about to die-, people, but what about not such clear cut cases, some families are actually against their beloved ones taking their lifes, and the state allowing it, (Parents suing their offspring, to try and not have them do it, for example)

Then those families can talk about it and the person dying can make their choice. The families who don't like it can do what they want, just like those who do want it.

> when is something that shouldn't be natural,

Almost nothing about our modern life is "natural", including most of medicine. That said, how is death unnatural?

[tough]

> Almost nothing about our modern life is "natural", including most of medicine. That said, how is death unnatural?

only meant having to bear the death of your child before you, usually a parent dies first, although i guess infant mortality rates where much higher until recent times...

this recent case what i was thinking specifically https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/2025-03-17/justicia-av...

[squigz]

> The young woman has been in a wheelchair for years after falling from the top of a building .

> He added that his daughter suffers from mental problems with suicidal tendencies and constant changes of heart, and therefore needed psychological treatment, not assisted death.

> "The patient's capacity to make decisions has also been verified," the ruling states, "by the attending physician and the psychologist at the Hospital Residencia . The plaintiff has not presented any evidence that could refute the conclusions of these reports. They show that Noelia retains her capacity to make all types of decisions, including, therefore, the decision to undergo euthanasia."

This is a terribly sad situation all around, but I don't see this as evidence for why euthanasia laws are bad. The best I can see is that this highlights that we shouldn't push euthanasia as a solution to every lifelong disability, but that s a social/cultural issue, not a legal one - and one that we will certainly have to adapt to as assisted dying becomes more socially accepted. There will likely be more stories where, arguably, it goes too far, but I don't think there will be an epidemic of people offing themselves for relatively minor things.

> only meant having to bear the death of your child before you

Of course this is sad, but given the context of the conversation, the other choice being watching a child lose their mind or suffer in a world that is extraordinarily hostile to disabled people, I don't think saving the parents one type of pain (while subjecting them to another) is a really great idea either.

Also, isn't it better to have a way for people to kill themselves "cleanly", rather than kill themselves at home (or worse, in public)? Presumably finding one's child like that would be far worse?

(Of course, none of this is to say that we shouldn't e.g., make the world more accessible to disabled people, or help people learn to live with their disabilities, or try to cure Alzheimer's and the like - but as said, we can do all of these things at once. In the meantime, before we cure Alzheimer's and make everyone perfectly mentally healthy, we should also deal with the harsh realities that not having done those things entails.)

[tough]

I didnt link them but several similar cases around mental illness.

IMHO a state shouldn't give individuals the right to off themselves.

Nature and physics already do, providing laws and a framework around it perverses it to push that people that feels out of society to bad decisions some times

Maybe its better to have them be able to do it -cleanly- and legally, but that also means more of them do?

I don't see mental health, or disabilities, as granting ending your own life, my worry is this discourse around euthansia is actively against that view and detremines the experience of humans that are considered not optimal to society as they where a throw away toy

[squigz]

> IMHO a state shouldn't give individuals the right to off themselves.

This is a really terrible way of putting it (another way of putting it might be "the right to end their suffering"), not to mention that a state needs a good reason to deny its citizens of rights, not the other way around. I don't see any good reason why we should deny people the right to end their suffering when they choose.

> Maybe its better to have them be able to do it -cleanly- and legally, but that also means more of them do?

I don't think assisted dying being accessible is going to cause more people to become suicidal, no.

> I don't see mental health, or disabilities, as granting ending your own life

The thing is, you don't get to decide that for me either, on a legal basis. You're welcome to feel this way yourself, of course, and encourage your friends and family not do so, but you don't have the right to decide that for others.

> my worry is this discourse around euthansia is actively against that view and detremines the experience of humans that are considered not optimal to society as they where a throw away toy

The thing is... we already do. Disabled, elderly, neurodivergent... There are large groups of people that society has been failing for a long time. Giving some of those groups (like the elderly) the option to not have to endure that seems to me a good thing.

[tough]

I agree with you overall but i feel the legislation isn't as nuanced and enables second order effects we can't preconcieve.

But you're right it is not my right to decide for others either, and i abide to the laws and will respect others choosing to enact and follow this one, I just don't love the fact I guess