Darkover
Illuminated
- Jul 29, 2021
- 3,831
In my view, the current right to die debate largely misses the point with regards to why individuals should have the right to die by suicide. The right to die tends to be framed as a positive right that some consider to be owed to us by the government as an act of mercy.
However, what is being overlooked is the tireless measures that are being taken by governments to try and restrict access to lethal suicide methods. This happened again recently with a common substance used within the food industry and until recently, widely available to the public, being restricted to being sold to licensed companies only. There seems to be only one reason for this; that being the fact that this had been identified by right to die organisations as an effective and efficient suicide method. And this has also been the case the world over with suicide barriers being erected to prevent suicides.
Because these suicide methods do exist and could be made available to people who wanted to end their lives, in order to deprive people of these methods via legal controls is an active way of keeping people trapped in circumstances that are causing severe harm. When people are left with less effective suicide methods, then they must consider the risks of surviving those suicide attempts with catastrophic consequences, such as being left so severely disabled by the attempt that it would be impossible to commit suicide in the future, and also illegal for anyone to euthanise you:
I would thus argue that restricting access to reliable suicide methods which exist is tantamount to institutionalised torture, and because the individual will often continue to live due to the lack of an easy exit, it can be considered to be slavery as well, as they are not living for their own reasons, but living because society denies them an easy exit and instead enacts policies that effectively force them to continue to exist against their will, for reasons that reflect society's interests rather than the interests of the individual. I don't think that you could consider the denial of suicide methods (which would be voluntarily provided) to be akin to denying a person just ONE right in the same way that we might deny people the right to own guns, because denying them the right to access a reliable suicide method (one that somebody else is willing to provide them with) necessarily entails that they are forced to continue living their life and doing everything necessary to protect that life from harm and satisfy need (e.g. feed themselves, clothe themselves, shelter themselves). Moreover, even if someone does decide to try their luck with a suicide method that they've actually been able to access, then they will have to be clandestine in their plans, as the authorities and civilians have the right to foil any suicide attempt, even in cases where it is not posing a threat to any other person, and have the right to use any degree of force in order to do so. Even if this force itself results in permanent injury.
I do believe that there should also be a positive right to be provided the means to suicide, given that the misery of individuals is the collateral damage of society, and society should thus not be allowed to abdicate its responsibility for cleaning up the damage that it causes. However, my argument here is that the current paternalistic system is actively interfering in such a way that amounts to the systematic and deliberate torture of people who are suffering.
I do not believe that it can be considered right or just to "protect" people from their own thoughts, when there are many suicidal people (such as myself) who remain consistently and unwaveringly suicidal, and who have thought about it from a philosophical perspective (i.e. I cannot remember feeling deprived of my life before I was born, and do not believe that consciousness persists after death, which means that I don't see how I could feel deprived of life after I am dead).
However, what is being overlooked is the tireless measures that are being taken by governments to try and restrict access to lethal suicide methods. This happened again recently with a common substance used within the food industry and until recently, widely available to the public, being restricted to being sold to licensed companies only. There seems to be only one reason for this; that being the fact that this had been identified by right to die organisations as an effective and efficient suicide method. And this has also been the case the world over with suicide barriers being erected to prevent suicides.
Because these suicide methods do exist and could be made available to people who wanted to end their lives, in order to deprive people of these methods via legal controls is an active way of keeping people trapped in circumstances that are causing severe harm. When people are left with less effective suicide methods, then they must consider the risks of surviving those suicide attempts with catastrophic consequences, such as being left so severely disabled by the attempt that it would be impossible to commit suicide in the future, and also illegal for anyone to euthanise you:
I would thus argue that restricting access to reliable suicide methods which exist is tantamount to institutionalised torture, and because the individual will often continue to live due to the lack of an easy exit, it can be considered to be slavery as well, as they are not living for their own reasons, but living because society denies them an easy exit and instead enacts policies that effectively force them to continue to exist against their will, for reasons that reflect society's interests rather than the interests of the individual. I don't think that you could consider the denial of suicide methods (which would be voluntarily provided) to be akin to denying a person just ONE right in the same way that we might deny people the right to own guns, because denying them the right to access a reliable suicide method (one that somebody else is willing to provide them with) necessarily entails that they are forced to continue living their life and doing everything necessary to protect that life from harm and satisfy need (e.g. feed themselves, clothe themselves, shelter themselves). Moreover, even if someone does decide to try their luck with a suicide method that they've actually been able to access, then they will have to be clandestine in their plans, as the authorities and civilians have the right to foil any suicide attempt, even in cases where it is not posing a threat to any other person, and have the right to use any degree of force in order to do so. Even if this force itself results in permanent injury.
I do believe that there should also be a positive right to be provided the means to suicide, given that the misery of individuals is the collateral damage of society, and society should thus not be allowed to abdicate its responsibility for cleaning up the damage that it causes. However, my argument here is that the current paternalistic system is actively interfering in such a way that amounts to the systematic and deliberate torture of people who are suffering.
I do not believe that it can be considered right or just to "protect" people from their own thoughts, when there are many suicidal people (such as myself) who remain consistently and unwaveringly suicidal, and who have thought about it from a philosophical perspective (i.e. I cannot remember feeling deprived of my life before I was born, and do not believe that consciousness persists after death, which means that I don't see how I could feel deprived of life after I am dead).
