It's easy on older -about to die-, people, but what about not such clear cut cases, some families are actually against their beloved ones taking their lifes, and the state allowing it, (Parents suing their offspring, to try and not have them do it, for example)
and yes, a judge rules out on such cases, but to me, well, i dont see why the state should -sanction- taking your own life, when is something that shouldn't be natural, there's medical cases for sure, but laws sadly aren't perfect, i'd rather have no one wrongly off themselves
Can you provide some reading? Because this doesn't really mean much by itself.
> It's easy on older -about to die-, people, but what about not such clear cut cases, some families are actually against their beloved ones taking their lifes, and the state allowing it, (Parents suing their offspring, to try and not have them do it, for example)
Then those families can talk about it and the person dying can make their choice. The families who don't like it can do what they want, just like those who do want it.
> when is something that shouldn't be natural,
Almost nothing about our modern life is "natural", including most of medicine. That said, how is death unnatural?
only meant having to bear the death of your child before you, usually a parent dies first, although i guess infant mortality rates where much higher until recent times...
this recent case what i was thinking specifically https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/2025-03-17/justicia-av...
> He added that his daughter suffers from mental problems with suicidal tendencies and constant changes of heart, and therefore needed psychological treatment, not assisted death.
> "The patient's capacity to make decisions has also been verified," the ruling states, "by the attending physician and the psychologist at the Hospital Residencia . The plaintiff has not presented any evidence that could refute the conclusions of these reports. They show that Noelia retains her capacity to make all types of decisions, including, therefore, the decision to undergo euthanasia."
This is a terribly sad situation all around, but I don't see this as evidence for why euthanasia laws are bad. The best I can see is that this highlights that we shouldn't push euthanasia as a solution to every lifelong disability, but that s a social/cultural issue, not a legal one - and one that we will certainly have to adapt to as assisted dying becomes more socially accepted. There will likely be more stories where, arguably, it goes too far, but I don't think there will be an epidemic of people offing themselves for relatively minor things.
> only meant having to bear the death of your child before you
Of course this is sad, but given the context of the conversation, the other choice being watching a child lose their mind or suffer in a world that is extraordinarily hostile to disabled people, I don't think saving the parents one type of pain (while subjecting them to another) is a really great idea either.
Also, isn't it better to have a way for people to kill themselves "cleanly", rather than kill themselves at home (or worse, in public)? Presumably finding one's child like that would be far worse?
(Of course, none of this is to say that we shouldn't e.g., make the world more accessible to disabled people, or help people learn to live with their disabilities, or try to cure Alzheimer's and the like - but as said, we can do all of these things at once. In the meantime, before we cure Alzheimer's and make everyone perfectly mentally healthy, we should also deal with the harsh realities that not having done those things entails.)
> Additionally, without the desire to preserve life and value of the advantages of aged minds, we will not make as much progress on the disease.
I'm not sure why you think that easing end-of-life suffering would lead us to stop preserving life?
We're also not talking about "aged minds," we're talking about damaged minds - and even if we were, we're not talking about de-aging or anything like that.
