[Article] The argument against "passing the buck"

[TAW122]

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

 

[247sadgirlhours]

really good post, i wholeheartedly agree on all counts. people did not wait for social stigmas/laws/etc. to change, they had to make an active effort and work towards progress.

however, i want to say that advocating for the right to die, is not necessarily the same thing as the civil rights movement, LGBTQ rights, etc. there are quite a few things working against our advocacy.

the first, is that every human is born with survival instincts given to us by evolution. it is written into our genetic code to not want to die. our innate fear of death works heavily against us - people fear what they don't understand/know. it will be hard to gain advocates when the majority of people are unwilling to think beyond their evolutionary ideas of death = bad.

second, some of the biggest advocates of suicide prevention are people who have lost someone to suicide. as we advocate for a person's right to die, every person that dies might spark a few anti-suicide advocates themselves. if 1 suicide = 2 anti-suicide advocates, then we are at a net loss. unfortunately, the biggest advocates of the right to die, are also people who might exercise that right.

thirdly, and possibly the biggest: capitalism demands workers. being sick, and requiring medications, treatments, etc. = capital. the system makes money off of illness. not only that, but depressed people who wish to die (me, and others on this site) also create capital through labor. the right to die could limit the labor force, and thus capital. we have the system working against us.

again: i fully agree. these were just initial ideas to your post. i, myself, am an advocate for the right to die. i do my best, however these are the main things that i find are working against us.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I do truly admire you for your devotion to 'the cause.'

I suppose I'm curious- because it does sound like you do do a lot of activism work. What does that involve? Publicly lobbying politicians? Do all you friends and family know your stance? Does your employer?

I think many people keep quiet about things because I think it's quite hard to reveal our passion for legalising assisted suicide- especially being more widely available- without revealing that it is something we ourselves want. Attitudes REALLY change when friends/ employers realise you may be depressed and suicidal. I think partly people keep quiet because they likely need to function in this world.

Also, I would agree with @247sadgirlhours - 'the right to die'- especially being advocated for everyone is going to be (I imagine) a lot harder for people to accept than civil rights. To some religious people- it is tantamount to murder I imagine. They're not going to want our governments legalising murder!

Also- if I'm honest- I don't especially like this idea of trying to get other people- especially young people to 'join the cause.' I think suicide NEEDS to be a personal journey. I'm not sure what you have in mind but I think public rallies advocating that EVERYONE should be given the right to die don't sound all that great to me. I don't know- it's a very personal thing for me. I just wonder if putting that idea out there so visibly would be good. I think SOME young people are impressionable. Plus- publicly saying EVERYONE should be given the right to die is very likely to look like a death cult- which is MUCH easier for people to ignore/oppose- because it is considered extremist.

I personally don't like it but I do understand why there are so many conditions that need to be met before assisted suicide is granted. Just from a practical point of view. The company doing it won't want to be sued for wrongful death. I'm curious as to how you imagine a system working where the rules were SO much looser, yet the company would still feel confident in proceeding? So- for example- in your ideal world- an 18 year old with no physical/mental illness- who is required to give permission? Just them? Them and their parents?

Plus- I'll be brutally honest. I'm tired of this world. I selfishly but honestly don't care enough what future generations do. I've done my bit by not reproducing. I actually am ok with 'passing the buck' because 1.) I think assisted suicide WILL become more widely available soon anyway- I think economically, it will need to be. 2.) I'm not convinced that it will EVER be available for someone like me- with very little medical history of physical/mental illness. I think that one is a losing cause- unless the world changes drastically and human labour is no longer required. Development of AI or something.

Again- selfishly- if one of my close friends or family members or myself I guess was in a position where we would qualify for assisted suicide- I might be more vocal- I'm in the UK- so I WOULD be voicing my anger that my family member or myself would be needing to fly abroard for it and the person accompanying them risk being prosecuted for 'assisting'- I'm not sure this has happened but I guess it's possible. I'll also definitely sign petitions etc. supporting the cause.

Still- I personally wouldn't feel terribly comfortable standing up and saying it ought to be much more widely available etc. because I think it would reveal how I truly feel and how much I'm struggling and like I say- I need to support myself in this world. I think suicide being so stigmatised- attitudes towards me would change. Like I say- selfish I know but I'm afraid I am selfish. I've never really been a 'people person'. I really admire you though for wanting to change things.

 

[TAW122]

@247sadgirlhours That is an interesting take and yes, our movement is different from those in the message that we are spreading, however, the similarities lie in the way we approach it, as a human right. Yes, the survival instinct is a mountain of challenge to move, especially when one is going about overriding it and/or overcoming it. No method will ever fully override one's survival instinct, but there are methods that are more reliable and less painful (less suffering and agony), and if we had more laws that support such a process, then people will be much less inclined to choose violent and less reliable means to escape from sentience. In addition to this, assuming a controlled environment (preferable clinical environment, but if not, then at the least a quiet, secluded place), this would limit the amount of collateral damage that one will come across.

The advocates of suicide prevention are indeed acting on their self interests and yes, while losing someone is tragic, it should not be the reason to deny someone who is suffering a peaceful, dignified exit just so they do not have to face the inevitable reality (which all living things will expire, die, pass away at some point in the future, be it natural causes, human made, or etc.). Yes, sadly, we would be at a numbers disadvantage in the sense that every single supporter of the right to die, there are multiple anti-CTB, anti-choice advocates. I am aware of the paradox in which our pro-choice members once exercised said right, we would (by default) lose another advocate since said advocate (pro-choicer) would not be around to further fight for our movement and cause. I've addressed this in another thread and mentioned that perhaps AI (in the future) might be a possible solution towards the loss of our own advocates due to the nature of this right.

While the loss of workers is a detriment to capitalism, especially when said workers are no longer sentient (dead), one could argue that the people who are unemployed or not contributing to the capitalistic societies by producing labor are already not contributing to it so in the eyes of capitalism, these people are already not a part of it. Sure, while the loss of human labor hurts the economy, again, the AI could be used as a possible solution to augment and address the shortage of human labor. This may be a simplistic claim, but if AI replaces the people who otherwise would have contributed to the capitalist system (through labor), then said human being not working or even non-sentient (dead) would have little effect economically. Sure, there will always be a baseline and minimal amount of people who need to be present to keep the capitalist system going, there are plenty of people who already do so, and those people are the ones who are choosing to live (pro-life).

Thanks for your response and you mentioned lots of good points including the ones about how preventionist advocates usually arrive from those who have lost someone from CTB.

----
@Forever Sleep Thanks for your reply. No, I don't do public advocacy myself and for the reasons you have described. I too, do not wish to raise red flags, (false) alarms, and misunderstandings when I simply just want to push for a social change that will benefit people like us (as well as those who may be willing to access it in the future too).

Personally, I would be offended if someone IRL presumed that by wanting and advocating for the right to die means that I'm 'depressed or suicidal'. And for that reason, I always stick by this line (even mentioned in MAID Canada) "The wish to die is not indicative of a mental illness." Additionally, I would consider that to not only be a violation of my civil rights, particularly that of the freedom of speech, but also due process, and invasion of privacy (if they prod/dig into my history/ask invasive questions).

Before I continue addressing each point, I do want to clarify that in reality, I would be fighting for expansion of current right to die laws to not only be accessible for those who are terminally ill, but more in line with other ailments (non-terminal illnesses), such as ALS, quadriplegia, MS, chronic pain, treatment resistant mental illness (it's very gray, but I do support having the right to die to at least be an option after exhausting all other options, similar to Belgium and The Netherlands), and more. That would be more realistic. Also, since advocacy and activism is broad, I would more likely (in reality) fight for limiting involuntary commitment, giving more patient rights, strengthening advance directives (up to and including legal repercussions for not honoring/respecting a patient's wishes), and more. While ideally, in our community we do wish to have the right to die for everyone with (almost no strings attached), I also know that is unrealistic in the real world, at least within our generation or even the next few, but working with our current laws, expanding eligibility (similar to MAID, and even Oregon's law that has in the past year dropped residency requirement to access death with dignity), and more, we can at least create a future in which we will more easily access the right to a peaceful and dignified exit when our time comes (be it months, years, several decades or so).

Anyways, back to addressing your points. Yes, I could see that being viewed as 'extremist' and that is partially why I have NEVER went public with it. If I ever go public, it would be more in line with expanding current laws, legalizing it for those who are suffering severe, irreversible conditions. I would also tread extra carefully to ensure there is no confusion in verbiage. I would believe that the more reasonable masses will at least reach some common ground in granting it for those who are not just terminally ill, but have irreversible conditions and are suffering greatly.

I could see why you would be ok with passing the buck, however, I do think that if we (currently) don't do something to push for our current laws to change (at least in the US) to where we wish to see it, it is very unlikely (in our lifetimes) that we would have legalized death with dignity for non-terminal conditions (keep in mind the US is still far off from Canada, The Netherlands, and Belgium in terms of death with dignity, assisted suicide, and voluntary euthanasia). Therefore, I would say we do some work to ensure that things are still moving along (even if it takes a long process, be it years or so), so that way we are not 'simply passing the buck' but making a change so when other people pick up where we left off, they can continue the work where we (and our predecessors left off), rather than having more to do. Sorry if I wasn't clear with what I meant by 'passing the buck'. Nevertheless, I too have done my part as an antinatalist, by voluntarily choosing not to reproduce (not bringing in new sentience into this world).

I believe that yes, for other reasons, it may be that assisted suicide will become more available (not for the reasons we want but for economical reasons), and that would benefit us who wish to go (it may require us to meet certain criteria, but at least it's much better than decades ago or hundreds of years ago where the right to die didn't really exist). I too, would sign a petition if one existed in the US for legalizing and expanding assisted suicide for those who are suffering immensely with little prospects of a quality of life deemed reasonable by said person/individual.

So in conclusion, I want to say that I'm not entirely passing the buck (in the sense that people think), but doing enough to ensure that there will be some reasonable progress made (while I'm still around) and that if/when future generations pick it up, they wouldn't have to have as much struggle to continue where we (current generation or people) left it and will have an easier time to continue where we left off. When I mentioned passing the buck I'm referring to people doing nothing and expecting change to 'magically' happen, so I'm not referring to people who do something (if they are able to) and then passing it off so someone else can continue the good activism towards human rights. Keeping in line with reality and real world, I would be fine if there was a viable option for this right to exist, even if it isn't as ideal as what we have hoped for, it would at least be major progress compared to what we had back several decades or longer ago. I would hope that economically speaking that AI does pick up the slack because it would have an ancillary effect and benefit for us (even if we don't have carte blanche right to die).