The horror is in the fact that the system forces these kinds of choices on people. Any system that forces people to consider suicide to avoid bankrupting their loved ones due to medical cost is barbaric.

True, but Göteborg has its own areas to avoid. Hjällbo comes to mind…

“Fighting solves everything” - These guys are really out there thinking they can punch the genie of social progress back into the bottle. If this were a parody people would say it’s too ridiculous to be true.

As someone familiar with Microsoft’s meeting culture, this is pretty accurate. If you want to attend every meeting in the day, you will be in three meetings at once. At a minimum.

Talk about a terrible way to go. For everyone involved. That’s a lot of people that’ll need trauma counseling for sure.

I’m absolutely worried this will get taken advantage of in the US’ hellscape that is their healthcare system, but that doesn’t mean the concept is without merit.

It’s like arguing that cars should not be available for purchase because someone might use one irresponsibly, while forgetting their utility outside of abuse.

In a healthcare system that optimizes outcome instead of profit, having the option to allow someone to choose to end their suffering should not be considered a bad thing.

I can’t understand why so many people are against someone dying with dignity. This is a form of harm reduction for not just the patient, but also their loved ones, and society in general.

Nobody wants to see their loved ones suffer endlessly or needlessly, and this is also a whole lot less traumatic than people committing suicide. Nobody wants the last memory of their loved ones to be the scene of their (potentially messy) suicide.

And that’s not to mention the trauma inflicted on bystanders for some of the more public suicide methods (not to mention that jumping to your death or intentionally walking into/driving into traffic has a decent chance of physically injuring or killing said bystanders).

If this process is undertaken with care and compassion, it’s far less likely to be traumatizing to all involved. And it prevents “spur of the moment” decisions, like many successful suicides are.

I am 100% with the women choosing the bear over an unknown man. Most wildlife, including bears, just want to be left alone to do their own thing. You can safely assume that the most likely thing to happen is the bear just does it’s own thing and lets you be. An unknown man is a much less predictable entity, and as such should be treated with a lot more suspicion.

Side note for those wanting to be pedantic: Bears vary in their level of habituation and indifference to humans as a result. More habituated bears may associate you with food, and some may even see you as food (depending on species) This will affect their aggression towards you, but as a general rule of thumb it’s still safe to assume any random bear would be more inclined to leave you alone or just steal your food than to actively want to harm you.

I’d much rather they implement the right to deletion. I know they will get their hands on a ton of data, regardless of how we write the clause. But at least let me delete that data when I want it gone.