The problem is that when someone is in the depths of dispair, sometimes it's hard to see ways that things could improve. In such cases, CTB should be discouraged. There is plenty, plenty of evidence that many people do recover. Sure, not everyone. But many. Enough. This is especially true of younger people. People sometimes need to be protected from reckless decisions.
It's the same reason we don't give 10 year olds driving licenses. They're not of right mind to appreciate the dangers or their significance, to themselves or others. I think it's right that euthanasia clinics exist, but it's also right that they restrict who they accept. There's wisdom and evidence lead decision making behind what they do. We should try to emulate their wisdom, not that we have the capacity to.
In reality, I think if we could get to a point where we would even have legalized voluntary euthanasia for people with terminal illnesses and irremediable, unacceptable conditions, then we have done tremendous progress at least in our lifetimes. So in that regard with respect to reality, yes that would be more probable.
With regards to your example about the reason why we don't give 10 year olds driving licenses, that makes sense from a developmental perspective as well as legal perspective because kids at that age lack the physical, psychological, and even maturity to handle such a privilege (the majority and in general), therefore, such activities is only allowed (in a limited capacity) when said individual reaches their 15th/16th birthday (still a minor) in which then, they would be able to gain a limited license to drive, and only when they reach 18 (if I recall, unless the law has changed in the US) do they get the full privilege to drive without restrictions.
What's even worse is when you're isolated from other suicidal people, without access to a forum like this, only to be constantly surrounded and attacked by pro-life people who make those kinds of assertions regularly. Eventually you would start to go insane, because they drove you to it, thus confirming their own confirmation bias. I'm gonna guess things like that happen a lot.
It wouldn't be all that different from some piece of shit smacking a dog with a stick until it attacks them, just so they can tell everyone how dangerous dogs are. Confirms their bias, but still very disgusting.
This is a good point. Confirmation bias is yet another problem pro-lifers have, and a good example is the Rosenhan experiment. Regarding the piece of shit smacking a dog with a stick, that's what prolifers are with their treatment of people who aren't in agreeance with their view of how great life is.
To me what is insane is saying that suicide is wrong, like how pro lifers do. We are all destined to die anyway and I view it as being the most rational thing wishing to escape from unnecessary suffering. Pro lifers are just so hypocritical, the insanity lies in denying the cruel reality of this existence and wanting to force people to suffer. But after all those types of people's opinions shouldn't matter, they have no idea as to what they are talking about. No matter what they say it's never going to change the fact that the right to die is a human right.
Yes and even if we had the right, in practice, the accessibility towards the right to die is so narrow and almost impossible in many situations to 'reliably and feasibly' access them that it might as well be (almost) nonexistent. I believe that if in our lifetimes that we can get at least more (if not almost all) countries and jurisdictions to at least have some level of assisted suicide, death with dignity, and voluntary euthanasia (even if it is limited), that would be perhaps the best we can do. It would likely take beyond that to expand it to where (we would hope) it would include everyone and not just those who are terminally ill and/or those with irremediable conditions that wish to die.
I see this a lot.
Oh, you love your life? Then how come you're always complaining.
Oh, you're so happy? Then how come you don't act like it.
Oh, parenthood is so fulfilling? Then why are you always tired and broke.
They can't justify any of those claims in the slightest. They just keep restating it over and over... And expect you to take their word as gospel.
If you don't believe I want to die, then I don't believe you love your life. End of discussion.
This approach drives them crazy (pun intended).
This is a good point, and yes, I do believe that more oftenly than not, pro-lifers don't really have a rational nor logical argument other than just asserting their points, winning by drowning our their opponent (anyone who doesn't agree with them), and/or bullying them into complicity or silence.
Any lawyers here (or legal/clinical professionals) that can clarify and chime in here on the prevailing case law, statutory language and other clinical Criterion used in the adjudication of a person being in the legal and or clinical determination of whether a person is, or is not, of "Sound Mind,"?
And how that differs from a person's free and autonomous agency in the determination for whether a person possess "Legal Capacity"?
IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but I believe that some point in history, before the separation of church and state, when the church had a lot of power, it influenced politics, policy, and the state. Then later as the justice system evolved and something related to the Enlightenment (along with other philosophers) generally deemed 'life to be precious' and then made rules, laws from it while still taking roots from 'religion' of the past. Of course, this is an oversimplification of how things came about but that's it is. When psychiatry evolved overtime, it also took roots in religious doctrine and applied an axiom such that life is good, life is a virtue, and it is just accepted
but not questioned, not challenged. Additionally, laws and regulations wrap themselves around it and when religion started to lose power over the masses, while the state grew more powerful as humanity entered the modern times, it shaped it's policies around "life is a virtue" and alas, we have the mess we have today. Sorry if that doesn't really answer your question and perhaps others might be able to chime in more.
Hey, I should try this. If they get defensive and start screaming, I'll know they don't actually have valid arguments.
I would like to too, and tempted too. However, I don't want to unnecessarily provoke them, set off red flags, and cause additional problems for me. I do tend to pick my battles carefully.
I do understand where you are coming from but I have mixed feelings on this. To keep things simple- I want to consider depression.
On the one hand- I want to look at it from the legal perspective- as @DeadManLiving mentioned- surely depressed people still possess legal capacity- we can still make a will. Many of us still hold down jobs. If we commit a crime and especially a serious one- how likely is it we'll be let off on grounds of 'insanity?' Unlikely I would say.
When it serves society- they expect us to be just as capable and culpable as the next person. It just seems to be when we want to take our own lives that suddenly- we are no longer able to make decisions for ourselves. Still- isn't MAID questioning that? That someone with mental illness CAN still make reasoned desisions?
I suppose there ARE people though that attribute their ideation to depression or other mental illness. They recognised a change in themselves. Perhaps their thoughts DON'T make sense to them- but- they have them anyway. Some people here have voiced those types of experiences before.
I think the trouble with depression is that it is that giant pit of dispair. Once you're in it- it's very hard to see anything but darkness. Put it this way- is it 'normal' to suddenly find that even the things that used to bring you joy don't anymore? Is it REALLY that you've become so 'enlightened' that you see the world for what it REALLY is- so- nothing matters anymore? Or- is it a change in YOUR brain? I suppose I can understand it when it is someone who was NEVER all that happy or engaged with the world that feels that way (ie. that's their 'normal'- that's all they've ever known- it's everyone else that is 'delluded'.) But for people who WERE happy-ish and then lost it- WHY? Did they REALLY become enlightened, or, did they become depressed?
I think what is more relevant though is this segment from a Harvard Health webpage:
'depression can actually change your ability to think. It can impair your attention and memory, as well as your information processing and decision-making skills. It can also lower your cognitive flexibility (the ability to adapt your goals and strategies to changing situations) and executive functioning (the ability to take all the steps to get something done).'
From: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/sad-depression-affects-ability-think-201605069551
This WOULD suggest that depression affects that person's 'normal' reasoning skills. I mean- it makes sense- we don't ALL want to kill ourselves for the same 'levels' if you like- of problems in our lives. Some people seem to survive the most horrendous lives. I don't think they are necessarily still here because they are 'happy' or love life. They just have more resilience I suppose. Depression basically affects our ability to cope.
Of course- there's still the argument on whether any of us SHOULD feel obliged to cope but I think you know what I mean... I suppose someone without depression has more chance of living a fulfilling life.
Depression makes you sad (obviously.) It takes away any will to live and fight and it makes you less able to adapt and cope with the problems that you do have. OF COURSE you would want to end it with a brain that's working like that! Maybe it's unfair to go as far as saying that person was insane- but would you say their brain was performing optimally- even 'normally'?
I DO certainly agree that it's unfair to say they no longer have ANY reasoning power- so- need to be locked up for their own safety. Also- even if their ideation IS ENTIRELY down to depression but they are either treatment resistant- or- don't want to even try treatment- is it really fair to force it on them? No- I would say.
I would also argue that they SHOULD be able to make decisions on their life- and death. At the end of the day- IT IS STILL THEIR LIFE! So long as they aren't actually so out of it that they don't really understand who they are, what death is etc- in which case- they really ARE insane!
STILL- I don't think it does actually do harm to say MAYBE their thinking has become very tunnel visioned- due to- for example- depression. That MAYBE there IS a way out if they want to try. That's not to outright call them insane! It's just to say- you POSSIBLY have become stuck in a certain way of thinking. There are other ways- but it's up to you if you want to explore that. That would be my ideal I think. NOT to strip someone of their autonomy by calling them insane. Kind of more like someone helping someone else with a concept they just can't get their head around- you've tried looking at it like this- and it doesn't work- how about you try this? I guess that COULD lead to a bunch of bullshit platitudes but on the other hand- certain ways of looking at things differently DO help some people.
I had to do something I was SO scared to do today because it involved being around a lot of people. I have social anxiety and I've been pretty much a recluse for 5 years. My anxiety was through the roof this morning. Still- I watched a bunch of YouTube stuff on how to cope. WHY we feel like this and I genuinely think it helped. I wouldn't consider myself insane but my thoughts and feelings aren't always rational. Sometimes it DOES help to see things from a different perspective.
All that said- I don't think anyone is insane for wanting to kill themselves. I suppose what I'm trying to say is- repetitive negative thinking can lead us into a corner where we don't have the energy or will to make things better- so things just get worse and worse until CTB feels like the only option. That doesn't make it irrational- it's just unfortunate that the person's life and inability to cope with it (maybe partly due to their reduced mental fortitude) lead them to that point.
I guess the counter argument is that not everyone who wants to kill themselves is depressed. I'd say a great many are though. I'd say I have at least a mild longterm depression. I don't honestly know where my life would be now if I didn't have it. If I didn't feel so negatively about the world and myself- maybe I would have given a better shot at living my dreams- in which case- I likely would have staved off ideation for longer.
A long reply there... Not sure if it made much sense. It's not that I entirely disagree with you. I also HATE it when depression and/or mental illness are combined with this idea of the person being stupid I suppose. Still- I would have to say that depression and mental illness CAN lead to suicide because they inhibit our ability to cope with life. So- insane- no but perhaps diminished to a certain extent seems fairer in some cases. That's also not to say that their 'condition' can always be 'treated/cured' or- even that the person should be forced to undergo such treatment. It ought to be at least offered though I think.
Excellent post and I will bold the points that I want to address thoroughly. Regarding clarity of thought and decision making capacity even for those who are depressed, that is one of the cornerstone arguments for rationality and mental capacity. This is a great point and I oftenly use it to discuss about how depression != not sound of mind. Otherwise, (just about) ANY criminal can just avoid consequences by having their defense attorney claim "BuT My cLiEnT WaS DePrEsSeD!" and not ever face accountability or legal consequences.
We know (and even pro-lifers, possibly subconsiously know) that that would be absurd and therefore would (almost) NEVER accept it as a defense to accountability.
Regarding society's and the people (the masses') view of culpability, it is
double standard. It is such because when it is convenient for them, they expect and treat everyone (even those who aren't capable) as capable and responsible. However, when it comes to making a decision for oneself, especially one's own life and death (on one's own terms), then they are suddenly deemed incapable. (I believe I have made a similar thread or similar points before, but that could be another topic altogether). Also, yes, one of the talking points of MAID in Canada is claiming that "
a wish to die is not of a mental illness." This is a VERY important point because otherwise nobody would qualify to die (not even terminally ill patients).
You brought up another good point is the argument of whether one should be "obligated to cope". So notwithstanding the definition of depression and even assuming one is of sound mind. The argument then becomes "why cope?" and to this, it goes back towards the pro-lifer's non-argument (just an subjective assertion) of "life is great", which isn't really a reason to "cope", but some subjective value. Speaking of subjective values, that would be like someone saying hey we love hugs (to a non-hugger) and then punishing the non-hugger by detaining them, bullying them to submission, and/or other consequence. Every (rational and sensible) person would see that as wrong, so therefore, the subjective assertion that "life is great and that one should experience it, live it" otherwise they get detained and punished for not doing so is just as wrong as said example. So therefore, my response is "no, one should NOT be obligated to cope just so people won't have to deal with (an inevitable) loss."
So in conclusion, you made very good points and to summarize it, I would say, realistically, a compromise would be perfectly fine and something that I (personally) would accept,
if it means that one is still able to exercise their right, even if there are additional steps and hoops (but reasonable! not absurd or very unrealistic ones) to jump through. In other words, for example, if one had depression and wanted to die, but otherwise healthy, they are given a waiting period in which they are evaluated
(not forcibly detained against their will) and allowed to explain their situation (not to be judged, but to be heard and acknowledged), then after trying other options first, if still unsatisfied, then they are allowed the green light to go. During the waiting period and up until the moment they CTB, they can always retract or change their mind. This, in my opinion would be FAR more reasonable than just outright prohibiting CTB as an option (or limiting it to only terminal illness).
