[Article] If one only supports the right to die in principle, then they don’t truly support the right to die!

[TAW122]

This is a concept that I've come to agree with and while I may have mentioned it before in various places, here is a quote that really drives the point home. This quote is said by the user existentialgoof on Reddit.

If someone "supports assisted dying in principle"; but they oppose any practical application of that in the real world, and would only "support it" in some kind of abstract thought experiment where we were living in a utopian world where all humans were morally unimpeachable; then they don't support assisted dying. All they would be doing in that case would be trying to have their cake and eat it, by opposing assisted dying, but trying to avoid having to deal with being perceived as cruel and retrograde.

The bolded part of the quote really highlights the point succinctly as it means that people who claim they support the right to die but don't actually support any reasonable implementation of such practices are simply just 'virtue signalers'. By this I mean that people are paying lip-service but effectively doing almost nothing. It is nothing more than akin to saying that we should solve world hunger, but not really supporting efforts to solve world hunger (mind you, it is a complex issue and there is no easy solution). There are many other examples that are similar, but that is just one of them.

Usually people who claim that they support the right to die do so when it comes to terminal illnesses such as late stage cancer and/or other conditions that result in an excruciating, painful and drawn out death. However, a fair amount of those people who claim that are still hesitant and even sometimes push-back on any measure to alleviate the sufferer's fate from suffering unnecessarily. Anyways, I thought it would be an interesting point to make because it is true that a lot of people who claim to support something, even if they do so in theory does NOT imply that they truly support it. If they really supported such notions, they would likely be lobbying and pushing for such initiatives and implementation of such practices. However, instead, we only see people talk about how they think that people should have a dignified exit, yet at most they do little else beyond that, or worse yet, when reality sinks in (they are actually confronted by reality, whether their loved ones are terminally ill or chronically ill with poor prognosis and little quality of life) they renege and push back against their very claims of support. The latter is worse because it would be a major disappointment and betrayal to whomever they promised.

Another classic example is where one claims to support women's rights, but then when it comes to the most important right, "the right to pro-choice (abortion) and actually my body, my choice", they renege and go against it (usually the conservatives and religious people have this claim but I digress...), then they don't truly support women's rights. Just about any person who truly support women's rights would call such hypocrites and virtue signalers out for supporting MOST of women's rights but not supporting 'all women's rights.' There are other examples too, but I think this one is more than sufficient and drives the point home.

In conclusion, this concept really makes perfect sense and it's something that I've had with me throughout the years, but just seeing the quote that existentialgoof made really just reinforces and confirms what I already believe in. Again, supporting something in principle, but then opposing actual implementation or any reasonable effort to make such ideas and concepts become a reality is nothing more than virtue signaling at best, and opposition of the very thing they support at worst.

 

[Coin]

Agreed. It's really as simple as asking them "who should be granted the right to die?". If their answer isn't "everyone" then they don't actually support the right to die but rather only a conditional right to die (at best).

 

[Forever Sleep]

Maybe but then, how many of us are actively lobbying for the right to die? I expect- very few of us and we supposedly feel passionate about it. What would you like the average pro-choice person to do? Write to their local MP? Have you done that even? I haven't. The nearest I've got in pushing for change is signing the odd petition here and there.

It's also a very nuanced topic. Some people here would happily see children receive assisted suicide- no questions asked. For those of us who believe it does need stricter gatekeeping- does that mean we're less pro-choice? It probably just means our ideas are slightly different.

They may not in fact be being hypocritical. If you asked them- 'Would you be ok with someone with a terminal illness accessing assisted suicide- even if it was a relative?' They may well say: 'yes' and mean it. If you then asked them: 'Would you be ok with your 15 year old child accessing it?' They may well say: 'no' and mean it.

 

[wiggy]

Maybe but then, how many of us are actively lobbying for the right to die? I expect- very few of us and we supposedly feel passionate about it. What would you like the average pro-choice person to do? Write to their local MP? Have you done that even? I haven't. The nearest I've got in pushing for change is signing the odd petition here and there.

It's also a very nuanced topic. Some people here would happily see children receive assisted suicide- no questions asked. For those of us who believe it does need stricter gatekeeping- does that mean we're less pro-choice? It probably just means our ideas are slightly different.

They may not in fact be being hypocritical. If you asked them- 'Would you be ok with someone with a terminal illness accessing assisted suicide- even if it was a relative?' They may well say: 'yes' and mean it. If you then asked them: 'Would you be ok with your 15 year old child accessing it?' They may well say: 'no' and mean it.

I would add that the right to die isn't truly being denied to almost anyone outside of detention or grave illness. Significant inconveniences in place, yes, but virtually anyone can still do it if they want to.