Should Euthanasia Be Legal?

[Milo Thatch]

This is a self-explanatory thread on whether euthanasia should be legal. Discuss your opinions in the comments and be polite about different opinions. For this topic not allowing people to see who voted is the rule for obvious reasons as there might be people who voted but don't feel comfortable talking about their vote.

 

[Flowey]

Absolutely not. How is doctor assisted suicide any different from self inflicted?

 

[Milo Thatch]

Absolutely not. How is doctor assisted suicide any different from self inflicted?

I mean I don't think the government should get in the way and force you to continue a life that you will die painfully in soon anyway, or that you despise.

 

[Flowey]

Ok well normally I would agree about the government shouldn't step in but really? You're just gonna say suicide is ok?

 

[fantanoice]

There's no treatment for terminal illness. So if you don't want to continue living with unending pain then that seems fine to me.

 

[Ray Trace]

I think euthanasia generally should be legal HOWEVER there absolutely has to be doctor consent alongside clear consent of the afflicted individual, and there needs to be adequate protections so we also don't practice eugenics and/or disproportionately negatively affect vulnerable minority groups who may otherwise get worse care because of the euthanasia.

Assisted suicide for depressed individuals is fucked up beyond belief, by the way, and anyone who votes for that is fucked up.

 

[Thomas the Tank Engine]

I am a firm believer in bodily autonomy and this extends to my belief that someone, if they are of sound mind and fully capable of consenting, should be allowed to choose to end their life by their own decision. We will euthanize our pets when they are terminally ill to end their suffering, so I fail to see any reason why we should not allow a human suffering from a terminal illness the same option.

 

[Doomhiker]

The primary issue with euthanasia arguments is that they presume that all suicidal patients are in a stabile state of mind and are capable of making rational decisions. This is rarely true. Many suicidal individuals are suffering from a severe mental condition or are in some sort of high-stress state. Few are in a state where the decision is rational and calculated. Suicide, often times, is an impulsive, easy solution. The mentally ill should be pushed to take treatments to eventually allow for betting coping with other issues, to live a life than none at all. Suicide is a permanent, irreversible decision. It is never the best one. If assisted suicide was legalized, than suicide rates will skyrocket as people make short-term solutions instead of long-term ones, as panicked individuals facing crisis make impulsive decisions without much thought, not knowing that the crisis would be temporary. Doctors should only serve their patients to aid them to the best of their extent, to give only the most reputable of advice. In the case of the mental ills, there is always a better solution than suicide: a doctor would not be doing their job if they earnestly recommended it in such a situation.

Now of course, terminal illness is a different beast. If there is truly no other solution to the illness, and as long as there is consent from both medical professionals and the individuals, and as long as there are tight cautions to prevent it from being exploited, than I see no issue with it being used in such situations.If there truly is no other way, then there is little reason to force a terminally ill person to suffer in their last days.

Whilst I generally am a person who believes that governments should have minimal control over the day-to-day lives of individual citizens, within reason, I nonetheless do not believe the illegal nature of euthanasia is an invasion of freedom or autonomy. Remember - it is not suicide which is illegal, it is euthanasia. You can choose to jump off the bridge - it is simply the easiest and most consistent ways to kill oneself which is barred. A person can still choose to kill themselves - it is simply this small restriction which prevents individuals from rushing to the doctor's office to die. Governments should generally be impartial towards suicide - but if they were to legalize euthanasia beyond the terminal ill, then they would be as close to actively endorsing it as they could be. That would be little more than irresponsible. If they are to do anything, than they could put funding into anti-suicide measures (such as those seen on the Golden Gate bridge). That would be more productive - there is not much of an urgent issue of rational individuals wanting to die but just not being able to but there is an urgent issue of suicide. Either way, I view suicide as a societal issue rather than a government one. Attitudes, ideas, measures surrounding mental health are more a product of individual views than government ones, and there is not much they can do. Attitudes need to be targeted, not the government.

 

[Milo Thatch]

Ok well normally I would agree about the government shouldn't step in but really? You're just gonna say suicide is ok?

I don't think it's okay at all, just that being in a life that one finds irredeemable or is going to die more painfully in anyway is as bad

Assisted suicide for depressed individuals is fucked up beyond belief, by the way, and anyone who votes for that is fucked up.

And in what way would you say that? Now I'm not going to say which option I voted for for obvious reasons but maybe the government stepping in to force someone to keep living in a life they see no redeeming qualities to only because they HAVE to and not because they WANT to is not a good idea.

 

[Milo Thatch]

The primary issue with euthanasia arguments is that they presume that all suicidal patients are in a stabile state of mind and are capable of making rational decisions. This is rarely true. Many suicidal individuals are suffering from a severe mental condition or are in some sort of high-stress state. Few are in a state where the decision is rational and calculated. Suicide, often times, is an impulsive, easy solution. The mentally ill should be pushed to take treatments to eventually allow for betting coping with other issues, to live a life than none at all. Suicide is a permanent, irreversible decision. It is never the best one. If assisted suicide was legalized, than suicide rates will skyrocket as people make short-term solutions instead of long-term ones, as panicked individuals facing crisis make impulsive decisions without much thought, not knowing that the crisis would be temporary. Doctors should only serve their patients to aid them to the best of their extent, to give only the most reputable of advice. In the case of the mental ills, there is always a better solution than suicide: a doctor would not be doing their job if they earnestly recommended it in such a situation.

Now of course, terminal illness is a different beast. If there is truly no other solution to the illness, and as long as there is consent from both medical professionals and the individuals, and as long as there are tight cautions to prevent it from being exploited, than I see no issue with it being used in such situations.If there truly is no other way, then there is little reason to force a terminally ill person to suffer in their last days.

Whilst I generally am a person who believes that governments should have minimal control over the day-to-day lives of individual citizens, within reason, I nonetheless do not believe the illegal nature of euthanasia is an invasion of freedom or autonomy. Remember - it is not suicide which is illegal, it is euthanasia. You can choose to jump off the bridge - it is simply the easiest and most consistent ways to kill oneself which is barred. A person can still choose to kill themselves - it is simply this small restriction which prevents individuals from rushing to the doctor's office to die. Governments should generally be impartial towards suicide - but if they were to legalize euthanasia beyond the terminal ill, then they would be as close to actively endorsing it as they could be. That would be little more than irresponsible. If they are to do anything, than they could put funding into anti-suicide measures (such as those seen on the Golden Gate bridge). That would be more productive - there is not much of an urgent issue of rational individuals wanting to die but just not being able to but there is an urgent issue of suicide. Either way, I view suicide as a societal issue rather than a government one. Attitudes, ideas, measures surrounding mental health are more a product of individual views than government ones, and there is not much they can do. Attitudes need to be targeted, not the government.

The thing is though that while I sound repetitive saying this, it is still the same very good point again; the government making people continue to live because they have to and not because they want to isn't okay either. I agree that there should certainly be more things related to preventing suicide than there are now but forcing people against their will to be in a life that they hate, where no one does anything but prove them right on almost every point they make as to how they're worried no one will give them real help, just fractions of cookie crumbs of hints of it, for decades, is a cruel, and even I'd argue evil thing to do. Even with doctor-assisted suicide for the depressed, again I'm not saying my vote but one could argue it's not as potentially painful as jumping off a bridge.

 

[Uniju]

Remember - it is not suicide which is illegal, it is euthanasia. You can choose to jump off the bridge - it is simply the easiest and most consistent ways to kill oneself which is barred. A person can still choose to kill themselves - it is simply this small restriction which prevents individuals from rushing to the doctor's office to die. Governments should generally be impartial towards suicide - but if they were to legalize euthanasia beyond the terminal ill, then they would be as close to actively endorsing it as they could be. That would be little more than irresponsible.

i have done 0 research on this and am talking completely off the cuff so if there's data going against this then i guess i'm wrong but if you think it's bad for people to kill themselves wouldn't making suicide illegal and euthanasia legal be better? surely someone going to the hospital and going through the paper work and getting a mental health screening will ultimately end up with the better outcome than someone who runs out and jumps off a bridge in the heat of the moment- whether that outcome is them getting euthanized like they initially wanted, or getting treatment for some mental condition that may come up in the screening, or just calming down and changing their mind over the course of the process. it's also worth keeping in mind that after all that if they do decide to go through with it, it will be in a medical setting performed by professionals, where it will in all likelihood be successful, quick, and painless, as opposed to when people try to do it themselves which can potentially fail and just fuck them up even worse

 

[Ray Trace]

And in what way would you say that? Now I'm not going to say which option I voted for for obvious reasons but maybe the government stepping in to force someone to keep living in a life they see no redeeming qualities to only because they HAVE to and not because they WANT to is not a good idea.

I really find it strange that you're complaining about government overreach when your proposition to legalize assisted suicide also involves heavy government intervention as well (because checks and balances are put into place to ensure that the doctor committing euthanasia is not liable for murder/manslaughter charges, as well as the person who requests for it is legally sane therefore defining consent). In the United States, while all states make it illegal to commit euthanasia the states that do currently legalize assisted suicide follow the following criteria:

--2 separate doctors must have diagnosed the subject as having less than 6 months to live
--Must be deemed legally sane by 2 separate psychs
--Must be 18 or older
--Must have asked for assisted suicide at least twice, spaced over at minimum a 2 week period
--Must sign a consent form

Plus there are lawyers involved.

Depression is not a terminal illness, it is known to be curable and treatable, and legalizing death as a "cure" for depression won't solve any problems that cause people to be depressed, but exacerbate them, as we'd look forward to just ending their life instead of pointing towards effective care, thus enabling eugenics, something all of us want to avoid.

I've read this research paper regarding this, and I think you should too to see the arguments against this, and this is a choice paragraph that I've found that explained why it's a really bad idea.

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide for patients with depression: thought-provoking remarks | Rivista di Psichiatria

. Euthanasia and medical assistance in dying entail daunting ethical and moral challenges, in addition to a host of medical and clinical issues, which are further complicated in ...

www.rivistadipsichiatria.it

Moreover, scientific literature has shown that there are numerous doubts and misgivings surrounding euthanasia and assisted suicide where such practices are legal. Apparently, there is a growing awareness that euthanasia and assisted suicide could come to constitute a shortcut, which frees states of the responsibility to put in place effective social and health care policies for the weakest among patients: lonely, depressed or ill-advised people. Health care professionals ought to take action in order to ensure that the symptoms that afflict clinically depressed patients are properly managed, rather than fulfill their desire to die. It is vital to take extreme caution before granting a request for assisted suicide from a depressed individual, even to the point of automatically denying it in presence of a medically verified depressive disorder of significant severity, according to some clinically and ethically well-founded opinions on the subject. After all, recent studies have proven that the oversight mechanisms in Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg can be circumvented with relative ease: in some instances, lethal drugs have even been administered to patients against their will, or with no terminal illness whatsoever. It bears repeating that the vast majority of psychiatric disorders that can ignite suicidal ideation are not permanent and can be successfully reversed by psychopharmacological therapeutic interventions, psychotherapy or other options. Furthermore, in such scenarios, suicidal ideation often does directly indicate the actual will to commit it.

 

[I'm the lil bro.]

i have done 0 research on this and am talking completely off the cuff so if there's data going against this then i guess i'm wrong but if you think it's bad for people to kill themselves wouldn't making suicide illegal and euthanasia legal be better? surely someone going to the hospital and going through the paper work and getting a mental health screening will ultimately end up with the better outcome than someone who runs out and jumps off a bridge in the heat of the moment- whether that outcome is them getting euthanized like they initially wanted, or getting treatment for some mental condition that may come up in the screening, or just calming down and changing their mind over the course of the process. it's also worth keeping in mind that after all that if they do decide to go through with it, it will be in a medical setting performed by professionals, where it will in all likelihood be successful, quick, and painless, as opposed to when people try to do it themselves which can potentially fail and just fuck them up even worse

What practical purpose is there in legislating suicide? You can't enforce it against the person who committed it, as they would be dead, and if they didn't succeed at it, punishing them further (when most who commit suicide do so because they feel they have no out and that life itself is punishing them for living and they have no way of getting their life together) is not going to help them in the slightest. The only course of action from there is to hand down a verdict on the family, which also doesn't seem right. If the idea is that it will prevent suicide by holding them responsible toward their family, this also doesn't fit the character profile of those who commit suicide; most of them already try to hang on for their family and it simply doesn't work for them, and a punishment rarely acts as a deterrent for an action when used practically.

This also doesn't take into account the fact that the euthanasia is also financially draining.

The thing is though that while I sound repetitive saying this, it is still the same very good point again; the government making people continue to live because they have to and not because they want to isn't okay either. I agree that there should certainly be more things related to preventing suicide than there are now but forcing people against their will to be in a life that they hate, where no one does anything but prove them right on almost every point they make as to how they're worried no one will give them real help, just fractions of cookie crumbs of hints of it. for decades, is a cruel, and even I'd argue evil thing to do. Even with doctor-assisted suicide for the depressed, again I'm not saying my vote but one could argue it's not as potentially painful as jumping off a bridge.

There's certainly an idea to be had that forcing people to be miserable is bad, but this is the wrong solution to it - allowing more people to hurt themselves and encouraging that behavior isn't actually fixing what is making people miserable in the first place. If anything, this is simply predation of the mental illness and creating a quick solution that prevents us from having to take a look at the actual problems that are ailing the mentally ill; to decide that we should simply look the other way and assist them on ending their lives and feeding into those feelings is way easier than actually tackling the systemic issues that cause the mentally ill to struggle so much in the first place, and maybe that's why it can be appealing on a surface level... But that's exactly why we shouldn't settle for it. It's a bad solution that doesn't help anyone and, as Ray Trace has said, encourages eugenics-level lines of thinking (i.e. "if you can't handle this world, then just die or sink"; "survival of the fittest"). It would be no coincidence in the slightest that this in particular would target minority groups who are systemically oppressed the most, such as LGBT people and POC, since their mental health issues are at a higher rate (gee, I wonder why). This is especially startling in response to the disabled.


I'm of the notion that the only time in which assisted suicide is an acceptable practice is in the case of terminal illness or persons within vegetative states of mind with absolutely no signs of recovery, and of course with complete consent in the first case and either prior signed consent or the consent of loved ones/family members in the latter. Doing so in any other circumstances, to me, is taking advantage of people being "insane" and "having lost it" rather than addressing the issues that bring them to that point.

 

[Doomhiker]

Making suicide illegal is an ineffective solution. Individuals would presumably commit suicide with the attempt with it succeeding - and if it succeeded than they obviously would not be punished. In a heat of the moment, an individual committing the act most likely think of the legal ramifications - and therefore having them would most likely do little to address the issue of suicide or prevent it.

 

[Uniju]

What practical purpose is there in legislating suicide?

Making suicide illegal is an ineffective solution.

sorry if this wasn't clear but i don't actually think suicide should be illegal, doomhiker seemed to be saying "euthanasia should be illegal and suicide should be legal" and i said that opposite of that as a way of illustrating that i thought their way of looking at it was backwards. my point is that i think euthanasia should be legal because if someone wants to kill themself i would rather they be sitting in a hospital questioning their decisions before they paralyze themselves by jumping off a building rather than after

 

[Bugzzy]

There is absolutely no sense in assisted suicide. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Vivian]

Big difference.
Depression can be cured, resolved.
Terminal illness is suffering on a deathbed with no cure.

 

[Bugzzy]

Big difference.
Depression can be cured, resolved.
Terminal illness is suffering on a deathbed with no cure.

True.

 

[Milo Thatch]

There is absolutely no sense in assisted suicide. It doesn't make sense.

"There's no sense in it" does not explain why in your opinion it isn't good though. That might sound petty but it's still the case

 

[I'm the lil bro.]

sorry if this wasn't clear but i don't actually think suicide should be illegal, doomhiker seemed to be saying "euthanasia should be illegal and suicide should be legal" and i said that opposite of that as a way of illustrating that i thought their way of looking at it was backwards. my point is that i think euthanasia should be legal because if someone wants to kill themself i would rather they be sitting in a hospital questioning their decisions before they paralyze themselves by jumping off a building rather than after

The problem is that making euthanasia legal is taking an official, legislated stance that encourages suicide as an option by making it a legal option (rather than simply having no stance on suicide at all by choosing not to give it a legal punishment). And honestly? If they found out that they would have to go through hoops to get it (go through an actual therapist, having to sit in an office and take time to question their decisions, etc.) I doubt many who actually intend on going through with it will bother with that legal route anyway, especially when it would be far easier to, say, ingest a bunch of pills at home or use a gun. There's already a method of stopping people from committing suicide that exists: suicide helplines. For those who are suffering from suicide ideation but have enough left in them to not want to go through with it, it's very likely that they will call these helplines instead.

I understand the argument for freedom of autonomy here and I also understand the line of thinking that legalizing it will give more people access to medical care, but both of these arguments are double-edged swords. If the impediment to receiving mental health care is so high that people will only be able to access it when they're at the proverbial end of their rope, that says something about the current state of where mental health care is at right now, and it would be far more effective to address what is causing people to get there in the first place rather than attempting to cut them off at the pass when they're already at that point.

If we legitimately want to be helping these people, rather than going, "it's bad to keep them in a society that hurts them," I feel like we should instead be saying, "it's bad to make a society that hurts them". And from there, we should look into why people get there, and address that why, rather than washing our hands of the issue by encouraging a method of hurting themselves.

 

[Milo Thatch]

I doubt many who actually intend on going through with it will bother with that legal route anyway, especially when it would be far easier to, say, ingest a bunch of pills at home or use a gun.

You never know that they wouldn't considering that euthanasia or doctor-assisted suicide could at least be quick and painless for suicidal people, compared with pills or using a gun, where the former will still probably usually be painful and the latter certainly most likely will even if that pain is brief before they die.

There's already a method of stopping people from committing suicide that exists: suicide helplines. For those who are suffering from suicide ideation but have enough left in them to not want to go through with it, it's very likely that they will call these helplines instead.

You mean where the suicidal person has to deal with someone who maybe not always, but sometimes or even most likely is an incompetent loser who wouldn't know how to handle someone's problem if it hit them on the head, and resorts to cliched statements that are well-documented to not help and sometimes even worsen the case like "no one would want you to be depressed" (the suicidal person might not even care what people think the most ever, they just want to stop suffering at any costs)? Plenty of suicidal people wouldn't do that, and instead resort to some method of suicide that's really painful. Plenty of suicidal people don't see life as something not irredeemable but mildly sad and disappointing; they see it as just that word: irredeemable. Which is why "just call a suicide helpline" isn't always as good of a way to respond to someone suicidal's problem as some people think it is.

 

[I'm the lil bro.]

You never know that they wouldn't considering that euthanasia or doctor-assisted suicide could at least be quick and painless for suicidal people, compared with pills or using a gun, where the former will still probably usually be painful and the latter certainly most likely will even if that pain is brief before they die.

Death through injection isn't actually painless; it's done wherever the death penalty is, and it's more painful than using a guillotine. It also costs money to do it, and it can be botched just like any other suicide method (botched executions of this sort have happened plenty of times over). There is no totally safe or painless way to die.

But even if it was, that doesn't take away from the point that it makes dying take extra steps, and people will pass that over in favor of quicker methods. Plus, it relies on people going directly to someone else to die ⁠— which... If someone wanted to come to someone else about their suicidal intentions, they'd do so with the suicide helpline, which was the point that I was making. Ultimately, I think you're considering the painfulness as being a big considering factor and would thus act as an efficient way of keeping people alive by pushing them through hoops to get help before they would go through with it.

You mean where the suicidal person has to deal with someone who maybe not always, but sometimes or even most likely is an incompetent loser who wouldn't know how to handle someone's problem if it hit them on the head, and resorts to cliched statements that are well-documented to not help and sometimes even worsen the case like "no one would want you to be depressed" (the suicidal person might not even care what people think the most ever, they just want to stop suffering at any costs)? Plenty of suicidal people wouldn't do that, and instead resort to some method of suicide that's really painful. Plenty of suicidal people don't see life as something not irredeemable but mildly sad and disappointing; they see it as just that word: irredeemable. Which is why "just call a suicide helpline" isn't always as good of a way to respond to someone suicidal's problem as some people think it is.

This response amounts to "suicide helplines suck", which isn't actually addressing what I was saying. I was saying that several suicidal people don't want to risk being talked out of it and thus wouldn't go to someone... and those who would, already have people to go to. These people not being good at their jobs does not make for a good argument in favor of legalizing euthanasia; it makes instead a good argument for a point I made earlier within the thread, which is that if we want to make people en masse less miserable we need to address the things that are making them miserable. If suicide helplines are a contributing factor to that, then improving the helplines should be our considered solution, not encouraging people to hurt themselves through a method controlled by the government.

 

[Milo Thatch]

Death through injection isn't actually painless; it's done wherever the death penalty is, and it's more painful than using a guillotine. It also costs money to do it, and it can be botched just like any other suicide method (botched executions of this sort have happened plenty of times over). There is no totally safe or painless way to die.

But even if it was, that doesn't take away from the point that it makes dying take extra steps, and people will pass that over in favor of quicker methods. Plus, it relies on people going directly to someone else to die ⁠— which... If someone wanted to come to someone else about their suicidal intentions, they'd do so with the suicide helpline, which was the point that I was making. Ultimately, I think you're considering the painfulness as being a big considering factor and would thus act as an efficient way of keeping people alive by pushing them through hoops to get help before they would go through with it.

Well that's horrible if somehow that came across as me thinking doctor-assisted suicide could be painful so outlawing other less painful methods of suicide would be good either; I am entirely for allowing other less painful suicide methods and that's part of why I am not quite as uniformly big on not allowing doctors to give depressed people doctor-assisted suicide than some people, as then just saying "Ha ha, we'll FORCE you to keep living in the life you detest and see no enjoyable or redeeming qualities to by outlawing any less painful method of suicide" is a broken and sickening way to make someone stay alive. As for why I made that comment about suicide helplines being pointless, it is just that many suicidal people do not care about just hearing yet another ineffective and incompetent person say, "well that's not great" and "no one would want you to be depressed"; my point was I think you overestimate how many people who want to end their own lives would call a helpline as they know it is not great anyway. They might want to tell other people about their problems, or suicide hotlines about their problems, but they know both will be just as bad as the other. As for the "there is no such thing as an entirely painless death" argument technically that's not true as anesthesia would put someone to sleep so they would not feel the pain. Either way this is a complicated issue, just that the only argument being that you HAVE to keep living because less painful suicide is outlawed doesn't feel quite right

 

[Ray Trace]

"Ha ha, we'll FORCE you to keep living in the life you detest and see no enjoyable or redeeming qualities to by outlawing any less painful method of suicide" is a broken and sickening way to make someone stay alive.

You know, forcing doctors to heed to your wishes and commit assisted suicide because of a byproduct stemming from condition that has strong evidence to be curable and treatable (unlike, say, stage 4 cancer) is also very gross and sickening. It's also a huge reason why I'm strongly against the death penalty and an often-looked aspect of it, the person who needs to perform a lethal injection, often anonymous hence why it's not very well-documented: directly causing death for another individual, even if it is a criminal, is a hugely traumatic experience, especially damning with this interview.

I get it, depression is extremely difficult to live in, and it's an extremely difficult subject to talk about because it has a huge variety of triggers and it varies from person to person, how they deal with it, and what not. But it's more than treatable, it's not a terminal illness, and I'd prefer you stop comparing it to them.

I also agree that the effectiveness of suicide help lines do require more research into them and primarily measure only instant outcomes rather than long-term but I wouldn't outright dismiss them: do it with a strong source rather than empty anecdotal data.

 

[I'm the lil bro.]

"Ha ha, we'll FORCE you to keep living in the life you detest and see no enjoyable or redeeming qualities to by outlawing any less painful method of suicide" is a broken and sickening way to make someone stay alive.

I think the problem here is you're looking at it as outlawing anything, when in reality it's simply not legalizing a method and making it something that doctors have to do unless it is considered absolutely necessary. I also said earlier that I am not in favor of outlawing suicide period; I just don't think it should be encouraged with an actual, legal method through the state.

(I'll clarify that I have lots of problems with the legal system in its current state and I would not support anything that encourages punishment of marginalized groups, which outlawing suicide certainly would as many of those with suicidal ideation are within minority groups. There is a very big difference between "I wouldn't legalize this one thing that would push doctors to do something traumatic to wash the government's hands of doing things that actually help people" and "I want to make suicidal people suffer by punishing them for desiring hurting themselves". My argument is the former, not the latter. I don't believe that suicidal people deserve punishment, and I want this to be understood, because some of your replies have made me feel as though you think that I do.)

As for why I made that comment about suicide helplines being pointless, it is just that many suicidal people do not care about just hearing yet another ineffective and incompetent person say, "well that's not great" and "no one would want you to be depressed"; my point was I think you overestimate how many people who want to end their own lives would call a helpline as they know it is not great anyway. They might want to tell other people about their problems, or suicide hotlines about their problems, but they know both will be just as bad as the other.

How effective suicide helplines are wasn't my point, though. My point was that often times suicidal people won't go to anybody. One of the arguments made in favor of legalizing euthanasia suggested the idea that doing so would bring more people to come into the office and reconsider their decision, thus saving lives. What I was suggesting was that it sounds nice in theory, but I don't think that would work in practice. If people wanted to risk being talked out, they would go to other people. But a lot of suicidal people don't want to risk being talked out of it. So they won't, and that includes to doctors with whom they'd have to go through a lengthy process to be killed by them so the doctor is not held legally responsible.

And once again, I reiterate: if the problem is the efficacy of suicide helplines, the proposed solution to it should not be encouraging people to hurt themselves, it should be looking to alternative methods to help these people. I am not arguing that suicide helplines are helpful as they currently are. I'm mostly suggesting that if the idea for the legalization is so people will come to doctors, thus leading them into a process of being talked out of suicide, that isn't going to work out very well long term with what we know about suicidal people. If anything, you should be agreeing with this point as you're suggesting over and over that our mental health care is pretty bad, so why would it be any better if we're forcing suicidal people to go through a process to be able to do it, and doctors to enact that process?

To me, it feels like your thought process is going like this:

You recognize our mental health care is bad. You recognize suicide helplines don't help people as much as they should, and that people are having a hard time and want to die.
...so your solution is to make it so they will die, but it's government controlled.

To me, this is skipping a lot of steps and other solutions that would simply be better. Rather than addressing the root core of the problem (where the feeling of wanting to die comes from), you're suggesting simply killing the person off, because obviously there is no other way out for them. This is the line of thinking that I'm criticizing. The government already takes shortcuts in improving mental health care, and legalizing euthanasia in this way will provide them with another, because they will agree with your argument that there's nothing to be done, that they can't do anything about it, and they should just kill the people who feel this way.

Rather than demanding our government be much more rigorous and take mentally ill people more seriously and treat them like people, rather than addressing the things that actually make them this way systemically (racism, transphobia, abuse, you know the list, I could go on), legalizing this will not only do what Ray Trace said and put more burden onto doctors (who often aren't trained properly for euthanasia, by the way), but it will relieve the pressure that we're trying to place on the government to actually make things better for people in a meaningful way by allowing them that chance to say, "Well, there's nothing we can do about it." That's why I'm opposed to legalizing the euthanasia in any situation other than terminal illness.

Basically: I think we're disagreeing that there are situations in which there's nothing to be done about how bad life is. You think that there are times when the depression is simply too bad and nothing can be fixed, and I disagree with this. That's why we keep going back and forth on this. I think there are always other things that the government could be doing that they are simply not right now.