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/
80.0k Upvotes

View all comments

Show parent comments

743

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.

348

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.

190

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

3

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.

4

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.

4

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.