The Free Press: "I'm 28. And I’m Scheduled to Die in May."

[7,052,770]

Does anyone else feel like maybe the article isn't telling the full story? Is this person credible? Is the writer/news source credible? Would the doctors or Danish government tell a different story?

Let's keep in mind that "bloggy" exposes have been posted here before and riled people up, only to turn out to be hoaxes.

https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/nederland/artikel/5400619/euthanasie-wachtlijst-expertisecentrum-zelfdoding-psychisch-lijden

Just search up the person's name and you get a decent number of Dutch sources. Seems like although the FP article is from today this news is quite old.

I mean, already we have a pretty different tone in that article from the original (assuming nothing was lost in the Google Translation). This one makes it sounds like multiple doctors tried to talk her out of it and refused to sign off until she finally found one who would allow it, but the OP makes it sound like the Dutch medical system is pushing her to do this.

[Alben Barkley]

Oh it gets better:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13244691/Alberta-judge-greenlights-euthanasia-autistic-woman-DESPITE-objection-dad.html

(Yes, it's the Daily Mail, but their sources seem legit.)

Somebody in the Twitter threads about the article I originally posted brought this up, and this case in Canada is arguably even worse. An even younger woman whose only apparent diagnosis is autism spectrum was found to have the right to kill herself.

Even though the judge said he had no idea why she would want to.

And even though he also acknowledged the immense suffering and grief her death would bring to her parents and loved ones (with her poor dad desperately pleading them to stop it).

Nope, turns out "the (delusional, mistakenly perceived) needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many" in Canada! Turns out "autonomy" is the end-all be-all, the only value of any kind that matters at all in Canada.

Does it matter that if you are so handicapped by your mental illness that you want to die, you almost by definition ALSO are so handicapped by it that you couldn't possibly be fit to make that determination?

Apparently not.

Does it matter that you exercising your "right to autonomy" will devastate the lives of others?

Apparently not.

Does it matter that the judge's decision is tantamount to agreeing that people with autism or other mental disabilities have fundamentally inferior lives that just aren't worth living?

Apparently not.

"Liberal" Canada, folks!

At this point I'm increasingly convinced the slippery slope is just as real as horseshoe theory, and that those who tried to downplay the former were lying just as much as those who tried to downplay the latter. I simply will NOT deny the evidence of my own eyes, ears, and brain.

It was only a few years ago, after all, that when Canada first started to allow any kind of "euthanasia" it was only for those who are terminally, physically ill and suffering immensely to a point nothing else could stop it. Something I very much supported at the time. Now we have a judge declaring that mentally ill people have the fundamental right to kill themselves because "autonomy" apparently trumps all else, no matter what.

Absolutely sick.

As far as I'm concerned, the judge and everyone else involved in both these cases is a stone cold murderer. They are enabling unhealthy, dangerous behavior and taking advantage of mentally ill people's distorted view of themselves and the world. It's basically the same as telling an anorexic that she's right, she IS too fat! No one would tolerate that kind of psychological abuse from a partner or friend, but somehow if a judge or "psychiatrist" says that you're right, your life IS hopeless, it's OK?

This runs counter to everything I have ever believed, all my education, and all my life experiences. I refuse to accept it, and I will fight tooth and nail against it if it EVER comes to America to a significant degree. And I also find Harry's refusal to acknowledge how horrible this is because he desperately HAS to believe that it's IMPOSSIBLE for an entity (falsely, laughably) perceived to be "on his side" to make such a horrendous mistake to be disgusting as well.

Who f--king CARES if it was one doctor or twenty who signed off on this??? One is too many, for one thing, and for another thing the Dutch government allowing it regardless is evil and egregious. Period. Just f--king take the L and accept that not everything you think is liberal/left-coded is always right. If to do that is somehow fatal to your worldview, that says more about you treating politics and even people's lives as some kind of twisted team sport than anything else.

[7,052,770]

And I also find Harry's refusal to acknowledge how horrible this is because he desperately HAS to believe that it's IMPOSSIBLE for an entity (falsely, laughably) perceived to be "on his side" to make such a horrendous mistake to be disgusting as well.

Who f--king CARES if it was one doctor or twenty who signed off on this??? One is too many, for one thing, and for another thing the Dutch government allowing it regardless is evil and egregious. Period. Just f--king take the L and accept that not everything you think is liberal/left-coded is always right. If to do that is somehow fatal to your worldview, that says more about you treating politics and even people's lives as some kind of twisted team sport than anything else.

What the hell is wrong with you? I'm the last person who would ever do anything like that. I don't even see this is "liberal coded" in the first place, given that nobody on the Left here in America or on this forum is supportive of this. What L do I have to take? I am well established to oppose single payer healthcare and euthanasia, so if I'm taking any letter, it's clearly a W. I think we're all on the same side here - this woman shouldn't kill herself.

However, think it is prudent to be skeptical and ask questions about any sensational story (whether it's "coded" to support my side like this one, or not), especially ones from online blogs we've never heard of. Especially when we've all gotten burned on stuff like this before. And while this story (if true) is awful, it is extremely relevant whether this is one rogue doctor or consistent with the policy of the entire Dutch health care system. I just want to make sure I have all of the facts before I get all hot and bothered.

Remember how hard we laughed at Republicans for falling for the "Biden replaced Easter with a transgender holiday and then banned Christian eggs!!!" hoax? I want to be 100% sure I don't do the same thing myself in the same week!

[Gass3268]

As someone who supports the general idea of euthanasia (some mix of a terminal condition, unbearable pain, an age threshold, etc.), this is messed up.

[RI]

Taboos and red lines exist for a good reason.

[John Dule]

Originally I opposed this, but through his posts in this thread Alben has convinced me to take the opposite position.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Oh it gets better:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13244691/Alberta-judge-greenlights-euthanasia-autistic-woman-DESPITE-objection-dad.html

(Yes, it's the Daily Mail, but their sources seem legit.)

Somebody in the Twitter threads about the article I originally posted brought this up, and this case in Canada is arguably even worse. An even younger woman whose only apparent diagnosis is autism spectrum was found to have the right to kill herself.

Even though the judge said he had no idea why she would want to.

And even though he also acknowledged the immense suffering and grief her death would bring to her parents and loved ones (with her poor dad desperately pleading them to stop it).

Nope, turns out "the (delusional, mistakenly perceived) needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many" in Canada! Turns out "autonomy" is the end-all be-all, the only value of any kind that matters at all in Canada.

Does it matter that if you are so handicapped by your mental illness that you want to die, you almost by definition ALSO are so handicapped by it that you couldn't possibly be fit to make that determination?

Apparently not.

Does it matter that you exercising your "right to autonomy" will devastate the lives of others?

Apparently not.

Does it matter that the judge's decision is tantamount to agreeing that people with autism or other mental disabilities have fundamentally inferior lives that just aren't worth living?

Apparently not.

"Liberal" Canada, folks!

At this point I'm increasingly convinced the slippery slope is just as real as horseshoe theory, and that those who tried to downplay the former were lying just as much as those who tried to downplay the latter. I simply will NOT deny the evidence of my own eyes, ears, and brain.

It was only a few years ago, after all, that when Canada first started to allow any kind of "euthanasia" it was only for those who are terminally, physically ill and suffering immensely to a point nothing else could stop it. Something I very much supported at the time. Now we have a judge declaring that mentally ill people have the fundamental right to kill themselves because "autonomy" apparently trumps all else, no matter what.

Absolutely sick.

As far as I'm concerned, the judge and everyone else involved in both these cases is a stone cold murderer. They are enabling unhealthy, dangerous behavior and taking advantage of mentally ill people's distorted view of themselves and the world. It's basically the same as telling an anorexic that she's right, she IS too fat! No one would tolerate that kind of psychological abuse from a partner or friend, but somehow if a judge or "psychiatrist" says that you're right, your life IS hopeless, it's OK?

This runs counter to everything I have ever believed, all my education, and all my life experiences. I refuse to accept it, and I will fight tooth and nail against it if it EVER comes to America to a significant degree. And I also find Harry's refusal to acknowledge how horrible this is because he desperately HAS to believe that it's IMPOSSIBLE for an entity (falsely, laughably) perceived to be "on his side" to make such a horrendous mistake to be disgusting as well.

Who f--king CARES if it was one doctor or twenty who signed off on this??? One is too many, for one thing, and for another thing the Dutch government allowing it regardless is evil and egregious. Period. Just f--king take the L and accept that not everything you think is liberal/left-coded is always right. If to do that is somehow fatal to your worldview, that says more about you treating politics and even people's lives as some kind of twisted team sport than anything else.

Except this isn't the case in Canada. The Canadian government has further delayed implementing MAiD for anybody who has 'just mental conditions' and there is speculation anyway that the government list of who could qualify with 'just mental conditions' was so restrictive that nobody would qualify.

That you get basic stuff like this wrong with you determination to grandstand and virtue signal makes me doubt that anything you say here is accurate.

[Brother Jonathan]

The decision in that Candian case is quite striking. First, the person seeking MAiD was examined five times by four doctors and twice denied. She finally got another doctor to break a tie and was scheduled to die. Part of the case for the injunction was that she was approved for MAiD by virtue of her mental illness alone, which will be permitted in Canada under the current law but not until March 2027 (and as noted above, in a seemingly pretty restrictive way). She refused to provide the Court any evidence on her health or her MAiD assessment (MV is the person seeking MAiD)

MV submitted an affidavit dated February 18, 2024.  MV’s affidavit does not address her medical condition, any suffering she may be experiencing, or why she wants MAiD.  MV was questioned on her affidavit on February 29, 2024.  At the questioning, she refused to answer questions concerning her medical condition and refused to produce any records she had concerning the MAiD assessment.

So the Court received no evidence (other than the medical evidence from the father suggesting only mental illness) that spoke to MV's eligibility for MAiD. As a matter of personal autonomy, I suppose I understand the logic of stating it was her private decision, and not her father's, but even accepting that it is I think concerning that the Court goes so far as to state it has no power to review MAiD determinations for compliance with the statutory guidelines:

MAiD assessments are conducted in accordance with the structure imposed by the Criminal Code and the AHS MAiD Policy but they remain medical assessments conducted by doctors and nurse practitioners.  Medical assessments conducted by doctors and nurse practitioners are private in nature and involve the application of specialized professional judgment.  Though the Court will review the conduct of doctors and nurse practitioners after the fact in, for example, professional negligence cases, those circumstances occur at trial and typically with the aid of expert witnesses.  The Court has no expertise and no place in reviewing MAiD assessments in some sort of ad hoc system of pre-authorization.  It is not the Court’s legitimate role.

It seems pretty concerning that Courts (and it seems this is true in the Netherlands as well) just refuse to engage in any sort of preclearance even where it seems possible that the legal requirements have not been met. I understand the difficulty, when you have a legal scheme for authorizing these things, in allowing others to step in and try to second guess and stop something doctors and the patient have agreed to. But I am also concerned about a system where you can seemingly "doctor shop" until you get enough votes for the procedure and the Courts will offer no one else—not family, friends, nor other doctors who have found you ineligible—any way to argue non-compliance with statutory requirements. True, a wrongful death suit and potential criminal and professional sanction could still follow and that would I think deter doctors from making determinations not supported by any medical evidence; but of course by then the worst is done and perhaps the most crucial evidence is gone. I also don't think it makes sense that the Court is willing to look at this evidence after the fact for substantively the same challenge (that criteria were not met and therefore the action was improper), but will refuse to look at the same evidence before; ultimately, the determination would seem to turn on the same facts. It seems the Court here is concerned about dealing with private medical issues (hence why it is okay considering a challenge based on a Doctor's compliance with hospital administrative regulations that do not implicate medical judgement), but checking for complice with statutory criteria seems like a legal question at a pretty fundamental level to me.

I can't say I have any sort of solution here (short of not allowing assisted dying, which is what I do tend to believe, but I am conflicted on it), but at a basic level I do think there needs to be some system of judicial (and not just medical) review, or at least a restrictive and robust medical review, for compliance with statutory factors if you are going to have a system of assisted dying that actually places limits on who is eligible. I do not think that after the fact wrongful death determinations are enough.

[🌴]

Did anybody read the article? Her psychiatrist did not recommend or ever even mention euthanasia to her. She sought out euthanasia on her own. The tenuous connection drawn between the psychiatrist and euthanasia is a quote from the patient paraphrasing her doctor saying "It is never gonna get better," which for one may not have actually been what the doctor said (just what the patient heard or interpreted after the fact) but more significantly in a more medical tone is something most people here would think, absent the euthanasia overlay, is a valid and bravely honest thing for a doctor to say to a patient with mental disorders (or any disease or disorder) where established treatment options have been exhausted without progress. Would you rather the psychiatrist lie to her about whether there is a chance she could miraculously stop having BPD? The patient then proceeded to scour the country for a different psychiatrist who would approve her euthanasia request after being denied by her original psychiatrist, being denied by many doctors before finding one who would approve, hardly evidence of the medical system pushing her to euthanasia.

I swear, articles about euthanasia draw out some of the most misleading, weasel-word-filled articles and people who fall for them hook, line and sinker every single time.

[Alcibiades]

The patient then proceeded to scour the country for a different psychiatrist who would approve her euthanasia request after being denied by her original psychiatrist, being denied by many doctors before finding one who would approve, hardly evidence of the medical system pushing her to euthanasia.

But isn’t that just what people are objecting to here? That the vast majority of medical professionals could refuse her request, but she was nonetheless able to shop around until she found one who approved it?

Anyway, here are a few thoughts on the matter in general:

1. The Free Press obviously leans a certain way politically, so I’d take what it says with a grain of salt. There have been enough similar stories from the Netherlands that I’m prepared to believe that the gist of this article is accurate, though I wouldn’t be surprised if certain details were less so.

2. None of this has led me to stop believing that it is the right thing to do to legalise assisted suicide for the ‘core’ cases of terminal and/or extremely painful physical illnesses. Coming from a country that currently has a total prohibition on assisted suicide (and has frequently taken a particularly draconian approach to enforcing it), it’s obvious to me that the cruelty and suffering that results is far greater and more widespread than that which may come from whatever is going on in the Netherlands and Canada. As far as the ‘slippery slope’ argument goes, it’s also worth noting that there are multiple other jurisdictions which allow assisted suicide in certain circumstances, and you never hear any of these stories from them; it seems likely that there are particular features of the political cultures of Canada and the Netherlands which have led the law on assisted suicide to develop in the ways it has in those two countries.

3. In theory, I would not object to assisted suicide for incurable mental illnesses. I think that there really are some people for whom things will never get better, who have tried everything, and who live in intolerable pain as a result. No one disputes that this is true of certain physical conditions; and it seems to me that if one is to take mental health seriously, as being as important as physical health (very much a view that is increasingly encouraged), then one cannot deny that the same could be true of certain mental conditions too. Unfortunately — as some of these Dutch and Canadian cases have highlighted — I do not think this is workable in practice. Our present understanding of mental health, and consequent diagnostic and treatment abilities, is simply nowhere near as advanced as in the case of physical health, and so it is not possible to provide medical assessments of the requisite rigour that ought to be required to approve assisted suicide.

[GoTfan]

I doubt that the people hyperventilating about this truly understand what this woman is going through

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

The patient then proceeded to scour the country for a different psychiatrist who would approve her euthanasia request after being denied by her original psychiatrist, being denied by many doctors before finding one who would approve, hardly evidence of the medical system pushing her to euthanasia.

But isn’t that just what people are objecting to here? That the vast majority of medical professionals could refuse her request, but she was nonetheless able to shop around until she found one who approved it?

Anyway, here are a few thoughts on the matter in general:

1. The Free Press obviously leans a certain way politically, so I’d take what it says with a grain of salt. There have been enough similar stories from the Netherlands that I’m prepared to believe that the gist of this article is accurate, though I wouldn’t be surprised if certain details were less so.

2. None of this has led me to stop believing that it is the right thing to do to legalise assisted suicide for the ‘core’ cases of terminal and/or extremely painful physical illnesses. Coming from a country that currently has a total prohibition on assisted suicide (and has frequently taken a particularly draconian approach to enforcing it), it’s obvious to me that the cruelty and suffering that results is far greater and more widespread than that which may come from whatever is going on in the Netherlands and Canada. As far as the ‘slippery slope’ argument goes, it’s also worth noting that there are multiple other jurisdictions which allow assisted suicide in certain circumstances, and you never hear any of these stories from them; it seems likely that there are particular features of the political cultures of Canada and the Netherlands which have led the law on assisted suicide to develop in the ways it has in those two countries.

3. In theory, I would not object to assisted suicide for incurable mental illnesses. I think that there really are some people for whom things will never get better, who have tried everything, and who live in intolerable pain as a result. No one disputes that this is true of certain physical conditions; and it seems to me that if one is to take mental health seriously, as being as important as physical health (very much a view that is increasingly encouraged), then one cannot deny that the same could be true of certain mental conditions too. Unfortunately — as some of these Dutch and Canadian cases have highlighted — I do not think this is workable in practice. Our present understanding of mental health, and consequent diagnostic and treatment abilities, is simply nowhere near as advanced as in the case of physical health, and so it is not possible to provide medical assessments of the requisite rigour that ought to be required to approve assisted suicide.

In the United States you just get a gun and blow your brains out.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Apparently you can't speak freely or own a gun, but you can have the government kill you for a eugenics program. Europe is so weird.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

The patient then proceeded to scour the country for a different psychiatrist who would approve her euthanasia request after being denied by her original psychiatrist, being denied by many doctors before finding one who would approve, hardly evidence of the medical system pushing her to euthanasia.

But isn’t that just what people are objecting to here? That the vast majority of medical professionals could refuse her request, but she was nonetheless able to shop around until she found one who approved it?

Anyway, here are a few thoughts on the matter in general:

1. The Free Press obviously leans a certain way politically, so I’d take what it says with a grain of salt. There have been enough similar stories from the Netherlands that I’m prepared to believe that the gist of this article is accurate, though I wouldn’t be surprised if certain details were less so.

2. None of this has led me to stop believing that it is the right thing to do to legalise assisted suicide for the ‘core’ cases of terminal and/or extremely painful physical illnesses. Coming from a country that currently has a total prohibition on assisted suicide (and has frequently taken a particularly draconian approach to enforcing it), it’s obvious to me that the cruelty and suffering that results is far greater and more widespread than that which may come from whatever is going on in the Netherlands and Canada. As far as the ‘slippery slope’ argument goes, it’s also worth noting that there are multiple other jurisdictions which allow assisted suicide in certain circumstances, and you never hear any of these stories from them; it seems likely that there are particular features of the political cultures of Canada and the Netherlands which have led the law on assisted suicide to develop in the ways it has in those two countries.

3. In theory, I would not object to assisted suicide for incurable mental illnesses. I think that there really are some people for whom things will never get better, who have tried everything, and who live in intolerable pain as a result. No one disputes that this is true of certain physical conditions; and it seems to me that if one is to take mental health seriously, as being as important as physical health (very much a view that is increasingly encouraged), then one cannot deny that the same could be true of certain mental conditions too. Unfortunately — as some of these Dutch and Canadian cases have highlighted — I do not think this is workable in practice. Our present understanding of mental health, and consequent diagnostic and treatment abilities, is simply nowhere near as advanced as in the case of physical health, and so it is not possible to provide medical assessments of the requisite rigour that ought to be required to approve assisted suicide.

In Canada, part of the issue (but not the entirety of it) is that the Supreme Court and other lower courts have made euthanasia law to be much more liberal than it was originally intended to be. The original assisted suicide law was supposed to be much more restrictive. (The government has some legal room to potentially make it more restrictive than it currently is, but that would be complicated due to the potential need to defend this move in court, as it could get ruled as too restrictive if the government gets sued for it).

The other thing I would say contributes to the issue is the highly decentralized federal system - healthcare is in theory mainly the responsibility of the provinces, but the Criminal Code is federal jurisdiction, so deciding who has the right to restrict medical assistance in dying and to what extent would result in a bunch of court battles no one really wants to go through.

In theory, the assisted dying program could be significantly restricted and/or stopped by using the notwithstanding clause of the Charter - but that would mean the provinces would have to argue that they have jurisdiction over MAiD because it is a healthcare issue, or, the federal government would have to use the notwithstanding clause (which it can but it's not supposed to do, at least in theory).

I don't think assisted suicide should be allowed in any situation either way, but these are some of the legal/jurisdictional reasons why restricting it in Canada would be complicated.

[Sol]

I wish I could die like this too. If euthanasia is ever legalized here, I'll be one of the first to sign up.

Please get the help you need.

[Cooper For Veep, I Guess]

Don't have the money to seek help. Nobody would miss me if I died anyway.

I doubt that very much, and all the resources Sol linked to look pretty free (or at least somewhat inexpensive). I totally get not having the money to seek, like, therapy or something (I'm in the same predicament), though.

[lfromnj]

Ok here is my more serious opinion.
I think there are worries here but at the same time I absolutely want the option of Euthanasia when it comes to Alzheimer's which I can understand why people are opposed to it. However more liberal Euthanasia laws overall would allow for Euthanasia of people with Alzheimer's which is something I would wish for myself if somehow I ever got it and there was no cure by then. I do actually agree that a lot of the stuff that could be happening is quite dark. So far it seems that at least the vast majority of doctors are quite strongly opposed to Euthanasia for anything but completely terminal diseases which currently is slowing down the expansion such as in Canada despite the fact that the supreme court made up the "right" of the government being forced to kill you.

[Santander]

Some slopes are, indeed, slippery.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Don't have the money to seek help. Nobody would miss me if I died anyway.

I would

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Ok here is my more serious opinion.
I think there are worries here but at the same time I absolutely want the option of Euthanasia when it comes to Alzheimer's which I can understand why people are opposed to it. However more liberal Euthanasia laws overall would allow for Euthanasia of people with Alzheimer's which is something I would wish for myself if somehow I ever got it and there was no cure by then. I do actually agree that a lot of the stuff that could be happening is quite dark. So far it seems that at least the vast majority of doctors are quite strongly opposed to Euthanasia for anything but completely terminal diseases which currently is slowing down the expansion such as in Canada despite the fact that the supreme court made up the "right" of the government being forced to kill you.

mine is that it should be allowed because one should decide how to go out on their own terms. No coercion, as is alleged here.

[TDAS04]

Don't have the money to seek help. Nobody would miss me if I died anyway.

I doubt the bolded part is true, but even if it is, you still have reason to live. Even if it seems like life never gets better, it still might and you'll find the some the things that make life enjoyable. It's worth it to stay alive, even it's only for yourself (or for both yourself and others, again, I don't know what your situation is).

Please seek the help you can get, and if need be, ask others about where to find help. If you don't have money, don't be afraid to ask for the help you need. If you need something specifically to save your life, you might as well go full out to get the help you need. Hang in there, your life is worth it (regardless of what anyone says), hope things work out for you.

[US Medieval Italy Crowned Republic Era]

As far as the ‘slippery slope’ argument goes, it’s also worth noting that there are multiple other jurisdictions which allow assisted suicide in certain circumstances, and you never hear any of these stories from them; it seems likely that there are particular features of the political cultures of Canada and the Netherlands which have led the law on assisted suicide to develop in the ways it has in those two countries.

I'd be interested in a serious discussion of what those features might be, because I've noticed the same thing. I tend to pretty generally oppose assisted suicide anyway, but there's assisted suicide and then there's assisted suicide, you know?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Some slopes are, indeed, slippery.

[patzer]

I feel like if a country is going to go down this route, it's best to just take the mask off (claiming euthanasia is an answer to autism is frankly insulting and ableist), and say that out of respect for individual rights anyone can get euthanasia under certain conditions (e.g. 12-month reflection period) and also make it entirely separate to the medical system.

Thereby avoiding the amount of trauma lots of bystanders are exposed to by existing common suicide methods (jumping in front of train/truck), and so on

Still not something I'm sure I would be supportive of but at least it would be less dishonest than the situation in the Netherlands and Canada.

[Bardella ciao!]

I can't see a reason why the state should assist in the suicide of anyone who has the means to do so independently. Assisted suicide makes sense if your physical conditions prevent you from dying without outside intervention - in this case, there's a valid argument to be made that the state has a duty to affirm your right to die (provided due diligence has been followed in making sure your decision to do so is genuine and reasoned). If someone with two functional legs is desperate enough, guess what, there are already bridges for them to jump off. I'm not one to make "muh tax dollars" arguments, but I really don't understand what social benefit justifies spending limited public resources on providing a more convenient and "clean" means of suicide for people. Unless, that is, you're a social darwinist who genuinely believes society is better off without certain "undesirables".