Especially as a human can normally consent to death but a pet can't

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 4 months ago (12 children)

because of WW2 and the experiences made there.

if euthanasia was legal, it would be immediately used against some kind of disadvantaged group, which is why it's kept forbidden.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Euthanasia is already legal in some countries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    And there are already some controversy around disadvantaged groups getting suggested applying for euthanasia, some even going through it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Source?

    In my country euthanasia has to be required by the person wanting to ending. Nor the government nor any other person or organization can ask for this procedure to be done to an unwilling person.

    The person has to require twice, and be evaluated by a comitee of medical doctors to ensure that it has a chronic disease that could not be cured and that it's causing ongoing pain that would not get better with medication.

    https://www.sanidad.gob.es/gabinete/notasPrensa.do?id=6823

    Statistics on it doesn't point to it being "targeted to anyone". More so, there are many people who ask for it and cannot get it in time and die of natural causes before the procedure could be done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    Why would those disadvantaged groups agree to being euthanized?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    How do you imagine that would work?

    I live in a country that allows for euthanasia and it’s not like you just walk into a doctor’s office and ask for a suicide pill. It’s a long process involving multiple doctors and psychological assessments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

    Probably for budget reasons. Someone comes up with an idea that the state should cut spending on the sick and elderly and start campaigning on how we should be focusing healthcare on only the fit and the strong to save the nation. Then we just need to make the patriot pill easily available and remind sick people of how big of a burden they are.

    I know, that was a bit far fetched and personally I think the terminally ill should have a way to leave with dignity instead of jumping off bridges or driving into oncoming traffic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Someone comes up with an idea that the state should cut spending on the sick and elderly and start campaigning about how we should be focusing healthcare on only the fit and the strong

    That’s already the case with private health insurance.

    I think the terminally ill should have a way to leave with dignity instead of jumping off bridges or driving into oncoming traffic.

    Where I live euthanasia is available in case of “suffering without chance of improvement”, which includes mental health issues in very rare cases (and only after every treatment option has been exhausted).

    The last few years there has been some discussion to allow for euthanasia for people who feel they have “completed their life”. As in: elderly who don’t want to spend their last few years in an old peoples home wearing adult diapers slowly withering away. They had a good life, they feel like there is nothing left for them to do on this earth and just want a dignified death on their own terms. There is something to be said for that.

  • source
  • parent