Elaborating and debunking the argument “If the RTD was allowed... less incentive to find solutions.”

[TAW122]

This is a two part argument that I will address in this thread and article as I have rebuttals against such claims that pro-lifers and DRA's (disability rights activists) make. In one of my older threads listing all the misconceptions that DRAs have about the right to die, I mentioned one of the arguments that DRA's have is that "If the right to die is legalized and permitted, then the government and healthcare industries will not have incentives to find cures or a solution." (misconception #3). The first part will address this. Then also a quick rebuttal towards another argument (which is really just a discrediting tactic used by DRAs to silence dissenting opinions), which is "You (non-disabled or able-bodied person) are not qualified to talk about the disabled." (misconception #8)

Part I:
The first part of this argument is the erroneous presumption that if the right to die was legalized and widespread, then there will be more people dying as the government and healthcare industry will have less incentives to find cures and solutions to ailments, diseases, and disabilities. This is erroneous because of two different case examples.

Case A: DRA's had many years to keep pushing for change, but the change that they claimed to want to happen (more incentives for cures and solutions to diseases and such) haven't really happened. At this point, it is just another forever moving goalpost for many years (decades) to come. If the government hasn't moved much towards finding a solution before (throughout the many decades or so), then what makes them (the DRA's and pro-lifers against voluntary euthanasia) believe that it will come soon (which could be many more decades, long after all of us are dead from natural causes, or perhaps never)? Then there is the problem of restricting a peaceful exit towards those who wish to exit.

Case B: Why not do both? Volunteer the ones who wish to continue fighting for a solution to fight for a better future (there are plenty of them) while allowing those who are weary and tired a peaceful exit. This way if the government fails to find a solution, those who are suffering and want out are not left suffering indefinitely, perpetually until natural causes take course. Then for those who want to stick around will continue the fight for their "cure or solution". That's a much better outcome.

Part II:
The second part of this argument is a dismissal of dissenting and contrary opinions towards their worldview, in an attempt to silence those who don't share the same view as they do. It's rather shameful that they resort to that instead of hearing (dissenting opinions) out even if they don't agree. They prefer to shut their ears and scream their views as the absolute truth. To start, one doesn't have to be "qualified" to hold an opinion because through observation and logic reasoning, one is capable to understand and recognize that suffering is not ideal and that limits exist and are different for each individual. No two individual are the same in terms of their limit and tolerance for suffering.

Next, even if one meets their criteria of being "qualified" they are quickly sequestered into a prejudiced and ill pre-conceived view of what the disabled are and silenced into their respective organizations, which doesn't accurately represent their interests in the way they wish for. (e.g. not all people with SCI want to live, but yet SCI organizations project the view that ALL of them do).

Consider Dan Crews, who was a quadriplegic from a very young age due to an accident, and he did not enjoy living (which of course, is very rational and understandable given his predicament in life – including and all the way up to adulthood). His voice and choice was definitely not honored, and his treatment team basically disregarded his bodily autonomy. While he did pass at the age of 37, he did suffer over three decades of his life. Even when he is legally an adult, he clearly stated he did not wish to continue living yet his treatment team shamefully disregarded his wishes and continued to push for him to live out his natural life (until March 2021). His story is only one of many who are disabled and don't find life worth living nor the suffering acceptable, yet there just isn't much talk or reporting of that (barring very few sensational stories) only because it doesn't serve the status quo and narrative of pro-lifers nor the media. These people do exist and their voices are simply being drowned out by the many people who love life and that is not acceptable.

Essentially DRA's (by extension also pro-lifers by nature) are insufferable and are just unhappy with whatever results are unless it validates their biases and preconceived (and false) prejudices against handicapped people as well as non-handicapped people. What do I mean by this? I mean that in the case of most people whose opinions are dissenting from the DRA's accepted view on life with disabilities, handicaps, and/or impediments, they are automatically written off/invalidated by default, in other words, not even considered. However, on the flip side, if someone who actually fits the condition or disability that is being advocated for, their opinion is also written off simply because that is not what the rest (or the majority) of the other people in the same predicament share. So DRA's de facto deprive and deny everyone (including the people they are advocating for, the ones with the actual disability or impairment) whose opinion and voices on the matter do not match their proposed, rose-tinted lofty views on whether life is worth living. This is effectively subtle censorship, but through invalidation and deception. In short, this means that the DRAs only cowtow and support those who agree with them, but not actually honor the wishes of the disabled, handicapped dissidents!

Anyways, I figured I write this article mostly to elaborate on my position and also further debunk some misconceptions in more detail. Also, a hint of venting for me because hell, if no one's opinion is valid and not allowed to have one, then essentially it's subtle censorship by the pro-lifers! I'm just going to give me two cents anyhow since I have a voice and even if I'm not severely physically disabled, it doesn't invalidate my two cents on this matter.

 

[ayb]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I believe the primary reason as to why most disability rights activists object to assisted suicide is because it violates their moral principles. Concerns about environmental factors (poverty, homelessness, lack of adequate healthcare) are secondary and still important, but not the primary reason. Even in countries like Switzerland with some of the strongest social safety supports and living standards for PWDs (and assisted suicide is also legal) they're still in opposition to MAID. Meanwhile pretty much every survey conducted so far in the western world asking if assisted should be permitted shows that the great majority of the disabled support it. I too am sick of their arrogance and infantilization of disabled individuals.

 

[TAW122]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I believe the primary reason as to why most disability rights activists object to assisted suicide is because it violates their moral principles. Concerns about environmental factors (poverty, homelessness, lack of adequate healthcare) are secondary and still important, but not the primary reason. Even in countries like Switzerland with some of the strongest social safety supports and living standards for PWDs (and assisted suicide is also legal) they're still in opposition to MAID. Meanwhile pretty much every survey conducted so far in the western world asking if assisted should be permitted shows that the great majority of the disabled support it. I too am sick of their arrogance and infantilization of disabled individuals.

Well said, and yes, the concept of the disabled are not of sound mind to make decisions really needs to be abolished! People who are disabled still have capacity to consent and be able to know what they are choosing, and it's insulting for DRAs to claim otherwise.. Like you said, it's about upholding the DRA's moral principles while the secondary reasons are just really scenery and diversions from the REAL reason behind such heavy handed and prohibitive attitudes towards the right to die for (even) the disabled.