The community generally wants extremely restrictive building regulations. We're currently going through this in Edinburgh, which is a world heritage site as well.
An extra complication here is that the communal stair wells of apartments are comunally owned, so landlords attaching keyboxes outside the door are usually violating the property rights of their neighbours.
I've seen this photo many times and have always wondered about the fate of the person in the picture considering how dangerous the elephant's foot is always said to be. It's good to hear that he's still alive and sounds healthy.
In 1986 that distance from the corium you’d have 300 seconds before receiving an LD50. By 1996 when this photo was taken it would have taken an hour to receive an LD50.
Yup. Cataracts are the best example of a deterministic radiation effect; i.e. receive X dose and you _will_ receive Y result. While cancer induction is stochastic; probabilistic effect of exposure.
That part of the story made me wonder why the cataracts haven't been treated. There are relatively low-risk and well-understood treatments for cataracts that do a very good job restoring vision.
Cost? The URSS was already declining by then, and Ukraine was “born poor” in many ways. A procedure might well be safe and effective, but if the local health service can’t afford to do it thousands of times, they will just ignore it.
Good is not the enemy of perfect. There are cases where disposable plates are more or less required. Food trucks/carts for example. One I frequent recently moved to using compostable plates.
>There are cases where disposable plates are more or less required.
I completely disagree, although there are cases where non-disposable plates are too expensive to have due to various reasons, but if that's the case you probably shouldn't be doing what you're doing.
I don't think a low barrier to entry is a good idea for something as serious as medical-assisted suicide. Being in mental or physical pain, outside of absolute terminal illness, and being able to choose death for something that may very well be a temporary problem is not a good solution. You mention people who turn to self-inflicted suicide, who fail and end up in worse states emotionally/financially. But what about those who have failed their suicide attempt and eventually end up in a good place and live a happy, normal rest of their life? Had they been given the option of medical-assisted suicide, they would have never have gotten the chance to experience that.
Who cares about the what if game. A system should be in place for persons who are in pain that want to successfully end it. No free will exists until such a system exists.
I only mentioned a what-if example in response to your what-if example in your first comment.
Medical-assisted suicide systems are already in place in numerous countries for terminally ill patients. Are you suggesting these systems be implemented for anyone?
Your mention of free will suggests that these systems should be in place for all people and to be done promptly without question as anything that impedes this, (eg, physical or psychological examinations, waiting periods, etc.) would also be going against free will. I don't think a person requires easy access to death in order for free will to exist. People are irrational beings, especially so when considering taking their own life; allowing these people to make severe decisions in extreme irrational states, is well, irrational in itself.
I don't see how what I wrote is a what-if example. Maybe you can clarify more and I'll do as well.
The person who I know suffering gender dysphoria has been pursuing medical assistance in dying in Canada. She has been seeking it by going to Doctors for multiple years and with a psychiatrist following her.
She is a rational person who approaches it as any other chronic illness with tremendous pain. She deeply expresses how the majority of her life was stolen from her because of the illness and not being able to obtain treatment young for it because of parental figures & bad doctors.
She believes she is valid in getting the procedure to end her life compared to anyone else. Doctors will tell her she has valid points but will refuse to say much and skirt her out of their offices whenever they have a chance. She is not irrational.
I know for a fact the belief of everyone should continue living because the "what if game of it may get better" is irrational. She has had her life stolen from her and continues to live in pain but for the chance to have some humanity given to her (a safe way to die). She usually doesn't eat anything to divert her conscious to starving and where she will not focus on much. I'm a co-worker/friend of hers.
In your first comment, "Some fail and end up in worse states emotionally & financially." which I responded to with my what-if, which was "But what about those who have failed their suicide attempt and eventually end up in a good place and live a happy, normal rest of their life?"
"I know for a fact the belief of everyone should continue living because the "what if game of it may get better" is irrational." What part of believing in a better future is irrational? Or more irrational than someone wanting to end their own life? We can end the conversation if it continues to a nihilistic viewpoint where death is the only true solution to things.
Your co-worker/friend's situation is unfortunate. I lived 3 years with someone who longed for death for nearly their entire adult life. In that time they believed they were acting rationally, that things would not get better and that they were irreparably broken; the only solution to them was death. They had been through numerous psychiatrists and eventually ended up at one who was able to properly diagnose them as having a form of bipolar disorder. They received prescription treatment and the longing for death ended.
I understand there are extreme differences in gender dysphoria and bipolar disorder, but just because their current state, or the current system is unable to help her, doesn't mean death is the correct answer. We should focus on improving mental healthcare rather than opening up the choice of death to those we're currently unable to provide help for.
Improvement to mental healthcare would be removing the restrictions of medical assistance in dying and making it similar to a person who is going to die from suicide when they’re being honest about how the illness is forcing it upon them.
The part you quoted from me is what research show in regarding gender dysphoria that goes untreated past puberty. There isn’t much positivity for the latter and drugging a person so their perception changes isn’t necessarily what I think is much different than suicide of the person. Similar to how in the past conversion therapy was used to destroy the person and create a new person.
Anyway I don’t believe I’m being nihilistic and I can righteously think it’s people putting their own ideology first in refusing my friend the ability to have her wishes granted.
Suicide is not some inevitable, uncontrollable end to any disease or illness. It isn't cancer, or some other form of terminal illness. It is an active choice made by those who want to end their own life.
If suicide and prescription drugs are synonymous as they both result in the literal and figurative death of the ill person, would it not be better to choose the 'death' the allows the person to continue to live?
It is nihilistic if you, and your coworker, believe that past a certain age threshold (or any other arbitrary measure) a disease/mental condition is untreatable and the best alternative is suicide.
>It is an active choice made by those who want to end their own life
That is your ideology being forced upon persons who desire death. There is no proof that people have free will and every death (suicide or death by cancer) is a natural death if free will doesn't exist.
> would it not be better to choose the 'death' the allows the person to continue to live?
That sounds like a worse fate if I was in the situation.
> It is nihilistic if you, and your coworker, believe that past a certain age threshold (or any other arbitrary measure) a disease/mental condition is untreatable and the best alternative is suicide.
That is just a forceful opinion upon labeling others and who just believe they should have will over their own death when the pain is unbearable. Her case is suffering from puberty and being conditioned throughout her life to be a certain way. She missed her youth, early adulthood and shouldn't be forced to live in today's society where she is constantly reminded of the abuse. She believes the best solution is suicide for herself. I only agree with her and think people should have authority over their own death after long talks with her.
That's a fallacy you're constructing. I have known persons who are into nihilism and they would argue the same that nothing matters with free will. I don't believe the exchange was meaningless because my friend will be reading these replies and have more experience in conversing with doctors. She get's similar responses to what you convey when arguing her position. Btw if you're downvoting my responses on an other account. You're extremely childish if so. The only reason I assume this is the case because the other is reply old enough to where I assume it's the case. People are not supposed to be using the downvoting system in a childish manner is what I believe is true for hackernews.
If we're going to talk about no free will existing until certain systems are in place, I would say systems of actual good medical care, without financial stress when you have a serious illness, are a pre-requisite to having "free will" to decide to end one's life when in such a situation. Giving up because you are financially ruined and still can't get attentive medical care is no more "free will" then _not_ killing yourself because "systems in place" aren't available to help you do it.
That is a made up justification to force a person into living in a broken system when in unbearable pain. While ignoring the person who wishes to end her life and exerting one's will forcibly upon another who is not privileged.
