It bridges the gap between the definition of murder (where one party unalives the other party against their consent) and suicide (where one party unalives themselves with intent) by having the person looking to be unalived explicitly expires their intent and consent for the other party to assist them.

I feel as if you're trying to create a false equivalency to undermine the validity of this option.

And as to whether this is less traumatic than suicide - you have got to be kidding or you've never had to deal with the reality of someone committing suicide versus someone choosing assistance in dying.

One generally involves a lot of shock and someone finding a dead body in some state, the other is generally a peaceful affair where loved ones say their goodbyes before the person peacefully falls asleep for the last time.

They are nowhere near the same thing for the survivors and you claiming otherwise is an insult to both. And if you can't see the difference between these two options I'm frankly done debating this with you.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

See, the difference is that I'm not looking at how clean or messy the suicide is, I'm looking at the fact that a suicide occurred. I would have much more respect for you and your position if you were willing to look it in the eye and call it what it is, instead of hiding behind these nonsense euphemisms.

At no point did I make any claims regarding the trauma involved, except to say, "Is it less disruptive to society? Absolutely." The exact opposite of the position you ascribed to me, in other words.

But trauma and shock are merely side effects of suicide. Symptoms that exist to reflect the awfulness of the event. If a person kills themselves on a deserted island, no one is traumatized or shocked by it, but it is still, factually, a suicide.

I don't see why you're reacting so strongly to a simple clarification in terminology. Or rather, I'm beginning to see why, but I wish I didn't.

[–] ZC3rr0r@lemmy.ca 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's not entirely honest - you're also trying to argue that having this option is not a good or valid option (you called "debatable") and are trying to steer the conversation by creating a false equivalency between assistance in dying and suicide, which are not the same thing.

I fully agree with your example - someone unaliving themselves on a deserted island committed suicide. Never said they didn't.

What I said, and what you're conveniently omitting, is that suicide is an act by an individual, there is no other party to the unaliving. This is not the case in assistance in dying, and there's very good legal reason why we consider these distinct from eachother, and from murder (to your earlier point).

Even if we forget the traumatic angle I brought up earlier, surely you must see the difference between an act that involves one party and an act that involves two parties with express intent and consent.

What you're trying to do is the same as arguing masturbation and sex are the same thing because they end with the same result (orgasm).

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

That’s not entirely honest - you’re also trying to argue that having this option is not a good or valid option (you called “debatable”)

Saying it's "debatable" is not the same thing as asserting it's not a good or valid option. It just means that whether it's good or valid hasn't been conclusively established.

Assisted suicide is a form or suicide that is assisted. The thing that makes it different between it and regular suicide is that someone else is assisting. You've chosen the example of masturbation vs sex because it's one of the few analogies that would work for you. Tandem skiing is skiing. Assisted murder is murder. Skydiving with an instructor is skydiving.

The onus is on you to present why the addition of an assistant meaningfully changes the nature of the act.

surely you must see the difference between an act that involves one party and an act that involves two parties with express intent and consent.

I see no such thing. Solo suicide involves intent, and there is no need for consent because there isn't a second person involved. How on earth would the addition of a second person make it meaningfully different? Are you refusing to say the reason because you think it's obvious, or because it doesn't exist?

[–] ZC3rr0r@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You're looking for a reason but refuse to accept one when provided. The reason assistance in dying is not suicide is blatantly obvious; the definition of suicide is an act in which one person takes their own life. End of sentence. Adding another person makes it a different act, and whether you like it or not, at least the legal system agrees on this.

I'm done debating this. Have a good day.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago

Lol, ok then so you consider it to be murder, good to know.

[–] AbeilleVegane 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm not the one you talked to but isn't it better to receive assistance in dying so that the experience is less traumatic for friends or relatives of the dead? For example, they don't have to see their loved one inject themselves or whatnot.

Plus, it comes with the benefit of not having to transport the body if it was a suicide at home, not having to stress about the lethal cocktail and if it contained the right amounts of drugs or whatever.

It doesn't say much, but I would prefer it a whole lot that a person that I am close to chooses the assisted suicide. And I would much rather be strapped to someone when skydiving.

(Sorry, english is not my main language)

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago

Whether it's better or not is another question. The thing I'm saying is that, whether it's better or not, it is still a form of suicide. You can say, "it's suicide and that's ok," and that's one thing, but my problem is when someone says, "it's not suicide at all." Because that's just false, it is suicide.