Id have to say I agree with the psychiatrists with this one. Using an AI to establish a persons mental health is a wholly unfit purpose for any AI out there.
P.N.: Currently a doctor or doctors need to be involved to prescribe the sodium pentobarbital and to confirm the person’s mental capacity. We want to remove any kind of psychiatric review from the process and allow the individual to control the method themselves.
Our aim is to develop an artificial intelligence screening system to establish the person’s mental capacity. Naturally there is a lot of scepticism, especially on the part of psychiatrists. But our original conceptual idea is that the person would do an online test and receive a code to access the Sarco.
Id have to say I agree with the psychiatrists with this one. Using an AI to establish a persons mental health is a wholly unfit purpose for any AI out there.
I had no idea this was a thing in Switzerland, but apparently it is. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_Switzerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_tourism#Switzerland
I had no idea this was a thing in Switzerland, but apparently it is.
Active euthanasia is illegal in Switzerland, but supplying the means for committing suicide are legal, as long as the action which directly causes death is performed by the one wishing to die. In the year 2014, a total of 752 assisted suicides (330 men, 422 women), compared to 1,029 non-assisted suicides (754 men, 275 women); most of the assisted suicides concerned elderly people suffering from a terminal disease. Euthanasia organisations have been widely used by foreigners, in what critics have termed suicide tourism. As of 2008, 60% of the total number of suicides assisted by the organisation Dignitas had been Germans.
In a referendum on 15 May 2011, voters in the canton of Zurich overwhelmingly rejected calls to ban assisted suicide or to outlaw the practice for non-residents. Out of more than 278,000 ballots cast, the initiative to ban assisted suicide was rejected by 85 per cent of voters and the initiative to outlaw it for foreigners was turned down by 78 per cent.
Regulations were proposed to limit possibilities of legal suicide assistance for foreigners in Switzerland. The law primarily targeted Dignitas, the sole organization offering assisted suicide to non-resident foreign nationals. The Swiss government rejected proposed stricter regulations in 2006, maintaining the status quo as regulated by Paragraph 115 of Swiss Criminal Code.
It’s also surprising to many people that it’s a thing in parts of the US as well. The documentary How to Die in Oregon is a good look into the practice.
It’s also surprising to many people that it’s a thing in parts of the US as well.
That's not quite the same though, AFAIK. Canada also has assisted dying for those with "grievous and irremediable medical conditions" too, but Switzerland seems to have even less restrictions....
In order to access the service of an accompanied suicide, someone has to:
be a member of DIGNITAS, and
be of sound judgement, and
possess a minimum level of physical mobility (sufficient to self-administer the drug).
Because the co-operation of a Swiss medical doctor (physician) is absolutely vital in obtaining the required drug, further prerequisites mean that the person must have:
a disease which will lead to death (terminal illness), and/or
Q: I suffer from a mental illness and/or psychological problems. Can DIGNITAS arrange an accompanied suicide for me?
A: This is very difficult, a lengthy and complex proceeding with many obstacles and there is no guarantee to receive the “provisional green light” for an accompanied suicide. It depends much on the quality of the medical file: clear diagnosis of the illness, description of its cause and development, proof of all therapies tried (with or without success) plus an in-depth psychiatric appraisal concerning the capacity of judgement and discernment in regard of the wish for a self-determined end of life, also confirming that this wish is not a symptom of the psychiatric illness but a well-considered balance decision.
Whereas in Canada (and I presume the US too) those suffering from mental illnesses are completely blocked from assisted dying.
This really, really bothers me. I don't think "making suicide more accessible" is a problem that particularly needs to be addressed. I have a really strong moral aversion to killing yourself in...
This really, really bothers me. I don't think "making suicide more accessible" is a problem that particularly needs to be addressed. I have a really strong moral aversion to killing yourself in most cases to be honest. I know a lot of people see it as selfish, because most people have people around them that care about them. It is really, really horrible losing someone you love to suicide, and it's something that irrevocably changes you. However, that's not why I find it so distasteful. After all, people have the right to determine what happens with their own life.
The reason it bothers me so much is because I have, at a few points in my life, wanted to die. I had a period over a decade ago where I had a really strong urge to end my life. I never went through with it or formed a plan, but having access to firearms, if it got to be that bad, it almost certainly would have been a successful attempt. I am so, so grateful that I didn't go through with it, and personally, I'm of the view that consciousness as we commonly perceive it is an illusion created by memories. You're quite literally a completely different person in different periods of time, and suicide means that all of those different people that would have existed in the future don't get to exist, because the person you are in that very moment thinks they can accurately predict what their life will be like far down the road. I've since made it more difficult for myself to end my life if the situation ever arose again, because that bit of difficulty may be enough to stop that process at some point.
I worry that a lot of these advocates of wider and easier access to suicide see things in a very black and white way. The truth is that most people that contemplate or attempt suicide go on to be glad that they didn't go through with it. Life isn't all peachy and happy, but being able to flip a switch and painlessly end your life isn't something that I think would be a positive change. It makes the assumption that human beings are rational, patient beings that consider all the facts objectively before making the most permanent decision one can make, when almost the exact opposite is true.
I'm absolutely not trying to discount your own experience, and I largely agree with you, since I myself am a suicide attempt survivor who regrets it, and I'm glad I didn't succeed. I was also a...
The truth is that most people that contemplate or attempt suicide go on to be glad that they didn't go through with it
I'm absolutely not trying to discount your own experience, and I largely agree with you, since I myself am a suicide attempt survivor who regrets it, and I'm glad I didn't succeed. I was also a moderator for quite some time on /r/SuicideWatch, which is a suicide prevention subreddit. So these sort of devices, especially the designer's ultimate goal of having an AI assess mental competence before their use, concerns me a great deal as well. However, I still think it's worth considering that there is likely a very strong surivorship bias going on with that statistic you mentioned, since we only get to hear the opinions of those who never went through with the attempt, or failed at it if they did.
p.s. Also worth considering is something David Foster Wallace wrote. It's one of the most profound pieces of writing I have ever read on the subject:
The so-called ‘psychotically depressed’ person who tries to kill herself doesn’t do so out of quote ‘hopelessness’ or any abstract conviction that life’s assets and debits do not square. And surely not because death seems suddenly appealing. The person in whom Its invisible agony reaches a certain unendurable level will kill herself the same way a trapped person will eventually jump from the window of a burning high-rise. Make no mistake about people who leap from burning windows. Their terror of falling from a great height is still just as great as it would be for you or me standing speculatively at the same window just checking out the view; i.e. the fear of falling remains a constant. The variable here is the other terror, the fire’s flames: when the flames get close enough, falling to death becomes the slightly less terrible of two terrors. It’s not desiring the fall; it’s terror of the flames. And yet nobody down on the sidewalk, looking up and yelling ‘Don’t!’ and ‘Hang on!’, can understand the jump. Not really. You’d have to have personally been trapped and felt flames to really understand a terror way beyond falling.
What you're talking about and what the machine is for, afaik, are very different things. It seems intended for terminally ill patients with very little to no hope of recovery. It's looking to...
What you're talking about and what the machine is for, afaik, are very different things. It seems intended for terminally ill patients with very little to no hope of recovery. It's looking to solve a permanent problem with a permanent solution, not something temporary as mental illness, though some would argue that some mental illnesses are permanent afflictions in one way or another such as schizophrenia, bi-polar, etc.
I won't delve into legal or ethical conundrum, but I must say this is creepy as hell. I would never commit suicide myself. I do respect others rights to do so, but maybe such an irreversible...
I won't delve into legal or ethical conundrum, but I must say this is creepy as hell. I would never commit suicide myself. I do respect others rights to do so, but maybe such an irreversible process should be somewhat unpractical and definitely not automated. You kinda want people to only do that when they're very very sure, no? A machine like that, which can seemingly be operated by anyone, scares me quite a bit.
A deadly machine like a car? A lighter? A fork? The end process may be automated but it's often so bureaucratic that many people commit suicide themselves even if it's more painful. Also maybe...
A machine like that, which can seemingly be operate by anyone, scares me quite a bit.
A deadly machine like a car? A lighter? A fork? The end process may be automated but it's often so bureaucratic that many people commit suicide themselves even if it's more painful. Also maybe it's creepy to you but until you're drowned in enough pain and doctors rule it as only getting worse until you die what may be a painful natural death, that machine may look beautiful to them.
Sure. There are countless potentially deadly machines that we choose to have due to their usefulness. That's a calculation you make, usefulness vs risk. Sometimes they're worth having, sometimes...
Sure. There are countless potentially deadly machines that we choose to have due to their usefulness. That's a calculation you make, usefulness vs risk. Sometimes they're worth having, sometimes not.
And I do believe everyone has the right to end their lives. I may disagree, but my disagreement should have no power on how others make this decision. I just find the machine itself super creepy.
Yes, we do risk vs reward on what's acceptable. Some provide pleasure, some save us from pain as the argument can be made for the suicide machine. Unfortunately if I ever got Alzheimers, I don't...
Yes, we do risk vs reward on what's acceptable. Some provide pleasure, some save us from pain as the argument can be made for the suicide machine. Unfortunately if I ever got Alzheimers, I don't think such a machine would be an option for me because lots of people just see it as a "creepy" machine and vote no in the US. I'd have to commit a terrible crime to get assisted death here and they only do that because you're such a burden, meanwhile forgetting the burden of terminal illness on the self and family, multiply that over years and over many thousands of lives.
Sorry, I won't discuss politics. But you do seem to be posing objections to things I'm not really saying and don't believe in. I'm not even in the US, so I can't hurt you. Maybe you're making good...
Sorry, I won't discuss politics. But you do seem to be posing objections to things I'm not really saying and don't believe in. I'm not even in the US, so I can't hurt you. Maybe you're making good points, I'm just not the person you think you're discussing them with. Sorry.
If I had an incurable disease and knew I was going to die relatively soon (within a year?) and that I would be in great pain and suffering for the last few months, I would consider it. I'd rather...
If I had an incurable disease and knew I was going to die relatively soon (within a year?) and that I would be in great pain and suffering for the last few months, I would consider it. I'd rather go out while I can still control my destiny.
You're absolutely right that it shouldn't be automated. There should be humans involved every step of the way to make sure that the person ending their life is capable of making such a choice.
Id have to say I agree with the psychiatrists with this one. Using an AI to establish a persons mental health is a wholly unfit purpose for any AI out there.
I had no idea this was a thing in Switzerland, but apparently it is.
See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_Switzerland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_tourism#Switzerland
It’s also surprising to many people that it’s a thing in parts of the US as well.
The documentary How to Die in Oregon is a good look into the practice.
That's not quite the same though, AFAIK. Canada also has assisted dying for those with "grievous and irremediable medical conditions" too, but Switzerland seems to have even less restrictions. From the Dignitas site:
And also from their FAQ:
Whereas in Canada (and I presume the US too) those suffering from mental illnesses are completely blocked from assisted dying.
This really, really bothers me. I don't think "making suicide more accessible" is a problem that particularly needs to be addressed. I have a really strong moral aversion to killing yourself in most cases to be honest. I know a lot of people see it as selfish, because most people have people around them that care about them. It is really, really horrible losing someone you love to suicide, and it's something that irrevocably changes you. However, that's not why I find it so distasteful. After all, people have the right to determine what happens with their own life.
The reason it bothers me so much is because I have, at a few points in my life, wanted to die. I had a period over a decade ago where I had a really strong urge to end my life. I never went through with it or formed a plan, but having access to firearms, if it got to be that bad, it almost certainly would have been a successful attempt. I am so, so grateful that I didn't go through with it, and personally, I'm of the view that consciousness as we commonly perceive it is an illusion created by memories. You're quite literally a completely different person in different periods of time, and suicide means that all of those different people that would have existed in the future don't get to exist, because the person you are in that very moment thinks they can accurately predict what their life will be like far down the road. I've since made it more difficult for myself to end my life if the situation ever arose again, because that bit of difficulty may be enough to stop that process at some point.
I worry that a lot of these advocates of wider and easier access to suicide see things in a very black and white way. The truth is that most people that contemplate or attempt suicide go on to be glad that they didn't go through with it. Life isn't all peachy and happy, but being able to flip a switch and painlessly end your life isn't something that I think would be a positive change. It makes the assumption that human beings are rational, patient beings that consider all the facts objectively before making the most permanent decision one can make, when almost the exact opposite is true.
I'm absolutely not trying to discount your own experience, and I largely agree with you, since I myself am a suicide attempt survivor who regrets it, and I'm glad I didn't succeed. I was also a moderator for quite some time on /r/SuicideWatch, which is a suicide prevention subreddit. So these sort of devices, especially the designer's ultimate goal of having an AI assess mental competence before their use, concerns me a great deal as well. However, I still think it's worth considering that there is likely a very strong surivorship bias going on with that statistic you mentioned, since we only get to hear the opinions of those who never went through with the attempt, or failed at it if they did.
p.s. Also worth considering is something David Foster Wallace wrote. It's one of the most profound pieces of writing I have ever read on the subject:
What you're talking about and what the machine is for, afaik, are very different things. It seems intended for terminally ill patients with very little to no hope of recovery. It's looking to solve a permanent problem with a permanent solution, not something temporary as mental illness, though some would argue that some mental illnesses are permanent afflictions in one way or another such as schizophrenia, bi-polar, etc.
I won't delve into legal or ethical conundrum, but I must say this is creepy as hell. I would never commit suicide myself. I do respect others rights to do so, but maybe such an irreversible process should be somewhat unpractical and definitely not automated. You kinda want people to only do that when they're very very sure, no? A machine like that, which can seemingly be operated by anyone, scares me quite a bit.
A deadly machine like a car? A lighter? A fork? The end process may be automated but it's often so bureaucratic that many people commit suicide themselves even if it's more painful. Also maybe it's creepy to you but until you're drowned in enough pain and doctors rule it as only getting worse until you die what may be a painful natural death, that machine may look beautiful to them.
Sure. There are countless potentially deadly machines that we choose to have due to their usefulness. That's a calculation you make, usefulness vs risk. Sometimes they're worth having, sometimes not.
And I do believe everyone has the right to end their lives. I may disagree, but my disagreement should have no power on how others make this decision. I just find the machine itself super creepy.
Yes, we do risk vs reward on what's acceptable. Some provide pleasure, some save us from pain as the argument can be made for the suicide machine. Unfortunately if I ever got Alzheimers, I don't think such a machine would be an option for me because lots of people just see it as a "creepy" machine and vote no in the US. I'd have to commit a terrible crime to get assisted death here and they only do that because you're such a burden, meanwhile forgetting the burden of terminal illness on the self and family, multiply that over years and over many thousands of lives.
Sorry, I won't discuss politics. But you do seem to be posing objections to things I'm not really saying and don't believe in. I'm not even in the US, so I can't hurt you. Maybe you're making good points, I'm just not the person you think you're discussing them with. Sorry.
Haha, ok, no need to apologize. And I'm sorry if it seemed like I was strawmanning.
If I had an incurable disease and knew I was going to die relatively soon (within a year?) and that I would be in great pain and suffering for the last few months, I would consider it. I'd rather go out while I can still control my destiny.
You're absolutely right that it shouldn't be automated. There should be humans involved every step of the way to make sure that the person ending their life is capable of making such a choice.