Comment on Why is society at large okay with euthanasia for pets but not for humans?
Fichtre@programming.dev 4 hours ago
TLDR : yes but (Wished it was for the greater good only, ie. respect and help people decide how they end their lives but capitalism will use it with its own vision and how it values human lives -not much-)
In addition to the usual religion + human life being supposedly more valuable than pets /many other animal, there’s the “utility” angle.
Someone here already mentioned the “is grandma Suzanne still valuable as an asset to society ? Aaaww she had a good life then. 'K bye” and it’s actually pretty huge : in a world where governments are cutting more and more social welfare budget (well, when there was one to begin with at least), promoting the right to die must include the stories of people that don’t benefit from proper care and who are way more susceptible to go with the legal way out of euthanasia. And this number, with the budget cuts, older population, whatever incapacitating fuckery that might happen will grow quickly if not properly safeguarded (and I dont trust anyone in power right now to safeguard it).
I used to be completely in favour of euthanasia as a proper, respectful ending for people in pain : we had this story in France with Vincent Humbert that encapsulated all the reasons why it should be legal.
And then, capitalism kept happening and this idea of euthanasia, as beautiful as it is if properly set, increasingly became in my mind a tool to stir the masses towards global productivity/efficiency, with a few happy yet sobbing endings.
So yeah, I’m still hesitant on this matter, and I wished it could be implemented to relieve the many persons who just want a little more respect for how they wish to die. But at the same time, if nothing more is done to increase social welfare budgets, welp. We might end up with the suicide booths from Futurama 😅
HubertManne@piefed.social 39 minutes ago
I get you but its not like its either or. If anything statistics about euthanasia would at least be an argument that social programs are insufficient. Sorta the ultimate weigh. If all places allowed it, it would likely be a pretty obvious metric for quality of life. You could not get it to zero but it would be obvious what places are not even trying. Come to think of it its obvious now why many politicians do not want to see that right be a thing.