Discussion Extension of the 'animals suffering' argument

[TAW122]

This is not a new argument that is used in support of the right to die, but I figured I extend the argument and flesh it out a bit more. When people talk about putting their terminally ill pets down (or even pets who are suffering immensely with little/not prospect of improvement), almost everyone (including pro-lifers) support it (barring a very tiny minority of people - whom are called selfish even by pro-lifers themselves alike). Even the religious folk find a way to justify why putting down an animal who is suffering immensely because animals (and other non-human species) because they are not the same as humans or even go to great lengths to use mental gymnastics to justify their position.

Therefore, whenever one talks about how it would be more merciful (and even the right choice) towards ending another animal's suffering rather than letting nature take it's course, (almost) everyone agrees. But then, if we apply the same argument towards fellow human beings, whom are of course more intelligent, rational, and have the ability to consent and (explicitly) express their wishes, our fellow human beings refuse to extend that right to our own. It's morally and ethically reprehensible that we don't treat our own with the same mercy that we treat other species, despite us having more capacity, rationality, and ability to make our wishes known.

Another member here @Forever Sleep has made a good argument saying pretty much the same thing I've said in this thread, albeit phrased and approached differently. FS states that even animals are treated more humanely than humans yet animals lack the ability to consent to a choice. We as humans play God when it comes to choosing for other species (animals) yet when it comes to our own species (other fellow humans), we don't extend the same right to them.

While religion really plays a major role (in the past and even to this day) in shaping our values and how we value (human) life itself, it is wrong for them to impose their worldview and will unto those (us pro-choicers and others with similar minds) who don't hold the same beliefs as they do. This only serves as well as proves to show the disingenuity, hypocrisy, and ignorance of the majority of humans on this planet.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Thanks for referencing me @TAW122.

I suppose the trouble we are always going to have is this issue of being in 'sound state of mind.'

Yes- we can tell our therapists and doctors our wishes all we want but if they believe we are somehow disconnected from what we REALLY want- we're screwed. The moment you mention suicide- this seems to be what they do... ie. 'It's the illness that is making you think like that and we can cure that.' (Perhaps)

I think there are two main obstacles:

To get them to acknowledge that not everyone who wants to CTB is mentally ill. (Debatable) In which case- is it acceptable for a 'healthy' person to choose to end their life?

That mental illness does not necessarily prevent a person from making rational choices for themselves.

If we can't get them to agree on either of those terms- the only way out for those mentally ill or suffering is to be able to prove that their suffering is unbearable and treatment resistant. Then- I believe those cases will merit assisted suicide. Getting them to acknowledge that though I imagine will be more tricky.

 

[TAW122]

I think there are two main obstacles:

To get them to acknowledge that not everyone who wants to CTB is mentally ill. (Debatable) In which case- is it acceptable for a 'healthy' person to choose to end their life?

That mental illness does not necessarily prevent a person from making rational choices for themselves.

Those two main obstacles would be addressed in something similar to MAiD, like the one in Canada. If I recall, there is a section that says exactly what you said (though not exactly word for word, but pretty much the same thing). 'Wanting to die is not indicative of a mental illness." Additionally, I think programs like MAiD also mention that a person making that choice (medical assistance in dying/voluntary assisted death) does not necessarily indicate that they lack capacity.

I do agree though, if we can continue the same line of thought regarding "wanting to die is not indicative of a mental illness" then we can disprove quite a bit of the false assertions of 'mental illness' in patients who wish to die. Another thing is that even if someone had mental illness, it doesn't prevent a person from having capacity to make rational choices. I made that argument by referring the criminal justice system, where people who are ill are still held accountable and sentenced accordingly despite committing very serious and heinous crimes (not limited to high profile cases). Sure the insanity-plea may be a thing for those suspects/defendants, but more oftenly than not, the 'insanity plea' is quickly (or eventually) struck down when the suspect is proven to have capacity (IANAL but that's what I find from reading verdicts of many high profile cases).

 

[Forever Sleep]

Those two main obstacles would be addressed in something similar to MAiD, like the one in Canada. If I recall, there is a section that says exactly what you said (though not exactly word for word, but pretty much the same thing). 'Wanting to die is not indicative of a mental illness." Additionally, I think programs like MAiD also mention that a person making that choice (medical assistance in dying/voluntary assisted death) does not necessarily indicate that they lack capacity.

I do agree though, if we can continue the same line of thought regarding "wanting to die is not indicative of a mental illness" then we can disprove quite a bit of the false assertions of 'mental illness' in patients who wish to die. Another thing is that even if someone had mental illness, it doesn't prevent a person from having capacity to make rational choices. I made that argument by referring the criminal justice system, where people who are ill are still held accountable and sentenced accordingly despite committing very serious and heinous crimes (not limited to high profile cases). Sure the insanity-plea may be a thing for those suspects/defendants, but more oftenly than not, the 'insanity plea' is quickly (or eventually) struck down when the suspect is proven to have capacity (IANAL but that's what I find from reading verdicts of many high profile cases).

I've thought this EXACTLY- that the 'mentally ill' suicidal person is essentially treated as two people- the ill person (who wants to die) masking the real person (who supposedly doesn't.) And they won't listen to the ill person.

Yet the 'mentally ill' criminal is quite often seen and sentenced as one person. Because- as you say- they do quite often seem to know very well that what they did was wrong. (Evil in some cases.)

Surely- this principle OUGHT to extend to the 'mentally ill' suicidal person? If they can rationalise why they want to die and what it means in their head to be dead. Shouldn't that mean they comprehend their options (including those to get well) as well as a full grasp of what death is?

I suppose they'll argue that the mentally ill or depressed person's thinking has become skewed- but then- so has a rapist's or a murderer's! And like you say- they made thought-out choices over what they did and ought to be held responsible. A mentally ill person may very well be largely responsible and in control of their own thoughts I imagine.

 

[Jarni]

I've thought this EXACTLY- that the 'mentally ill' suicidal person is essentially treated as two people- the ill person (who wants to die) masking the real person (who supposedly doesn't.) And they won't listen to the ill person.

Yet the 'mentally ill' criminal is quite often seen and sentenced as one person. Because- as you say- they do quite often seem to know very well that what they did was wrong. (Evil in some cases.)

Surely- this principle OUGHT to extend to the 'mentally ill' suicidal person? If they can rationalise why they want to die and what it means in their head to be dead. Shouldn't that mean they comprehend their options (including those to get well) as well as a full grasp of what death is?

I suppose they'll argue that the mentally ill or depressed person's thinking has become skewed- but then- so has a rapist's or a murderer's! And like you say- they made thought-out choices over what they did and ought to be held responsible. A mentally ill person may very well be largely responsible and in control of their own thoughts I imagine.

There will be a problem with all the people with Alzheimer, dementia, Down's syndrome, TBI etc... We can't say that they have to suffer for decades..
There could be a sort of DNR like when a person have mental capacities, she/he could legally ask for euthanasia in case of Alzheimer etc...
But if the person is born like mentally incapacitated or it is too late to establish this type of document....

 

[TAW122]

There will be a problem with all the people with Alzheimer, dementia, Down's syndrome, TBI etc... We can't say that they have to suffer for decades..
There could be a sort of DNR like when a person have mental capacities, she/he could legally ask for euthanasia in case of Alzheimer etc...
But if the person is born like mentally incapacitated or it is too late to establish this type of document....

There is indeed DNRs, living wills, and AD (advance directives) that exist for people in those predicaments or will be in such predicaments, whether they are honored or not is another issue altogether (I would expect people to contest over wills and what not (which they already do)). As for people born mentally incapacitated, yes I believe there isn't a good system at the start unless one has merciful parents/guardians (or if it is possible, that they gain mental competency through age - I could be wrong though).

I suppose they'll argue that the mentally ill or depressed person's thinking has become skewed- but then- so has a rapist's or a murderer's! And like you say- they made thought-out choices over what they did and ought to be held responsible. A mentally ill person may very well be largely responsible and in control of their own thoughts I imagine.

Good point and that is a specific case where the mental health industry is hypocritical, to argue that a mentally ill or depressed person's thinking has become skewed, but then not for a rapist's or a murderer's thinking. It pretty much becomes a pick and choose issue and intellectual dishonesty, meaning that they want to apply a different standard to both situations.

 

[Forever Sleep]

There will be a problem with all the people with Alzheimer, dementia, Down's syndrome, TBI etc... We can't say that they have to suffer for decades..
There could be a sort of DNR like when a person have mental capacities, she/he could legally ask for euthanasia in case of Alzheimer etc...
But if the person is born like mentally incapacitated or it is too late to establish this type of document....

This is a very good point. I suspect there are cases in which- either from birth- or in later life- the person cannot communicate their wishes- or it is very difficult to ascertain mental competancy. I agree- it would be cruel to witness them suffer and just allow it. I suppose in these cases- it largely becomes the choice of their parents/care givers/next of kin and doctors to ascertain how much pain/distress they are in- and the best course of action. I wonder if the 'lasting power of attorney' could become part of these kinds of situations (if one is in place.) Very good point.

 

[Rational man]

Fascinating post and comments. Humanity is controlled by the ethical dilemma of saving life, in contrast to killing people which of course is a criminal offense. Humankind struggles with the life/ death dilemma . We live and then we die. This is paradoxical because it requires us to accept that we cease to exist after death and for many people, this thought strikes fear into life.itself. Animals do not have this concept ( as far as I know ). So yes,humanity accepts that it is okay to suffer terribly in life and then die. Even though death is guaranteed, it is apparently comforting to know that our loved ones died after a brave battle, surrounded by' loved ones'.

 

[Jarni]

Even though death is guaranteed, it is apparently comforting to know that our loved ones died after a brave battle, surrounded by' loved ones'.

People don't understand that in big majority of cases if you are chronically ill (housebound, bedridden etc...) or too depressed and some other situations, you will quickly lose your friends and family... Very few persons will be "surrounded"...

 

[FuneralCry]

Those people who support animal euthanasia but yet not human euthanasia are just so hypocritical to me. It's just so ironic how for animals a peaceful exit is seen as being the kindest thing once the animal suffers to the point that existing is painful for them, yet with humans suicide is often seen as being worse than any kind of torture or suffering.
It really is irrational to believe that suicide is wrong under any circumstances and see it as being beneficial to prolong unnecessary torment against the person's wishes.

Continuing to exist is only ever delaying the inevitable anyway so to die could never be a negative thing, it's what we are destined for after all and we all deserve the choice whether to continue or not without having to resort to risky and painful suicide methods. But of course it would be different if something happened to the people who are against assisted suicide for humans to make them wish to die, and then I'm pretty sure that they would change their pro suffering views.

 

[releasespieces]

This is not a new argument that is used in support of the right to die, but I figured I extend the argument and flesh it out a bit more. When people talk about putting their terminally ill pets down (or even pets who are suffering immensely with little/not prospect of improvement), almost everyone (including pro-lifers) support it (barring a very tiny minority of people - whom are called selfish even by pro-lifers themselves alike). Even the religious folk find a way to justify why putting down an animal who is suffering immensely because animals (and other non-human species) because they are not the same as humans or even go to great lengths to use mental gymnastics to justify their position.

Therefore, whenever one talks about how it would be more merciful (and even the right choice) towards ending another animal's suffering rather than letting nature take it's course, (almost) everyone agrees. But then, if we apply the same argument towards fellow human beings, whom are of course more intelligent, rational, and have the ability to consent and (explicitly) express their wishes, our fellow human beings refuse to extend that right to our own. It's morally and ethically reprehensible that we don't treat our own with the same mercy that we treat other species, despite us having more capacity, rationality, and ability to make our wishes known.

Another member here @Forever Sleep has made a good argument saying pretty much the same thing I've said in this thread, albeit phrased and approached differently. FS states that even animals are treated more humanely than humans yet animals lack the ability to consent to a choice. We as humans play God when it comes to choosing for other species (animals) yet when it comes to our own species (other fellow humans), we don't extend the same right to them.

While religion really plays a major role (in the past and even to this day) in shaping our values and how we value (human) life itself, it is wrong for them to impose their worldview and will unto those (us pro-choicers and others with similar minds) who don't hold the same beliefs as they do. This only serves as well as proves to show the disingenuity, hypocrisy, and ignorance of the majority of humans on this planet.

Bravo .. this is it exactly. Makes me want to burn down a few churches on my way out. Religion is the worst, causes so much suffering in the world.