We were never given the right to die. It was just decriminalised. It is a privilege, you can have it if you're worthy enough to gain it.
It's like the freedom of speech. In theory we have it in the west, but if every digital forum restricts what you can and can't say or if your government makes you apply for a permit to stage a protest (which is the case in some countries) then you cannot really say you actually have it in a practical sense.
Well said, and many people mistake that just because one is able to do so (in secrecy and with grave risks of failure either in the method or being caught mid-attempt/foiled before they could attempt),
doesn't mean that one is really free to do so. It is sadly still treated like a special privilege only afforded to people who meet a narrow set of criteria set forth by medical professionals and the State (and also only available in a few countries, but not in most countries around the world).
Even though I am for bodily autonomy, I don't think, suicide will be ever covered as part of that autonomy. May be when AI becomes full fledged and there is no need for human bodies. But until then no. This isn't going to happen in near future. When there are no jobs left for humans, either there will be Universal Income or there will be painless exits. Nothing in between.
I personally would just prefer painless exits since I don't really value just existence with torture and agony until natural causes or other causes of death other than by my own hand. Though with universal income, perhaps there may be better copes, but even then, over time, all copes will eventually become stale or depleted, rendering them moot.
The laws and social norms on suicide are completely outdated and adhere to a system that has never worked in this way and from which people have always suffered. I do believe that many of those who would discourage suicide mean it well, but ultimately, in my opinion, no one has the ethical right to make decisions about another person. If I want to kill myself, that's my business.
However, I think that this (non-)feeling of freedom is based on an excessive focus on the social structure. Legally speaking, you never have all the freedoms anyway, not even over yourself. I think it's difficult to focus on legal aspects when it comes to autonomy. In the end, people are completely free creatures and can literally do what they want. They just can't expect other people not to react or to try to dissuade them beforehand if they think it's wrong. A person's freedom is limited to them alone, it does not guarantee help from others and it does not mean free guidance.
Basically, no one but me could stop me from committing suicide now. There are also countless possibilities, from stab wounds to vehicle collisions to falling from a great height. We just tend to have certain expectations when it comes to suicide, and unfortunately these often require the help of others. Most people want to die peacefully and painlessly, and that hardly ever happens in nature. Unless you die of old age or certain diseases, death in nature, mainly through injury and poisoning, is usually very unpleasant. All the favoured painless methods such as drugs and other chemicals, firearms and other things all require the cooperation or help of other people, and as long as our society is so desperately convinced that suicide is so bad, you can unfortunately forget about it.
If I want to die under whatever circumstances, then I can do so. But I want it to be peaceful and relaxed, and we live in an absolutely broken system in which we are not helped. Ultimately, however, our freedom and self-determination cannot be taken away from us. It's up to us to decide how far we need the help of others and when we want to take everything into our own hands.
That is an interesting perspective, and yes, it is true that there are people who choose to die (albeit in barbaric ways) and at some level there would be some cooperation or help from others (either in acquisition of a method or assistance (for people who are terminal or severe illnesses)). Finding peaceful methods to CTB (which is what a lot of people wish for) does indeed become more difficult like you mentioned, as it requires one to (temporarily) partake in the mundanity of society and all it's downsides as well just enough for one to acquire the means for one to exit suffering. However, I still believe that we are not (truly) free to CTB, at least not without risk of failure, incarceration, deprivation of liberty in the name of health and safety, or intervention if we don't have a codified, guaranteed right towards it.
As a principle- I absolutely agree. Again though- it's when we start delving in to practicalities that we hit problems.
So- ideally- assisted suicide would be the answer. A quick, painless, reliable method. But now it becomes- 'We want you (the government) to help us die. We want you to kill us.' Reasonably- someone can refuse to do that. Even if there were no legal consequences- would you assist anyone who simply asked you to kill them? Probably not. Why would you want that responsibility? How would you assess whether they were in their right mind? Wouldn't you be worried about their family coming after you? Especially if they were 18 and hadn't told them? Ok- it would be easier if it were a whole programme set up with strict guidelines but- let's be honest- they wouldn't allow a healthy 18 year old to use the 'service' without their parents knowledge and, how many parents would support that?
So then- you get the other (fair) argument- we put ourselves at enormous risk if we just go ahead and try some unreliable method. But again- presumably the answer to that is to provide free access to painless, reliable methods. Again though- how do you regulate that?
I agree as an agrument itself- it's hardly a free choice when we know the consequences of failing an attempt are diabolical. So I agree- they should at least admit that we aren't in fact 'free'. We're being kept hostage here by the threat of what will likely happen after a failed attempt and they're doing all they can to make sure attempts will fail or- people will be too scared to try. So yeah- the statement itself is unrealistic.
People are 'free' to bet all of their savings on the lottery. Most don't though- because they know they likely won't win and- they'll be homeless afterwards. A lot of people- even suicidal people use common sense to not make life substantially worse for themselves!
Practicality wise though- what is the solution? I'm really starting to think there isn't one. Assisted suicide likely will be introduced for those that the 'normies' agree are beyond all help. They may even use it to get rid of undesirable people for them- the homeless and the criminal. For the rest of us though, I reckon we'll have to go out the DIY route. They don't want us doing that. So, of course they're going to try and stop us! And they'll always have the (maybe legitimate) argument that they have to restrict access to all in order to protect minors and the mentally vulnerable. Without a way of regulating these DIY methods- I don't see how things will change.
You raise really good points and yes, I suppose I was making this thread to address and claim that we (pro-choicers) are simply
NOT free to CTB, especially if we have to do so in secrecy, carrying all the risks of failure as well as the consequences that follow said failure, and just because there are people who do succeed in DIY CTB'ing (with some suffering immensely in the process and possibly collateral damage to the public - depending on the method of choice), it doesn't mean they (the ones who did succeed) were 'free' in CTB'ing. They simply just managed to prevail at overcoming their SI, finding a method that works, did not get intervened pre or mid attempt, and actually succeeded; which all in all is no easy feat at all.
Regarding the last paragraph, I suppose if there isn't a solution, then this just means we are unfortunately trapped in this existence and the very desperate ones may choose DIY methods that are risky (when their pain surpasses their SI or will to live) and then depending on whether they succeed or not, the pro-lifers also end up suffering as a result of the collateral damage (trauma and psychological harm) from said attempt. I do find it incongruous and ridiculous how pro-lifers have an issue with legalization of the right to die, but then they also complain about how people either inconvenience or otherwise cause trauma by their desperate attempts. They simply can't have their cake and eat it at the same time, but that is probably for another thread (or a past thread).
