TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,706
So I've just discovered a while back (and this is probably not news to many of you as I assume most of you might already know) that most disability advocates, particularly ones that push for life after disability and what not, are generally pro-life and anti-euthanasia. I do not agree with most of their stances and while I do understand where they are coming from, their arguments for denying and prohibiting voluntary euthanasia is rather weak. Here I will be debunking and picking apart their arguments for why they are against voluntary euthanasia. Mind you, not all of them are bad so don't take it as that I'm demonizing the entire group or everyone who takes the stance (since there are people who have severe physical/mental disabilities that DO want to live and DO want to continue life; so I respect them and admire their tenacity to brave life's challenges.). Anyhow, without further ado, let's start.
Claim #1:
Disability advocates do NOT want to support voluntary euthanasia because it discourages the incentive to find a cure, or treatment or find ways to make quality of life better.
Rebuttal: There are people who do not want to choose to die and they are going to seek treatment anyhow. Since there are quite a few people that still willing to live on despite their circumstances and the limitations of their physical/mental disability, the doctors and researchers in the medical community are STILL able to find cures and new treatments for said disability/conditions for those particular patients. In fact, if we are referring to cutting costs, then doctors and medical professionals can save money on treating those who do not wish to treat their condition or disability and focus on helping those that DO want it, thus saving money and time, with little effect (if any) on their incentives.
Claim #2:
If voluntary euthanasia is allowed, tolerated, and normalized, then society as a whole will become more accepting of allowing people to die who do not wish to die otherwise and may even pressure the ones who don't want to die to die, instead of continuing to live. Also, that allows doctors and medical professionals to get away with murder. Also, family members and greedy people will try to take advantage of the elderly and disabled to get their property or will or other items of value.
Rebuttal: Having the option open doesn't mean that society will just do that. Having the option open along with safety nets, checks and balances, and proper regulations can eliminate many situations where abuse happens. Is it perfect? No, but we cannot simply just ban things because of a few rotten apples or unscrupulous characters will abuse it. In fact, a better solution would be to not only have many regulations, safety nets, and checks and balances so that the chances of abuse is reduced to almost none, as well as having laws that punish people who abuse the system for their own gains. Also, there are things called living wills and lawyers that specialize in these things. These legal binding documents allow the patient to dictate what happens with their property and their assets after they pass and with lawyers and others in their will (with POA - power of attorney) they are able to better manage these assets and valuables listed in their will. (Look at Switzerland, Belgium, and The Netherlands, they have allowed voluntary euthanasia and right to die for more than a decade and while their system isn't absolutely perfect, they still have many protections and safeguards that reduce the likelihood of abuse as well as having laws that punish people who abuse or misuse the system or do not follow proper procedure.)
Claim #3:
Most oftenly than not, hospice care for severely disabled people and those that require around the clock care is poor. If we allowed voluntary euthanasia, then it would further dis-incentivize doctors and medical professionals to provide better care for those people. Furthermore, having better care for those people would allow the person to WANT to live.
Rebuttal: Yes, it is true that hospice care and other medical care for severely disabled people are lacking. However, this is clearly making many assumptions such that if those people are given better treatment and quality of life that they would want to LIVE. This may be true for some people, but once again there are people who simply, just under whatever circumstances STILL decide that it is not worth it. Perhaps they don't find it worthwhile despite whatever improvement that they may have. Again, you cannot simply assume that if we improved the quality of care for ALL patients then ALL patients will automatically enjoy life and want to live. Given that they have free will, then they should be able to decide whether they want to continue living or not (even with the improvement of quality of care).
Claim #4:
Choose life, life is good. Anyone who doesn't think that is mentally ill. Choosing euthanasia (to die) is wrong.
Rebuttal: That is a irrational and subjective statement. That is equivalent of saying chocolate tastes good. Vanilla tastes good. That is NOT a fact. Not everyone is cut out for life, let alone enjoy life. Since wanting to live and wanting to die are equally insufficient answers to the meaninglessness of life (see myth of Sisyphus), then to claim that life is the default correct answer is erroneous at best. With that said, then there is no right or wrong answer. Finally, imposing your morality and will upon these people is not only antithetical towards the concept of free will, but also immoral and unethical.
Claim #1:
Disability advocates do NOT want to support voluntary euthanasia because it discourages the incentive to find a cure, or treatment or find ways to make quality of life better.
Rebuttal: There are people who do not want to choose to die and they are going to seek treatment anyhow. Since there are quite a few people that still willing to live on despite their circumstances and the limitations of their physical/mental disability, the doctors and researchers in the medical community are STILL able to find cures and new treatments for said disability/conditions for those particular patients. In fact, if we are referring to cutting costs, then doctors and medical professionals can save money on treating those who do not wish to treat their condition or disability and focus on helping those that DO want it, thus saving money and time, with little effect (if any) on their incentives.
Claim #2:
If voluntary euthanasia is allowed, tolerated, and normalized, then society as a whole will become more accepting of allowing people to die who do not wish to die otherwise and may even pressure the ones who don't want to die to die, instead of continuing to live. Also, that allows doctors and medical professionals to get away with murder. Also, family members and greedy people will try to take advantage of the elderly and disabled to get their property or will or other items of value.
Rebuttal: Having the option open doesn't mean that society will just do that. Having the option open along with safety nets, checks and balances, and proper regulations can eliminate many situations where abuse happens. Is it perfect? No, but we cannot simply just ban things because of a few rotten apples or unscrupulous characters will abuse it. In fact, a better solution would be to not only have many regulations, safety nets, and checks and balances so that the chances of abuse is reduced to almost none, as well as having laws that punish people who abuse the system for their own gains. Also, there are things called living wills and lawyers that specialize in these things. These legal binding documents allow the patient to dictate what happens with their property and their assets after they pass and with lawyers and others in their will (with POA - power of attorney) they are able to better manage these assets and valuables listed in their will. (Look at Switzerland, Belgium, and The Netherlands, they have allowed voluntary euthanasia and right to die for more than a decade and while their system isn't absolutely perfect, they still have many protections and safeguards that reduce the likelihood of abuse as well as having laws that punish people who abuse or misuse the system or do not follow proper procedure.)
Claim #3:
Most oftenly than not, hospice care for severely disabled people and those that require around the clock care is poor. If we allowed voluntary euthanasia, then it would further dis-incentivize doctors and medical professionals to provide better care for those people. Furthermore, having better care for those people would allow the person to WANT to live.
Rebuttal: Yes, it is true that hospice care and other medical care for severely disabled people are lacking. However, this is clearly making many assumptions such that if those people are given better treatment and quality of life that they would want to LIVE. This may be true for some people, but once again there are people who simply, just under whatever circumstances STILL decide that it is not worth it. Perhaps they don't find it worthwhile despite whatever improvement that they may have. Again, you cannot simply assume that if we improved the quality of care for ALL patients then ALL patients will automatically enjoy life and want to live. Given that they have free will, then they should be able to decide whether they want to continue living or not (even with the improvement of quality of care).
Claim #4:
Choose life, life is good. Anyone who doesn't think that is mentally ill. Choosing euthanasia (to die) is wrong.
Rebuttal: That is a irrational and subjective statement. That is equivalent of saying chocolate tastes good. Vanilla tastes good. That is NOT a fact. Not everyone is cut out for life, let alone enjoy life. Since wanting to live and wanting to die are equally insufficient answers to the meaninglessness of life (see myth of Sisyphus), then to claim that life is the default correct answer is erroneous at best. With that said, then there is no right or wrong answer. Finally, imposing your morality and will upon these people is not only antithetical towards the concept of free will, but also immoral and unethical.
Last edited:
