I chose to reply to this comment because OP said:

> These conversations usually turn into philosophical or religious arguments around life.

I feel this is an absurd argument, as I listed, there are plenty of reasons to push back on this outside the purview of philosophy or religion. For instance, my mention of the predatory history of some medical interventions.

And

> My opinion is that suicide is completely valid and should not be stigmatized or illegal.

OP said “completely valid” and I would argue in reality everyone has a “line”, and I was using extreme examples to illuminate that we all have this line and it is more productive to discuss where it lies than to assume we hold the only rationale position.

It worked because you started to draw your line.

Namely, your

> are you unswayed by the testimonials of people living in lifelong debiliating pain and suffering who are not given any legal way to end their own suffering? Someone who is paralyzed in every way other than blinking their eyes is telling you that pure existence is suffering and they want their life to end - you're going to stand in front of them and say "no, you're not allowed to"?

And again,

> you can't imagine any other reason why people want to kill themselves other than being sad then I don't know what to tell you.

So you disagree with the OPs “completely valid” and feel it should be valid under carefully considered circumstances?

So where do you draw the line there? Only for sufferers of chronic pain? What would you tell to a sad but otherwise healthy person who elects to get the procedure?

Also, do you have resources for these testimonials? Or statistics on if they are more or less common than those that I mentioned?

> No, I actually can't.

Then you are willfully ignorant. There are so many examples of predatory medicine and advertising. Why would this intervention be free from the barbs of human nature? What about suicide booths exempts them from enshittification?

I chose to reply to this comment because OP said:

> These conversations usually turn into philosophical or religious arguments around life.

I feel this is an absurd argument, as I listed, there are plenty of reasons to push back on this outside the purview of philosophy or religion. For instance, my mention of the predatory history of some medical interventions.

And

> My opinion is that suicide is completely valid and should not be stigmatized or illegal.

OP said “completely valid” and I would argue in reality everyone has a “line”, and I was using extreme examples to illuminate that we all have this line and it is more productive to discuss where it lies than to assume we hold the only rationale position.

It worked because you started to draw your line.

Namely, your “not advocating for” advertisement, which I think is in opposition to the OPs “completely valid and not stigmatized” position.

> Are you unswayed by the people with multiple failed attempts that eventually succeed?

I’m open to hearing these. Do you have any resources?

Do you think legality of the act should be based on the statistics of if positive or negative testimonials are more prominent?

What a shame. I would have liked to hear your reasoning.

I didn't say it doesn't happen.

For the obvious reason that they may not be of sound mind to make the choice you’re “assisting” them with.

Some act that is recognized as bad by society does not stop happening - it simply ensures that members of that society are aware of the badness of the act. This has a deterrent effect because people do not choose a bad act for its own sake while people will choose neutral or good acts for the sake of the act.

Recognizing something as so bad as to be "out of the pale" does not mean that people will not talk about their desire to do it. That depends on a different societal measure - how willing are people to be open about who they really are and what they are experiencing in the moment.

I'm not talking about suicide prevention, I'm talking about preventing abuse of the legal framework for euthanasia for nefarious purposes (like what ended up happening in WW2-Germany).

It's probably already extent, but this gives me the idea of an open source suicide prevention platform, where struggling people can reach out to a network of non governmental real humans that, differing from ther perceived rest of the world, have the time, genuine concern and willingness to try to help. There's an enormous deficit of kindness out there, else we're brilliant at making it appear so.

And I think I agree with your comment. Making it taboo might among other unintended things, increase the allure through rebellion or breaking the rules of those who inspired the will to die.

The point isn't that assisted suicide as implemented in canada is objectively bad, it's that it's extremely ignorant and uncharitable to paint all opposition to assisted suicide as "common lizard brain reaction" and "people don't like, or feels icky, and they have no idea why they feel that way".

That does not sound viable to me at all.

How would you distinguish between the government coercing a demographic into suicide and that demographic just having a higher-than-average predisposition for it? E.g. people with depression or chronic illness/pain.

Well that's where it gets tricky -- what variables are you allowed to control for in this analysis? Not to spoil anyone, but this is what Soylent Green is about: people on the edges of society aren't actively coerced into euthenasia, but the presence of a more abstract level of coercion is made clear.

In terms of contemporary Canada, what if First Nations people end up using it much more often because they have much higher rates of poverty and drug abuse in their communities? On an individual bodily autonomy level that feels like fair game, but on a societal level the injustice is blatant.

So the lizard brain was right after all.

2:20: MAID is bad because nazis.

Eye rolling emoji.

4:20: MAID drugs cause to people drown to death.

Newsflash: that's how most people die. Drowning causes hypoxia. CHF and cancer patients almost all die of hypoxia.

5:40: They are offering it to veterans instead of treatment.

This is a lie. Anyone who repeats this is a liar.

6:07: Tax avoidance law firm ad.

LOL

7:51: Doing MAID rather than palliative care saves money.

Palliative care means shitting yourself to death as you drown in the fluid slowly filling up your lungs or pleural cavity for weeks while blasted out of your mind on morphine. That costs money. The entire point of MAID is to avoid the degrading and humiliating palliative care phase where your mind and body slowly self-destruct.

8:58: If as a parent you try to stop your child from getting MAID you will be arrested.

This is also a lie. Anyone who repeats this is a liar.

9:24: In group homes people are sitting down and talking about dying.

All persons at the ends of their life should have a frank and open conversation about dying. Dying is inevitable.

Note: She said "i'm hearing that in group homes..." that is the same as "people are saying" and "people are saying" is the #1 indicator that someone is lying.

10:10: I heard about this BECAUSE MY GIRLFRIEND'S MOTHER WAS AT AN EVENT.

What the hell that isn't even second-hand knowledge. My father's, brother's, nephew's, cousin's, former roommate said that she's totally telling the truth.

10:57: If anyone is a god-fearing individual right now.

Oh. I get it. HOW DO WE AS A SOCIETY GET THESE JESUSFREAKS TO LEAVE THE REST OF US ALONE?

11:48: Several minutes of her sucking up and lionizing.

12:22: "Nobody deserves to be waterboarded to death other than people who deserve to be waterboarded to death and there are people who deserve to be waterboarded to death"

Jesusfreak sociopath. Good combo.

12:30: I've seen that (being waterboarded to death) done to someone.

This is an obvious lie.

As an aside, a single molecule of my gooch sweat is more masculine than all of Jordan Peterson. Jordan Peterson is a brainfucked loser. People who worship him are even worse.

...really?

Even if you, personally, find Jordan Peterson credible, surely you understand that most people won't?

Are you using an extremely controversial source on purpose, to prove some sort of point, or are you genuinely unaware of his cultural position?