TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,663
In our current world, we live in a prohibitive society when it comes to the issue of bodily autonomy, namely the right to die, where common people and the gov't will actively impede, impinge, interfere, obstruct, etc. our right to exercise said right. Before I proceed, I want to clarify the difference between a negative liberty right and a positive liberty right. A negative liberty right refers to one's civil right/personal freedom to not be impinged, interfered, or otherwise intervened against by anyone (including the gov't) whereas a positive liberty right refers to a grant that one is granted by an entity within the framework of the society or world that one is a part of (for example, freedom of speech, freedom from discrimination, etc.), and is given.
However, in this article, I'm exploring a hypothetical scenario in which case where if the government did not have the power intervene against people who are law-abiding citizens, not a danger to others nor harming others for simply the fact that one wishes to exercise their right to die. In this hypothetical scenario, there would certainly be many differences in how life and existence would be as well as how other people will react and behave. This article takes inspiration from some of the quotes by existentialgoof, referred to as EG (shown below):
So according to EG's quotes about simply not having one's negative liberty rights impinged upon, I would ascertain that it would result in many people being more open about their struggles and/or otherwise wouldn't in our current society. Furthermore, it may lead to less impulsive decisions, less desperation, and perhaps even those who simply just want people to acknowledge and listen to their pain, to vent. Gone are the days of having one's civil liberties and freedoms impinged upon just because they are deemed 'incapable' of making sound decisions just because they wanted to exercise their bodily autonomy.
In addition to this, I would even claim that society itself would be compelled to at least address the underlying systemic issues that cause people to want to CTB if they are no longer allowed to impinge on the dissidents or marginalized groups of peoples' bodily autonomy nor are they able to invalidate or otherwise discredit them. They would instead have to face the reality and this could potentially lead to better change for the marginalized. Think of what happened to allow change for the marginalized groups in the 20th century, women, minorities, marginalized groups, and more.
A common claim by anti-choicers, pro-lifers (debunked)
A common claim by anti-choicers, anti-CTB, pro-lifers is that suicidal people would just go choose DIY methods that would otherwise impinge, traumatize, and/or otherwise cause collateral damage to unwilling participants and innocent bystanders, however, that isn't likely to be true. In fact, in our current reality (a pro-life, anti-CTB society), we still have many of these risky, brutal DIY CTBs, often with gruesome aftermaths and results mainly due to the lack of peaceful, dignified exits, and also the ever growing paternalistic CTB prevention policies and efforts aimed to profile would be or suspected suicidal people. However, the reason that this common claim is wrong is because if people were allowed to be open about their thoughts, intentions, without the fear or threat of incarceration, hospitalization, or otherwise ill consequences (social, financial, legal, professional, etc.), then people would be more willing to get it off their chest, less likely to have to plan in secret (no more fear of impingement).
As for people who would still DIY methods that may cause risk and/or collateral damage to others, they would most likely be in violation of legal codes that are in place (including but not limited to: disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, trespassing, etc.), but that's another matter altogether. In fact, if they go through the legal system, then at least they are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and also would have legal protections and civil rights that suspected criminals would have (including the right to legal counsel). However, I do believe that the mere fact of the lack of impingement by the State (the gov't) and the common people would be more than sufficient for most people to not attempt, especially those who just want to vent.
So in conclusion, I do believe that the mere freedom from State (gov't) interference or even third party (including common people) interference against one's civil liberties would certainly go a long way benefiting all parties involved. Even if there was no positive liberty right given, it would still result in a better society than what we have now (paternalistic interventions, impingement on one's civil rights because they are deemed unsound of mind or lacking mental capacity, etc.). It would certainly be a breath of fresh air for those who simply just want to vent or not actively be interfered against. In the end, these people would be less likely to go to risky DIY CTB methods (which also has potential to cause collateral damage) and/or otherwise be more willing to open up when they wouldn't have to begin with.
However, in this article, I'm exploring a hypothetical scenario in which case where if the government did not have the power intervene against people who are law-abiding citizens, not a danger to others nor harming others for simply the fact that one wishes to exercise their right to die. In this hypothetical scenario, there would certainly be many differences in how life and existence would be as well as how other people will react and behave. This article takes inspiration from some of the quotes by existentialgoof, referred to as EG (shown below):
| Most of the time, the argument for the right to die focuses on trying to win a positive right. But all we really need is to demonstrate that the government is unjustly stopping us from ending our suffering through these paternalistic suicide prevention laws. I don't think that the government necessarily has a positive obligation to provide euthanasia on demand; but I do think that preventing people from being able to access effective and humane suicide methods is an egregious violation of one's negative liberty rights not to be entrapped, imprisoned or enslaved without good reason. |
So according to EG's quotes about simply not having one's negative liberty rights impinged upon, I would ascertain that it would result in many people being more open about their struggles and/or otherwise wouldn't in our current society. Furthermore, it may lead to less impulsive decisions, less desperation, and perhaps even those who simply just want people to acknowledge and listen to their pain, to vent. Gone are the days of having one's civil liberties and freedoms impinged upon just because they are deemed 'incapable' of making sound decisions just because they wanted to exercise their bodily autonomy.
In addition to this, I would even claim that society itself would be compelled to at least address the underlying systemic issues that cause people to want to CTB if they are no longer allowed to impinge on the dissidents or marginalized groups of peoples' bodily autonomy nor are they able to invalidate or otherwise discredit them. They would instead have to face the reality and this could potentially lead to better change for the marginalized. Think of what happened to allow change for the marginalized groups in the 20th century, women, minorities, marginalized groups, and more.
A common claim by anti-choicers, pro-lifers (debunked)
A common claim by anti-choicers, anti-CTB, pro-lifers is that suicidal people would just go choose DIY methods that would otherwise impinge, traumatize, and/or otherwise cause collateral damage to unwilling participants and innocent bystanders, however, that isn't likely to be true. In fact, in our current reality (a pro-life, anti-CTB society), we still have many of these risky, brutal DIY CTBs, often with gruesome aftermaths and results mainly due to the lack of peaceful, dignified exits, and also the ever growing paternalistic CTB prevention policies and efforts aimed to profile would be or suspected suicidal people. However, the reason that this common claim is wrong is because if people were allowed to be open about their thoughts, intentions, without the fear or threat of incarceration, hospitalization, or otherwise ill consequences (social, financial, legal, professional, etc.), then people would be more willing to get it off their chest, less likely to have to plan in secret (no more fear of impingement).
As for people who would still DIY methods that may cause risk and/or collateral damage to others, they would most likely be in violation of legal codes that are in place (including but not limited to: disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, trespassing, etc.), but that's another matter altogether. In fact, if they go through the legal system, then at least they are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and also would have legal protections and civil rights that suspected criminals would have (including the right to legal counsel). However, I do believe that the mere fact of the lack of impingement by the State (the gov't) and the common people would be more than sufficient for most people to not attempt, especially those who just want to vent.
So in conclusion, I do believe that the mere freedom from State (gov't) interference or even third party (including common people) interference against one's civil liberties would certainly go a long way benefiting all parties involved. Even if there was no positive liberty right given, it would still result in a better society than what we have now (paternalistic interventions, impingement on one's civil rights because they are deemed unsound of mind or lacking mental capacity, etc.). It would certainly be a breath of fresh air for those who simply just want to vent or not actively be interfered against. In the end, these people would be less likely to go to risky DIY CTB methods (which also has potential to cause collateral damage) and/or otherwise be more willing to open up when they wouldn't have to begin with.
