[Article] Answering, addressing the argument “Where do you draw the line” (for assisted suicide)

[TAW122]

A commonly heard argument espoused by pro-lifers is that they oftenly reject voluntary euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the right to die by stating or asking the question "Where do you draw the line?". In other words, it is essentially the "slippery slope" argument, but worded differently. While there is no easy answer, in this thread, I will start off with the simpler answer and then elaborate from there.

Simple answer:
The simple answer to this question is that "it should depend on said person who is requesting and wanting to have this service, process, or act performed and honored for them." No one individual experiences life the EXACT same way (there are similarities but never exactly the same). Therefore, where the line is drawn would be subjective, but it should be tailored towards the person who is suffering and wanting out, not by anyone else to dictate that.

For clear-cut cases, like terminal illness or severe chronic illnesses (especially physical, observable conditions), it is almost universally understood that assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia for those people are considered acceptable (to most people, not counting militant pro-lifers). However, when it comes to mental suffering and psychological suffering, which is just as valid (and sometimes worse than physical suffering), gets no such approval.

For example, perhaps a standard benchmark, or baseline of how much suffering a reasonable, average person will be willing to go through (physically and/or mentally) would be a starting point, then after that, factor in the person's level of suffering and how much said individual is willing to endure, wait, and then after that waiting period, said person should have a guaranteed way out, no interference, no moving goalposts, and just guaranteed right without question. While Canada's MAID law that went into effect in June 2016, then amended throughout the years, 2019-2020, is a good benchmark for a reference point in where to draw the line.

Complex answer:
The more complex answer will depend on a case-by-case basis, have waiting periods (of course, the more severe the case, such as terminal illnesses or severe disability would get much shorter waiting periods), evaluations during the interim, and even if someone doesn't get approved, they should be able to reapply and have their decision honored.

So in practice, if an average, reasonably healthy individual (both physically and mentally) would not endure such suffering and torment for years to come, or for some duration of time, then that should be the default benchmark, before consideration of personal circumstances and cases. Suppose an average healthy adult, in their mid to late 20's was healthy both physically and mentally, but then one day, contracted an illness that caused immense suffering, and after some wait period, say about 1 year, said individual wouldn't want to continue living for decades to come, had counseling while going through the interim (the waiting period), and after coming to terms that life will not get better to the extent that a reasonable person would wish to continue living, then they should get the green light, without opposition, shifting goalposts, or any arbitrary subjective criteria. However, pro-lifers are NEVER content with any amount of time of suffering or really any line, but in reality, there is a line and it shouldn't be up to others to determine it but the individual themselves.

 

[Linda]

The slippery slope argument is not entirely without merit, and there are some genuine difficulties here. The most obvious one would be an elderly person who is starting to become a burden on her family. (That's not me, by the way.) The family could easily, and perhaps even unconsciously, push her towards suicide, for their own selfish reasons, even though she had no wish to die. It would not be easy for an outsider to detect the presence of that kind of subtle pressure. How can we protect against that kind of thing, while preserving the right to die of those who genuinely want to die? I don't know the answer, but until someone comes up with a good answer the question is going to dog the whole debate.

 

[TAW122]

The slippery slope argument is not entirely without merit, and there are some genuine difficulties here. The most obvious one would be an elderly person who is starting to become a burden on her family. (That's not me, by the way.) The family could easily, and perhaps even unconsciously, push her towards suicide, for their own selfish reasons, even though she had no wish to die. It would not be easy for an outsider to detect the presence of that kind of subtle pressure. How can we protect against that kind of thing, while preserving the right to die of those who genuinely want to die? I don't know the answer, but until someone comes up with a good answer the question is going to dog the whole debate.

This is true and sure, there are definitely situations where things could go out of control, especially like when someone (who may otherwise not wish to die, ends up being pressured into choosing 'MAID' in Canada or similar incidents). Two such examples that come to mind are: The paralympian veteran was offered the option even if she didn't wish to die or otherwise would have chosen to live had there been other appropriate support and assistance otherwise. The young lady who cannot find an affordable, compatible apartment to fit her needs (wheelchair accessible and also free of chemicals that cause allergic reactions due to her condition). Those are definitely special cases and in those situations, yes I could see that MAID was offered inappropriately, especially when it was pushed. However, despite the bad actors and outlier cases, it still wouldn't deter me from my stance nor do I believe it should be justification to prohibit MAID for all.

As for the other concerns, yes, this is why having safeguards and careful vetting, including wait periods, and procedures is very necessary, even if opponents claim that no amount of safeguards, measures, and protections is ever sufficient. I do counter to say that people die in motor vehicular accident everyday even with many regulations and safeguards, but we aren't hearing about banning motor vehicles because there are many fatalities and serious harm resulting from crashes, accidents, and what not. Instead, we continue to hold those who are responsible for those harms (motor vehicle accidents and what not) accountable either through fines, imprisonment, rehabilitation, and/or licensing, regulation, etc. Sure, nothing is perfect, but just because there are imperfections, that alone should not be justification to prohibit it for all or make it seemingly impossible to attain.

 

[Linda]

This is true and sure, there are definitely situations where things could go out of control, especially like when someone (who may otherwise not wish to die, ends up being pressured into choosing 'MAID' in Canada or similar incidents). Two such examples that come to mind are: The paralympian veteran was offered the option even if she didn't wish to die or otherwise would have chosen to live had there been other appropriate support and assistance otherwise. The young lady who cannot find an affordable, compatible apartment to fit her needs (wheelchair accessible and also free of chemicals that cause allergic reactions due to her condition). Those are definitely special cases and in those situations, yes I could see that MAID was offered inappropriately, especially when it was pushed. However, despite the bad actors and outlier cases, it still wouldn't deter me from my stance nor do I believe it should be justification to prohibit MAID for all.

As for the other concerns, yes, this is why having safeguards and careful vetting, including wait periods, and procedures is very necessary, even if opponents claim that no amount of safeguards, measures, and protections is ever sufficient. I do counter to say that people die in motor vehicular accident everyday even with many regulations and safeguards, but we aren't hearing about banning motor vehicles because there are many fatalities and serious harm resulting from crashes, accidents, and what not. Instead, we continue to hold those who are responsible for those harms (motor vehicle accidents and what not) accountable either through fines, imprisonment, rehabilitation, and/or licensing, regulation, etc. Sure, nothing is perfect, but just because there are imperfections, that alone should not be justification to prohibit it for all or make it seemingly impossible to attain.

The problem is that the situation I am describing would probably not be so uncommon that it could reasonably be described as a "special case". And as access to suicide because easier, the problem would only grow in size (i.e. would affect more people). I think we need to tackle this problem head on, acknowledge that it is a concern, and think hard about how to deal with it. In the long run, that is probably better tactics than trying to sweep it under the rug, or claimng that it is only a very minor issue. The way the world works, it probably isn't minor. I am 100% in favor of allowing people who wish to commit suicide to do so - wouldn't be on this site if I wasn't - but I'm also aware that the real world can be a complex and messy place.

 

[SilentSadness]

To me, the occasional death where someone technically didn't want to die is much less devastating than millions being forced to suffer in this hellish world. As death is a human right, it is nonsensical to view it any differently to the right to life. I don't see why there should be any gatekeeping or year long wait periods, but I suppose the real problem here is the view that ctb is a valid choice at all is seen as extreme by most. The pro-lifers really don't care about the suffering of others, we have all experienced this already.

 

[FuneralCry]

The option of assisted suicide should be a human right and to me it's absurd when people would only want to restrict a peaceful dignified death to those who meet a certain suffering criteria, I mean death will happen someday whether there is a reason behind it or not, to die is the most normal thing ever and it's cruel to leave suicidal people with no choice but to resort to risky and brutal methods.