On the right to die , euthanasia, and a graceful exit for all. My stance.

[Ligottifan95]

I am in support of a universal right-to-die/voluntary euthanasia, and to be able to exit in a peaceful, humane manner such as being given Nembutal. It logically follows from acceptance of the principle of bodily autonomy and is in accordance with my negative utilitarian ethics prioritizing the reduction/elimination of suffering and quality of life taking precedence over merely existing, quantity of lives, length of life, or some deontological, Kantian morality that states unexceptionally that we must never end life(and that being alive is somehow always preferable to non-existence). We allow this for the worst criminals such as serial killers by lethal injection, but deny it to us who suffer intolerably every day. If one is opposed based on some fear that this assisted dying would institutionalize "killing", I advise taking a look at our societies and the ways killing, harm, suffering, and exploitation by indirect, systemic(or structural) means is already normalized and scarcely noticed, such as through poverty, high-costs of medicine/doctors, hunger/malnourishment, pollution, selling unhealthy, toxic foods contributing to diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and lowering the life-expectancy significantly, etcetera. Basically, we are brought into this world without consent and determined by various, unchosen factors such as genetics, environment, economic statuses, traumatic experiences, and other involuntary impositions. Why should we be forced to live unwillingly when we never agreed or signed up for this flawed, precarious life condemned to age and die through natural processes anyway? To me, protracted suffering, chronic illness, disabling disorders, and pain(of either a physical or psychological nature) is far worse an evil than death, which is total nothingness free of all pain, the non-existence preceding birth that cannot rationally be categorized as "bad" in-of- itself. People will commit suicide no matter what the prohibitive legal status regarding euthanasia is in a given country, but it will be in a violent way, coerced into secrecy and undue anxieties, leaving loved ones to find bodies hanging or spewing blood, which I would assume is emotionally devastating and scarring, without dignity or respect. Frankly, whenever I hear of suicides(which are very underreported/televised, probably because it would tarnish the image of a given society's systems and institutions and the whole of psychiatry), I feel nothing but sympathy, understanding, and a bit of envy. I think the Japanese culture has a point, the whole idea that death by self-annihilation is a legitimate response, and even for the best, than continuing to live a meaningless, unsuccessful, and burdensome existence, a defeated existence with no prospect of recovery and relief.

 

[waitingforrest]

Beautifuly put. The quality of life has been getting worse despite the technology improvements. Covid was just the wake up call on how fragile our society is.

I sometimes wonder why suicide is viewed as such a deplorable act. Death will come to all of us eventually, so what is wrong with ending it early? The only time suicides are reported are to spread the "life is worth living and get help" message. Every article I read is plastered with shallow mantras and false promises.

I agree there is something wrong with our society, how most people seem to think preventing is the same as helping. To help in my definition is to make it better, prolonging suffering doesn't seem like helping. How is it that we are able to put pets down without their consent, but not for humans who could express their pain? I sometimes dislike it how people believe they know what is best for others, people's lives are all different.

I wish some doctors could understand that just because things worked out for them doesn't mean the same for everyone. It's gets better can be just as false as getting worse. It's just sadly that believing in getting worse is considered irrational.

I like the point you made about how none of us consented to living. I have been told life's a gift and we are all special. To be honest, I don't care, I never wanted to exist. I honestly want a refund if life is that great.

 

[FuneralCry]

I believe that a peaceful death should be a human right, nobody should be expected to suffer for decades against their wishes. Living is not an obligation after all. Respecting our right to die would mean a much more compassionate society. I believe that in a life as horrible as this wanting suicide is perfectly rational, to me it makes sense to escape a future filled with pain.

 

[YourNeighbor]

I am in support of a universal right-to-die/voluntary euthanasia, and to be able to exit in a peaceful, humane manner such as being given Nembutal. It logically follows from acceptance of the principle of bodily autonomy and is in accordance with my negative utilitarian ethics prioritizing the reduction/elimination of suffering and quality of life taking precedence over merely existing, quantity of lives, length of life, or some deontological, Kantian morality that states unexceptionally that we must never end life(and that being alive is somehow always preferable to non-existence).

Interesting take, and I see the logic in your post. I disagree with what seems like your prescription that society should facilitate suicide in all cases.

There are many reasons to think that such a proposal could have many negative repercussions. On an individual level, we know that many attempts are in fact impulsive and undertaken by people with no long term desire to die, and who are glad to have failed in their attempt. It's probably a good thing most attempted suicides fail, and I'm not sure we should be trying to boost the success rates -- many individuals who might otherwise actually want to--and could--live would die based on a temporary mental state.

From a societal point of view, easier suicide on demand may also stifle societal progress (which waxes and wanes anyway, to be sure). When the downtrodden organize and challenge an oppressive status quo, things can improve on a societal scale. That's probably somewhat more likely when easy suicide is not available on demand.

There are probably countless other reasons why society should not facilitate suicide on demand, but as a general proposition, I don't buy any absolutist position (suicide is always bad/good) on suicide. It's too complicated a topic for such a basic redux.

 

[myopybyproxy]

Interesting take, and I see the logic in your post. I disagree with what seems like your prescription that society should facilitate suicide in all cases.

There are many reasons to think that such a proposal could have many negative repercussions. On an individual level, we know that many attempts are in fact impulsive and undertaken by people with no long term desire to die, and who are glad to have failed in their attempt. It's probably a good thing most attempted suicides fail, and I'm not sure we should be trying to boost the success rates -- many individuals who might otherwise actually want to--and could--live would die based on a temporary mental state.

From a societal point of view, easier suicide on demand may also stifle societal progress (which waxes and wanes anyway, to be sure). When the downtrodden organize and challenge an oppressive status quo, things can improve on a societal scale. That's probably somewhat more likely when easy suicide is not available on demand.

There are probably countless other reasons why society should not facilitate suicide on demand, but as a general proposition, I don't buy any absolutist position (suicide is always bad/good) on suicide. It's too complicated a topic for such a basic redux.

you raise good points, although I don't fully agree with all of them. you're right, this is a nuanced subject and absolute stances are never good. (see what I did there?)

where are you getting that statistic from? I will be right back with a poll.

 

[YourNeighbor]

you raise good points, although I don't fully agree with all of them. you're right, this is a nuanced subject and absolute stances are never good. (see what I did there?)

where are you getting that statistic from? I will be right back with a poll.

There are tons of studies out there on these questions. In the linked study, ~35% were glad to have failed their attempt and 45% were ambivalent.

Psychiatry Online

ajp.psychiatryonline.org

 

[myopybyproxy]

There are tons of studies out there on these questions. In the linked study, ~35% were glad to have failed their attempt and 45% were ambivalent.

Psychiatry Online

ajp.psychiatryonline.org

I wouldn't call 35% 'many' - and these attempts were not classified by impulsivity but only by attempters' post hoc reactions. you are conflating the two in assuming that those who were glad they were alive made the attempt impulsively. you cannot claim they had 'no long term desire to die' when the study did not ask about lifelong suicidality. it only investigated 10 years following an attempt.

and you can't do a study of those who succeeded and poll them if they are glad they succeeded or wished they had stayed alive. this is like trying to prove or disprove the existence of a god, or afterlife. some things are just an individual belief. making suicide illegal only stigmatises and further marginalises an already marginalised group and does nothing toward 'saving' or 'helping'.