this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
460 points (97.9% liked)

World News

32316 readers
1072 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 months ago (22 children)

Nobody wants to see their loved ones suffer endlessly or needlessly, and this is also a whole lot less traumatic than people committing suicide.

This is people committing suicide, though.

[–] ZC3rr0r@lemmy.ca 15 points 6 months ago (21 children)

That's both debatable on a semantic level (is it really suicide if it's assisted?) and not how I intended the use of the term.

What I tried to say is that this option is less traumatic than non-assisted options for ending your existence and comes with less risk of injury to bystanders to boot.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago (20 children)

How is it debatable? If you're claiming it's not suicide because it's assisted, then by that logic it's murder.

It's one thing to support the policy, it's another thing to misrepresent what the policy is. Suicide is still suicide. Is it less disruptive to society? Absolutely. Is it a good policy? Debatably. But it is still suicide? Indisputably. Support it if you will but don't go around saying that it's "less traumatic than suicide" as if it isn't a form of suicide.

[–] squeakycat@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

"Less traumatic than violent, ad-hoc suicide" perhaps?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 months ago

There's no such thing as "non-violent" suicide. Maybe, "less traumatic than non-assisted suicide" or "regular suicide," or "suicide that isn't state approved," or any number of other phrasings so long as a spade is still called a spade.

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)