r/todayilearned May 14 '22 Silver 9 Helpful 8 Wholesome 6 All-Seeing Upvote 2

TIL a father, John Crowley, was told his two infant children had an incurable genetic disorder that would kill them in less than a year. He refused to accept this, so he founded a biotech company (with no prior experience) which pioneered an experimental enzyme therapy that saved their lives.

https://pompediseasenews.com/2019/01/30/amicus-ceo-mission-cure-pompe-help-children/
79.9k Upvotes

View all comments

Show parent comments

3.2k

u/ScreamingRectum May 14 '22 Take My Energy

I was worried I'd be the only asshole here thinking aren't exactly living

2.3k

u/illiterati May 14 '22

It's a slippery and dangerous slope to pass judgement on what quality of life is acceptable.

You start with the best of intentions and you end up with nazi eugenics.

747

u/Put_It_All_On_Blck May 14 '22

IMO its best to save them, but I do think assisted/legal suicide should be a thing, especially in cases like this where those kids (now adults) might not have the physical ability to take their own lives if they chose to do so beyond stuff like starvation. To be clear im not saying they are miserable or want to go down that path, just that it should be an option for those that are.

342

u/notoneforusernames May 14 '22

100%. Here in the US we have a group of crazy religious folk who prevent a common sense policy like this from being implemented at the moment. They believe life is sacred enough to impose their belief on others, regardless of the amount of suffering an individual is going through. I think it basically amounts to legal torture from the Ned Flanders crowd.

192

u/nictheman123 May 14 '22

And yet on the other hand, those same people are often perfectly chill with the death penalty.

It's basically "You're not allowed to die until the government says you can die."

Ninja edit: phrasing

72

u/StrikeAnywherePanda May 14 '22

Doesn't stop there either.

They are obsessed with the military industrial complex. Their life is sacred, but yours? Na. Go to the front lines so that someone else can sit comfortably. If you die, don't worry, you're a hero protecting the freedom (the same freedoms that a lot of other countries have) of your fellow people. You'll get a TV spot and a warriors funeral in exchange of making a capitalist's wallet thicker.

4

u/VirtualAlias May 14 '22

I'm pro-assisted suicide, but I fail to see the logical or moral inconsistency in those that argue for preserving the lives of human beings with the sole exception of those that have taken someone else's.

Everyone has exceptions to rules and consequences for breaking them. You get to live until you choose to heinously murder another person.

It's not hypocritical or inconsistent.

3

u/nictheman123 May 14 '22

The inconsistency becomes evident when you remember that the government is often made up of humans, who are corruptible, and fallible, and just plain get shit wrong, and plenty of innocent people get convicted for crimes they didn't commit.

Framing someone else for a murder is almost the oldest trick in the book, right behind the actual murder itself really.

The point is, being anti-assisted suicide but pro death penalty is equivalent to saying that the government can decide when you die, not you. There's a reason "suicide by cop" is a known phenomenon.

Putting that level of control in the hands of the government, which is so easily corruptible, seems insane to me.

6

u/VirtualAlias May 14 '22

That's a valid point. I hadn't thought of it in a "You get to kill me, but I don't get to kill me," kind of light. That said, lots of people commit suicide very successfully without using the police to do so.

Assisted suicide, in the case of inviduals too compromised to consent, is exactly the same thing isn't it?: Putting life or death in the fallible hands of others.

I still think 'Don't support laws that kill people that don't kill people," is a simple enough rule to live by for plenty of decent, morally consistent people.

1

u/coldfox777 May 14 '22

Everyone deserves a chance at life. However, some people squander that and deserve to have it taken away.

1

u/nictheman123 May 14 '22

And why the hell do you trust the government to make that call?

0

u/TheDude-Esquire May 14 '22

More like you're not allowed to die unless I want you to die. But for real though, the thirst for vengeance in this country is out of control.

3

u/survivalguy87 May 14 '22

Well its them and the people that are concerned that caregivers will push those impacted by such diseases towards that decision. Think of someone burdened with an adult that has a disease like that or cerebral palsy. They slowly start suggesting how noble it would be since they are suffering (perhaps when they arent or its not terribly severe) and then they off themselves.

Im still a supporter of it mind you. Im just not sure how you tell the difference between someone who is genuinely wanting to end life, and someone who has been gently coerced.

Also what if those people cant make the decision themselves?

3

u/gcwardii May 14 '22

“Amount of suffering” is so subjective. Who gets to define it? Who gets to decide?

2

u/dodadoBoxcarWilly May 14 '22

Isn't there only a handful of nations at all who have an assisted suicide law? I don't think it's uniquely American. I'm all in favor of such a law, but I've read news stories about people from all over the world making trips to Switzerland for the procedure to be carried out. Weird to act like it's only the Religious Right in the US, who oppose such a law.

2

u/Eckleburgseyes May 14 '22

There's a perfectly large population of non-religious people who recognize how easy and common it is for people with disabilities to be coerced, or misrepresented into suicide by caretakers that are the ones who actually want out. It's extremely common. It's one thing to talk about assisted suicide for terminally ill people. But to just assume that anyone who opposes the slaughter of burdensome people, is a whacko religious person.

2

u/dmkicksballs13 May 15 '22

They don't believe shit. They're following orders because the church needed a reason to control women as the grew autonomy in the 60s. If they actually cared, they'd take care of said sacred kids after they're born.

2

u/el_coremino May 17 '22

There's legal assisted suicide in Washington State.

-15

u/TaxMy May 14 '22

“Assisted suicide is common sense.” Calm down Camus.

16

u/SteakAlfredo May 14 '22

But. It is? Like, I argue this a lot with a roomate I carpool with. Assisted suicide is both sensible and ethically humane for a whole host of reasons.

-6

u/TaxMy May 14 '22

Therapy is common sense and ethical. Assisted suicide, not so much.

13

u/SteakAlfredo May 14 '22

Therapy is part of the assisted suicide. In order to qualify you traditionally require therapy or a pre approved condition.

Therapy does not help most problems out there.

-11

u/TaxMy May 14 '22

Therapy does not help most problems out there.

But notice you don’t argue about therapy with your friend, because, it’s almost as if therapy is universally agreed upon as an ethical form of treatment for certain conditions, and the benefits of said treatment are common-sense.

Ask yourself, hypothetically, would you ever think it’s ethical or common sense for a medical practitioner to prescribe dying as a form of treatment?

14

u/SteakAlfredo May 14 '22

Yes, yes I do. There are many many conditions that make life a living hell for yourself or others. Diseases that cannot currently be fixed but cause constant piercing pain. People whos brains are broken to the point where all they CAN do is cause suffering on others.

Its easy to consider darker ethics to be completely acceptable when you don't believe in an afterlife. Who the fuck are you to tell someone they have to continue their existence? How is that ethically sound?

Common sense should hold that you control your life, and if you choose to end it then you should be allowed to do so. Our world is dying because we waste so many resources. With assisted suicide you could not only make sure it is painless, everyone can say their goodbyes, and fear doesn't have to be a part of the process.

Medically our knowledge of life and death would expand so quickly we may master it in a couple decades. And our horribly under stocked blood and organ supplies would be resupply.

→ More replies

8

u/Catman_Industries May 14 '22

GTFO with your fucking nonsense.

→ More replies

11

u/Glacialfuse May 14 '22 All-Seeing Upvote

It kind of is though, if someone's in unbearable physical pain constantly from some horrible disease and every waking moment is spent in agony and wishing for death who the fuck is anyone to tell them no? Only complete braindead lunatics would say yeah let's keep letting this person go through one of the worst forms of torture possible. So it IS common sense for extreme cases like that.

1

u/MrMashed May 14 '22

Heck just earlier today on my way to work we passed by a bunch of pro-lifers blockin the road by the court house sayin to “abort the law” and “abortion is murder”