Discussion Could the optimism bias could be why many people are still hostile towards discussion of MAID or RTD?

[TAW122]

This is a thought that crossed my mind throughout the years and even in fairly recent times after observing how many conversations and dialogues (online whether on other platforms or even in various media articles, comment sections, and even videos) with regards to the topic of MAID (medical assistance in dying) or even with the right to die. While this is not just limited to existentialgoof's discussions on Reddit (which he oftenly gets brigaded and unfairly shut down without even having a chance to explain his side), it happens just about anywhere and everywhere (even outside of non-CTB topics but I digress). So I'm thinking, maybe it is due to most people's optimism or cognitive bias (maybe normalcy bias?) as well as some 'invincibility fallacy' perception (by that I'm referring to people who use the reasoning of 'but it won't ever happen to me so it doesn't apply (until it does..) to me'? So in other words, many people who already come into to discussions about the topic by default already come in with bad faith and no interest in having an open-minded, constructive dialogue, but instead only seek to put down people who they don't agree with or even try to lecture and act as a project (essentially dehumanizing and even infantilizing them). Additionally, these people even believe that the worst things (while not impossible, but are rare and devastating if/when it happens to someone) cannot happen to them (which is what the invincibility fallacy is, for lack of a better term..).

As long as such biases and perceptions about the sanctity of life or that the non-probable, but still possible horrors of extreme suffering (not necessarily nor limited to terminal illnesses, even severe chronic illnesses, lifelong ailments and conditions, etc.) are never going to happen, then progress will be incredibly slow and tedious, sometimes even halted (or worst of all, reversed and/or regressed). I do think that the hostility is tied into the optimism bias about sentience and life itself, but also the improbable but possible chance of worse than death events happening to them (until it does).

There was a story where I once worked (former workplace) where there was a coworker who was in her young adult years, like early 20's or so, a few years ago who suffered a near-death experience (horrendous motor vehicle accident where she nearly died) and was clinging on to life for almost a year before slowly rehabilitating and gaining (perhaps most?) of her function back, even she (perhaps she is not actually pro-choice, but could be a pro-life, life-loving normie) rejects the concept or idea of having MAID or RTD for others? But there are perhaps even others who are just as unfortunate as she is and did not make a significant recovery and may wish that MAID is/was an option, but did not have it and it would be an injustice to not have the option for those who seek it (with some resorting to 'desperate means' to end suffering, resulting in either success or failure), while only appeasing the conscious of those who value and uphold the sanctity of life at all costs.

Anyways I do digress, and besides the story, the one conclusion that I come to is that a combination of an optimism bias with regards to sentience and life itself (part of the 'sanctity of life' axiom) as well as a false sense of invincibility such as "the worst unfortunate events can never happen to me" results in a lot of hostility towards even the topic of MAID and the right to die. Though if the same people who then at some later point in their life had such an event happen to them, they may or may not shift their views or at least start to have an more open mind towards MAID and the right to die. Do you think that seems to be the case or not?

Edit: I think I found the correct term, normalcy bias.

 

[TAW122]

Bumping this thread since I think it is an interesting discussion.

 

[penguinl0v3s]

People are way more sympathetic about MAID in regards to physical illnesses. Denying treatment for illness is basically suicide and legal, the only difference between that and MAID is one is directly killing.

Mental illnesses are considered always curable and a 'choice' to some degree, so people will never approve of MAID for it. I do agree that all mental illness can be cured with enough work, but it shouldn't be a responsibility of people. They don't bother to ask if the person wants to put in the effort to be cured. I don't consider it optimism. People know it's hard to get better, but they see life as better than death, which is why these standards to keep trying exist.

The people I've talked to also have concerns that external factors affect mental illnesses--obviously it does--which would lead to a disproportionate amount of minorities dying. And they don't want the medical system to be a part of that. But I'd argue that not suffering is better than living to that.