Discussion Do you think that pro-lifers support voluntary euthanasia for terminal illnesses because death is inevitable?

[TAW122]

This is something that recently crossed my mind. When I hear about those with terminal illnesses (often severe illnesses and death is foreseeable within months or less than half a year), even pro-lifers support having assisted suicide/death with dignity. I do wonder though, is it perhaps because death is inevitable, such as someone who is going to die from the illness (late stage cancer, late stage ALS, Alzheimer's, dementia, etc.)? Or perhaps it is because terminal illnesses are treated as acceptable and understandable reasons for allowing peaceful death in a prohibitionist, pro-life society?

Personally I would think that perhaps it is the understanding of those ailments in particular having no cure and that all treatments and attempts at recovery are futile, therefore most people know that death will happen regardless of what treatment or action is taken. For instance, someone with Stage III cancer and within 3-6 months the pain is intolerable and that death is imminent from the cancer and comorbidities surrounding the terminal disease, so pro-lifers accept that death with dignity, peaceful death is a valid option. However, for other ailments, usually non-terminal, pro-lifers forbid the right to die and futilely persist in pro-longing life (suffering) as long as possible. Such cases are like survivors of horrific accidents, victims of crime, those with severe injuries resulting in severe debilitation and low quality of life and such (Note: I'm not denigrating nor putting down people in those predicaments.), they are not allowed death with dignity nor voluntary euthanasia according to pro-lifers. That in and of itself is just disgraceful and despicable, but I digress.

Additionally, I think perhaps the cause of "false hope" and the lack of imminence (death within a foreseeable timeframe) are big factors for such pushback on non-terminal prognosis and those people who are perpetually suffering low quality of life (severely disabled and debilitated, requiring around the clock care). There is some innate, atavistic moral perspective on life always being a positive, a virtue, a sacred thing to be protected at all costs, at least that seems to be the reason, but I'm not sure.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think this is the reasoning behind why pro-lifers support voluntary euthanasia and death with dignity for cases of terminal illnesses (especially for those whose death are imminent or reasonably foreseeable – like within a few months)?

@Forever Sleep @SilentSadness

Note: This thread was posted before the lost data incident and only reposting it since I believe it is a valuable thread and contained good discussion.

 

[FuneralCry]

In my opinion many do probably because the person will die very soon enough anyway, I don't even think all pro-lifers support if for those people though especially those who really worship life.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think it's also because it's more visible to them and likely even has the approval by doctors that nothing more can be done for the person. Plus- maybe they worry that they may end up like that one day. We all die of something. Certain illnesses are hereditary. I imagine more people worry about developing alzeimer's and cancer than they do a mental illness. Maybe they're also thinking ahead to their own demise and hoping it will be dignified.

 

[TAW122]

In my opinion many do probably because the person will die very soon enough anyway, I don't even think all pro-lifers support if for those people though especially those who really worship life.

That's true too, I've seen some militant pro-lifers who even at the end of life still fervently cling onto life as if it is something 'precious'. I do of course avoid reacting IRL (for obvious reasons) but I certainly do feel uncomfortable to the fact that these people are the ones who are willing to project their view of life onto those who don't share them.

I think it's also because it's more visible to them and likely even has the approval by doctors that nothing more can be done for the person. Plus- maybe they worry that they may end up like that one day. We all die of something. Certain illnesses are hereditary. I imagine more people worry about developing alzeimer's and cancer than they do a mental illness. Maybe they're also thinking ahead to their own demise and hoping it will be dignified.

Well said. I believe that for terminal illnesses, it is probably socially accepted partly (like you said) it is inevitable and that it will happen so they (the pro-lifers) somehow 'tolerate' it even if it goes against their worldview (basically they the pro-lifers are forced into a corner by life itself and forced to confront the true reality - which is all life eventually ends and quite a lot end in a ghastly manner). Furthermore, I believe that for terminal illnesses it is more relatable as such that it is observable and/or they themselves had people close to them go through it, which gives them a clearer idea of what it is.

 

[SilentSadness]

I think because many people are very shallow, and don't think about much deeply. So when someone has a terminal illness, it's obvious that they should have the right to die, but in other cases it requires some thinking and going against the status quo. I also think many of the more extreme pro lifers don't even accept the right to die for terminally ill people. I think that whether someone is terminally ill is irrelevant to their right to die.

 

[Zaphkiel]

Because Ethically you can't go wrong with it (it CAN'T be a wrong choice due to unstable emotionally etc) and therefore is 0 guilt attached to it, 0 responsability, and the cherry on top is that it cost less to society.
but the top 1 thing is ethic and if it's really the right (and ultime) solution. That's the problem that can't be easily sorted.

 

[TAW122]

I think because many people are very shallow, and don't think about much deeply. So when someone has a terminal illness, it's obvious that they should have the right to die, but in other cases it requires some thinking and going against the status quo. I also think many of the more extreme pro lifers don't even accept the right to die for terminally ill people. I think that whether someone is terminally ill is irrelevant to their right to die.

That's an interesting take. Many people are just following the status quo and anything that goes against it, including questioning or doubting it would greatly undermine their tightly held beliefs and the fabric of society. It is also true that even the most extreme pro-lifers don't respect the right to die for terminally ill people, oftenly motivated by religious reasons.

Because Ethically you can't go wrong with it (it CAN'T be a wrong choice due to unstable emotionally etc) and therefore is 0 guilt attached to it, 0 responsability, and the cherry on top is that it cost less to society.
but the top 1 thing is ethic and if it's really the right (and ultime) solution. That's the problem that can't be easily sorted.

Indeed, this is an ongoing problem in the 20th century and even into present day 21st century. It seems like a lot of back and forth (along with circular discussion) even in the ethics and philosophy communities. I don't really know what the conclusion is and perhaps there really isn't (unless there is a heavy shift in mindset and attitude of the masses - which sadly, isn't going to come soon enough).

 

[LaVieEnRose]

That's one reason. Other types of anguish are not as easily understood and emphasized with and it can be unclear if they truly will never get better which makes people less inclined to support death as an option.

 

[Chili]

I've never thought about this, but it is interesting. I personally don't think pro-life is a great ideology, especially since you're forcing your values on someone else. But, I think it's easy for those who have never been there to just assume that because you are not terminally ill, you're not suffering. I'm not sure if it makes any sense, but it feels like a lot of these pro-life people can't comprehend that there are some mental illnesses (for example) are genuinely unbearable. Maybe they think you can be fixed between A and B, but they don't offer any solutions to the issue. They can tell you to go to therapy, but who knows if that'll be effective. It's not a band-aid solution, and kind of self-serving on their part. But, again I'm just biased against those kinds of people, in general so idk