Ask Lemmygrad

In practice it is always going to be abused by the ruling class under capitalism for eugenicist purposes and as a way to get out of having to provide expensive healthcare to those who need it. Far cheaper to psychologically manipulate vulnerable people into "consenting" to being killed.

Something like this can only be ethical under socialism where no one lacks healthcare or the material means to live a comfortable life.

I am especially opposed to it in northern Europe which is exceptionally racist and eugenicist even by the standards of Western societies.

Liberal me halfway bought into it for a bit. ML me says, it's disturbing that this would even be a practice society would consider before exhausting other options, like community programs, better living conditions, free / low cost health treatments, meaningful shared purpose, and so on. As for the abstract of it, it's irrelevant. We don't exist in an abstract world. We live in a complicated real one and the fact is that the validation of this I've ever heard of as an "individual choice" comes from capitalist society, not socialist ones. And mental health issues are dramatically worse when people struggle to get basic needs met, or have chronic anxiety about becoming homeless because they're so close to slipping into poverty, or their entire being is reduced to being seen as a commodity they are supposed to make marketable. And so on. (And this is not even getting into health issues that can be triggered from environmental pollution and such things.)

If a person has chronic pain and you ask them "do you want the pain to end", they're going to be like "no shit, I'd like the pain to end." So what is your goal? You (society) do your best to help them live in a world where that pain is gone, or at least minimized. This should be obvious, but capitalism is sociopathic and doesn't care if people die. Capitalism just cares that the line goes up.

eugenics with extra steps

No point in speaking about it in the abstract. In practice its social murder against the mentally ill. It is another avenue of war against those this society has disgraced and harmed.

Depression is not as they say, just a "chemical imbalance". People are depressed for real reasons, not because their brain is faulty, it's a normal reaction to a hopeless situation; though predisposition to it varies. The point is to not have people be in a hopeless position.

For mental illness? I don't think a mentally ill person can meaningfully consent to euthanasia.

Yes in theory, euthanasia should be a thing. The problem is that we live under capitalism, and therefore this will always be abused to kill the poor. It already happened in a few countries that allowed it, I believe Canada is one of them.

The problem is that we think or these options in an ideal world/in isolation but our world is soo far from that... that for this to be debated seriously we have soo much work ahead of us, before we are even close to the state where something like this should remotely be allowed.

I'd like it to be an option. Like, I'd like to have a worthy option of dying peacefully if I want to without having to seriously harm myself or traumatize others. I think that would be a good thing.

In practice it's far from perfect as our social conditions play into mental health issues and therefore it is akin to eugenics.

I'm OK with euthanasia for terminal illness (end-stage cancer, Alzheimer's, etc.) but much less OK for mental health. Mental health struggles are generally not permanent and are exacetbated by capitalism. If someone with depression feels useless, is running out of money, and wants euthanasia (I have felt this way before), the first-line solutions should be providing low-cost treatment, smoothing over financial difficulties, and helping them feel purpose rather than euthanasia.

I think it’s not a very good idea people that struggle should get the help and accommodations they need to heal and function. Liberalism tells us that if you can’t function on your own you’re worthless which is just not true.