Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

In many cases, it's social virtue signalling, with no real sapience behind the actions.

See how virtuous I am empathizing with lower-order animals' suffering.

See how virtuous I am championing the sanctity of human life.

A lot of the latter can be mitigated: make those who want human life preserved "at all costs" pay cash-over-the-barrel into that "at all costs" effort, on an individual basis. Voluntary, elective euthanasia becomes an option when no one steps up to pay for the extraordinary efforts. They either withdraw their opinion immediately when they can no longer externalize their social virtue signalling choice's costs onto everyone else, or they go broke very soon and those who are suffering can make a free choice.

Or we can pursue the sane choice and legislate elective assisted euthanasia with safeguards like Switzerland's or other rationally-chosen parameters. It is long past time to recognize that our medical technology has far outstripped our ability to reliably deliver an acceptably high quality of life.




"Voluntary, elective euthanasia becomes an option when no one steps up to pay for the extraordinary efforts."

Generally euthanasia is considered an ethical option when medicine can't help anymore, and any prolonging of life would either be useless (patient is braindead) or unable to mitigate the pain of the patient.

Personally I think bringing economics in wil obfuscate the moral discussion.


In the US, officially-sanctioned euthanasia that I was personally acquainted with in a hospice took the form of death by dehydration and starvation. Both are barbaric, considered war crimes in a different context. In the case I was personally acquainted with, asphyxiation by rapid flooding of CO2 into the patient's airspace was prohibited.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: