TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,706
This may be another thread preaching to the choir again, but just in case people don't get it, I've decided to write this thread to point out the obvious in order to generate some discussion on the matter. This is most likely one of the most impactful and dangerous actions that society, government, and pro-lifers in general do towards our community, because the limitations and restrictions (or even outright complete ban) on certain methods means that even those who wish to escape reliably (let alone peacefully) are not only denied that ability, but (almost) forced to endure sentience against their will and suffer until natural causes or death outside of one's own control.
Similar to the prohibition on alcohol (perhaps this is why prolifers are also termed and synonymous with 'prohibitionists' but that's beside the point), it just never works in the long term. Sure, you only punish honest people when it comes to prohibition of alcohol (which also contributed or led to the rise of organized crime and the black market for alcohol at the time), people will still find a way to consume alcohol, though just illegally and oftenly more dangerously (not regulated, no quality control, higher risks of poor production and quality leading to other secondary health issues and possibly even death). People who want it will not stop even if they technically did ban all alcohol and similar products but only merely resorted to illicit means to acquire them at the time (1920's and 1930's).
Another similar example is the war on drugs. Sure, unfettered access to dangerous drugs and not knowing the effects and lack of education on various substances will lead to harm, but with the war on drugs (not advocating for illicit drug use nor getting into another can of worms regarding the politics of the drug issue in the US and what not), but again just limiting and ever-tightening grip on substances (especially ones that can provide a peaceful, dignified exit, and/or reliably with little discomfort) will only lead to other problems. I personally believe that we should not ban drugs outright, but we should educate people on it and also allow some form of freedom (albeit regulated to prevent abuse or misuse) in the recreational sense. How does this relate to the prohibition on CTB? It is a similar issue as prohibiting the access towards a peaceful, dignified CTB only results in people choosing desperate (less reliable), and more dangerous routes to do so, leading to collateral damage and/or permanent damage (such as disabilities, permanent disfigurement, etc.).
Maybe these examples aren't the best, but the point is, as long as pro-lifers, the government, and society continues to keep restricting methods (or otherwise make it unreasonable burdensome, difficult) or continue to persecute those who wish to exit peacefully, then people will continue to keep resorting to more desperate means to escape suffering. These desperate means can result in collateral damage (both unintended and intended), which harms others as a result of prohibition. If people are truly allowed to either go in a peaceful, dignified manner (even if it isn't the most ideal nor exactly on their entire terms, but reasonable enough that it meets most of their terms), or at least not have their means (mostly the peaceful methods such as inert gases, certain substances, and/or mechanisms to do so) taken away from them, then MOST of them will choose to go peacefully, with the minimum amount of disruption or harm towards others. Furthermore, if it was regulated, but controlled, then also the amount of trauma and impact on others will be greatly minimized (in other words, no messy CTBs, no unexpected 'surprises', and also people (especially loved ones and close ones) can say their goodbyes and find real closure before the final moments).
So in conclusion, it would just be simply easier for society and government to repeal the laws that allow them (and others) to act, to intervene against one others' wishes to CTB if they aren't willing to grant peaceful methods, and/or allow peaceful, dignified means to escape (regulated and controlled) so that people would not have to resort to desperate means to CTB. However, if they are unwilling to do either, then the stuff we see today (including the increasing CTB rate) will continue to persist, perhaps even worsen over the course of years to come.
Similar to the prohibition on alcohol (perhaps this is why prolifers are also termed and synonymous with 'prohibitionists' but that's beside the point), it just never works in the long term. Sure, you only punish honest people when it comes to prohibition of alcohol (which also contributed or led to the rise of organized crime and the black market for alcohol at the time), people will still find a way to consume alcohol, though just illegally and oftenly more dangerously (not regulated, no quality control, higher risks of poor production and quality leading to other secondary health issues and possibly even death). People who want it will not stop even if they technically did ban all alcohol and similar products but only merely resorted to illicit means to acquire them at the time (1920's and 1930's).
Another similar example is the war on drugs. Sure, unfettered access to dangerous drugs and not knowing the effects and lack of education on various substances will lead to harm, but with the war on drugs (not advocating for illicit drug use nor getting into another can of worms regarding the politics of the drug issue in the US and what not), but again just limiting and ever-tightening grip on substances (especially ones that can provide a peaceful, dignified exit, and/or reliably with little discomfort) will only lead to other problems. I personally believe that we should not ban drugs outright, but we should educate people on it and also allow some form of freedom (albeit regulated to prevent abuse or misuse) in the recreational sense. How does this relate to the prohibition on CTB? It is a similar issue as prohibiting the access towards a peaceful, dignified CTB only results in people choosing desperate (less reliable), and more dangerous routes to do so, leading to collateral damage and/or permanent damage (such as disabilities, permanent disfigurement, etc.).
Maybe these examples aren't the best, but the point is, as long as pro-lifers, the government, and society continues to keep restricting methods (or otherwise make it unreasonable burdensome, difficult) or continue to persecute those who wish to exit peacefully, then people will continue to keep resorting to more desperate means to escape suffering. These desperate means can result in collateral damage (both unintended and intended), which harms others as a result of prohibition. If people are truly allowed to either go in a peaceful, dignified manner (even if it isn't the most ideal nor exactly on their entire terms, but reasonable enough that it meets most of their terms), or at least not have their means (mostly the peaceful methods such as inert gases, certain substances, and/or mechanisms to do so) taken away from them, then MOST of them will choose to go peacefully, with the minimum amount of disruption or harm towards others. Furthermore, if it was regulated, but controlled, then also the amount of trauma and impact on others will be greatly minimized (in other words, no messy CTBs, no unexpected 'surprises', and also people (especially loved ones and close ones) can say their goodbyes and find real closure before the final moments).
So in conclusion, it would just be simply easier for society and government to repeal the laws that allow them (and others) to act, to intervene against one others' wishes to CTB if they aren't willing to grant peaceful methods, and/or allow peaceful, dignified means to escape (regulated and controlled) so that people would not have to resort to desperate means to CTB. However, if they are unwilling to do either, then the stuff we see today (including the increasing CTB rate) will continue to persist, perhaps even worsen over the course of years to come.
Last edited:
