Discussion TAW122's stance regarding 'age' and the right to die

[TAW122]

This isn't a new topic and has been discussed by others many times. I have also given my two cents on it, but now, I am going to give my official stance and explanation of why I hold this stance. To start things off, in reality, I do support having some age limits, but this does not mean that I would support denying the right to die for someone below a certain age, just that there are other criteria to be met and will likely be a case by case basis.

First off, we must consider what rights are and also the concept of age of majority. Rights are considered legal entitlements for individuals and are not necessarily something that is physically tangible, but similar to a permission and are not absolutes (e.g. Freedom of speech stops short of verbal threats and could be suspended in very specific circumstances - one such example would be during WWI and WWII, anything resembling the axis powers would be considered illegal or forbidden during war, meaning that if one wanted to play Beethoven's music at least in the US, it would be suspended or forbidden because during that time, the US is at war with Nazi Germany). With that said, most legal rights do not apply to people under the age of majority (in the US, 18, in many EU countries 16, and some countries 20, etc.) because they are not considered 'legal adults' according to the law. Instead, they have some basics rights and generally (unless emancipated) considered dependents (cared for by their parents or legal guardian).

Side note: (I will make another thread and topic about 'limits to rights and what not' as that is another separate topic altogether while this one is mainly about 'age' and right to die.)

Next, we must consider the age at which people are mature and have the ability to make decisions responsibly, which could then be argued that people's brains are not fully developed until they reach age 24/25 (depending on some sources), and therefore, it would be unethical to just allow anyone of any age to have unfettered access to the right to die. For example, most people would consider that just allowing someone who is an adolescent to access the right to die on a whim would be unethical and wrong because more oftenly than not, an adolescent is mostly impulsive, may/not have the rational capability to make important, life changing (or ending) decisions. This is also why the right to vote only extends to those who are 18 or older (in the US), the right to enter a contract (sign legal documents and what not), the right to buy tobacco products, the right to enlist, etc. As for alcohol, it used to be around 21 or so, in the 1930's, but then in the 1970's or so, lowered to 18/19 in some states, then in 1984, the federal law raised it to 21, thus all states followed suit and to this day still stands at 21 to legally be able to purchase and possess alcoholic beverages.

Therefore, I would be against having people who are under 18 to have 'unrestricted' (no questions asked) legal access the right to die on demand. Of course, there are some exemptions and exceptions for special circumstances such as terminal illnesses or severe illnesses with a poor prognosis, though they would have to go through a more stringent process as well as some hoops since they are minors and dependents (not legal adults). 18 (speaking of the US primarily) is the legal age where an individual is legally considered an adult and afforded many, if not all, the rights that most other adults enjoy. Having an age restriction would not only be ethical, but also reasonable such that it would prevent rash and/or irresponsible decisions made by people who do not have the maturity to understand the extent and gravity of their decisions as well as ensuring that their minds are as fully developed as possible.

I reiterate once again, just because there is an age restriction on access to the right to die, it does not mean that it will be strictly forbidden to people who don't meet the age requirements. People with special circumstances and/or exemptions will be allowed to access it so they can minimize their suffering. By this, I will list some examples of what I mean (in fact, some countries even allow it but do have more stringent criteria to be met before granting said right to someone who isn't of age). Here are some examples to consider.

Example 1: An pediatric patient suffers from stage 3 cancer and is not likely to survive more than a year at best (even with the best treatments and is suffering immensely). Because the pediatric patient is a minor and not a legal adult, said patient isn't able to make decisions independently, but a parent/legal guardian would make the decision for them, however, their wishes would be taken into consideration and also the medical team would have a say in the patient's wishes too, generally in favor of voluntary euthanasia.

Example 2: An adolescent patient is physically healthy and does not have any underlying health conditions, wishes to seek voluntary euthanasia. Said person would likely be denied until their 18th (or whatever the age of majority is in their jurisdiction) birthday, but would later have that right and option once said person reaches that age.

Example 3: An legal adult around the age of 30, is suffering from a debilitating disease, not necessarily terminal, but is living in pain and suffering with a lot quality of life. Said adult is likely to live for a decade, perhaps longer, but with a quality of life that he/she deems unacceptable. Said adult would get the option, but with a waiting period.

Example 4: An legal adult, also around the age of 30 or so, but overall healthy and wishes to exit peacefully. The said adult will receive the option, but with a longer waiting period than someone with an illness, and perhaps more screening to ensure that the person really wishes to exit and isn't making the decision on impulse.

There are many other scenarios and examples that can be given, but these are just some to give an idea of how the system would be implemented.

I know there are others who may disagree with my stance, but I believe that in reality, if the right to die were to be implemented, age restrictions would very likely be part of the safeguards and requirements before one is allowed to access such a service. I would personally rather have the right to die, even with reasonable restrictions and safeguards than to have none at all (which is the current state of things in today's pro-life world).

Edit: I edited some parts of my thread since the verbiage isn't clear and also I noticed I had an error in my communication so I made the edits to reflect that.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Rounded Agony]

As you say, age restrictions are already parts of legislation for things like this in places where it exists, and I concur wholeheartedly that it's absolutely vital. A perfect example of why: user @bear_trapped, who is only 19, just posted a non-ctb goodbye thread explaining how suddenly things seem on the verge of becoming previously unimaginably better after four years of anguish. What you say about neural development is a huge part of this; the ability to think abstractly and solve more complex problems grows exponentially during early human development, so difficulties and situations that even in adolescence seem insurmountable may suddenly look absolutely solvable once enough brain cells have...done their thing to reach over 9000 power level or whatever tf it is they're doing in there.

The other thing highlighted by this example: when you're under the guardianship of adults, you literally do not have the means to make a fair shot at significantly altering your life circumstances, which for many (especially young) people seems to be a huuuuge reason to be inclined to suicide. Moving away from your shitty family/town/country/whatever simply isn't possible for a dependent. Obviously not everyone who reaches legal age of majority will have this option either, for a multitude of reasons, but altering life circumstances that are fairly malleable should always be done before quitting life, imo.

The tough part is choosing an age. 18? 21? 25? In the end it will be at least somewhat arbitrary, and will be a generalization; not everyone will fit the reason. Personally I think a socio-biologically informed decision is the only way to go - the age by which all or the vast majority of human brains on a typical developmental track will have fully matured. This gives the added benefit of the person not only having likely already reached their legal age of majority, but some years with which they'd have been able to try and improve their life circumstances. If it's something like 18, you could have highschoolers still depending on family lining up at the euthanizer's door. Kinda defeats the purpose.

I agree too with exceptions being possible for younger people, in extreme cases and with guardian guardian corroboration (I know little about international situations but I'm pretty sure in at least some places, if a child were in a coma or "vegetative" state, a guardian could choose to end life support). If a child doesn't want to endure any more awful chemo or radiation therapy just to live a few extra months, by no means should they be forced to. Honestly I think many parents' instincts would deny their kid's wishes in this case, but not all.

Interesting food for thought. Curious about others' takes.

 

[TAW122]

The tough part is choosing an age. 18? 21? 25? In the end it will be at least somewhat arbitrary, and will be a generalization; not everyone will fit the reason. Personally I think a socio-biologically informed decision is the only way to go - the age by which all or the vast majority of human brains on a typical developmental track will have fully matured. This gives the added benefit of the person not only having likely already reached their legal age of majority, but some years with which they'd have been able to try and improve their life circumstances. If it's something like 18, you could have highschoolers still depending on family lining up at the euthanizer's door. Kinda defeats the purpose.

I agree too with exceptions being possible for younger people, in extreme cases and with guardian guardian corroboration (I know little about international situations but I'm pretty sure in at least some places, if a child were in a coma or "vegetative" state, a guardian could choose to end life support). If a child doesn't want to endure any more awful chemo or radiation therapy just to live a few extra months, by no means should they be forced to. Honestly I think many parents' instincts would deny their kid's wishes in this case, but not all.

Good post and response. I suppose there is indeed some arbitrary line to be drawn and I thought that 18 (the age where a person is legally considered an 'adult' and enjoy the same full rights as all other legal adults) would be a good milestone, starting point. Additionally and ironically, at age 18, one can enlist in military service which has a risk of death or grave bodily injury (depends on whether said person is on active duty or not, with active duty having a higher chance of death/serious injury than other roles). Therefore, I believe if someone can make a conscious decision to partake in an activity that carries great risk of death or serious injury, then they have the capacity to choose to voluntarily opt out of life. Again, with arbitrary guidelines, it is hard to be perfect, but something that is close to reasonableness and fairness is better than having none at all, especially as a starting point.

I don't know any parents' whom might deny their kid's wishes in terminal cases, except maybe the very religious and pro-life ones.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

By the time you are in your mid-20's I believe you have lived long enough to make a reasonable prediction for how the rest of your life would be. It's the individual's prerogative whether they want to take the gamble that things might improve. I would encourage anyone younger to wait before making the decision to die.

 

[FuneralCry]

I personally believe that nobody should be forced to exist, regardless of the circumstances as after all none of us asked for this life in the first place. Nobody else should have any right to say that suicide is wrong for someone else as we are not living their life. If people are forced to stay here then existence is basically a prison, and I don't see what is so valuable about life to justify prolonging suffering. If someone wishes to leave this world then they should be able to. In my case even one second of this life is too long and I wish that I left this world as early as possible, but of course the most preferable outcome is to never be born at all.

But if there was a process for all adults to be able to get a peaceful legalised right to die even if there was a waiting period then that would be such a relief. At least something like that should exist in society, as people shouldn't have to struggle to find suicide methods and worry about the risk of the method failing, but I personally don't see suicide as something to be gatekeeped. To die solves all problems after all.

 

[TAW122]

By the time you are in your mid-20's I believe you have lived long enough to make a reasonable prediction for how the rest of your life would be. It's the individual's prerogative whether they want to take the gamble that things might improve. I would encourage anyone younger to wait before making the decision to die.

Absolutely, and I believe for me at least, even before I reached 20's I had a abysmal outlook on life itself, mostly nihilistic and full of bullshit. Sure, there are hedonist pleasures and milestones that one experiences throughout one's life, but those are fleeting and only a distraction from all the suffering and bullshit that one must endure (until death). As for younger people (under 18 specifically), I do support having them wait until they are of legal age before being allowed access to said services as they will have been more mature in terms of both physically and mentally by 18 than at adolescence. The worst case is suffering 18 years (assuming one has no serious or debilitating condition prior to one's 18th birthday) of not being able to exit but then being able to exit. Of course, this is assuming the average person rather than 'special circumstances, or exemptions'.

I personally believe that nobody should be forced to exist, regardless of the circumstances as after all none of us asked for this life in the first place. Nobody else should have any right to say that suicide is wrong for someone else as we are not living their life. If people are forced to stay here then existence is basically a prison, and I don't see what is so valuable about life to justify prolonging suffering. If someone wishes to leave this world then they should be able to. In my case even one second of this life is too long and I wish that I left this world as early as possible, but of course the most preferable outcome is to never be born at all.

But if there was a process for all adults to be able to get a peaceful legalised right to die even if there was a waiting period then that would be such a relief. At least something like that should exist in society, as people shouldn't have to struggle to find suicide methods and worry about the risk of the method failing, but I personally don't see suicide as something to be gatekeeped. To die solves all problems after all.

I agree with your first paragraph as a general stance. I too am an antinatalist before I knew what antinatlism is (I just realized how life sucked and how those who weren't born into this world (aka did not exist or never existed to begin with) did not have problems and no suffering (no pleasure, no pain, just nothingness).

Also, yes, from a person perspective, I would be in support of having some safeguards and standardized process in which all legal adults are able to have a peaceful, dignified exit. It shouldn't be completely unrestricted (to prevent abuse, fraud, and other unwanted consequences), but enough to ensure that one has consent (not pressured by others or under the influence of drugs/alcohol/other substances), is not doing it impulsively and has thoroughly considered the option (waiting period/cooling off period), and is of sound mind when requesting it (knowing what it means and objective test to prove that one is rational, I suppose consent/counseling to confirm one's decision would cover it).

In reality, I believe if more countries allow assisted suicide, voluntary euthanasia, and right to die, it is very likely that there will be much red tape (and depending on the country, it may be more loose/strict depending on the country/jurisdiction). However, I will say that having some legal process or program that allows it (even with a lot of hassles) is much better than just an outright ban/prohibition on the right to die. (Fyi, even I think that the current countries with the right to die programs and legislation is paltry compared to what should be, but any progress is better than none).