TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,709
This is perhaps a presumptuous argument that is made by pro-lifers, especially to people who claim that they wouldn't wish to live in whatever hardship or whatever shitty life circumstance they find themselves in. This is usually said when someone says "if I ever become (insert ailment), then I wouldn't wish to live." While there are situations where one may (I use the word may loosely) change one's mind when faced with the reality itself, such as a life changing event, particularly a severe handicap/disability that drastically affects said person's quality of life, it is again, just presumptuous and audacious that pro-lifers say that.
My response to this statement is that while it is possible some may choose to change their mind, there must be an agreement between said person and the people around them, something akin to a compromise that has defined endpoints to how much a person is expected to persist (similar to a waiting period) and then once that has elapsed, then the person's right would be honored, even if said person decides to end their own life. Anything less than that is again, denial through deferment (aka moving of goalposts, indefinite goalposts, and passing the buck), and effectively reducing said person to that of a slave to sentience.
One such example would be the story of Christina Symanski, who had a lot in life going for her at the time of her accident and she held on for over six grueling years of agony and suffering. Anyone who is compassionate would respect her wishes (most of them did, fortunately) and allow her to end her suffering. This one example shows that not everyone can nor will find their predicaments tolerable let alone finding fulfillment and enjoyment in life. For people who told Symanski that her decision was wrong cannot be more ignorant of the reality of the suffering that she endured. I believe that Symanski gave sentience more than enough of a fair trial before calling it quits, and quite frankly, I wouldn't even have any objections or any qualms if she decided that life wasn't worth living after sometime after it. In fact, I believe that she was once an enjoyer of life (if you have read her blog), until reality set in and she faced the reality of the situation. Sure, the survival instinct gets in her way of wanting to end her pain, but make no mistake, it is not a rational agent nor is it indicative of the "want to live". I consider the survival instinct as an biological mechanism that deters an organism from harm, pain, and potentially lethal situations (hence why it is hard for people to go with certain methods), though I digress.
Another such example is the story of Tim Bowers, a hunter who fell from a tree and then later became quadriplegic and under a ventilator (life support). Similarly, he knew that his quality of life would be poor if he had continued living. So for outsider observers and DRAs (disability rights activists) to claim that he wouldn't know what is best is not only unfair to him, but also disingenuous and in bad faith. Bowers did not have to live for years, possibly decades while on a ventilator, struggling with day to day activities, the loss of dignity and independence, and instead, he knew that his quality of life was going to be poor and his family as well as the nurses honored his wishes.
In conclusion, one does not have to be in such horrific predicaments to already know what it is to suffer. One is able to deduce from observation and the experiences of others to understand that suffering is intolerable and that one wishes to be put down or at least given the option to let nature take it's course (passive euthanasia in the case of Christina Symanski). Therefore it is presumptuous for others to assume that one may think differently if/when faced with the actual predicament. I will concede to a compromise such that the person suffering is STILL given a way out in the end if It is what the person wants after exhausting other solutions first via treatments or a waiting period, but it has to be honored and enforced and the goalpost should not unnecessarily shift.
My response to this statement is that while it is possible some may choose to change their mind, there must be an agreement between said person and the people around them, something akin to a compromise that has defined endpoints to how much a person is expected to persist (similar to a waiting period) and then once that has elapsed, then the person's right would be honored, even if said person decides to end their own life. Anything less than that is again, denial through deferment (aka moving of goalposts, indefinite goalposts, and passing the buck), and effectively reducing said person to that of a slave to sentience.
One such example would be the story of Christina Symanski, who had a lot in life going for her at the time of her accident and she held on for over six grueling years of agony and suffering. Anyone who is compassionate would respect her wishes (most of them did, fortunately) and allow her to end her suffering. This one example shows that not everyone can nor will find their predicaments tolerable let alone finding fulfillment and enjoyment in life. For people who told Symanski that her decision was wrong cannot be more ignorant of the reality of the suffering that she endured. I believe that Symanski gave sentience more than enough of a fair trial before calling it quits, and quite frankly, I wouldn't even have any objections or any qualms if she decided that life wasn't worth living after sometime after it. In fact, I believe that she was once an enjoyer of life (if you have read her blog), until reality set in and she faced the reality of the situation. Sure, the survival instinct gets in her way of wanting to end her pain, but make no mistake, it is not a rational agent nor is it indicative of the "want to live". I consider the survival instinct as an biological mechanism that deters an organism from harm, pain, and potentially lethal situations (hence why it is hard for people to go with certain methods), though I digress.
Another such example is the story of Tim Bowers, a hunter who fell from a tree and then later became quadriplegic and under a ventilator (life support). Similarly, he knew that his quality of life would be poor if he had continued living. So for outsider observers and DRAs (disability rights activists) to claim that he wouldn't know what is best is not only unfair to him, but also disingenuous and in bad faith. Bowers did not have to live for years, possibly decades while on a ventilator, struggling with day to day activities, the loss of dignity and independence, and instead, he knew that his quality of life was going to be poor and his family as well as the nurses honored his wishes.
In conclusion, one does not have to be in such horrific predicaments to already know what it is to suffer. One is able to deduce from observation and the experiences of others to understand that suffering is intolerable and that one wishes to be put down or at least given the option to let nature take it's course (passive euthanasia in the case of Christina Symanski). Therefore it is presumptuous for others to assume that one may think differently if/when faced with the actual predicament. I will concede to a compromise such that the person suffering is STILL given a way out in the end if It is what the person wants after exhausting other solutions first via treatments or a waiting period, but it has to be honored and enforced and the goalpost should not unnecessarily shift.
