What an absolutely fantastic format, and great debate on a tough subject. Thank you very much for sharing this, @Slystuff. And well done, Vox. I hope they do more of these debates in the future.
What an absolutely fantastic format, and great debate on a tough subject. Thank you very much for sharing this, @Slystuff. And well done, Vox. I hope they do more of these debates in the future.
Agreed, a very refreshing approach to a serious subject compared the usual shouting matches I think we've all grown used to across media. Based on discussions I've seen on Tildes since joining,...
Agreed, a very refreshing approach to a serious subject compared the usual shouting matches I think we've all grown used to across media. Based on discussions I've seen on Tildes since joining, this felt like something worth sharing here.
In regards to Vox and the format, I believe that this is their second video in this style, based on the pinned comment, with the previous being in regards to legalisation of marijauna in the US (I couldn't find anything older than that one). Having also watched that one as well now, and you can see how the format has evolved. So hopefully they will continue to do more.
Yeah, it really was refreshing to see, and a perfect video to share here, IMO. p.s. LFTL for the previous debate: A fact-checked debate about legal weed
Yeah, it really was refreshing to see, and a perfect video to share here, IMO.
As others mentioned, it seems like a good video format considering there's so much nuance and detail to these issues, there's naturally going to be disagreements and one can't extend a video...
As others mentioned, it seems like a good video format considering there's so much nuance and detail to these issues, there's naturally going to be disagreements and one can't extend a video forever to address all the nuances.
In fact #4, one thing mentioned was "society willing to help it's citizens die, rather than provide the services we know help, that we know work, that reduce suffering. Killing people on wait lists is profoundly immoral".
What I find not mentioned in response to this perspective is that it's not so much that society is willing to help its citizens die, but rather that it's society that was standing in the way to begin with and it's asking society to "help" in the sense that it doesn't restrict access to people asking for this. Let's face it, anything used in medically assisted deaths would be widely available and easily available if not for controls placed by governments (society), which I think we can all acknowledge is very likely to not be a good thing if they were widely available. There's far too many nefarious motivations and reasons that someone could use drugs or anything else that can cause people to die rather easily, which is why some countries restrict guns or other tools/weapons etc. so it goes beyond just drugs that are restricted in means to control the ability for people to take the lives of other people. It's intrinsically the case that the means needed for someone to take their own life are generally the same means that can be used to take the lives of others and naturally that leads to controls on those means.
That in particular seems very important within the context of debating whether access to relatively safe, painless or peaceful means of dying is immoral if you're not able to offer adequate treatment to these individuals. Morally, it is imperative to prevent people from killing others, so it's just that society restricts methods of doing so. If the means of suicide and homicide were completely different, would it be the same moral imperative to prevent people from suicide? (Edit: What if I reworded that to say, would it be the same moral imperative to prevent people from having bodily autonomy and the rights to their own body and life?) I think this is what the doctor representing the side supporting MAID was contending, that they're separate issues and at some point you can't allow society's failing to provide care to stand in the way of providing MAID because it's society that restricted access to these drugs or other means to begin with.
I don't know how it's done with MAID, but when my mother took advantage of California's equivalent, the drugs they gave her were just opiates. A massive dose, but they weren't anything that isn't...
I don't know how it's done with MAID, but when my mother took advantage of California's equivalent, the drugs they gave her were just opiates. A massive dose, but they weren't anything that isn't available to people in other circumstances. Even with that, it took her 5 hours after ingestion to pass on. So whatever the reasons for restricting this, it's definitely not because they don't want to hand out weapons to people. A bitter 12 ounces of liquid that has to be drunk quickly and that kills over hours after ingestion isn't much of a murder weapon.
I've read barbiturates are used in other cases. Even in the case of opiates, I've personally never had access to opiates. I can't walk into the store and get some, I don't know anyone who has...
the drugs they gave her were just opiates. A massive dose, but they weren't anything that isn't available to people in other circumstances.
I've read barbiturates are used in other cases. Even in the case of opiates, I've personally never had access to opiates. I can't walk into the store and get some, I don't know anyone who has them, and in the rare event I happened to come across someone who had them, I'd be skeptical of the quality or validity that it is what the seller says it is. All that to say that it's not exactly like they're easily acquirable or something. The restrictions on it are meaningful. It's also worth noting that part of this is still early on and the compromises being made aren't necessarily what might be ideal if people had no restrictions. Meaning that opiates or barbiturates or any other options being used now might only be so because of compromises in the approach to giving people the rights back to their own bodies/lives and were there to be more acceptance it could be the case that other options would be more ideal. Opiates also have other effects than just potentially being lethal, so there are different interests in controlling them than just the possibility of using them to cause death.
In that particular case I'd agree there isn't a lot of overlap in terms of using them to end your own life versus using them to end the life of someone else, but it also doesn't take much to compel people to take an interest in restricting something that has little use in killing others if people don't find a lot of value in it themselves. Basically, you can have rare events of someone using opiates to kill someone else, or someone using cyanide for example, yet that's enough to cause interest in restricting it because there's not enough interest in maintaining access, even if it's a tiny amount of people who have ever used it to murder someone. Think about all the media frenzy that happened years back after some guy bit someones face off and it was supposedly the case he was on bath salts or whatever the hell else people were speculating on, suddenly people could easily be in favor of banning bath salts if most have no interest in accessing bath salts. Society isn't always rational.
What an absolutely fantastic format, and great debate on a tough subject. Thank you very much for sharing this, @Slystuff. And well done, Vox. I hope they do more of these debates in the future.
Agreed, a very refreshing approach to a serious subject compared the usual shouting matches I think we've all grown used to across media. Based on discussions I've seen on Tildes since joining, this felt like something worth sharing here.
In regards to Vox and the format, I believe that this is their second video in this style, based on the pinned comment, with the previous being in regards to legalisation of marijauna in the US (I couldn't find anything older than that one). Having also watched that one as well now, and you can see how the format has evolved. So hopefully they will continue to do more.
Yeah, it really was refreshing to see, and a perfect video to share here, IMO.
p.s. LFTL for the previous debate: A fact-checked debate about legal weed
Vox also provided a link to the fact cards and sources discussed during the course of the debate.
As others mentioned, it seems like a good video format considering there's so much nuance and detail to these issues, there's naturally going to be disagreements and one can't extend a video forever to address all the nuances.
In fact #4, one thing mentioned was "society willing to help it's citizens die, rather than provide the services we know help, that we know work, that reduce suffering. Killing people on wait lists is profoundly immoral".
What I find not mentioned in response to this perspective is that it's not so much that society is willing to help its citizens die, but rather that it's society that was standing in the way to begin with and it's asking society to "help" in the sense that it doesn't restrict access to people asking for this. Let's face it, anything used in medically assisted deaths would be widely available and easily available if not for controls placed by governments (society), which I think we can all acknowledge is very likely to not be a good thing if they were widely available. There's far too many nefarious motivations and reasons that someone could use drugs or anything else that can cause people to die rather easily, which is why some countries restrict guns or other tools/weapons etc. so it goes beyond just drugs that are restricted in means to control the ability for people to take the lives of other people. It's intrinsically the case that the means needed for someone to take their own life are generally the same means that can be used to take the lives of others and naturally that leads to controls on those means.
That in particular seems very important within the context of debating whether access to relatively safe, painless or peaceful means of dying is immoral if you're not able to offer adequate treatment to these individuals. Morally, it is imperative to prevent people from killing others, so it's just that society restricts methods of doing so. If the means of suicide and homicide were completely different, would it be the same moral imperative to prevent people from suicide? (Edit: What if I reworded that to say, would it be the same moral imperative to prevent people from having bodily autonomy and the rights to their own body and life?) I think this is what the doctor representing the side supporting MAID was contending, that they're separate issues and at some point you can't allow society's failing to provide care to stand in the way of providing MAID because it's society that restricted access to these drugs or other means to begin with.
I don't know how it's done with MAID, but when my mother took advantage of California's equivalent, the drugs they gave her were just opiates. A massive dose, but they weren't anything that isn't available to people in other circumstances. Even with that, it took her 5 hours after ingestion to pass on. So whatever the reasons for restricting this, it's definitely not because they don't want to hand out weapons to people. A bitter 12 ounces of liquid that has to be drunk quickly and that kills over hours after ingestion isn't much of a murder weapon.
I've read barbiturates are used in other cases. Even in the case of opiates, I've personally never had access to opiates. I can't walk into the store and get some, I don't know anyone who has them, and in the rare event I happened to come across someone who had them, I'd be skeptical of the quality or validity that it is what the seller says it is. All that to say that it's not exactly like they're easily acquirable or something. The restrictions on it are meaningful. It's also worth noting that part of this is still early on and the compromises being made aren't necessarily what might be ideal if people had no restrictions. Meaning that opiates or barbiturates or any other options being used now might only be so because of compromises in the approach to giving people the rights back to their own bodies/lives and were there to be more acceptance it could be the case that other options would be more ideal. Opiates also have other effects than just potentially being lethal, so there are different interests in controlling them than just the possibility of using them to cause death.
In that particular case I'd agree there isn't a lot of overlap in terms of using them to end your own life versus using them to end the life of someone else, but it also doesn't take much to compel people to take an interest in restricting something that has little use in killing others if people don't find a lot of value in it themselves. Basically, you can have rare events of someone using opiates to kill someone else, or someone using cyanide for example, yet that's enough to cause interest in restricting it because there's not enough interest in maintaining access, even if it's a tiny amount of people who have ever used it to murder someone. Think about all the media frenzy that happened years back after some guy bit someones face off and it was supposedly the case he was on bath salts or whatever the hell else people were speculating on, suddenly people could easily be in favor of banning bath salts if most have no interest in accessing bath salts. Society isn't always rational.