Discussion pro-choice but opposed to physician-assisted suicide?

[OutOfTheVoid]

anyone else here share a similar view? i feel kinda alone on it haha

to elaborate:
i believe people should be allowed to end their own life, and even to request assistance, without fear of coercive intervention or judgement. i also believe it can be compassionate to assist someone else's suicide, as long as it's done with appropriate care and respect

however, im opposed to physician-assisted suicide specifically. mainly due to concerns about eugenics and genocidal implications to allowing the state to actively end people's lives (especially when it is disproportionately disabled and marginalized people who would qualify and apply for these programs most). also just general distrust and opposition to the state and medical institutions. these institutions dont care about us, they just serve profit and power. why trust the same system that makes people's lives miserable to offer death as a solution to that misery? it's like getting tortured and then the person torturing you offers to kill you and calls it 'mercy'

not trying to convince anyone btw, im just curious if anyone else feels the same way

 

[ksp]

the way i see it, there is a crucial difference with the word: voluntary

voluntary euthanasia:
- i choose to voluntary end my life, with assistance from doctors, regardless of my reasons

eugenics:
- the government takes my autonomy away based on genetics - subjective views, outside my control

i don't trust the state (the government, or society) to make that decision for me
for that matter, i don't trust anyone else to make that decision but me - i am the owner of my life

ps. to me, all these terms:
- physician-assisted suicide
- voluntary euthanasia
- medical assistance in dying (MAID canada)
- voluntary assisted dying (switzerland, australia)
imply that the end of my life is voluntary - it's up to me, and none of these terms imply eugenics

 

[GlassAlwaysEmpty]

This debate is happening again in the UK.

One of the main arguments against it in the UK is that currently when someone is near to death in the UK, they are offered palliative care which can be lengthy and expensive to the taxpayer.
Some people worry, especially now when the NHS is under a lot of pressure and short of funds, a doctor or whoever makes the decision may decide euthanasia would be a cheaper and quicker option than offering expensive palliative care to a dying patient.

It's a difficult decision either way, but most people in the UK support change to our current euthanasia laws.

 

[OutOfTheVoid]

the way i see it, there is a crucial difference with the word: voluntary

voluntary euthanasia:
- i choose to voluntary end my life, with assistance from doctors, regardless of my reasons

eugenics:
- the government takes my autonomy away based on genetics - subjective views, outside my control

i don't trust the state (the government, or society) to make that decision for me
for that matter, i don't trust anyone else to make that decision but me - i am the owner of my life

ps. to me, all these terms:
- physician-assisted suicide
- voluntary euthanasia
- medical assistance in dying (MAID canada)
- voluntary assisted dying (switzerland, australia)
imply that the end of my life is voluntary, and it's up to me

i think there's a big difference between someone making a choice with their own body and the government formally offering to assist with that choice. yes, its voluntary on the part of the individual seeking assistance, this point was never contested in my post. the problem is the ethics of the government offering assistance in dying. i dont think that government assistance makes anyone's choice more voluntary. on the contrary, it opens the door to coercion or manipulation by authorities who are in a position of power over the individual

a lot of things in society are 'voluntary' on the part of the individual, but arent quite as voluntary when you take into account socio-political and environmental factors, and especially when you involve a powerful institution into formalizing that 'voluntary' choice by law and procedure (see: wage slavery)

 

[ksp]

the problem is the ethics of the government offering assistance in dying

i think i understand your concern - you are worried about society and state in general, but i would like to focus on the aspect of individuals specifically: the government/society is offering assistance, and that option does not imply that it is mandatory (related to ethics): it only implies that there are more options to individuals, and they are free to ignore this option - coercion or manipulation are responsibilities of individuals and their families, not the state. (eugenics are not offering an option to people)

i also acknowledge that the state might have hidden agendas, but if these agendas don't interfere with my autonomy, they don't affect me (i don't care if my death saves society money or resources)

 

[RichardFirst]

I am of the opinion that medical assistance in dying will, one day, go the route of abortion. By that, I mean that it will eventually be made available to those who want or need it without the state's having any input in the matter. Canada is to allow MAID for mental health conditions later this year, and there are discussions underway in Ireland and the UK.

If I'm honest, I believe that the state wants euthanasia as a means to rid itself of the burden of people whom it cannot squeeze for taxes, but I would be fully behind its being legal, regardless of the motivation of the state. Just imagine a world where we could peacefully checkout without fear of a failed attempt, the pain of any number of methods used to CTB or the stress accrued simply by existing beyond the point of our wishing to be here.

 

[OutOfTheVoid]

i think i understand your concern, but i maintain that the government is offering assistance, and that option does not imply that it is mandatory (related to ethics): it only implies that there are more options to citizens, and they are free to ignore this option

im not saying its 'mandatory', i said quite the opposite in fact. my view is that its unethical for the government to offer assistance in dying, and that there are coercive and manipulative implications which can make that assistance dangerous. a choice can be 'voluntary' AND influenced by coercive or manipulative factors (again, see: wage slavery), even if indirectly. the power imbalances of entrusting assisted suicide to an authority like the state compounds those factors and opens it up to abuse by an authority which has vested interests in maintaining its hegemony and eliminating people who are disabled and marginalized. oh yeah, look up the term 'hegemony' for another example of how 'voluntary' is kinda meaningless in the context of the state

another way to put this: to me 'pro-choice' means supporting the individual's choice to do what they want with their own body. 'pro-choice' does not mean supporting the government's choice to offer assistance in dying

in fact, i would argue that involving the government in suicide erodes how consentual the 'choice' of suicide is, by (as i explained) introducing a power imbalance and opening the door to manipulation and abuse. thats really the question: physician-assisted suicide may be 'voluntary', but is it consentual? if theres even one case where the answer could be "no", thats a problem. and arguably, especially when we're talking programs like MAID in which you dont have to be terminally ill and even mental illness alone qualifies, there are *a lot* of cases where the answer is no, and there will be a lot more. and again, the state is in large part responsible for the mass suffering in the world. how ethical really is it to let our oppressors mercy kill us to 'save' us from the very suffering they inflicted in the first place? is that really what we want to advocate for?

 

[ksp]

consentual

i see, can you give a specific case where a MAID death was not consensual?
are you referring to the person that was poor, or a veteran? (just trying to understand your specific concern)

…

(after re-reading the original post)

it's like getting tortured and then the person torturing you offers to kill you and calls it 'mercy'

i think i understand your main concern now: i see some of the aspects you're referring to and i see some fundamental problems with our society - they are deeper than physician-assisted suicide (sorry for being slow)

 

[SamTam33]

Governments exploit their citizens in every way, shape and form. I have little doubt that they'd devise a way to exploit assisted suicide as well.

But I'd still support it. It's more merciful and finite than any other method of exploitation they employ.

 

[nico_wren]

i think there's a big difference between someone making a choice with their own body and the government formally offering to assist with that choice. yes, its voluntary on the part of the individual seeking assistance, this point was never contested in my post. the problem is the ethics of the government offering assistance in dying. i dont think that government assistance makes anyone's choice more voluntary. on the contrary, it opens the door to coercion or manipulation by authorities who are in a position of power over the individual

a lot of things in society are 'voluntary' on the part of the individual, but arent quite as voluntary when you take into account socio-political and environmental factors, and especially when you involve a powerful institution into formalizing that 'voluntary' choice by law and procedure (see: wage slavery)

You honestly explained it better than I could. I had this talk in my political science class and no one understood what I meant or my fears. It's good to see other people think the same and understand the dangers.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

The government already takes paternalistic actions when it locks suicidal people up for "treatment". If someone has been engaging with the psychiatric system for decades to little avail, I feel assisted suicide is only a natural outcome of that.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I do actually understand your concerns with it being a government lead programme. I can also see why people are saying- yes- but it would still be a choice... Still- I reckon it could be far more insidious than that. Healthcare facilities and most especially state run healthcare like the NHS in the UK are given a budget. What's to stop them from no longer offering the more expensive drugs or treatment? Especially over prolonged periods. There may well be cuts that severley impact people's care and support which further decreases their quality of life- so- these people become much more LIKELY to go for assisted suicide. Yes- it's still their choice but their hands are being forced in a way. Effectively- the state would be saying- we simply don't have the funds to support you anymore- so- either put up with it- or go.

That's not to say their needs will necessarily be met even with assisted suicide in place. I CAN see your concern of the two working in tandem though. EVERYONE knows just how desperate the situation is in the NHS already. (I'm assuming other countries are struggling as well.) You can bet that all these places are given targets to meet. Sometimes those targets are unrealistic. Perhaps it would relieve pressure off them to have fewer patients to care for. .

So- would your wish be for them to be privately owned companies? I think that makes more sense to me- in the UK at least. Independant from the NHS. So- they would not only be complying to the law (obviously) but- could also make their own checks. I'm guessing Dignitas and Pegasos are independant organisations.

This is more off topic but I had a very interesting discussion with a very pro-choice lady once who- none-the-less had concerns about the legalisation of assisted suicide. She felt that it would make elderly and ill people vulberable to pressures from their relatives to leave early rather than become a burden. This wouldn't necessarily need to be as a result of coercion from greedy relatives. I could well see how it could happen naturally. A kind of atruistic- let my children/grandchildren benefit from the money it would take to look after me- type thing. I think it can be difficult for us to understand- because the majority of us WANT to go. Still- I don't think it's impossible that a culture could form where the more vulnerable members of our community feel compelled to go- rather than it being a sincere wish.

 

[Gustav Hartmann]

Only very few poeple need physician assistence for their suicide, for example paraplegia caused by an accident. If someone knows that he will not be able to commit suicide in the near future due to the progression of a disease he should do it as long as he can and should not bother others when it is too late. This includes suicide in time to avoid a nursing home. There you are not allowed to die because technology-based medicine is a big business.

I agree, it´s hard to draw the line between those who really need physical assistance and those the society wants to get rid off.

 

[Sovereign]

I completely believe the end of your own life should be up to you, but the fact that medical professionals might want to offer alternatives to that before going through with the action of ending one's life should be acceptable. However, if a patient comes to request assistance with ending their life after having tried therapy thoroghly I see no reason for medical professionals to intervene. Because if a person ends up in a situation where they feel powerless to change anything about their life after trying everything, and it just keeps going downhill, that's a logical end of the road. But if a person has a temporary mental breakdown and decides to call it quits in that state of mental instability, without having tried to change their circumstances before, it would make perfect sense for a medical professional to raise an eyebrow.
A thing I would propose for legally and medically assisted suicide (and it's kind of similar to a lot of abortion related policies) is to require a few days before the act to allow a person to possibly change their mind.

 

[ayb]

Only very few poeple need physician assistence for their suicide, for example paraplegia caused by an accident. If someone knows that he will not be able to commit suicide in the near future due to the progression of a disease he should do it as long as he can and should not bother others when it is too late. This includes suicide in time to avoid a nursing home. There you are not allowed to die because technology-based medicine is a big business.

I agree, it´s hard to draw the line between those who really need physical assistance and those the society wants to get rid off.

Then the government should not be cracking down on methods like SN or Nembutal, or its sellers. Merely look at how many of them want to shut down sites such as this.

 

[OutOfTheVoid]

Then the government should not be cracking down on methods like SN or Nembutal, or its sellers. Merely look at how many of them want to shut down sites such as this.

for sure. this is pretty much what i mean when i call myself 'pro-choice'--allow ppl to have the means and resources to ctb if they so wish. legalize things like SN and N, and let sites like this one exist

 

[iwantdeath6969]

i feel the same way. i don't think it was necessarily bad for canada to make MAID available to mental illness, but the fact that there are so little mental health resources available in our country for free/low cost is really shitty. if they were going to expand MAID but also strengthen mental healthcare and make more resources available as well, that would've been a way better move. it also should be on a case-by-case basis, and not just available to anyone as long as they had the diagnosis, i think they should have just left MAID the same and maybe sometimes considered people who had long term mental health conditions, instead of seemingly allowing doctors to suggest this to mentally ill patients. i agree that it's eugenics and i'm generally against the state getting involved with administering death (death penalty and this new expansion of MAID).

obviously i'm pro choice though, i don't think that anyone should be stopped from ctb either. i think it should remain a personal choice. i'm canadian though and i've been looking into qualifying for MAID, even though i don't think it was a good idea to enact i want to take advantage of it if i can.