Discussion Do you have two different versions of your stance with regards to the RTD?

[TAW122]

After being on SaSu for over half a decade, with some periods of hiatuses a few years ago, I cherish this safe space and community where I am able to "truly" stand for and state my most real opinion with regards to the right to die (despite the change in the community). During this time though, I sometimes pondered the question of "If one of us were to explain our position in the mainstream world with regards to the right to die, how would do so?" What I mean by this is that perhaps if one were to ever discuss or explain our position and stance with regards to the right to die, do we have two versions, where one is SFM (safe for mainstream), meaning that we hold back a bit so that way we don't alarm or set off red flags that would undermine or otherwise lead us to places or consequences that we don't want, and meanwhile SaSu, we speak more freely and are more.

It may seem like perhaps we are living almost a double-life when it comes to our beliefs on the right to die, but in reality and in practical terms, maybe that is the best approach while minimizing our risk of intervention, gaslighting, or otherwise unwarranted consequences in a prohibitive society. Then of course, over time as the demographics, the shift in attitudes, societal events, and other factors of change occur, we may eventually see a version or progress made in terms of the right to die become more accessible and inclusive of more people, not just those who are terminally ill. Even in the most anti-choice and pro-life, prohibitive societies, there may even be a loosening of laws, like from being completely prohibited to maybe permitting some limited circumstance of passive euthanasia, or at the very least, no heroic measures or mandatory intervention to prolong a sentient being's sentience unnecessarily.

Back to the topic, for example in public and outside of SaSu, perhaps we could have the SFM version and something that meets the public and non-SaSu people around the middle, the more moderate and reasonable stance. What I mean by this is the current stance (for mainstream audience) where the right to die or voluntary euthanasia, assisted suicide is permitted not just for the terminally ill, but for those who are gravely ill (non-terminal) but with little to no prospect of improvement, intolerable conditions, and an individual that wishes to end their own suffering without unnecessary complications. This isn't just referring to Canada's MAID laws and policies, or the countries' who have assisted suicide, voluntary euthanasia, and similar policies. Meanwhile, of course, we really speak our minds and not hold back on our true stance as that is our safe space to not end up having to water down, censor ourselves, or anything but can speak more freely about the topic.

In another analogy, when it comes to spicy food, perhaps there is a version of very spicy dish and cuisine, then also the watered down version of it, mainly so the target audience would be more receptive and open about it without being drowned in spices. This way, the target audience (who is more casual and mainstream) will enjoy the spicy food without it overwhelming them or ending up to be a bad experience for them. I know this isn't the best analogy, but the point is still clear, a version that still gets the same purpose done (or similar), and is more mild or moderate at best, but not extreme or too overwhelming such that it completely alienates the target audience. However in spicy food aficionado circles and communities, we can entertain not just the authentic cuisines and spicy food dishes, but also be able to really critique and delve into deep detail about the intricacies of spicy food itself.

What do you all think, does anyone else have similar experiences of potentially having two different versions of stances? Do you all feel like you end up having to hold back when interacting with the public or in situations where the topic of death or medical assistance in dying (or any similar topic) is brought up by others? Of course, as a disclaimer though: I'm not advocating for anyone to just randomly or spontaneously bring out the topic in public! Instead, I'm referring to situations and times where the topic of death with dignity or similar more mainstream topics are brought up in a conversation, like through the loss or suffering of a loved one, or when people talk about their loved ones' medical conditions or ailments (X was in the hospital after a stroke, X was in the hospital after a horrific accident and X did not want heroic measures, etc.). Also, as a bonus discussion question, how do you explain your position with regards to the topic at hand when you are interacting with the public (not as initiating the topic spontaneously, but whenever it naturally arises as part of normal conversation)? I personally try to be mild or even moderate and try to tailor my stance towards being permissible while focusing on the individual's bodily autonomy as well as reducing unnecessary suffering for the individual. So in other words, I take a more mild approach while still keeping an open mind and ending with the fact that I don't believe it is the only option, but it should be an option after efforts to relief suffering or solving the problem are exhausted and there are no other alternatives for said individual to pursue. Keep in mind this does not mean that I'm pro-life or life-loving, but rather keeping a mild/moderate stance as to not arouse or raise unwanted suspicion or scrutiny from mainstream people. On SaSu however, I do not have that problem because it is a safe space for people to really discuss their true stance and over the years (even to present day), I hold my true stance on SaSu (too extreme for the mainstream to handle).

 

[UKscotty]

I think it has to be very carefully managed. Too many people assume elderly and disabled people want this, but that is not true. Many are terrified of the thought of being encouraged to take up euthanasia.

Just because someone is disabled doesn't mean they want to die.

The main people who want it are us with depression, that makes it tricky as depression lies to us and tells us we are not ill. It's hard to know when it's a genuine want to die or the depression talking.

Having governments and medical services having the option of offering up death, with a massive level up of treatment and investment is scary.

We need a lot more suicide prevention and support first before we start to let the government kill us.

 

[LaughingGoat]

This is a very interesting question, love to see dialogue like this so thanks for initiating the conversation. My view isn't necessarily conducive to the most effective strategy like you're asking, but I appreciate people having open philosophical ideals over campaigns of awareness or trying to sway public opinion. In that sense, my response would be very simply that someone's right to govern agency over their own body and life is the single most basic human right that must be afforded to every individual. This decision to live or die is inalienable and to take it from someone is to totally deny them agency over their life.

One of the largest issues with the euthanasia discussion is advocacy groups and people will bring up discrimination against people with disabilities and invoke imagery of the Nazi's Eugenics programs. They will even claim things like governments will choose certain groups who they will forcefully euthanize. If you remove the fight to have people "kill" us and keep the act purely in the individual's hand then this arguments lose any possible merit.

 

[Abyssal]

I suppose I do. I'd be both hypocritical and stupid to not recognize how cruel it is to control someone else's existence in such a way to force them to live, but when I dig deeply into it, I recognize how I gained this stance through a selfish and single minded of me. Many say suicide is selfish and in my case it certainly is. I also recognize how suicide can be used as a solution when we could weaponize our pain to make the world a better place by speaking's of our experiences in how mental health care has failed us because, and let's be honest, our deaths have been used against us more than not.

It's easy to see how these loopholes are idealistic thinking that are little more than passing thoughts, though. We also don't owe anyone anything. So I stand more with the rights to die.

 

[untothedepths]

I have to write it this way, for me to best articulate how i feel about the right to die, and what should be done. For me, I would want it to be a formal process in which someone signs up for their end of life service. They are given a date for a preliminary meeting with some sort of representative before a date is announced. Anyone could sign up, maybe pay a fair fee. Only age should be a requirement, 18/21+. During the preliminary meeting, the representative goes through discussing their life, their physical state, and past history of mental health. In an ideal world, the representative would gently encourage and provide free of charge services for mental health evaluations and sessions. This is not to discourage their choice, but to rather just make sure they have a chance to have received help, and let them truly decide what it is they want. After the discussion, if the applicant still wishes to follow through with their end of life services, they can choose whichever date is available. They can still opt out at any time, this is not forced on them. They don't even have to make it to the date. Other odds and ends may be useful - any wills, what would be done with private property, what is to be done with their body after (like funeral services, if they can forrd them), alerting family ect. Once the date comes, the person will be given a painless, free departure of the world. No guns, no hanging, no drowning, nothing. A sleep into the next afterlife, followed up by their death certificate.

None of this would be forced upon anyone, and it is not used to discourage others from trying to live either. This is a service to allow people to fully exercise the right to die without having to go through drastic, dangerous, or painful measures. Additionally the right to die representatives are not there to badger or berate others to live. They will not interrogate them to a mental institution. They are only there to make sure the applicant was aware of all possible help that could have been provided, to make sure they understand their choice, and to show compassion in a world so removed from it. It is, after all, going to be their last moments in the world. They are required to show humility and respect.

I don't say this idea or method I have is perfect, but it carefully outlines how I really feel about it.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Yes, I definitely feel like I have experience of this. For me, it was the IC SN welfare check. I had a feeling it was going to happen. There were people reportedly having them here a few days prior to mine. I suppose that gave me time to come up with what I wanted to say.

I wanted to be honest. Why should I lie? Suicide isn't illegal, SN wasn't quite so restricted back then and I'm neither at immediate risk, neither do I think I'm mentally unstable. I hoped I could have a reasoned conversation with them...

To be honest, it wasn't terrible. One officer in particular was very understanding. But- I did find that I had to shift the conversation. I started by saying I'd had ideation for a long time but it was obvious that kind of thing troubled them. Obviously- they are ticking boxes and assessing risk. So- I went on to emphasize that I didn't want to grow old and ill and spend my days alone in a nursing home. I wanted the option at a later stage in life to exit- seeing as our government won't give it to us. That, they resonated with. I suppose we do have to water down our ideas sometimes to make them more palatable. Plus of course- they have the practical problem of duty of care or whatever.

On a philosophical basis though, I think both the officers I spoke with initially and then, when a detective got in touch- I think they could actually understand the pro- choice viewpoint. (Thankfully.)

You're right though. I don't think we can be entirely honest in real life without making people worried. Plus, some think these sorts of ideas are evil incarnate. I wish we could have reasoned discussions though. Things won't change unless we talk about them. Plus, ironically I think it could actually 'save' a few people if the response to someone saying they have ideation was calmer. Quite often here, it seems like people get a fight or flee response. Either it's dealt with very heavy handedly. Or, they just get abandoned. Obviously, there is a middle ground and maybe some are lucky enough to have that kind of support but surely- that's the best way forward for our experience. To actually listen and reason.

 

[TAW122]

I think it has to be very carefully managed. Too many people assume elderly and disabled people want this, but that is not true. Many are terrified of the thought of being encouraged to take up euthanasia.

Just because someone is disabled doesn't mean they want to die.

The main people who want it are us with depression, that makes it tricky as depression lies to us and tells us we are not ill. It's hard to know when it's a genuine want to die or the depression talking.

Having governments and medical services having the option of offering up death, with a massive level up of treatment and investment is scary.

We need a lot more suicide prevention and support first before we start to let the government kill us.

Sure, but the other argument that pro-lifers and anti-choicers would make or try to make is that once such services and supports are available, then there is no need for the right to die, which I would absolutely disagree with. First off, even if in an utopic society and world where there is an abundance of support and resources, it does not imply that it is sufficient, adequate, or appropriate for all situations, like those who are severely debilitated (non-terminal) and will still lead very poor quality of life. Then there is the issue of bodily autonomy and personal choice as always; meaning that even if people could get by with the supports in an utopic, idealistic world, it doesn't mean that they would want to.

This is a very interesting question, love to see dialogue like this so thanks for initiating the conversation. My view isn't necessarily conducive to the most effective strategy like you're asking, but I appreciate people having open philosophical ideals over campaigns of awareness or trying to sway public opinion. In that sense, my response would be very simply that someone's right to govern agency over their own body and life is the single most basic human right that must be afforded to every individual. This decision to live or die is inalienable and to take it from someone is to totally deny them agency over their life.

One of the largest issues with the euthanasia discussion is advocacy groups and people will bring up discrimination against people with disabilities and invoke imagery of the Nazi's Eugenics programs. They will even claim things like governments will choose certain groups who they will forcefully euthanize. If you remove the fight to have people "kill" us and keep the act purely in the individual's hand then this arguments lose any possible merit.

This is a good point and yes, many disability rights advocacy groups and anti-choice groups would often push the narrative of eugenics or the Nazis as some counterargument, however, I don't think that is being intellectually honest and rather a strawman. The right to die is more about bodily autonomy and yes that would be more where our stance would be tailored towards. Bodily autonomy and easing of one's suffering that one deems intolerable. While some may even try to invoke the stigma of mental illness, clouded judgment, unsoundness of mind, that could be easily debunked that as long as one is lucid and capable of making sound decisions and understanding the consequences of their decisions that would be more than sufficient to prove that one is of sound mind.

I suppose I do. I'd be both hypocritical and stupid to not recognize how cruel it is to control someone else's existence in such a way to force them to live, but when I dig deeply into it, I recognize how I gained this stance through a selfish and single minded of me. Many say suicide is selfish and in my case it certainly is. I also recognize how suicide can be used as a solution when we could weaponize our pain to make the world a better place by speaking's of our experiences in how mental health care has failed us because, and let's be honest, our deaths have been used against us more than not.

It's easy to see how these loopholes are idealistic thinking that are little more than passing thoughts, though. We also don't owe anyone anything. So I stand more with the rights to die.

Indeed, we definitely don't owe anybody anything, and it is indeed hypocritical for anti-choicers to expect us to stay just to appease and validate their atavistic morals.

I have to write it this way, for me to best articulate how i feel about the right to die, and what should be done. For me, I would want it to be a formal process in which someone signs up for their end of life service. They are given a date for a preliminary meeting with some sort of representative before a date is announced. Anyone could sign up, maybe pay a fair fee. Only age should be a requirement, 18/21+. During the preliminary meeting, the representative goes through discussing their life, their physical state, and past history of mental health. In an ideal world, the representative would gently encourage and provide free of charge services for mental health evaluations and sessions. This is not to discourage their choice, but to rather just make sure they have a chance to have received help, and let them truly decide what it is they want. After the discussion, if the applicant still wishes to follow through with their end of life services, they can choose whichever date is available. They can still opt out at any time, this is not forced on them. They don't even have to make it to the date. Other odds and ends may be useful - any wills, what would be done with private property, what is to be done with their body after (like funeral services, if they can forrd them), alerting family ect. Once the date comes, the person will be given a painless, free departure of the world. No guns, no hanging, no drowning, nothing. A sleep into the next afterlife, followed up by their death certificate.

None of this would be forced upon anyone, and it is not used to discourage others from trying to live either. This is a service to allow people to fully exercise the right to die without having to go through drastic, dangerous, or painful measures. Additionally the right to die representatives are not there to badger or berate others to live. They will not interrogate them to a mental institution. They are only there to make sure the applicant was aware of all possible help that could have been provided, to make sure they understand their choice, and to show compassion in a world so removed from it. It is, after all, going to be their last moments in the world. They are required to show humility and respect.

I don't say this idea or method I have is perfect, but it carefully outlines how I really feel about it.

That is a reasonable approach, yes. I think with the age thing it is just more of a legal thing and having one recognized as a legal adult/age of majority (where one has full rights as any other adults). While yes one could argue that age is a gatekeeper, but I think that people who are not of age don't have the same full rights as that of legal adults, though with that said, this isn't to exclude people who are terminally ill and aren't of adult age, but for those cases it would be more of a individual, case by case basis. I also like your framework of how the process would be for a legal adult, a waiting period, some concessions, and deliberation before making the final decision.

Yes, I definitely feel like I have experience of this. For me, it was the IC SN welfare check. I had a feeling it was going to happen. There were people reportedly having them here a few days prior to mine. I suppose that gave me time to come up with what I wanted to say.

I wanted to be honest. Why should I lie? Suicide isn't illegal, SN wasn't quite so restricted back then and I'm neither at immediate risk, neither do I think I'm mentally unstable. I hoped I could have a reasoned conversation with them...

To be honest, it wasn't terrible. One officer in particular was very understanding. But- I did find that I had to shift the conversation. I started by saying I'd had ideation for a long time but it was obvious that kind of thing troubled them. Obviously- they are ticking boxes and assessing risk. So- I went on to emphasize that I didn't want to grow old and ill and spend my days alone in a nursing home. I wanted the option at a later stage in life to exit- seeing as our government won't give it to us. That, they resonated with. I suppose we do have to water down our ideas sometimes to make them more palatable. Plus of course- they have the practical problem of duty of care or whatever.

On a philosophical basis though, I think both the officers I spoke with initially and then, when a detective got in touch- I think they could actually understand the pro- choice viewpoint. (Thankfully.)

You're right though. I don't think we can be entirely honest in real life without making people worried. Plus, some think these sorts of ideas are evil incarnate. I wish we could have reasoned discussions though. Things won't change unless we talk about them. Plus, ironically I think it could actually 'save' a few people if the response to someone saying they have ideation was calmer. Quite often here, it seems like people get a fight or flee response. Either it's dealt with very heavy handedly. Or, they just get abandoned. Obviously, there is a middle ground and maybe some are lucky enough to have that kind of support but surely- that's the best way forward for our experience. To actually listen and reason.

I agree that there is likely a middle ground, and of course, it would only be reached by people who are willing to listen and willing to acknowledge and respect other viewpoints with an open mind. It definitely wouldn't be viable nor work with people who already made up their minds or decide that they are right and any opposing views is automatically shut down.

 

[LaughingGoat]

This is a good point and yes, many disability rights advocacy groups and anti-choice groups would often push the narrative of eugenics or the Nazis as some counterargument, however, I don't think that is being intellectually honest and rather a strawman. The right to die is more about bodily autonomy and yes that would be more where our stance would be tailored towards. Bodily autonomy and easing of one's suffering that one deems intolerable. While some may even try to invoke the stigma of mental illness, clouded judgment, unsoundness of mind, that could be easily debunked that as long as one is lucid and capable of making sound decisions and understanding the consequences of their decisions that would be more than sufficient to prove that one is of sound mind.

Definitely agree with those points. The only thing I have to add in regards to the issue with proving sound mind in regards to suicide is that people with disorders like schizophrenia which can drastically alter one's perception would never be deemed fit to make that choice by medical oversights. This is part of the reason I think keeping the act to the person alone who is committing suicide (exceptions for those paralyzed, etc.) rather than involving an executor is the key to dismantling that argument. To me one of the most basic truths about a right is that an individual's right does not include forcing others to action. Right to die can be logically proven by arguments of bodily autonomy, but when others are included to do so it's expanded the argument past that.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

There's actually a very early South Park episode that sort of covers the right to die, but mainly just when it comes to old people.

 

[TAW122]

Definitely agree with those points. The only thing I have to add in regards to the issue with proving sound mind in regards to suicide is that people with disorders like schizophrenia which can drastically alter one's perception would never be deemed fit to make that choice by medical oversights. This is part of the reason I think keeping the act to the person alone who is committing suicide (exceptions for those paralyzed, etc.) rather than involving an executor is the key to dismantling that argument. To me one of the most basic truths about a right is that an individual's right does not include forcing others to action. Right to die can be logically proven by arguments of bodily autonomy, but when others are included to do so it's expanded the argument past that.

Good points and yes, for those with specific disorders like schizophrenia and/or dementia, or any disorder or ailment which induces immense suffering while also compromising their own ability to have soundness of mind (alteration of one's perception) does indeed complicate and challenge things. This is indeed a catch-22 and yes advance directives and/or medical wishes to be made in advance are just one of the few solutions to scenarios like the one you described. As for people who have physical ailments like paralysis and/or conditions that are observable and can be tangibly measured (rather than just invisible), 100% agreed that they should have the right to a dignified exit rather than to be subject to indefinite torment of sentience until natural or other causes.

At the minimum, yes if there is no active role in hastening one's death by others, then the absolute minimum (while not the best but better than what we have now) would be to not intervene or infringe on another's bodily autonomy. In addition to this, (which perfectly applies to people who follow the argument of God's will, nature's course, etc.) they too cannot do anything to unnaturally prolong a person's life against their will if they cannot (or refuse to) hasten the end of said person's life; because nature cuts both ways (cannot extend/prolong nor hasten/shorten), otherwise they would be hypocrites if they picked and chose when to apply logic whenever it's convenient then blatantly ignore it when it doesn't fit their narrative (which also explains a lot of contention between atheists and theists in their debates but I digress).

There's actually a very early South Park episode that sort of covers the right to die, but mainly just when it comes to old people.

Thanks for sharing the funny snippet of a South Park episode. I think it summarizes the concept of the right to die, especially for very elderly people who just want to end their suffering after living a long life. Of course, no surprise, albeit exaggerated, Stan's grandpa failed to CTB on his own, and of course his grandson, Stan, as well as others' refused to partake in it (due to it being illegal and of course, against their moral compass). It's kinda cool that even a show as far back as the 90's already featured such serious and important social issues such as assisted suicide and what not. I believe that back then, there was still a strong pro-life majority and the right to die was still relatively new even in many countries around the world. I do of course, hope that one day there will at least be the minimum of tolerance and acceptance of an individual's bodily autonomy to choose when to CTB or go on one's own terms instead of being pressured into prolonged existence just to sate others' morals and interests.