TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,706
Over the years, people talked about 'gatekeeping' and this is certain a valid concern, not just in general terms, but also in particular when it comes to the right to die. Before I go on, what is gatekeeping? Gatekeeping (at least per my definition) is trying to set an arbitrary standard or set of requirements or conditions that one (or others) must meet in order for something to happen or be granted access to something, be it a resource, a right, or privilege. Yes, even the concept of what is a civil right is still one aspect of gatekeeping, especially from a non-state actor or non-sentient actor. From the eyes of the State and those in charge, the citizen given the rights are freedoms and limitations to what the State (non-personal entity but rather an entity itself) can do, hence like in the US, the bill of rights are specific freedoms that all US citizens have that the government (the State) cannot infringe on, therefore, it is a gatekeep towards the government's authority. Sadly, just by the nature of things, this is just something that is inevitable and this article mentions that while it is impossible to avoid that (just by the way of things, whether it is natural or unnatural – universe versus human-controlled), but there are ways to minimize and mitigate the amount of gatekeeping in general.
I understand that a lot of people are vocal about gatekeeping when it comes to the right to die, especially on factors of age, health condition, status, and/or other attributes in determining whether one is able to CTB or access towards voluntary euthanasia or assisted CTB. It is inevitable that there will be some form of gatekeeping just by the nature of humanity and how "rights" as a concept are formed. Human rights as a concept will always have some form of limits and restrictions, just by the nature of it. However, I do believe that we can do our best to minimize the amount of gatekeeping by having compromises, as close as objectively as possible.
The solution (or at least some partial solution):
So what is the solution to the issue of gatekeeping? While it is impossible to completely get rid of it, just by the nature of things and the reality of the world we live in, we can have some set of loose, but still accept set of standards and guidelines when it comes allowing people to access the right to die. These basic standards would be someone who is legally an adult (age of majority), of sound mind (knowing what they are choosing), consent (they are willing to access said service and are not pressured or coerced into choosing it), and of course, a waiting period that is not excessive (could be weeks or months, but not many years or indefinite time frames). Some restrictions and gatekeeps exist in order to ensure that the chances of abuse are minimal.
Example of gatekeeping when it comes to assisted CTB, right to die, death with dignity:
When I am referring to gatekeeping is the ones where they have very narrow and strict criteria in which the right to die is granted, namely in most countries and jurisdictions that have that law. Generally, it is only allowed for those with incurable, terminal illnesses that are either imminently at death or have a prognosis of six months or less to live. That kind of gatekeeping is unacceptable and also too limiting such that very, very few people will have access to it, effectively shutting out a lot of people whose lives are full of suffering and yet don't have all the hoops or checkboxes ticked off. So by having more lax requirements and increased availability to more people, it can allow those who may not necessarily be terminally ill, but have a irreparable condition that is not likely to improve, leading to a lifetime of misery and poor quality of life, and eventually towards people who are just tired of life (true pro-choice as a basic human right).
Example with respect to age as a factor towards CTB:
In addition to this, when it comes to age. I don't think there should be a hard limit on age except for those who are under the age of majority. This is speaking from pragmatic standpoint that the concept of rights' or at least for people who are not full adults yet, they do have rights, but aren't at age of majority, which means they don't have full rights as that of adults. This is true for many things, like the legal age to buy tobacco products, buy and consume alcohol, enter into contracts, consent to certain agreements, to vote, to enter armed services, etc. However, this is not to say that people who are not legally considered adults (age of majority) won't have access to the right to die. They may still have access to it, though the bar is higher and may come with other rules as to prevent abuse.
I could give more examples to explain gatekeeping, but I think the overall idea in this thread is to minimize gatekeeping as much as possible, have clear and objective criteria (or at least as close to it as possible) for people who may be seeking the right to die while maintaining enough safeguards to prevent abuse. It is most likely impossible to fully eradicate ALL forms of gatekeeping, but beyond the basic boundaries to ensure order, civility, prevention/minimization of abuse, such a system would ensure that people are still treated with dignity and respect, given due process, and granted a way out in a reasonable manner.
I understand that a lot of people are vocal about gatekeeping when it comes to the right to die, especially on factors of age, health condition, status, and/or other attributes in determining whether one is able to CTB or access towards voluntary euthanasia or assisted CTB. It is inevitable that there will be some form of gatekeeping just by the nature of humanity and how "rights" as a concept are formed. Human rights as a concept will always have some form of limits and restrictions, just by the nature of it. However, I do believe that we can do our best to minimize the amount of gatekeeping by having compromises, as close as objectively as possible.
The solution (or at least some partial solution):
So what is the solution to the issue of gatekeeping? While it is impossible to completely get rid of it, just by the nature of things and the reality of the world we live in, we can have some set of loose, but still accept set of standards and guidelines when it comes allowing people to access the right to die. These basic standards would be someone who is legally an adult (age of majority), of sound mind (knowing what they are choosing), consent (they are willing to access said service and are not pressured or coerced into choosing it), and of course, a waiting period that is not excessive (could be weeks or months, but not many years or indefinite time frames). Some restrictions and gatekeeps exist in order to ensure that the chances of abuse are minimal.
Example of gatekeeping when it comes to assisted CTB, right to die, death with dignity:
When I am referring to gatekeeping is the ones where they have very narrow and strict criteria in which the right to die is granted, namely in most countries and jurisdictions that have that law. Generally, it is only allowed for those with incurable, terminal illnesses that are either imminently at death or have a prognosis of six months or less to live. That kind of gatekeeping is unacceptable and also too limiting such that very, very few people will have access to it, effectively shutting out a lot of people whose lives are full of suffering and yet don't have all the hoops or checkboxes ticked off. So by having more lax requirements and increased availability to more people, it can allow those who may not necessarily be terminally ill, but have a irreparable condition that is not likely to improve, leading to a lifetime of misery and poor quality of life, and eventually towards people who are just tired of life (true pro-choice as a basic human right).
Example with respect to age as a factor towards CTB:
In addition to this, when it comes to age. I don't think there should be a hard limit on age except for those who are under the age of majority. This is speaking from pragmatic standpoint that the concept of rights' or at least for people who are not full adults yet, they do have rights, but aren't at age of majority, which means they don't have full rights as that of adults. This is true for many things, like the legal age to buy tobacco products, buy and consume alcohol, enter into contracts, consent to certain agreements, to vote, to enter armed services, etc. However, this is not to say that people who are not legally considered adults (age of majority) won't have access to the right to die. They may still have access to it, though the bar is higher and may come with other rules as to prevent abuse.
I could give more examples to explain gatekeeping, but I think the overall idea in this thread is to minimize gatekeeping as much as possible, have clear and objective criteria (or at least as close to it as possible) for people who may be seeking the right to die while maintaining enough safeguards to prevent abuse. It is most likely impossible to fully eradicate ALL forms of gatekeeping, but beyond the basic boundaries to ensure order, civility, prevention/minimization of abuse, such a system would ensure that people are still treated with dignity and respect, given due process, and granted a way out in a reasonable manner.
