TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,614
I believe that any effort towards the (someday) legalization (not just decriminalization of the act, assistance, or ideation of CTB) and acceptance of CTB is always a good cause, however, there are more specific areas in which we would strive for in order to bring about the changes and utopia (a truly pro-choice society and world) that we are yearning for. With that, I want to bring attention to a snippet from a post by existentialgoof quoted below and I also bolded the part that is most pertinent to my article:
So the part that I've bolded in the block quote is specifically about the angle of attack when It comes to persuading and trying to get the State to leave law abiding and peaceful citizens alone, especially when one is not doing anything to infringe, harm, or otherwise obstruct another citizen's freedoms or liberties. While there are going to be many counter arguments and objections, I could briefly address the counterpoints in which pro-lifers may seem to bring up in objection to curtailing the State's authoritarian and paternalistic (as well as tyrannical) means to prevent CTB.
Some common arguments that pro-lifers like to bring about to oppose the codification and establishment of a right to die include, but are not limited to: family and friends psychological harm and trauma, the lack of having another person to share company with, personal atavistic morals, and also fueling the economy or system. Additionally, the State has an incentive to have it's citizens keeping the machine of sentience going and upkeeping it. Then of course, there is strong objection in the medical community about depathologizing CTB as an disease or illness and seeing it as a right as well as their Hippocratic Oath of do no harm.
First off, I will address the economic argument and I would like to claim that the introduction (and inevitable) expansion of AI as well as automation should solve the problem of workforce manpower. The State would not need to rely as heavily on having enough cogs in the machine to keep it running if it has more than an adequate amount of workers (even if it is automated) to keep the system going. Note: I'm not going to delve into "what about AI itself as that is another topic for another thread in and of itself. I'm just going to keep it brief and simple for this thread.
Next, as far as human emotions, family members and loved ones, yes, losing someone can be painful, but death itself is inevitable, whether it be by natural causes, accidents, other man-caused events, and/or other miscellaneous causes. The right to self determination and bodily autonomy should supercede another's interests and it is not only immoral and unethical to keep someone suffering just for the benefit of others at the expense of said individual. Furthermore, an additional case can be made that unless a person has a debt to society or obligation to others (a parent of a dependent child (aka a minor) or otherwise outstanding obligation(s)), then one is an independent adult seeking to exercise one's ultimate bodily autonomy. Anything else is considered gatekeeping and slavery as it infringes on one's right to die on one's own terms.
Finally, with regards to the RTD within the medical community, it is a ethical conundrum. Many medical professionals see CTB itself as a disease that should be treated and that premise alone is considered problematic and wrong. Not all acts of CTB or even CTB itself is a disease and only the action of a deranged or irrational actor. This viewpoint is already wrong from the get-go, as it presumes ALL CTBs are in the same boat when in fact, there are some that aren't that way (not just for those who are terminally ill), but also those who are lucid and have come to the decision after a long period of time of deliberation. Additionally, with regards to the Hippocratic Oath, if a medical professional is unwilling to do the deed due to their own personal values and ethics, then allowing a third party (that is well trained in peaceful method) to be authorized to carry out the deed under controlled and clinical settings is the way to go. It doesn't necessarily have to be an executioner, though similar roles can be filled; just that one is familiar with the law and also administration of said method.
In conclusion, simply getting the government (or the State) to not intrude nor conspire against people who simply want to check out of existence would be one of the most beneficial steps towards normalizing (and eventually) legalizing as well as establishing an official inalienable RTD. If the State cannot intervene nor interfere against an individual as well as making it unlawful for other citizens to step-in and/or otherwise meddle in another's bodily autonomy, that would immediately go a long way. By not having the interference, then one would be able to more easily DIY without the risk of intervention and also lowering the chance of failure and its' consequences that follow.
So the part that I've bolded in the block quote is specifically about the angle of attack when It comes to persuading and trying to get the State to leave law abiding and peaceful citizens alone, especially when one is not doing anything to infringe, harm, or otherwise obstruct another citizen's freedoms or liberties. While there are going to be many counter arguments and objections, I could briefly address the counterpoints in which pro-lifers may seem to bring up in objection to curtailing the State's authoritarian and paternalistic (as well as tyrannical) means to prevent CTB.
Some common arguments that pro-lifers like to bring about to oppose the codification and establishment of a right to die include, but are not limited to: family and friends psychological harm and trauma, the lack of having another person to share company with, personal atavistic morals, and also fueling the economy or system. Additionally, the State has an incentive to have it's citizens keeping the machine of sentience going and upkeeping it. Then of course, there is strong objection in the medical community about depathologizing CTB as an disease or illness and seeing it as a right as well as their Hippocratic Oath of do no harm.
First off, I will address the economic argument and I would like to claim that the introduction (and inevitable) expansion of AI as well as automation should solve the problem of workforce manpower. The State would not need to rely as heavily on having enough cogs in the machine to keep it running if it has more than an adequate amount of workers (even if it is automated) to keep the system going. Note: I'm not going to delve into "what about AI itself as that is another topic for another thread in and of itself. I'm just going to keep it brief and simple for this thread.
Next, as far as human emotions, family members and loved ones, yes, losing someone can be painful, but death itself is inevitable, whether it be by natural causes, accidents, other man-caused events, and/or other miscellaneous causes. The right to self determination and bodily autonomy should supercede another's interests and it is not only immoral and unethical to keep someone suffering just for the benefit of others at the expense of said individual. Furthermore, an additional case can be made that unless a person has a debt to society or obligation to others (a parent of a dependent child (aka a minor) or otherwise outstanding obligation(s)), then one is an independent adult seeking to exercise one's ultimate bodily autonomy. Anything else is considered gatekeeping and slavery as it infringes on one's right to die on one's own terms.
Finally, with regards to the RTD within the medical community, it is a ethical conundrum. Many medical professionals see CTB itself as a disease that should be treated and that premise alone is considered problematic and wrong. Not all acts of CTB or even CTB itself is a disease and only the action of a deranged or irrational actor. This viewpoint is already wrong from the get-go, as it presumes ALL CTBs are in the same boat when in fact, there are some that aren't that way (not just for those who are terminally ill), but also those who are lucid and have come to the decision after a long period of time of deliberation. Additionally, with regards to the Hippocratic Oath, if a medical professional is unwilling to do the deed due to their own personal values and ethics, then allowing a third party (that is well trained in peaceful method) to be authorized to carry out the deed under controlled and clinical settings is the way to go. It doesn't necessarily have to be an executioner, though similar roles can be filled; just that one is familiar with the law and also administration of said method.
In conclusion, simply getting the government (or the State) to not intrude nor conspire against people who simply want to check out of existence would be one of the most beneficial steps towards normalizing (and eventually) legalizing as well as establishing an official inalienable RTD. If the State cannot intervene nor interfere against an individual as well as making it unlawful for other citizens to step-in and/or otherwise meddle in another's bodily autonomy, that would immediately go a long way. By not having the interference, then one would be able to more easily DIY without the risk of intervention and also lowering the chance of failure and its' consequences that follow.
