TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,787
Couldn't find a better title, but basically I hear this argument used by both natalists and pro-lifers (anti-choice) people. In fact, (in this video at 23:55), Amanda made a good point that people don't do enough advocacy towards the right to die and voluntary euthanasia, death with dignity until they need it (by then it is too late, and the cycle repeats with the next generation after another, barring some special turning points). While it is good and encouraged to have newer generations to join our cause, we (the current people who are around) shouldn't just do nothing and expect change to happen or that some future generation will be the change that we hope for. In a similar example, in antinatalism philosophy and stance, bringing in new people into the world and expecting them to fix our problems not only is unfair to them (see SHK at 15:38), but also expecting the burden to be placed on them). Another example (also in antinatalism) we are not seeing new humans (at least the majority of new humans that come into existence) change the world (Dietz at 8:46).
Imagine that if someone applied that logic to other aspects in life, there would be results of failure and inaction that leads to not being able to accomplish certain goals or tasks. When it comes to health and security as well as other aspects, we (oftenly) do not just 'pass the buck' or assume that someone will do it, or that something will just naturally happen through inaction. No, that's not how it works. Many changes and movements that are successful today and given us what we have (and sometimes take for granted for) are the fruits of many years of sacrifices, advocacy, activism, and push towards the change we want to happen. Therefore, for the right to die, someone, somebody HAS TO go out to make the call.
A good example that illustrates the problem of passing the buck is like the "Bystander Effect" which is in short, assuming that (some) other person or entity will not offer help to a victim when there are others' around, assuming that someone else will do so. How does this apply to the problem of passing the buck when it comes to the topics of right to die, voluntary euthanasia, and death with dignity? When people assume that we just do nothing and some day (magically and automatically) the problem will be solved and things will be addressed, more likely than not, things would not change and the (current) status quo will remain the same. This (by doing nothing as per Bystander Effect) is a very fallacious approach because by then, not only would it be too late to advocate for the changes that one wishes to see and come into fruition, one would already be too weak, frail, and fraught with many other issues to be an effective advocate for the right to die. Therefore, in order to solve this, someone, some entity HAS TO be the beacon of the right to die, voluntary euthanasia, death with dignity and similar movements in order to effect change (or at least make progress towards that 'change').
The next time some anti-choice, pro-lifer, or opponent push back and try to use the argument of 'passing the buck', one can say that change did not happen by passing the buck or through inaction. Almost all the major civil rights movements and positive (depending on who you ask and your perspective) changes in social progress that happened are the result of years of activism, advocacy, and sacrifices made by people who (at their times and generation) were brave enough to speak out against the status quo. These include: The civil rights movement in the 20th century, LGBTQ rights, disability rights, women's rights, and many more throughout history.
In conclusion, I don't think it is fair for our generation and the people alive today to just expect 'change' to happen without doing anything or deflecting and deferring it to a future generation or expecting another entity to push for the change that we hope to see in the future. Instead, if we want the change that we are looking for in the future, then we must NOT pass the buck and actively advocate for the changes we hope to see in the future. Think about the current laws that we had with regards to the right to die, it took many decades, sacrifices, and even case studies JUST TO HAVE some basic (which is still far from what we hope for) legislation (which are only available in certain states in the US, and even then limited) and system in place. Then of course, the current death with dignity programs and processes are very narrow in scope and comes with a plethora of criterion to be met before one is able to truly access it. Even in the countries that are more permissive and broad with their right to die laws (Canada, The Netherlands, and Belgium to name a few), it still has many hurdles and hoops to jump through (though less than the US) just to legally access a peaceful and dignified manner. Thus, I believe it is imperative that we continue where the laws have left off and seek to expand it to make it easier, more accessible to everyone that is suffering. While we won't likely get to our ultimate vision and goal (the right to die for everyone, without having to be severely ill, have an severe psychological or physical ailment or condition that one deems unacceptable or irremediable suffering), we can at least get to a place where it will be better for the future and make it so that if and when we get to that stage (a few decades from now or perhaps a bit sooner), WE AT LEAST HAVE THAT OPTION, OR BETTER OPTIONS THAN WHAT WE HAVE IN PRESENT DAY.
@RainAndSadness @FuneralCry @Forever Sleep
Imagine that if someone applied that logic to other aspects in life, there would be results of failure and inaction that leads to not being able to accomplish certain goals or tasks. When it comes to health and security as well as other aspects, we (oftenly) do not just 'pass the buck' or assume that someone will do it, or that something will just naturally happen through inaction. No, that's not how it works. Many changes and movements that are successful today and given us what we have (and sometimes take for granted for) are the fruits of many years of sacrifices, advocacy, activism, and push towards the change we want to happen. Therefore, for the right to die, someone, somebody HAS TO go out to make the call.
A good example that illustrates the problem of passing the buck is like the "Bystander Effect" which is in short, assuming that (some) other person or entity will not offer help to a victim when there are others' around, assuming that someone else will do so. How does this apply to the problem of passing the buck when it comes to the topics of right to die, voluntary euthanasia, and death with dignity? When people assume that we just do nothing and some day (magically and automatically) the problem will be solved and things will be addressed, more likely than not, things would not change and the (current) status quo will remain the same. This (by doing nothing as per Bystander Effect) is a very fallacious approach because by then, not only would it be too late to advocate for the changes that one wishes to see and come into fruition, one would already be too weak, frail, and fraught with many other issues to be an effective advocate for the right to die. Therefore, in order to solve this, someone, some entity HAS TO be the beacon of the right to die, voluntary euthanasia, death with dignity and similar movements in order to effect change (or at least make progress towards that 'change').
The next time some anti-choice, pro-lifer, or opponent push back and try to use the argument of 'passing the buck', one can say that change did not happen by passing the buck or through inaction. Almost all the major civil rights movements and positive (depending on who you ask and your perspective) changes in social progress that happened are the result of years of activism, advocacy, and sacrifices made by people who (at their times and generation) were brave enough to speak out against the status quo. These include: The civil rights movement in the 20th century, LGBTQ rights, disability rights, women's rights, and many more throughout history.
In conclusion, I don't think it is fair for our generation and the people alive today to just expect 'change' to happen without doing anything or deflecting and deferring it to a future generation or expecting another entity to push for the change that we hope to see in the future. Instead, if we want the change that we are looking for in the future, then we must NOT pass the buck and actively advocate for the changes we hope to see in the future. Think about the current laws that we had with regards to the right to die, it took many decades, sacrifices, and even case studies JUST TO HAVE some basic (which is still far from what we hope for) legislation (which are only available in certain states in the US, and even then limited) and system in place. Then of course, the current death with dignity programs and processes are very narrow in scope and comes with a plethora of criterion to be met before one is able to truly access it. Even in the countries that are more permissive and broad with their right to die laws (Canada, The Netherlands, and Belgium to name a few), it still has many hurdles and hoops to jump through (though less than the US) just to legally access a peaceful and dignified manner. Thus, I believe it is imperative that we continue where the laws have left off and seek to expand it to make it easier, more accessible to everyone that is suffering. While we won't likely get to our ultimate vision and goal (the right to die for everyone, without having to be severely ill, have an severe psychological or physical ailment or condition that one deems unacceptable or irremediable suffering), we can at least get to a place where it will be better for the future and make it so that if and when we get to that stage (a few decades from now or perhaps a bit sooner), WE AT LEAST HAVE THAT OPTION, OR BETTER OPTIONS THAN WHAT WE HAVE IN PRESENT DAY.
@RainAndSadness @FuneralCry @Forever Sleep