[VonTum]

> However, lobbying efforts have steadily pushed for broader access and eligibility...British legislators have to consider how easily assisted dying can be expanded, how easily abuses can go undetected.

Wait, how exactly does one "abuse" MAID?

People being so deep in poverty and addiction that they opt for MAID as an option isn't a symptom that it's "too easy" to access it, but rather that _society_ is failing them. And when those people finally say "Well fuck this shit I'm out", we reply "That's not allowed". Disregarding that companies won't hire them, rent & housing are ridiculous, they''re not allowed to put their tents anywhere and when they get kicked out their tents & belongings are trashed instead of being given back.

[wizzwizz4]

The argument is that society should not put resources into things like assisted dying programmes: they should put resources into making life worth living for people who would otherwise take the assisted dying option.

[macintux]

Only one of those options seems financially practical, unfortunately.

[wizzwizz4]

If this is true (and I don't think it is), then we need a fundamental, radical overthrowing of the social order, and a lot of work put into constructing a new one. Any system where putting people to death is more "practical" than giving them fulfilling lives must be destroyed, and replaced. (It may be more effective to destroy and replace the system gradually – "reform" – since revolutions tend to have too many moving parts for Blanquists to keep track of, the situation has to be pretty bad before a popular revolution becomes likely, and the world's so interconnected now that foreign powers will take advantage of the malleability of a society undergoing revolution, likely to the detriment of the locals.)

[westmeal]

It's funny to say this when there in fact is wealth but is mostly tied up in assets owned by rich douchebags and trust fund kids. Financially practical is just a nonsense word considering money isn't even tied to anything anymore either.

[nradov]

Several people in the Netherlands have died through MAID who had only psychiatric conditions with no serious physical problems. And these were not people mired in poverty and addiction who were failed by society. We can argue the merits of particular cases but many people would consider that an abuse.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/may/16/dutc...

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/...

[estearum]

Why is a psychiatric problem less "deserving" of MAID than a physical problem?

[nradov]

It's not a matter of "deserving" but rather the greater potential for abuse. Most psychiatric conditions have no objective signs and so diagnosis depends largely on observed symptoms, which are often patient reported. Most of those psychiatric conditions can be treated to an extent, or patients can learn to manage them: they aren't comparable to something like untreatable stage-4 cancer.