An article that shows the consequences of the lack of a legal, codified RTD program.

[TAW122]

As a disclaimer, first off I want to state that I do NOT condone nor endorse the methods or acts that deliberately harm others. Also, what happened in the article is tragic and I do acknowledge that fact. It is also indeed very selfish for that said individual to harm others on the way out and again, I do NOT condone nor endorse his method of checking out. However, this article is not about debating the ethics or what not (that is for another thread and not really about that). Instead, this article is about result or consequence of the lack of a legal, codified right to die and where some people may take drastic action, especially in various DIY methods that result in collateral damage (as in this case). Additionally, this article will expose and show that even pro-lifers are disingenuous when it comes to CTB (no surprise, they almost NEVER argue in good faith nor are they looking for dialogue, but merely to peddle their beliefs, spew off the misconceptions that are fed to them by their peers and mass media, and shame and discredit those who don't agree with them.) with various quotes and examples.

With that said, here is the quote by existentialgoof and of course, the pro-lifers automatically go on the attack and start to shame and derail whatever point that existentialgoof is making. It only proves the point of willful ignorance, bad faith, and the lack of interest for 'the truth'. (The quote linked is shown below)

Not defending the choice to take others with him, but saying that he could have just ended it isn't exactly accurate, given that the government in this country won't allow people to just access decent, reliable suicide methods so that they can kill themselves in private without harming or traumatising anyone. Whether he would have used one of those methods instead, had it been possible to obtain access to one, is a matter of conjecture.

To anyone with a rational, clear mind who is reading and interested in dialogue and seeking the truth, they would not act callously and start to shoot the messenger (existentialgoof). Of course, that is sadly not the reality and In addition to his quote, he (existentialgoof) replied with:

I'm not defending the guy, I'm pointing out that if we just let people go peacefully, they wouldn't have to resort to drastic public acts which could kill, maim or traumatise others. The methods should not be blocked by the government. If they weren't being banned, then there wouldn't be the need for the NHS to provide them.

Additionally, of course there is another user who is incredibly hostile, ignorant, and adamant on their position. They are arguing in bad faith and don't care for the truth other than trying to shame those who don't share their sentiments, even cowardly (you guessed it) deciding to block the dissenter rather than having an open, honest dialogue. I will say that existentialgoof showed great restraint in his replies and responses to these hostile redditors (anti-choicers and pro-lifers) because if it were I (not that I post on Reddit, since the last time I have would be many years ago) who is responding to these people, I may not be as civil or courteous as EG does. I would certainly be hitting back with counterarguments and my own version of 'sticking it to them' perhaps even risking having my post removed or even banned from Reddit. In reality and all likelihood, I wouldn't reply because it would be a waste of time, so there is a near zero chance of me ever interacting with close-minded, hostile, bad faith people, but I digress.

In conclusion, it doesn't surprise me that a lot of people, particularly anti-choicers and pro-lifers not only oppose any form of legislation that allows for the right to die (except maybe for the 'terminally ill' who meets a narrow set of stringent criteria and even then, not guaranteed), but also decries the outcome, result, or consequence of the prohibition of the right to die or freedom from intervention against one's negative liberty rights (one's own decision to be free from having one's decision, especially bodily autonomy impinged upon under the guise of benevolent paternalism). In the end, the article that I've linked is just one of many examples out there showing the result and consequence of not having right to die laws or at the minimum, curtailing the State's power (as well as any third party or authority) from impinging on the negative liberty rights of individuals who have done nothing to warrant such intervention. Just the simple change (though unlikely sadly) of curtailing the State's power (as well as any other governing authority's power) to intervene against non-violent, law abiding individuals will go a long way.

 

[daley]

@TAW122 's post reminds of me more extreme cases - pilots who committed suicide with their passengers.
Just found this on wikipedia which has a complete list of suicide by pilot events.

 

[permanently tired]

Society won't act unless they have no choice. Governments are hesitant in enact laws for rtd bc families and religious control freaks will oppose them. It goes against what those ppl believe in/stand for. This family was an innocent third party, but this is the consequence created by the those in power and those who keep them there. The article doesn't say anything abt the family blaming the driver, but look no further than the people who keep this society a prison when he didn't want to partake in it. This was a preventable tragedy. There are ppl whose actions or lack of are indirectly but intrinsically led to this.

 

[footballseason]

In my mind, the question of prevention vs harm-reduction is incredibly simple. Whether we're talking about prostitution, getting an abortion, building a firearm, using drugs, or ending your own life;

You can prevent people doing it dangerously, or you can prevent people doing it safely, but you can never prevent people from doing it.

Having eliminated one of those three options, we're left only with the decision between the remaining two- to cause harm, or to not. It saddens me that we even have to deliberate any further in the first place.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I do (obviously) support the right to die and I see multiple benefits to introducing an assisted suicide programme.

However, I also think that individuals can make choices to ensure that their method of suicide is less impactful than others. I imagine most people could actually make a list from the most impactful ways- where other lives are potentially lost: Diving into traffic, murder suicide plots crashing planes, CO where the area isn't sealed etc. To methods where another person could feel directly responsible and witness it directly: Death by cop, train. To public suicides: Jumping and being seen by others. To public discovery: Hanging or shooting somewhere public. To more private suicides: In hotels or homes but allowing workers or family to discover corpses. To the most private suicides: Doing all we can to ensure that only emergency responders find us and we don't physically harm others.

Yes, we are restricted in a lot of ways but we can still make choices within those restrictions to try to ensure we minimize hurt to others. Part of the difficulty is- when suicide is described as a selfish act and someone kills themself plus a random group of other victims- how can we argue with that? They clearly didn't care how many other people it would hurt- even kill. Not just their own family grieving now but, another's too. I wouldn't say that was entirely the fault of not having access to assisted suicide. They could have chosen a method that didn't hurt others.

Why does the suicidal person owe it to normies to spare them that grief? Why should they care? Because surely, that random person/ people didn't hurt them. Why was it ok to kill them? Because they are part of the 'system' that wouldn't allow them to die peacefully? How could they know that? They could have been pro-choice people! Anyhow, why should those random people care about us enough to fund a programme that allows us to die? (especially when someone like this was willing to kill them.) Because, if they don't, we'll kill ourselves and, them with us? That's like guerilla politics.

Maybe we have reached that level where violence is needed but, that's awful to comtemplate. I doubt it will sway the cause much though. Will a person who willingly killed others in their own suicide be seen as rational? I suspect they'll be labelled as even more crazy than the rest of us! They've just willfully committed murder. It's unlikely to draw people to the cause. I imagine- they'd rather just see people like that locked up.

Also, related to that, can we even be sure they would be eligible for assisted suicide? Seeing as they felt willing to put other lives at risk is surely indicative of a few things. Either, they didn't realise that their method could wound and potentially kill others- which isn't rational. Or, they didn't care- which is homicidal. Would either an irrational or homicidal person be green lighted for assisted suicide or, would they be investigated for some sort of psychosis? I'm not saying this person was necessarily psychotic but, they could have been I suppose.

Even if assisted suicide is introduced, it's doubtful all will be deemed eligible for it. The sad thing is- if this person had expressed their suicidal/ homicidal plans- they may well have been referred for psychiatric diagnosis/ treatment rather than been given an assisted death immediately. Perhaps that would have been successful to treat them but, maybe they still would have ended up killing themselves and others in the same way.

Overall though, I do have to agree in terms of- public, traumatizing and danger to other lives suicides would surely be reduced if assisted suicide was available. I do agree with that. I'm not sure it would be the ultimate solution though. I think it will still be a very complicated issue where enough people who could be treated aren't being slaughtered yet, those who truly are beyond help can be given a peaceful exit before they kill themselves brutally and possibly take other lives with them.

Ultimately, I suppose the question is: Is this person mentally/ physically/ situationally f*cked and, can we treat them/ do they want our treatment? As described earlier though, I'm not convinced the person in question here would be considered mentally stable enough to make the decision if they were either oblivious that their action could hurt others or, that they knew and didn't care.

 

[TAW122]

@permanently tired Well said and well written, the actions of the masses, does indeed indirectly fuel the problems that we are facing in present day.

@footballseason This is actually a really good post, and I agree with your sentiment as it makes sense, especially when it comes to people doing things. There will always be people who will do things that are taboo or forbidden by society and I agree with you that prohibition doesn't prevent it entirely, but only drives it underground or makes things more riskier for everyone involved. Prohibition indeed takes away one of the three options that you laid out, which you mentioned was 'doing it safely'. In the context of CTB especially when people lack the legal and safe way to do it, they end up going via DIY means, which has potential to cause harm, and people who are desperate enough will do so in whatever way they have, which is why there are risky and brutal methods that sadly sometimes (especially in this case, in the article) cause collateral damage to those people around them.

@Forever Sleep I like your thorough response as always and thanks for sharing multiple perspectives. I agree that if possible that an individual should aim to make their methods of CTB less impactful or disruptive to others (I know it may be easier said than done) and I do support that; which for me when my time and circumstance comes, I plan to go on my own terms and in a way where it does not impact others as much. Ultimately, yes I agree with you that if assisted suicide was legally available and accessible to everyone that wants it (with reasonable safeguards and eligibility), then yes it would certainly reduce the amount of impulsive or even intention suicides, including those that would traumatize those who find them or even harm others.

With regards to the other perspectives, yes, I do suppose people similar to the one who CTB'd in the article certainly does sour the public perception of such individual(s) and what not. You do bring up a good point, it is possible that perhaps even some innocent bystanders may even be pro-choicers, even though the odds of such is minute (very small chance). Nevertheless, yes it would still be wrong to just harm innocent (innocent in the sense they haven't done anything willfully or directly to the individual) people on his way out. Of course, most of us were not there at the time of that incident, and there may be many speculations, though I would think if he crashed into an object instead, that would still be the better alternative (yet still tragic and damaging to the environment but I digress a bit...) than having many unwilling participants be involved in his death along with theirs' too.

Finally, I agree that just having assisted suicide being widely accessible and legal alone would not be the ultimate solution. I think that it may be a big piece of the puzzle among other major parts of the puzzle which include change in culture and society in various ways where people's actual problems are being adequately addressed. Thus a myriad of solutions would make up the ultimate solution for not only reducing the amount of botched suicides, impulsive suicides, but also reducing the amount of people that would even seek out suicide if the conditions of sentience and their individual problems are being adequately addressed.