[Article] Disability Rights Activists and their misconceptions on the Right To Die

[TAW122]

In the past I have written about the problems with DRAs disability rights activists (essentially a group of pro-lifers, no surprise) and on the topic of the right to die. It has stirred up some controversy, misunderstanding, and just general bad vibes. However, I'm debunking the misconceptions and misunderstandings that they have. I understand that it is a sensitive topic and by no means am I trying to upset anyone here or anywhere, but I do want to set the record straight and this thread serves to debunk the misconceptions and misunderstandings that they have. Before I begin, I will highlight the key points of what the right to die and pro-choice stances are.

As per SaSu, similar platforms, and on behalf of most other pro-choicers here (and elsewhere outside of SaSu),

We are NOT advocating for mandatory or forced euthanasia of people who are deemed unacceptable (that is akin to murder and we do NOT support nor endorse that). We do support VOLUNTARY euthanasia for those who wish to have it.

We are NOT pushing for the cessation or discouragement of recovery, support, and solutions for the disabled. In fact, we support recovery for those who wish to seek it.

We are NOT pro-death, in fact, the words 'choice' and 'voluntary' are keywords here. We respect people's choices in choosing to die (on their own terms) as well as those who wish to continue fighting whatever predicament that they are in, in hopes of a better quality of life.

Misconceptions between DRA's on the right to die:
1) "The disabled are a vulnerable population and they don't need to be pressured into dying."
Vulnerability alone should NOT be a reason to deny individuals the ability to make decisions for themselves and their personal liberties and freedoms, especially if they are of sound mind. We do NOT deprive others of making poor decisions (which can permanently alter their lives) and just because one does not find life to be enjoyable, let alone tolerable, should NOT be a pretext to deprive one's own liberties! Do NOT equate the wish to die on one's own terms as an indication of unsoundness of mind! People who wish to die can and are still capable of decision making! You wouldn't prevent others from making (potentially life-altering and permanent) decisions with their lives even if it made their predicaments worse, therefore you shouldn't do the same when it comes to choosing when, how, and on what terms one wishes to die on.
2) "Allowing the right to die devalues the lives of those who are already disenfranchised by society!"
This is not necessarily true. While there are people who may strive to find a way to continue living despite difficulties and other (additional) challenges they face in life, especially owing it to their disabilities, there are people who are weary of life and no longer wish to continue living and suffering just for the sake of others. It would not only be grossly inhumane and cruel to keep them alive against their will, it is immoral and unethical to use them as a means to feel superior over. They are NOT the target of one's own insecurities and it is quite disrespectful to allow oneself to feel 'better' or 'superior' over them, even subconsciously.
3) "If the right to die is legalized and permitted, then the government and healthcare industries will not have incentives to find cures or a solution."
#1. There are many more people who are willing to live and adapt to the (new and additional) challenges that they face in life compared to those who don't wish to continue (struggling and suffering in) existence. Instead of pooling efforts towards those who do not wish to be helped or continue to live (which would not only be a waste of resources and time, but also a harm towards continued forced existence against said people), we should funnel these resources and efforts towards those who do, which there are no shortage of. These people (who wish to continue enduring the ongoing hardships of life and their predicaments) are more than sufficient drives towards companies, industries, and government to work towards a solution, a cure, or even a partial answer towards the problem. So basically, why not do both? Support the people who no longer wish to continue living (and suffering) by respecting and granting their wishes (to die peacefully and with dignity), as well as supporting and offering solutions (or at least working towards some) for those who wish to continue to live and strive for a better quality of life.

#2. In the current times (and even in the past) the government (the State) fails to provide solutions already, and if they wouldn't provide it even in present day, then the least it can DO is to ALLOW the people who find their situation intolerable a guaranteed exit instead of perpetually keeping them alive until natural causes or other causes of death.
4) "Allowing the right to die goes against the 'sanctity of life' so it cannot be permitted."
This is a religious argument and an appeal to religion. Not everyone is religious, let alone believe in the same religion. It is not only unethical and disrespect to impose one's own religion and views onto those who do not share them and expect them to 'accept' it.
5) "There is more to life than (x disability/condition/ailment/impairment/thing)."
This is such a presumptuous and flippant statement. It is not only dismissive of said person's struggles, but also to expect a person to 'get over', 'cope', or resign/relegate themselves to a lesser standard than they are comfortable with. It may work for some, but definitely not for all.
6) "It is up to the person to find something to live for."
Again, putting the onus and burden on the affected person to find some (arbitrary and subjective) meaning in life to strive for. It's such a glib, flippant, and arrogant statement to make, let alone expect someone to live (for others, even if indirectly). Some people don't want to find "something" to live for, and to not only expect them to do so, and to a greater extent, compel them (through physical force (violence), coercion, duress, and/or other underhanded, unethical means) to do so, is a grave violation of their bodily autonomy and the utmost act of cruelty.
7) "The disabled would appreciate life if they were given the proper support."
Yes, there are certainly quite a few people within this demographic that would certainly appreciate life and wish to continue living if they had the right support, the right people, and things to make their lives worth living. However, not all people wish to and for some, they would rather end their suffering and again, we should respect their decision instead of imposing a glib, prejudiced view on life.
8) "You (non-disabled or able-bodied person) are not qualified to talk about the disabled."
This is such a glib statement to make. First off, one does not need to be in the situation to know/have knowledge of suffering. Must one touch a hot stove to know it can burn? (rhetorical question) No, because people can observe the consequences and results of actions by others without having experienced it themselves. It's called observation and deductive logic. Furthermore, even if one was in a predicament, most DRAs will still dismiss and redirect them to those that don't agree with them, effectively silencing and ignoring the particular disabled's voice (see Dan Crews, a quadriplegic who was denied the right to die and eventually succumbed to natural causes).
9) "You're such an ableist!"
If you have to resort to petty insults, then you clearly lack an argument. Ad hominems are fallacies and are not arguments and shame on you for trying to silence a dissident opinion!
10) "Euthanasia robs them of (future) potential that they could have had!"
How many people become Stephen Hawking, or even Nick Vujicic? Very, very few in fact. Also, let's not ignore the wishes of those who don't wish to become prodigies and respect their rights. Additionally, one cannot regret after death, it is simply not possible, and I do not believe in an afterlife. Scientifically, we cease to exist and sentience is no longer present once we are deceased, dead. Finally, consider that fact that you are using those people for a means to an end, to validate your personal atavistic beliefs, which itself is exploitative and immoral. They do NOT owe you anything.

There are likely more misconceptions, but these are more than quite a few for people to digest and explore. If I come up with more or if others have more, feel free to add them.

 

[Sweet Tart]

You make many excellent points. It's disappointing that disability rights advocates aren't inclusive of the right to be pro-choice. It seems like their position is based on only considering extreme examples.

How can we educate them or advocate for a different view of disability rights than what they present?

 

[TAW122]

You make many excellent points. It's disappointing that disability rights advocates aren't inclusive of the right to be pro-choice. It seems like their position is based on only considering extreme examples.

How can we educate them or advocate for a different view of disability rights than what they present?

Yes, that is disappointing to hear about the fact that they don't support the disabled's choice in whether they wish to continue living or ending their suffering. As for educating them, it is not an easy mission since these disability rights advocates (pro-lifers themselves) are oftenly entrenched in their views of life and the notion that life = good, death = bad. It also doesn't help that due to how society as a whole marginalizes the disabled (by not being accessible friendly) which only adds fuels towards the DRA's notion that the disabled are poorly treated. I would say that it would require society to do both; to honor and respect the wishes of the disabled who no longer wish to continue living and grant them a peaceful, dignified exit, and also, improve accessibility and conditions for the existing disabled (and future ones) so that they (the ones who wish to prosper and thrive) will have the opportunity to do so.

 

[TAW122]

Bumping this topic as I think it has reached a narrow audience.

 

[Lavender Dreams]

You dismantled these flawed points perfectly. Plenty of disabled people who wish to have the choice. It's not like anyone is immune from becoming disabled either, these decisions can and will affect our future. I'm tired and disgusted with the fact that the suffering are forcibly made out to be "an inspiration".

 

[Bioforever12]

personally I don't want to be forced to live just to be a token person, and to make abled bodied people feel better about themselves

 

[TAW122]

Additionally, I do want to concentrate on point #3, regarding gov't/state incentives to find solutions, answers, and/or the cure.

3) "If the right to die is legalized and permitted, then the government and healthcare industries will not have incentives to find cures or a solution."

#1. There are many more people who are willing to live and adapt to the (new and additional) challenges that they face in life compared to those who don't wish to continue (struggling and suffering in) existence. Instead of pooling efforts towards those who do not wish to be helped or continue to live (which would not only be a waste of resources and time, but also a harm towards continued forced existence against said people), we should funnel these resources and efforts towards those who do, which there are no shortage of. These people (who wish to continue enduring the ongoing hardships of life and their predicaments) are more than sufficient drives towards companies, industries, and government to work towards a solution, a cure, or even a partial answer towards the problem. So basically, why not do both? Support the people who no longer wish to continue living (and suffering) by respecting and granting their wishes (to die peacefully and with dignity), as well as supporting and offering solutions (or at least working towards some) for those who wish to continue to live and strive for a better quality of life.


#2. In the current times (and even in the past) the government (the State) fails to provide solutions already, and if they wouldn't provide it even in present day, then the least it can DO is to ALLOW the people who find their situation intolerable a guaranteed exit instead of perpetually keeping them alive until natural causes or other causes of death.

As it stands now, with voluntary euthanasia, and other similar forms of death with dignity being illegal or prohibited in most countries and jurisdictions, the government and State still hasn't done much to help those who may otherwise wish to live if they are afforded the resources, opportunities, and support for their predicament. So basically the 2nd counter-argument that I made for this particular misconception, which is (in our current) present day reality, we still aren't seeing the solutions or anyone really pushing to "really" improve quality of life, but yet the masses (majority of people) still oppose voluntary euthanasia. In other words, what I'm saying is that (currently) the government and State still refuses (or is not able to) provide the solutions, answers, and support (or better yet, the cure) for said people, even in our current prohibitive, pro-life world, so effectively we are just trapping those who wish to not be alive/suffer for others while doing (absolutely) NOTHING towards getting closure to the solution. Therefore, it is enslavement by forcing people to remain alive (by denying their choice to exercise the right to die on their own terms and even interfering with one's efforts to CTB). I may have said this before and am preaching to the choir here, but pro-lifers are not only pro-sufferers, but sadists as well!
(This is similar to the natalists' view on birth and conception, they care about the act and event of 'birth', but NOT the life of the 'forced' sentient being!)

You dismantled these flawed points perfectly. Plenty of disabled people who wish to have the choice. It's not like anyone is immune from becoming disabled either, these decisions can and will affect our future. I'm tired and disgusted with the fact that the suffering are forcibly made out to be "an inspiration".

Exactly, this is the kind of exhibition that pro-lifers (pro-sufferers) make of these disabled people as some inspiration. I mean, if the disabled person is fine with being an inspiration and wanting to do good (on their own volition, not by societal pressure, peer pressure, nor coercion), then by all means, they can. I just resent the fact that society has the audacity to claim that anyone who isn't encouraging them (the disabled) to live on, to find other reasons to live, a purpose in life, etc., is wrong. It's basically asinine to ignore the plights and sufferings of the individual for others' gain(s).

personally I don't want to be forced to live just to be a token person, and to make abled bodied people feel better about themselves

Same here and whether others wish for me to be an "token person" just to satiate pro-lifers' egos and validate their atavistic moral beliefs.

 

[doneforlife]

This is a pretty deep post. Hope the ones responsible for creating law read this and understand that forcing life is as bad as forcing death on someone.

 

[Chara]

In regards to point number eight, can't help but think of abliest organizations like Autism Speaks. If you're actually autistic, you're either too disabled to know what you're talking about or not disabled enough that your words matter.

But neurotypical parents who support eugenics, torture, and even outright murder are obviously qualified to speak for us! Cause that totally makes sense. Totally being well represented there. /sarcasm

Like what makes nondisabled prolifers more qualified to speak compared to nondisabled pro choices?

Why are they taking our choices away? Let us all make our own choices. Provide us with the information and resources rather than trying to restrict access to them. Stop forcing your choices upon everyone else.

Our bodies our choices, and that should apply to everything and everyone, and be considered an irrevocable human right.

 

[TAW122]

In regards to point number eight, can't help but think of abliest organizations like Autism Speaks. If you're actually autistic, you're either too disabled to know what you're talking about or not disabled enough that your words matter.

But neurotypical parents who support eugenics, torture, and even outright murder are obviously qualified to speak for us! Cause that totally makes sense. Totally being well represented there. /sarcasm

Like what makes nondisabled prolifers more qualified to speak compared to nondisabled pro choices?

Why are they taking our choices away? Let us all make our own choices. Provide us with the information and resources rather than trying to restrict access to them. Stop forcing your choices upon everyone else.

Our bodies our choices, and that should apply to everything and everyone, and be considered an irrevocable human right.

Even as someone who is on the spectrum, I don't endorse such organizations because not only do they oppose the right to die (a deal breaker for me), but also like you mentioned, I'm either considered (by them) to be too disabled to be of sound mind (kind of a insult towards my capabilities in life - such as being able to earn a university degree, hold down a job for more than a year, complete basic daily tasks for life, etc.) which is a farcry and a big insult towards my capacity in life especially the "soundness of mind" and capable of understanding and making decisions. Or on the other end, not really disabled to fit their criteria of being on the Spectrum (I definitely do, even before I had an official diagnosis - because I know I definitely process things differently from most NT, I don't pick up the cues that most people do instinctively (a lot was force learned, force memorized, and just imitation/mimicing of NT behaviors), and of course, being able to read between the lines or just pick things up naturally.

The advantages I gained from being on the spectrum are not enough to justify long term sentience for me (speaking for myself and perhaps some other people out there), but even if I were not on the spectrum, I'd still vie and yearn for the sweet release of death.

 

[Chara]

Even as someone who is on the spectrum, I don't endorse such organizations because not only do they oppose the right to die (a deal breaker for me), but also like you mentioned, I'm either considered (by them) to be too disabled to be of sound mind (kind of a insult towards my capabilities in life - such as being able to earn a university degree, hold down a job for more than a year, complete basic daily tasks for life, etc.) which is a farcry and a big insult towards my capacity in life especially the "soundness of mind" and capable of understanding and making decisions. Or on the other end, not really disabled to fit their criteria of being on the Spectrum (I definitely do, even before I had an official diagnosis - because I know I definitely process things differently from most NT, I don't pick up the cues that most people do instinctively (a lot was force learned, force memorized, and just imitation/mimicing of NT behaviors), and of course, being able to read between the lines or just pick things up naturally.

The advantages I gained from being on the spectrum are not enough to justify long term sentience for me (speaking for myself and perhaps some other people out there), but even if I were not on the spectrum, I'd still vie and yearn for the sweet release of death.

It's cause they're abliest scumbag liars. Used to be not enough disabled now am too disabled by their garbage standards. They don't want to help people like us, they want to control us. Am not suffering from being autistic. Am suffering being autistic in a world that hates autistic people and actively wishes us harm. Cannot be certain what would want if was allistic honestly. Would eventually want to die but maybe not as soon if only because wouldn't be in as much pain, you know?

 

[littlelungs]

5) "There is more to life than (x disability/condition/ailment/impairment/thing)."
This is such a presumptuous and flippant statement. It is not only dismissive of said person's struggles, but also to expect a person to 'get over', 'cope', or resign/relegate themselves to a lesser standard than they are comfortable with. It may work for some, but definitely not for all.

You make very good points throughout the post, but this got a particularly strong AMEN from me. Whenever I see people say something along the lines of, "Don't let your illness/disability define you/run your life!", I absolutely CRINGE. I don't "let" my illnesses and disabilities run my life; they just fucking do because my overall and collective level of impairment is so severe. It is so beyond flippant and invalidating, and it shows such a blatant lack of perspective and understanding of what it means to be severely chronically disabled and its implications for a person's daily life and basic survival. If I had any control over this, I wouldn't be in this position in the first place. This is not fun for me.

Also, notice that it's almost always the same people who say that people shouldn't "let" their illness/disability define their lives, all the while their good health/able-bodiedness defines theirs. Either that or it's people who are trying to be inspiring, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to inspire people in and of itself, but I find that saying this often gives healthy/able-bodied people the impression that everybody living with chronic illness and disability can control how it affects them (at least mentally/emotionally), when that is simply not true.

I'm having a really hard time wording and explaining this properly because of my illnesses/disabilities and the effect that they have on me, but... yeah. To me it's kind of like the equivalent of saying, "Happiness is a choice" to someone with severe, treatment-resistant major depression – that's not how it fucking works.

 

[アホペンギン]

You made great points here. I agree completely with you. Even the people who advocate for less suffering for disabled people are pro-lifers. The people advocating probably never experienced these problems let alone having to deal with them on a daily basis yet they think they have full authority to make decisions for them and deprive them of their rights. Its very inhumane how the society has become like this, immediately accepting what these supposed advocates are saying and denying people the privilege to die or even going to the extent of belittling them for being so weak.

 

[TAW122]

It's cause they're abliest scumbag liars. Used to be not enough disabled now am too disabled by their garbage standards. They don't want to help people like us, they want to control us. Am not suffering from being autistic. Am suffering being autistic in a world that hates autistic people and actively wishes us harm. Cannot be certain what would want if was allistic honestly. Would eventually want to die but maybe not as soon if only because wouldn't be in as much pain, you know?

Yes, they are indeed scumbag liars and they seem to view the world under their lens and apply their lens to our lives. It's infuriating and insulting indeed. They are indeed trying to enforce their view of life and values while under the guise of help and charity.

You make very good points throughout the post, but this got a particularly strong AMEN from me. Whenever I see people say something along the lines of, "Don't let your illness/disability define you/run your life!", I absolutely CRINGE. I don't "let" my illnesses and disabilities run my life; they just fucking do because my overall and collective level of impairment is so severe. It is so beyond flippant and invalidating, and it shows such a blatant lack of perspective and understanding of what it means to be severely chronically disabled and its implications for a person's daily life and basic survival. If I had any control over this, I wouldn't be in this position in the first place. This is not fun for me.

Also, notice that it's almost always the same people who say that people shouldn't "let" their illness/disability define their lives, all the while their good health/able-bodiedness defines theirs. Either that or it's people who are trying to be inspiring, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to inspire people in and of itself, but I find that saying this often gives healthy/able-bodied people the impression that everybody living with chronic illness and disability can control how it affects them (at least mentally/emotionally), when that is simply not true.

I'm having a really hard time wording and explaining this properly because of my illnesses/disabilities and the effect that they have on me, but... yeah. To me it's kind of like the equivalent of saying, "Happiness is a choice" to someone with severe, treatment-resistant major depression – that's not how it fucking works.

Yes, well said and if there are people out there who want to be inspired by these advocates, they can, but to apply such standards across the board while silencing/drowning out dissident voices and opinions is unacceptable. Also, you worded it really well and I understood what you said.

You made great points here. I agree completely with you. Even the people who advocate for less suffering for disabled people are pro-lifers. The people advocating probably never experienced these problems let alone having to deal with them on a daily basis yet they think they have full authority to make decisions for them and deprive them of their rights. Its very inhumane how the society has become like this, immediately accepting what these supposed advocates are saying and denying people the privilege to die or even going to the extent of belittling them for being so weak.

Yes, I believe most people just try to assume what they think is best for us albeit never experiencing it themselves and they aren't doing us any favors by pushing their views for the masses to take. In fact, I believe these so called advocates peddle prejudices and inaccurate views that the (ignorant) masses take up and then the masses follow these so called 'authorities' on the disabilities as if it were gospel. It's sad really.

 

[Chara]

Yes, they are indeed scumbag liars and they seem to view the world under their lens and apply their lens to our lives. It's infuriating and insulting indeed. They are indeed trying to enforce their view of life and values while under the guise of help and charity.


Yes, well said and if there are people out there who want to be inspired by these advocates, they can, but to apply such standards across the board while silencing/drowning out dissident voices and opinions is unacceptable. Also, you worded it really well and I understood what you said.


Yes, I believe most people just try to assume what they think is best for us albeit never experiencing it themselves and they aren't doing us any favors by pushing their views for the masses to take. In fact, I believe these so called advocates peddle prejudices and inaccurate views that the (ignorant) masses take up and then the masses follow these so called 'authorities' on the disabilities as if it were gospel. It's sad really.

Don't forget abliest. They think they know what's best for all disabled people, often without being disabled at all themselves let alone being disabled with all relevent disabilities that affect someone's quality of life. Plenty of disabled people have multiple disabilities, not just one. Chara personally have dozens of comorbidities (Not the norm, but definitely relevant to this discussion). What right does someone who only has autism and adhd have to speak for an autistic person with adhd and more and tell them they HAVE TO live? When they cannot fathom the levels of pain and difficulty am dealing with? Why should anyone else be the deciding voice besides the individuals it's affecting directly, who would potentially choose a different path?

 

[Sweet Tart]

You make very good points throughout the post, but this got a particularly strong AMEN from me. Whenever I see people say something along the lines of, "Don't let your illness/disability define you/run your life!", I absolutely CRINGE. I don't "let" my illnesses and disabilities run my life; they just fucking do because my overall and collective level of impairment is so severe. It is so beyond flippant and invalidating, and it shows such a blatant lack of perspective and understanding of what it means to be severely chronically disabled and its implications for a person's daily life and basic survival. If I had any control over this, I wouldn't be in this position in the first place. This is not fun for me.

Also, notice that it's almost always the same people who say that people shouldn't "let" their illness/disability define their lives, all the while their good health/able-bodiedness defines theirs. Either that or it's people who are trying to be inspiring, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to inspire people in and of itself, but I find that saying this often gives healthy/able-bodied people the impression that everybody living with chronic illness and disability can control how it affects them (at least mentally/emotionally), when that is simply not true.

I'm having a really hard time wording and explaining this properly because of my illnesses/disabilities and the effect that they have on me, but... yeah. To me it's kind of like the equivalent of saying, "Happiness is a choice" to someone with severe, treatment-resistant major depression – that's not how it fucking works.

You explained this perfectly! I have a disease (Type 1 Diabetes) that is in a gray area as far as disability; most people are considered able to work tho we are entitled to accommodations (in the US). It is a progressive disease that affects many systems in the body, so ability varies significantly from person to person and over time.

I'm on forums for people with T1D and the forced positivity is out of hand. So many people act like it's nbd to spend half the day jabbing yourself with needles and essentially doing the job of a major organ manually. Recently, someone said they were fed up with seeing posts about hardships and titled their post, "I'm happy I have type 1 diabetes!" Nope. I scrolled away so fast.

I didn't recognize that these people must be driven by wanting to be heroic or inspiring until reading your words. It's incredibly validating to see someone else expressing these frustrations. Thank you.

 

[TAW122]

Don't forget abliest. They think they know what's best for all disabled people, often without being disabled at all themselves let alone being disabled with all relevent disabilities that affect someone's quality of life. Plenty of disabled people have multiple disabilities, not just one. Chara personally have dozens of comorbidities (Not the norm, but definitely relevant to this discussion). What right does someone who only has autism and adhd have to speak for an autistic person with adhd and more and tell them they HAVE TO live? When they cannot fathom the levels of pain and difficulty am dealing with? Why should anyone else be the deciding voice besides the individuals it's affecting directly, who would potentially choose a different path?

Good point too, there are quite a few people with many disabilities, oftenly comorbidities and it definitely makes life significantly harder than usual. Life itself (even for people who do not have any severe disabilities or impairments) is already challenging enough, but with the added difficulty that most people do not have to face, it becomes more than a nightmare. Even if there are those who welcome the challenge, society must respect those who don't wish to continue the struggle just to appease the pro-lifers.

You explained this perfectly! I have a disease (Type 1 Diabetes) that is in a gray area as far as disability; most people are considered able to work tho we are entitled to accommodations (in the US). It is a progressive disease that affects many systems in the body, so ability varies significantly from person to person and over time.

I'm on forums for people with T1D and the forced positivity is out of hand. So many people act like it's nbd to spend half the day jabbing yourself with needles and essentially doing the job of a major organ manually. Recently, someone said they were fed up with seeing posts about hardships and titled their post, "I'm happy I have type 1 diabetes!" Nope. I scrolled away so fast.

I didn't recognize that these people must be driven by wanting to be heroic or inspiring until reading your words. It's incredibly validating to see someone else expressing these frustrations. Thank you.

Yeah that forum seems like a toxic positivity shithole, just like many other support groups. Whenever I hear about people talking about these as safe-spaces, it makes me cringe a bit as those safe spaces are oftenly pro-life and even shut down any discussion (including constructive, civil ones) regarding freedom of choice and the right to die (on one's own terms). Sure, if they cater to the audience of those who wish to fight on regardless of their predicament, I can understand that, but I could NEVER accept nor tolerate the censorship of meaningful, constructive, and civil discussion about the right to die as a VALID option.