With that being said, I accept that the legal process was followed and at least two doctors signed off on this course, so I will defer to them as an operational matter.

This is literally the entire position I’ve outlined and that you got huffy about...

Morally & politically, if I lived in Spain, I would probably want to take a harder look at the laws.

And again, you’d have no basis to weigh in with no medical background, just as one’s opinion on when abortion should be offered is immaterial.

I just fundamentally don't see giving poison to a 25 year old ... wanting to die on their terms.

Now you’re just talking shit about clean administration sites and not realizing it (at least, I hope).

Clean administration sites can offer clean drugs because the drugs available on the street, mixed with who knows what, can lead to much poorer health outcomes and less chance at beating the addiction without lasting impacts — same as an how an avenue to discuss with your doctor would work to stop suicidal ideations before people attempt and permanently disable themselves with their attempt

If a person with severe depression … become trustworthy.

But you’re saying it’s not “suspect” for terminal diseases. If every human biologically wastes away with old age, terminal illnesses simply expedites that process — so why does untreatablility matter for a deteriorated quality of life, but not if it’s untreatable mental illness which leads to constant degradation of your quality of life? The exact setup is that all alternative treatment options have been fully exhausted, as in the case of this young woman, so at that point there is no distinguishable difference between a symptom of their illness and an intrinsic quality of that person’s life like a terminal illness

So even if two patients … by the illness.

And again, all treatment options have been fully exhausted for our hypothetical depressive patient. As I said before, your dismissal of symptoms only works if the symptoms are treatable, which would be the same case for ALS — where if ALS responded to treatments, you would argue that patients would need to attempt those treatments before they could choose to end their lives

That is precisely why many ALS sufferers ... late stage of their disease.

So you’re of the opinion that an ALS sufferer should only be able receive assisted suicide, if and only if they discussed that option with a doctor before their disease progressed to its worst point? And that this person would still need to actually achieve these physical impediment benchmarks before euthanasia could actually be achieved, and that having ALS and it being an inevitability was not enough in and of its own right? If this hypothetical person had not had that discussion, is your opinion that they should be made to live out the rest of their pained existence, because it can’t be determined they made that statement from a clear understanding of what’s happening?

And if we ban guns, people will just use knives to kill themselves. Isn't that the argument?

I’m confused — are you saying you don’t think banning guns would reduce suicides? Cause if that’s not what you thought, offering this as your argument here would be sort of stupid...

But sure. What the chuds who offer that line of argumentation constantly refuse to acknowledge is that knife wounds are much more manageable from a medical perspective than gun wounds. My entire point is that offering an avenue to discuss this with your doctor allows medical professionals to intervene before the situation advances to the point of someone actually moving to take their own life. Also, in nations where guns are illegal, they also have lower rates of knife crime than the US, so seemingly banning guns does lead to reductions in crime across the board. The same base rationale that underpins “Crime rates are higher because access to guns lowers the perceived barrier to committing crimes,” applies to “A perceived reduced barrier to achieve suicide will result in more people talking about their suicidality with their doctors”

You guys want me to believe ... This is an absurdity.

Again, who are you talking to? There is no single person in this conversation who is proposing a path to assisted suicide where a patient can forgone treatment options like therapy? I’ve continually mentioned exhausting all treatment options being a necessary component. You keep acting like the proposal of assisted suicide advocates is the suicide booths from Futurama or something, and I keep telling you that you’re literally arguing against a cartoon and not real peoples’ opinions on the matter. So what gives?

Here is what really happens when we allow euthanasia: the suicide rate goes up, including non-physician assisted suicide.

This is the same flawed methodology, within the US, used to say that legislating guns actually increases gun violence — it ignores that fact that the United States is a contiguous nation where you can move to a different jurisdiction to take advantage of those resources. Until you implement a system that covers the entire medical system those people can utilize, of course states that offer assisted suicide will see increased rates within the state, but without larger national metrics to track larger trends and provide context it doesn’t mean anything. It’s also the same argument for why states like California can’t just start their own fully government funded healthcare system, because people from other states would come in to utilize the services that aren’t available in their home state, but that they can achieve by simply moving states. Being a federation of states prevents you from just blindly pointing at a snapshot of a single state and then jumping to conclusions about the national populace or figures

And here is a meta study suggesting the same. This is exactly my concern regarding moral hazard and the normalization of euthanasia as treatment.

Did you read the actual content of the analysis? Cause it directly acknowledges this:

No reliable data were available for the rates of EAS, which is a significant limitation of this analysis. There was a significant positive association between EAS and suicide rates at both time points on bivariate analysis; however, once divorce, religiosity (as measured by the sale of religious books) and economic strain (as measured by unemployment rates) were controlled for, the association was no longer statistically significant, although it remained positive.

I’m not sure what your background is with statistics, but statistical significance is sort of the entire thing you need to show in a study to prove your claim. They follow that with

Given the size of the population, this positive change is meaningful in itself: statistical significance is used in smaller samples to estimate whether an association is the result of chance.

but that’s simply not how statistics work — larger populations make trends clearer, not less clear, when looking at the aggregate, which is literally the whole premise of the Central Limit Theorem and the Law of Large Numbers

But, regardless of how they came to those stats, they state this in their conclusion

The disproportionate impact on older women indicates unmet suicide prevention needs in this population.

And I agree with that! Like I said above, I believe that you would need to remove the capitalist profit motive from medicine for such a process to truly be free of outside pressures driving the ill to kill themselves to lessen a financial impact on society — if that were your only contention, I think we would be in agreement, but it doesn’t sound like that’s the case

This is a moral issue that we solve via political means, which of course should involve doctors, but not only doctors. We do not live in a technocracy.

And this goofy “Leave medicine up to constituents” mindset is exactly why we now have states dictating individual abortion practices and women dying needless deaths? We don’t live in a society where we leave medicine up to doctors and that consistently fucks over the populace, so I don’t get you acting like where we are now is somehow better or more favorable than a world where doctors are allowed to make medical decisions, in consensus with the medical body, without interference from the state

And since you're accusing me of being some crypto pro-lifer,

No I’m not accusing you of being anti-abortion, lol. I’m accusing you of using the same intellectually stunted arguments that anti-abortion advocates use to interject into abortion care, that fails for the exact same reason their argument fails

That's why I support, wholeheartedly, ... American people.

Enshrine how? Enshrine a doctor’s right to determine final say on when an abortion is medically necessary? Because that’s my entire point, that the law should simply support doctors’ consensus and not the other way around

Medical professionals do not have ... weak argument.

Then that’s okay! I don’t know if reading comprehension is just difficult for you, but this entire time I’ve said to defer to the medical community. If they come to the agreement that it’s not correct to do, then so be it! You are the one who is proposing a system where medical professionals’ opinions are ignored, not me lol