Re: sounds complicated
While your examples illustrate simpler methods, the key issue in assisted suicide is the "assisted" part. Those capable of independently executing such methods likely don't require assistance. The ethical and legal complexities arise when individuals:
Need help administering lethal substances.
Lack the physical capability to end their life independently.
Your examples (electric fire setup or nitrogen asphyxiation) assume the person has both the means and ability to carry out these acts. However, some may be unable to obtain the necessary materials or physically set up such devices.
The societal dilemma centers on:
a) Requesting someone else to perform euthanasia.
b) Helping position someone for an easier suicide.
In many jurisdictions, those who assist in these scenarios, even if acting on the individual's expressed wishes, are often classified as criminals.
Legitimate concerns exist regarding potential coercion and ensuring genuine, ongoing consent. For instance, how can one clearly communicate a change of heart after significant preparation?
The Sarco device, while seemingly overcomplicated, attempts to address these issues by:
Providing a controlled environment.
Incorporating a consent verification process.
Allowing the individual to initiate the final action independently.
An earlier example, the Australian "Deliverance Machine" from the late 1990s, used similar principles. It posed a series of questions before administering lethal drugs, balancing user control with consent verification; the big difference being that you needed a medical professional to insert the IV and typically also to supply the lethal dose of barbiturates needed.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
