To think people should not use 'we put pets to sleep' as an argument to allow assisted dying?

The life of the fetus ends. Abortion ends life.

The outcome is often as drastic as whether a baby is born or not. So it is the difference between a human being living or dying.

I am pro choice but it's madness to pretend that the fetus is irrelevant to discussion about abortion.

Of course – that does make sense. But I agree with OP that it's actually a deeply flawed comparison, and personally, I think there are much clearer arguments to make.

No. I have no idea about that case and I’m not spending time researching it. So I don’t have a view beyond acknowledging that doctors and parents are the default decision makers when it comes to infant health. As I’m sure you know. I am also sure (again, without the benefit of research) that that particular case must have been absolute torture for all involved and that they probably aren’t too keen on having their grief co-opted in arguments for or against AD.

I’m saying that in principle I support AD laws and I think that they can and have been implemented successfully. I also think that in some cases they don’t go far enough. Alzheimer’s and MND come to mind.

Most animals don't have the capacity to choose to die, or hope to die. That's you projecting onto them and anthropomorphising them. Yes, ending their suffering is merciful, but death isn't what they want.

Additionally, language like 'why some people think it's acceptable to allow humans to live in pain just baffles the shit out of me' carries the underlying implication that it is a moral imperative to end the suffering of humans living in pain, and unacceptable to allow it to continue.
Which could lead to the creeping idea that it's a moral imperative to kill those who are suffering who don't have capacity to choose death for themselves, or even, who don't want to.

There is always this risk and yet we don't ban abortion because of this. We trust that the law and processes in place prevent coercion as far as possible but also accept it isn't perfect. Banning abortions would also cause lots of harm and you are effectively forcing women to have babies they don't want. That is the strongest form of coercion. Currently the law is forcing people to live longer than they want as they know that anyone helping them to die would be put in jail How is this not coercion?

Legally, it may be right that it’s not relevant.

It’s a very emotional topic, and it’s understandable that this is an argument in people’s minds.

Animals may not have the same legal standing as humans but we share the same ability to suffer. I cannot understand that argument.

It has many similarities.

It's about ending life
It requires informed consent
It's about having autonomy over ones body
Many people are ethically or religiously opposed to it
There is always the potential that someone's decision isn't freely made and coercion or manipulation is involved.
Women may choose abortion for reasons that others don't agree with. There will often be an element of practicality around finances etc.

How do you think it's different?

But it isn't relevant. At all. You might as well argue that teenagers should be able to access permanent sterilisation for themselves because we can sterilise our young pets. The two things just aren't comparable in any meaningful way.

So, can you explain how the disabled two year old, in the Netherlands, made the decision for themselves?

Plenty of things "can be done". Doesnt mean they are being done ethically.

The studies are concerning

Because people are denied this last act of kindness for themselves.

I don’t, for a moment, regret doing it for my dogs. I

Wr should trust people to take that decision for themselves.

@napody

napody · Today 10:07

See, I actually think sometimes animals are euthanized partly because of the expense and inconvenience of keeping them alive when ill, incontinent etc. The 'its a kindness' is a story we tell as a society to make us feel less guilty. As a pp said, the animal probably wouldn't choose to die.

Could not agree less. It absolutely is kindness (to euthanise,) when an elderly pet is half blind, mostly deaf, incontinent, has arthritis, failing internal organs, (including) a bad heart, and a poor quality of life.

It's beyond cruel to allow them to live. And they absolutely would choose to die. I have seen/known of many an animal who just stops engaging and having any communication at all with the owner, and just sits quietly in a dark corner, just waiting, and hoping to die... The best (and yes, the kindest) thing to do, is to let them have peace, and be out of pain. Euthanise them.

Why some people think it's acceptable to allow humans to live in pain (and suffering with zero quality of life,) just baffles the shit out of me.

As I said, anyone doing this to an animal would be prosecuted for animal cruelty. And quite rightly so too!

.

It's a really eithically complex, deep, and emotive subject. I understand the concerns from disabled people and those with long term or life limiting health conditions, learning disabilities and so on.

I knew a woman who ended her life while she was able to as she was living with a painful, life limiting degenerative condition. She was single, had no children and at the time was still able to live independently with support from carers, cleaners etc. She would have chosen to live longer if she'd had the opportunity to choose when it ended without anyone else being involved. She didn't want anyone else to be legally culpable for her death. She wouldn't have had a lonely death if she'd legally been able to choose assisted dying at a later stage in her condition.

I also knew a woman who had a painful, life limiting condition who was scared and stressed when rules changed during Covid around who would be a priority for treatment. She saw that her life was valued less on paper than mine even though we were both the same age, had children, had good careers, husbands etc. Her health condition meant that she was more likely to die during Covid. The genuine fears around the potentials of a change in the law around assisted dying are come from that same place.

Both were intelligent, wonderful human beings. They had lived into their 30s and 40s with full power and control over their health and wellbeing and body and through sheer bad luck they both found themselves at the mercy of laws and legislation.

I wish there were more flexibility in the system for people like the first woman but I also know why it's not a simple thing to change.

Other countries do. It can be done.

Its not quite as clear cut as "other countries do it successfully" I'm afraid

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31092632/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30953490/

there are more of these studies too

Others don’t get to make the decision for you. That’s how these things need to be designed. It’s not impossible. Far from it. Other countries do it successfully.

About the same time we had our elderly much loved cat PTS in literally seconds DH grandma was dying slowly from having all food/water removed after a series of strokes, it took a week
I know which I would prefer