Addressing the argument: “Soon, MAID will be open to anyone who deems life intolerable!”

[TAW122]

This is an argument that pro-lifers use when discussing topics like MAID in Canada as well as similar topics surrounding assisted suicide, voluntary euthanasia, and the right to die. However, in this thread, I aim to address and rebut the argument that is being made since I find their perspective to be a misconception.

Pro-lifers believe that having such a loose criteria (if/when reality either half a century or later) to be a malevolent thing, but that's far from the truth. If anything, the people who want to live will continue to do so and those who don't will exercise it (along with the safeguards that are provided for those who access it). This is because people who otherwise may choose to CTB, may decide to postpone their decision (perhaps even indefinitely or until natural causes) if they know that they always have a "guaranteed" pathway towards it on their own choosing. The quote by George Sterling below summarizes this point up succinctly.

"A prison becomes a home when you have the key." -George Sterling

In addition to this, the main argument I will make here is that this would be the ultimate exercise of bodily autonomy that a person can make, by deciding on exiting life on their own terms. I disagree that a person themselves are not a reliable witness to themselves and therefore are unable to make (permanent) decisions themselves. This is an atavistic and prejudiced mentality that pro-lifers have only to silence and discredit people that don't agree with their morals and worldview. Furthermore, this prejudiced mentality is what continues to further the stigma of CTB and death which only serves to further alienate and perpetuate impulsive (and often barbaric, with collateral damage) CTBs that the very pro-lifers wish to avoid to begin with! It is ironic how pro-lifers claim that only a person knows themselves the best, but when it comes to making a permanent decision, they make an 180 degree turn on their logic and claim that said person cannot know what's best.

The real truth is that pro-lifers are afraid of having a real choice in deciding whether life is worth living, as that would offend their just-world beliefs and worldview that life is beautiful so they go to great lengths, even at the expense of those who don't agree with them (pro-choicers and other dissident groups), by taking away all choice and imposing living as the only option for all, to the chagrin of pro-choicers.

Here is a quote from one of existentialgoof's replies to the pro-lifers (now deleted by shitty Reddit mods):

"I'm going to suggest that maybe you want these nanny state suicide prevention laws in effect because you fear that your own motivation to live would be insufficient in the face of actually having a real choice. And therefore, you want the comfort and reassurance of having mommy government command you to live, in order to take the choice out of your own hands. You oppose my suggestion because you're scared of choice."

Essentially, he basically said what I tried to say, but in just different words, though same message and meaning.

A common counter-argument that pro-lifers like to use is:

"But there will be less incentive to fix societal problems when the State can just offer MAID!"
As far as there being less incentive for the government to provide resources for those who may very well choose to live instead of being cornered into choosing MAID since they lack support, there are two points I can make here.

The first point is that there is a finite amount of resources (money and aid) to go around, and it would be better to focus on the people who WANT it than to force it on everyone, including those who may not appreciate the resources and only seek to drain it, hindering those who may benefit from it from getting it. While a small counter-argument is that if we allowed it for even one person, it is unacceptable and tragic, but then again, there are many decisions that always lead to some sort of harm or negative consequence for an individual or group throughout history, so similarly we cannot just waste resources on those who not only will not appreciate nor want our help, and may even be harmed from it.

The second point is that most people had since forever (throughout history of time) to resolve this issue, but there is no guarantee that there will be a solution within a reasonable timeframe (being within a person's natural lifespan – which in this case will go with life expectancy in most Western countries to be around 75-80 on average not considering many other factors and such) and thus, would be unethical and unjust to entrap those who don't wish to endure their entire lifespan for a solution that may/not arrive within their lifetime.

Now I know pro-lifers would then like to say, but for those who don't try, then there (for sure) will not be the 'change' that they are looking for! To that, my simple response would be but there are more people who will stay and fight, so they will push for the (eventual) change that will come perhaps many decades or centuries later, and it's unjust to force everyone (including those who don't have interest in participating in it) to fight for a cause that spans beyond one's lifespan!

 

[FuneralCry]

I certainly believe that just having the option of legalised assisted suicide would be such a relief and it would prevent so much suffering, pro-lifers should just learn to mind their own business and accept that other people just aren't them.

And just because they want to stay here shouldn't mean that everybody else should have to. It isn't like we could have ever consented to existing in this cruel and hellish world in the first place, so the option of a peaceful exit from this existence should always be available.

In general I just don't understand the people who don't want the option of a peaceful death. I mean after all we are all going to die anyway and there's no limit as to how torturous existing can get, wouldn't people prefer to have the option to die in peace rather than die a painful death from a disease or old age if they exist for that long.

 

[thinvy]

I love the age old argument that MAID will let just anyone kill themselves, because I'm living (haha) proof that that's not the case. ever since I found out about legal MAID and Kevorkian's efforts as a teen, I was one of those "death obsessed teens that would kill themselves over a boy/girl". I spent a lot of my free time researching methods, finding out about countries opening up the option, looking into qualifications.

I considered for a long time immigrating to one of these countries, and then ruining myself. chain-smoking till my lungs gave out. drinking my liver away. eating garbage or starving myself until I rotted. but guess what? I couldn't, and I doubt most of the areas that do have some form of legal death-support would even accept me, even as a fringe rare case.

I read about a boy who (as best as I can recall, trauma makes me forget/mix things up) I believe was around my age now at the time, who was in horrific shape from cancer, depressed from family loss; he was wasting away in a pitiful shell of what he used to be, and he was denied until his family and community campaigned to have them give himself the choice to CTB in a peaceful manner. I want to say that it was either too little too late, or almost too late, and he had already attempted.

I watched as people recorded their descent into dementia and Alzheimer's, and was jealous, as awful as that sounds, and thankful that they had that choice, but again, for some, it was an entire uphill battle even with their brain deteriorating in front of everyone.

basically, I say all this to say: it never will happen that they'll let "just anyone" use MAID, and it's already hard enough to get. I think of it like sterilization by choice. it would be a nice thing to offer to society as a choice that's affordable or free, and should never be forced! and thankfully, most of the time it isn't. that's not to say there will never be times where it shouldn't be done to people, and I won't deny times that it's been forced upon people. like all other medical fields, I believe there is a time and a place for regulation and formalities, certainly.

id love to live where I could receive MAID, but until then, I've got my preferred methods in my back pocket, as loathe as I am to have to resort to them.

death-care is a right I believe we all deserve. no one should have to suffer like I do, or like others have.

sorry for the long rambly post, I'm not sure if this will even read coherently, as I found out id lost someone I cared for today.

 

[hi-okbye]

I don't think it will ever be accessible to the mentally ill. There will always be pro-lifers who push the idea that mental illnesses, no matter how severe, are curable to some extent. As long as that idea is pushed, it will never be accessible to us.