TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,819
This thread is a deeper dive and an expansion of the argument of allowing concessions and compromises with regards to the right to die. In many previous threads I have discussed that if only pro-lifers were reasonable (which they are not!) and accepted some form of concessions or compromise, meaning that they would accept having policy that would respect a person's bodily autonomy while still ensuring that people don't get pushed into making choices that they wouldn't otherwise, then we'd be better off and this right to die would be less of a conflict or contention. So far, the right to die issue has always been a sensitive topic and more-so a contention/conflict because pro-lifers refuse to allow any concessions or compromises with regards to policy, but rather just a blanket prohibition on the right to choose death at all (barring terminally ill people and even then it's not guaranteed). @Forever Sleep
As a result of this, we continue to see people who are desperate enough choose risky, barbaric, and harmful methods that may result in a brutal death, or even in some cases, cause collateral damage due to unwilling participants. This all could be prevented and avoided if we just had a framework policy that allowed people who really wanted to die to be able to access them, such as a clinic. Having such a clinic would be the compromise in which impulsive and barbaric methods would not be necessary and those who "truly" wish to die can have that option and not feel trapped. There would be many safeguards, including a waiting period to ensure that those who wish to die are given the opportunity to change their mind at every step and more. Any person who is found to be under duress (being forced, coerced instead of making their decision on their own), making impulsive decisions, or not sound of mind (meaning that they don't understand their choice or the consequences of it) would be barred until they can meet the criteria for it.
Furthermore, I want to address the argument of abuse and also irrationality. The argument that abuse can happen is a valid concern, but is not sufficient reason to indefinitely and permanently forbade people from exercising their bodily autonomy. There are always going to be bad actors, but we don't forbid everything just because some bad actors with malicious intentions would abuse said power, instead of hold those 'malicious actors' responsible and accountable through the legal system.
One such story would be where in the Netherlands a woman was suffering for many years, being in prison for crimes, in the psychiatric ward for her illnesses, and eventually was given the green light for voluntary euthanasia. However, had she been in the US or any other country that doesn't have very liberal laws pertaining to voluntary euthanasia and the right to die, she would be indefinitely kept alive against her will with all the pro-lifers gloating about how they kept someone entrapped in existence, suffering, and out of sight, out of mind. Then of course, there will be an endless battery of treatments, medications, drugs, and/or therapies (including new ones) that are imposed on the poor woman in the minuscule event that she somehow recovers. This would of course, be very unfair and unethical to her as almost every other country would just hold her hostage to sentience and suffering for something that may/not ever become reality. Fortunately, she did not have to endure such a fate and I wished that the US and most other countries around the world was like the Netherlands in that regard.
Another example would be a distraught person who had a bad relationship and after many years of trying to improve, they did not manage to do so and continue to suffer. To be more specific in this hypothetical (yet common) example would be suppose there is a teenager (maybe about 14-15 years of age) being distraught over their own issues, be it a breakup, a loss, a bad grade, or whatever (the reasoning is irrelevant though). And in the interim they are stopped because it was impulsive and/or not thought-out, but later on, if they still are feeling bothered or troubled by such events in their teens (even as an adult), then they should be given the option to check out peacefully and with dignity rather than suffering indefinitely for some rare, minute chance that they would just recover.
Reasonable compromise/concession:
A reasonable concession and/or compromise would be something like having a waiting period, give said person options to seek help, but don't deny the option of death being a valid solution (after exhausting other treatments first), and then after some given time as well as honest effort on said person's part, then said person will be given the green light to CTB and/or seek assisted death to be free of suffering. That would be a good concession in which the person isn't acting impulsively, is given many chances to try to fix the problem, and in the end, if to no avail, the person is at least free from suffering rather than being held hostage to a failed system with no relief (until natural causes or other cause of death). This would be the fairest option, but as long as this is never an option as per pro-lifers, there will continue to be desperate people who will resort to risky means, possibly causing collateral damage in the process, traumatizing others. That would be the consequence of a prohibitive society when it comes to the right to die.
In the end, it shouldn't matter whatever the reason is, but perpetual and total prohibition of the right to die doesn't solve any problems; it only traps the people whom the system and those in power have failed hostage to an unwanted existence full of suffering. It also makes certain people desperate enough that they try to do risky DIY methods in secrecy and with varying degrees of results, some in failure, some successful but brutal. Of course, many pro-lifers don't really consider (let alone care) about the consequences of these paternalistic, intrusive, and harmful tyrannical policies that the government enacts in addition to the prohibition and banning of peaceful, reliable methods. Then ironically, they cry and lament when they end up facing the (unwanted) outcomes and consequences of the prohibitive society.
As a result of this, we continue to see people who are desperate enough choose risky, barbaric, and harmful methods that may result in a brutal death, or even in some cases, cause collateral damage due to unwilling participants. This all could be prevented and avoided if we just had a framework policy that allowed people who really wanted to die to be able to access them, such as a clinic. Having such a clinic would be the compromise in which impulsive and barbaric methods would not be necessary and those who "truly" wish to die can have that option and not feel trapped. There would be many safeguards, including a waiting period to ensure that those who wish to die are given the opportunity to change their mind at every step and more. Any person who is found to be under duress (being forced, coerced instead of making their decision on their own), making impulsive decisions, or not sound of mind (meaning that they don't understand their choice or the consequences of it) would be barred until they can meet the criteria for it.
Furthermore, I want to address the argument of abuse and also irrationality. The argument that abuse can happen is a valid concern, but is not sufficient reason to indefinitely and permanently forbade people from exercising their bodily autonomy. There are always going to be bad actors, but we don't forbid everything just because some bad actors with malicious intentions would abuse said power, instead of hold those 'malicious actors' responsible and accountable through the legal system.
One such story would be where in the Netherlands a woman was suffering for many years, being in prison for crimes, in the psychiatric ward for her illnesses, and eventually was given the green light for voluntary euthanasia. However, had she been in the US or any other country that doesn't have very liberal laws pertaining to voluntary euthanasia and the right to die, she would be indefinitely kept alive against her will with all the pro-lifers gloating about how they kept someone entrapped in existence, suffering, and out of sight, out of mind. Then of course, there will be an endless battery of treatments, medications, drugs, and/or therapies (including new ones) that are imposed on the poor woman in the minuscule event that she somehow recovers. This would of course, be very unfair and unethical to her as almost every other country would just hold her hostage to sentience and suffering for something that may/not ever become reality. Fortunately, she did not have to endure such a fate and I wished that the US and most other countries around the world was like the Netherlands in that regard.
Another example would be a distraught person who had a bad relationship and after many years of trying to improve, they did not manage to do so and continue to suffer. To be more specific in this hypothetical (yet common) example would be suppose there is a teenager (maybe about 14-15 years of age) being distraught over their own issues, be it a breakup, a loss, a bad grade, or whatever (the reasoning is irrelevant though). And in the interim they are stopped because it was impulsive and/or not thought-out, but later on, if they still are feeling bothered or troubled by such events in their teens (even as an adult), then they should be given the option to check out peacefully and with dignity rather than suffering indefinitely for some rare, minute chance that they would just recover.
Reasonable compromise/concession:
A reasonable concession and/or compromise would be something like having a waiting period, give said person options to seek help, but don't deny the option of death being a valid solution (after exhausting other treatments first), and then after some given time as well as honest effort on said person's part, then said person will be given the green light to CTB and/or seek assisted death to be free of suffering. That would be a good concession in which the person isn't acting impulsively, is given many chances to try to fix the problem, and in the end, if to no avail, the person is at least free from suffering rather than being held hostage to a failed system with no relief (until natural causes or other cause of death). This would be the fairest option, but as long as this is never an option as per pro-lifers, there will continue to be desperate people who will resort to risky means, possibly causing collateral damage in the process, traumatizing others. That would be the consequence of a prohibitive society when it comes to the right to die.
In the end, it shouldn't matter whatever the reason is, but perpetual and total prohibition of the right to die doesn't solve any problems; it only traps the people whom the system and those in power have failed hostage to an unwanted existence full of suffering. It also makes certain people desperate enough that they try to do risky DIY methods in secrecy and with varying degrees of results, some in failure, some successful but brutal. Of course, many pro-lifers don't really consider (let alone care) about the consequences of these paternalistic, intrusive, and harmful tyrannical policies that the government enacts in addition to the prohibition and banning of peaceful, reliable methods. Then ironically, they cry and lament when they end up facing the (unwanted) outcomes and consequences of the prohibitive society.
