Discussion Are we missing something? Taken aback by reaction to MAID

[Alexei_Kirillov]

I was watching an interview the other day with one of my favourite YouTubers (JJ McCullough) and because he's Canadian, the topic of MAID came up.

Him and the interviewer expressed their utter indignation at the idea of an expansion to MAID that goes beyond the original criteria (incurable physical disease resulting in a reasonably foreseeable death). They thought it was obvious that the right to life come with no commensurate right to death, and that it was absurd to think that you have a right to end your life in the circumstances of your choosing. They not only mocked the idea of a world where a "24-year-old who's had depression for 6 years" could have access to MAID, but were deeply disturbed by it.

I consider this person to be a thoughtful, nuanced commentator, who doesn't take statements at face value and is always willing to dive deeper and question assumptions. I respect and value his opinions because I know that the degree of his certainty matches the degree of his knowledge.

So I was very sincerely taken aback by this reaction and it got me thinking: are we missing something? Is there some glaring issue that we've failed to consider when considering CTB? Maybe even an emotion that we don't feel? This just seemed so obvious to them that they didn't even feel the need to justify any of these beliefs. What am I not understanding here??

This is literally making me delay my CTB because I feel an intellectual need to make sense of what I witnessed in that interview. What do you guys think? Are they just a bunch of "pro-lifers" who haven't actually given a thought to the philosophy of RTD? What motivates this kind of visceral negative reaction to MAID?

 

[EvisceratedJester]

From the sounds of it, yes. They are just a bunch of pro-lifers who are unwilling to take the time to reflect on this issue. It doesn't matter how smart someone seems to be because we are all idiots to some degree at the end of the day. They haven't given any thought to this and are reacting to this issue based mostly on their own preconceived biases against RTD.

A lot of the visceral reaction to RTD comes from our experiences, along with the culture we grew up in. For example, in Canada, where JJ What's his face is from, things like suicide are treated as a bad thing. A lack of will to live is portrayed as automatically being the result of a mental illness that can easily be treated and conversations about the nuances of suicide and RTD, outside of conversations about the chronic and terminally ill, are rare. You don't tend to see conversations about whether or not RTD should be seen as an aspect of one's right to bodily autonomy outside of spaces where philosophy is heavily discussed. Personal experiences also make it even harder to have productive discussions on this topic, because it quickly goes from a discussion on bodily autonomy to a discussion on people's past trauma. A lot of the discussion on things like MAID and RTD is dominated by people who have had loved ones ctb, which, as you can imagine, leads to them having some very strong biases. Part of the issue with discussing RTD is that a lot of people tend to focus mostly on themselves and how they would/do feel if someone they knew ctbed. This makes having productive discussions on this topic nearly impossible.

The visceral reaction people have to this makes me think of social intuitionist model. Basically, the idea is that our moral judgements stem from emotion-based intuitions with reasoning coming afterwards. This can be demonstrated through moral dumbfounding, where, when pressed on their strong moral convictions, people tend not to have very strong rational arguments to support their stance. A lot of people who have visceral reactions to RTD are likely being led by their intuitions, with their justifications for their position against it coming afterwards. They likely haven't put any real thought into this and I have doubts that they plan on actually questioning their stance on it anytime soon.

 

[Beyond_Repair]

Youtubers play to an audience, their job is getting views and likes, and whatever political orientation or personal views a person might have, the vast majority of people are anti-suicide. Any reaction aside from utter indignation and disgust is likely going to cause an uproar from pro-lifers and could potentially get the youtuber cancelled for supporting something that is vastly unpopular, and that many hold strong, visceral reactions towards

 

[Alexei_Kirillov]

From the sounds of it, yes. They are just a bunch of pro-lifers who are unwilling to take the time to reflect on this issue. It doesn't matter how smart someone seems to be because we are all idiots to some degree at the end of the day. They haven't given any thought to this and are reacting to this issue based mostly on their own preconceived biases against RTD.

A lot of the visceral reaction to RTD comes from our experiences, along with the culture we grew up in. For example, in Canada, where JJ What's his face is from, things like suicide are treated as a bad thing. A lack of will to live is portrayed as automatically being the result of a mental illness that can easily be treated and conversations about the nuances of suicide and RTD, outside of conversations about the chronic and terminally ill, are rare. You don't tend to see conversations about whether or not RTD should be seen as an aspect of one's right to bodily autonomy outside of spaces where philosophy is heavily discussed. Personal experiences also make it even harder to have productive discussions on this topic, because it quickly goes from a discussion on bodily autonomy to a discussion on people's past trauma. A lot of the discussion on things like MAID and RTD is dominated by people who have had loved ones ctb, which, as you can imagine, leads to them having some very strong biases. Part of the issue with discussing RTD is that a lot of people tend to focus mostly on themselves and how they would/do feel if someone they knew ctbed. This makes having productive discussions on this topic nearly impossible.

The visceral reaction people have to this makes me think of social intuitionist model. Basically, the idea is that our moral judgements stem from emotion-based intuitions with reasoning coming afterwards. This can be demonstrated through moral dumbfounding, where, when pressed on their strong moral convictions, people tend not to have very strong rational arguments to support their stance. A lot of people who have visceral reactions to RTD are likely being led by their intuitions, with their justifications for their position against it coming afterwards. They likely haven't put any real thought into this and I have doubts that they plan on actually questioning their stance on it anytime soon.

That then leads to the question, why have I (and many of us on the forum) never had this reaction to CTB, even though we grew up in that same culture? What is it that we're lacking in?

 

[EvisceratedJester]

That then leads to the question, why have I (and many of us on the forum) never had this reaction to CTB, even though we grew up in that same culture? What is it that we're lacking in?

We aren't lacking anything. People aren't a hivemind and individual differences in belief are always going to be there. You also have to remember that even if we grew up in the same culture our experiences aren't going to all be identical. It's better to think of this as "the average belief" (most common), rather than as the "the belief all of have". We all are going to differ from each other in certain areas.

 

[permanently tired]

From the sounds of it, yes. They are just a bunch of pro-lifers who are unwilling to take the time to reflect on this issue. It doesn't matter how smart someone seems to be because we are all idiots to some degree at the end of the day. They haven't given any thought to this and are reacting to this issue based mostly on their own preconceived biases against RTD.

A lot of the visceral reaction to RTD comes from our experiences, along with the culture we grew up in. For example, in Canada, where JJ What's his face is from, things like suicide are treated as a bad thing. A lack of will to live is portrayed as automatically being the result of a mental illness that can easily be treated and conversations about the nuances of suicide and RTD, outside of conversations about the chronic and terminally ill, are rare. You don't tend to see conversations about whether or not RTD should be seen as an aspect of one's right to bodily autonomy outside of spaces where philosophy is heavily discussed. Personal experiences also make it even harder to have productive discussions on this topic, because it quickly goes from a discussion on bodily autonomy to a discussion on people's past trauma. A lot of the discussion on things like MAID and RTD is dominated by people who have had loved ones ctb, which, as you can imagine, leads to them having some very strong biases. Part of the issue with discussing RTD is that a lot of people tend to focus mostly on themselves and how they would/do feel if someone they knew ctbed. This makes having productive discussions on this topic nearly impossible.

The visceral reaction people have to this makes me think of social intuitionist model. Basically, the idea is that our moral judgements stem from emotion-based intuitions with reasoning coming afterwards. This can be demonstrated through moral dumbfounding, where, when pressed on their strong moral convictions, people tend not to have very strong rational arguments to support their stance. A lot of people who have visceral reactions to RTD are likely being led by their intuitions, with their justifications for their position against it coming afterwards. They likely haven't put any real thought into this and I have doubts that they plan on actually questioning their stance on it anytime soon.

The obstruction of productive conversation resulting from family of the ctb'd is akin to throwing a tantrum and unwilling to hear anyone out since you couldn't get what you wanted. What the fuck are prolifers doing in a conversation for rtd, it is outside of their jurisdiction. The youtuber just comes off as tone deaf and ignorant tbh. Not everyone is in a position to do social media for a living.

 

[avalonisburning]

They not only mocked the idea of a world where a "24-year-old who's had depression for 6 years" could have access to MAID, but were deeply disturbed by it.

Which is funny to me, because six years of experience with mental illness should be more than enough time to form a valid opinion of whether or not you're willing to grapple with it for your entire life.

If you do a job for six years, you have credibility. You're considered a professional and people respect your experience and input in that area, and that's just something you do eight hours a day, five days a week. You don't get any time off from your mind, or your personality. You can cope with it if you really want to, but you can never cure, fix, or replace it. It may not define you, but it contributes to who you are at your core.

But it's not their energy or resources they're putting up by demanding you persist, so they'll crack that whip all day with gusto.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

We are not missing anything.

We pro-choice regarding suicide are right and the anti-choicers / pro-lifers/ are wrong.

Everyone has the right to suicide for any reason.

example of me debating a pro-torture human

Me: i want to kill myself and should be able to purchase nembutal or assisted suicide or a suicde booth without any approval from a 3rd party

Pro-lifer: you cant do that ur insane get mental help

ME. Tell me why do i have to live or do anything? Life has no objective meaning. There is no objective morality. Plus i'm going to die anyway why should i prolong my suffering and risk extreme tortuture? Nothing matters . What will matter in 150 years ? A trillion years? Nothing. The only thing that matters to me is avoiding extreme pain or extreme suffering

Pro-lifer: ur insane get mental help. U need to be put in a mental hospital now

Me : u sanctimonious bag of cells im going kill myself . U dont even understand every human will die anyway.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I suppose wanting to live is the default setting we start out with. It seems weird to me that some people never even consider suicide themselves though. But, maybe they don't. Or, maybe that drive to live is still stronger. I think we can only really know ourselves. Did we have a time where the desire to die wasn't there? Can we get back to that realistically? Do we even want to?

I've very rarely had that sense of gratitude that I was alive. The actual desire to die for me began in childhood and I feel like it's always been a reasonable wish, considering all the shit that's happened.

I guess maybe a lot of pro-lifers must feel like 'something' (life) is better than 'nothing' (death.) No matter how shit that 'something' is. Plus, they're no doubt convinced that things like mental illnesses just need a bit of therapy and medication and the person will be cured. I wonder if they have ever gone through anything like that themselves. I suppose they must just see enormous potential for every human life. Which also seems kind of weird to me. How many people are blissfully happy?

But regardless, I think it's always a case of asking ourselves: 'What are my options? Can I realistically get better? What do I need for that to happen? Can I realistically do all that? What if that fails? Will I be ok with a compromise? Is it my perspective on life? Can I change that? Do I want to change that? How bad are the bad things in my life? What can I do about them? Can I bear to live with them? Can I even get to a stage where the good outweighs the bad? For me, it feels more like a rational process and I think people do go through those questions before they choose suicide.

At the crux of it, I feel like 'recovery' is about either changing your life circumstances- which isn't always possible. Or- changing your perspective on life- which I'd say is optional and about preferences.

Say someone hates pistachio flavoured ice cream. Will it really seem like it's in their favour to force themselves to like it? Maybe not if they have access to other flavours. If that's all that's available to eat though- then, they have a choice- eat it or, starve. What if they're allergic to it though? Is it really all that reasonable to expect them to eat it if it makes them ill? Plenty of suicidal people are actively being harmed by staying alive! If that can't be cured- why is it reasonable to expect them to go on like that?

The other issue I have with mental illness is- I don't think it's as well understood as physical illness. I think there's more reluctance to say when a mental illness may be chronic or debilitating for someone and I feel like there's also more reluctance to admit that some conditions may be incurable at present. Plus- I don't trust psychiatry. I think there are more than enough examples on here of people who have reacted very negatively to drugs and/or therapy. It all looks worryingly experimental to me. Why should people be willing or be expected to put themselves through that?

 

[andreamysk]

I should point out that English is not my native language, and I am not very familiar with the political and cultural debates surrounding Canadian MAID legislation.
I am not saying that I agree or justify it, but it seems to me that the argument made by the two interlocutors (a rather widespread belief, I believe) is the distinction between "unbearable and irremediable/terminal physical suffering" and "mental suffering that is likely to be only transitory". Let's leave aside the "irremediable vs transitory" issue (if/when Canadian legislation on the matter will arise, it will certainly be considered, as it is in Belgium and elsewhere); I am convinced that mental suffering is just as unbearable as physical suffering, but most people only truly understand things if/when they experience them firsthand, and many are certainly more familiar with physical suffering than mental suffering.
But let me play devil's advocate for a moment, and make an argument in support of the distinction between the two sufferings. We will call it the 'externalist position' and I propose it only as a point of theoretical reflection, debatable. We theorize that, unlike physical pathology, mental pathology is not (exclusively) localized within the affected individual and is constitutively dependent on the relationship between the individual and the external environment, in a vicious circle of feedback and retrofeedback that would ultimately also alter the individual's ability to judge their eventual decision to CTB. Acting on the social context (of course, not all of us live in the Scandinavian social democracies of the 90s, with a very advanced welfare state), could improve the mental condition of many. There would still be cases of "unbearable and irremediable suffering" but they would be fewer. I repeat: I pose the question only as a point of theoretical reflection, debatable. Here is an article on the subject for further information https://jme.bmj.com/content/49/8/553

 

[derpyderpins]

I don't think anyone has said this, but it's important with the topic of MAID specifically.

Whether they're right or wrong, people have pushed the idea that MAID advertises itself/seeks out candidates and suggests they ctb. Personally, I'm very against that, but I'll admit I haven't researched enough to know if it's true or not.

But, accepting that it's true, and you have a situation where it's the equivalent of a pharma company pushing a drug, I could see why people may be skeptical of the program as a whole. I'd like to see a legal ctb system that is simply available if you seek it out and has a built-in mandatory waiting period between first appointment and ctb day - no forced information, just a wait period. I wouldn't like the idea of targeted adds for depression suggesting ctb, especially if there is healthcare money to be MAID. (couldn't help myself.)