[seventhtiger]

For the same reason I'm against capital punishment. I don't trust the state with the due dilegence to have direct power over life and death. What happens when care is available but insurance figures assisted death is cheaper? The fact that someone could look at the healthcare system and say "give them the option to kill people" is wild. You can say whatever you want about criteria and process, then I want you to think of the million ways things go wrong when lofty goals are transformed into bureaucracy.

[rightbyte]

I think you viewpoint is very reasonable. There is way too little focus on 'how can this be missused' and 'what are the incentives'. More often than not the critique is hand waived away with some hard on crime tough talk.

[tejohnso]

> I don't trust the state with the due dilegence

Me neither. That's why I'm glad that in any jurisdiction I've seen it available, it always comes down to the patient's choice.

> I want you to think of the million ways things go wrong

Nothing is perfect but if someone is suffering months or potentially years of pain I'm glad that they have the option to choose to end it legally.

> The fact that someone could look at the healthcare system and say "give them the option to kill people" is wild.

Nobody says that, maybe that's why it seems so wild. It's the patient that has the option, not the system. "Give patients the choice of end of life treatment that they prefer" is more like it.

> due dilegence to have direct power over life and death

How do you feel about police carrying firearms with authority to kill base on high pressure, low time, individual decision making?

[squigz]

What happens when care is available but insurance decides you don't get it, and you die anyway?

[Thorrez]

Assisted death is sometimes used by people who don't have a terminal illness. And there's the worry that insurance is more likely to deny treatment coverage now that a cheaper alternative (assisted death) is available.

>The nonprofit organization Inclusion Canada regularly hears from people with disabilities who are offered euthanasia, including one disabled woman whose physiotherapist suggested it when she sought help for a bruised hip, said executive vice president Krista Carr.

>“Our response to the intolerable suffering of people with disabilities is: ‘Your life is not worth living,'” she said. “We’ll just offer them the lethal injection, and we’ll offer it readily.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/some-health-care-workers-...

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2024/09/16/should-e...

[LeafItAlone]

Do you think insurance companies are not already doing that, just without the fast way out for the patients, so they are left to live in pain? The current reality of not paying for the assisted suicide is cheaper than the potential of paying for it; how much would it really change behavior?

[Thorrez]

>Do you think insurance companies are not already doing that, just without the fast way out for the patients, so they are left to live in pain?

Just because something bad is already happening doesn't mean it's ok to do something that will make it happen more frequently.

Not to mention the many people who will get assisted suicide who don't have coverage denied, and/or don't have a terminal illness, potentially due to encouragement/coercion from doctors, nurses, family, insurance, etc.

>The current reality of not paying for the assisted suicide is cheaper than the potential of paying for it; how much would it really change behavior?

Now the insurance companies have something cheap to offer. So it gives them an excuse not to offer something better.

[LeafItAlone]

Seems like you are opposed to it because it will end up being used solely because it will be the cheaper option. So just make it not the cheaper option. Allow it, but make it expensive so the insurance companies don’t consider it before other treatments.

[Thorrez]

So put a giant tax on it? That is an interesting idea. I'm pretty sure the people who say it's a right will fight that.

And there's also the question of how big the tax should be. Someone with an illness that requires expensive treatment but is expected to not die for a long time might cost the insurance company millions in treatment. Would that tax be millions?

One problem would be in the case of government-run healthcare, or government-run insurance. In that case, to what extent would the tax just be taking money out of one of the government's pockets and putting it in the other? I'm not sure that would disincentive it.

In fact, some doctors, nurses, might consider it good to help fund the government, and thus it might almost be an incentive for them to do it.

[freedomben]

Indeed, and insurance is already highly regulated. It doesn't seem like it would be very hard to basically say, "you can't consider assisted suicide as an alternative option when making coverage decisions."

Will it still happen somewhat? Yeah probably, but there's also the very real suffering of a human being that needs to be considered. Telling them, "no sorry you have to have a painful and prolonged and undignified death because an insurance company might misuse the option if we give it to you" is pretty messed up IMHO