What is the problem with assisted dying?

The law is about assisted suicide. Suicide is not prohibited in our country, only inciting or assisting in it. A healthy person can kill themselves without difficulty, a terminally ill and immobile person much more difficult. Helping the latter is a crime, which is unjust, because the most suffering and helpless have the fewest options, but at the same time have the most reasons to want death. The law eliminates this inequality, according to which suicide is reserved for those who can carry it out on their own.

This law is not about euthanasia. Euthanasia is an intervention in the patient, suicide is an independent act. Anyone who uses the term euthanasia does not know the most basic concepts necessary for this debate, or is deliberately misleading, because changing the topic allows him to worry about doctors who will suddenly be forced to kill patients or worry about patients who would start to be killed by doctors. None of these are part of this Act.

In this law, we do not decide on palliative care. Palliative care will never completely solve all scenarios, so the need for this law will remain no matter how it is regulated. Palliative care and end-of-life assistance are not interchangeable, but complement each other. Rejecting the law with the condition that palliative care be arranged first makes no sense, because it is not a matter of order. Also, if it comes down to it, palliative, whatever it is, we already have it. Rejecting the law does nothing to improve palliative care, it just brings us back to square one when we have to solve two things instead of one. Anyone who is sincere about the improvement of palliative care should be satisfied because it will be easier to attend to it under the adopted law, since it will remain the only one on the agenda. Anyone who is disturbed by the order in which the government arranges matters can express an opinion about it in the second type of vote that comes in half a year, this referendum is not for that purpose.

The fear of a gradual expansion of the criteria is hypothetical, happening in the future, dependent on the imagination, but above all it can be solved with a new referendum or a change in the law, if the need arises. Fear is not a rational basis for rejecting a law that solves real problems now. And experience from abroad can be a warning, but not a prediction, no one forces us to repeat foreign mistakes if we notice them.

The fear that patients would feel like a burden to their families is a reality even without this law. If someone feels like a burden, it comes from family relationships, not marriage. If anything, the law, with its safeguards, reduces the risk of succumbing to this burden vis-à-vis others not covered by the law. For the latter, no commissions, evaluations and verification of will are required.

Rejecting marriage would keep some alive longer because they would have no other option.

But I would encourage some to commit suicide even faster, because they would want to do it now, when they still have the chance to do it themselves.

In the previous referendum, the nation has already decided in which direction we want to resolve matters. Rejecting the law does not mean going back to the past or maintaining the status quo. Rejection means denying some of the rights we voted for and signed into law. Not because the marriage is bad, but because some people cannot come to terms with the direction society is going.

TLDR in the picture.