The great pro-life/pro-choice poll

[262653]

The first one. I don't think I'll be able to become a happy cog "again". Just like Frodo, who recieved a grievous wound form a morgul blade, chose to depart from Middle-earth instead of staying there.

I just can't imagine what kind of person one has to be in order to keep doing the body maintenance (exercises, cooking, grooming, etc.), working for gold, pay taxes, accept being a weakling, deal with many people and many conflicts, lose a lot of conflicts, live with conflicting desires, ageing, dealing with diseases... and all other things I find unpleasant and not worth experiencing, yet still claim it's a better life than no life at all. So nope to option 2. Even if people would have my best interests in mind, which they don't, they have their own, there's still the ignorance barrier. I have no use of their good intentions if they were not tempered with knowledge, and how would I know they were? I have no trust in mental health system, and I'm not capable enough to do my own research and heal myself, so just give me my means of peaceful exit and leave me in peace.

 

[BipolarGuy]

Interesting results so far.
At time of writing, 7/10 members would rather have access to physician assisted end to their lives than a MUCH better set of services to deal with practical issues.

 

[Chupacabra 44]

Interesting results so far.
At time of writing, 7/10 members would rather have access to physician assisted end to their lives than a MUCH better set of services to deal with practical issues.

It's one of my favorite threads so far. Keep them coming.

 

[TAW122]

I know there would be more nuance than this, but given the poll and two choices, I would vote for the first option, "No barrier to physician assisted suicide" meaning that anyone can get it. That is the freest one can be given the choices presented. I also believe that just trying and exhausting countless therapies, medications, and other solutions is not the answer as not everyone has the time, energy, and resources to undertake such endeavors, let alone finding "success".

In a more ideal setting though, I would support having a screening to ensure the person is making the choice 100% by his/her own volition, not being coerced, pressured, or forced into going through, and also a waiting period just for the off-chance that he/she changes his/her mind (which can happen sometimes).

 

[BPD Barbie]

Honestly I couldn't settle on just one answer. If mental health services were better many people may not need or feel the need to ctb in the first place. But the problem is that there is so little really known and understood about mental health and the workings of it. It would need so much more research and time, it would cost probably billions. On the other hand, assisted suicide without any barriers I feel could be manipulated and people could become coerced into doing it, blackmailed etc.
If there is going to be assisted suicide, in my opinion, it needs some barriers and some checks. Not just a free for all.

 

[262653]

...and also a waiting period just for the off-chance that he/she changes his/her mind (which can happen sometimes)

About that. What if my suicide can only be carried out impulsively? My judgement consistently tells me that suicide is a better option for me than keep going, but as practice shows, I'm only able to carry out such radical plans during the brief moments of strong emotional surge.

 

[BipolarGuy]

About that. What if my suicide can only be carried out impulsively? My judgement consistently tells me that suicide is a better option for me than keep going, but as practice shows, I'm only able to carry out such radical plans during the brief moments of strong emotional surge.

I think it would be good to consider why you feel you're only able to do it on impulse.

 

[TheQ22]

I think it would be good if you could choose to be euthanised, but also to choose that your family were told you died in an accident/of natural causes.

So they don't have to suffer by wondering if they could have done more.

That would be perfect.

 

[XYZ]

I could not vote for A because no barrier could mean a 9-year old would be allowed to ctb, and I find that hard to accept.

 

[moonchild]

I chose #2, for the improvement of social services. I don't interpret this as more research on mental illnesses, or even necessarily more funding for mental health care (even if some wouldn't hurt). With this option, in an ideal world, people could get help with their finances, their housing situation, hopefully also employment. For the society we live in, these are fundamental basics, and of course "getting help" very often feels pointless if these factors aren't taken care of and you don't have a stable foundation to build on. This would help a lot of people, both those who are suicidal and those who aren't.

Besides, I do think there should still be some form of barrier for assisted suicide, so couldn't really vote #1 anyway.

 

[262653]

I think it would be good to consider why you feel you're only able to do it on impulse.

Well, since I think I would be better off doing it, yet I'm still not doing it, I'd guess that having a good reason isn't enough. Emotional agitation is that driving force that might allow me to breach the barrier. I can't speak for others but I can't imagine my SI magically turning off at some point, and I really don't want to wait long enough for it to happen. Reason is a bitch and a slave to driving impulses (emotions, SI, whatever you call them), the masters. Some popular philosopher already said that in less vulgar form. Without driving forces reason is useless, there can be no planning without the given task.

Actually I don't even have to choose #1 option because I no one (no other people) stopping me anyway, and I have the means. I'd go with the option where the peaceful exit is enforced (lulz) upon me, but it's just not realistic to expect anyone help me deal with my inner masters.

 

[TimeToBiteTheDust]

Not everything can be fixed, first choice is the best one

Totally agree

 

[Dayrain]

First option. Second option is not effective enough.

 

[ClownW0rld]

I would say number 2 should be the first line approach, and then if all else fails, you resort to number 1

 

[chloramine]

It's a hard question. I ultimately chose number 2 because I think it ultimately benefits the most people and does more to create the type of society that I think should exist even if it's still not enough for me to want to live in it.

 

[SamTam33]

I don't trust humans to "dramatically improve" anything.

That's too subjective of a statement.

When the standards are currently so low, improvements are relative. Like when you have no limbs - receiving one prosthetic limb is a "dramatic improvement," but you're still in a crappy situation.

#1 would be a dream come true.

 

[FuneralCry]

Only the first one, I absolutely despise existing and want nothing to do with it. Death solves all problems anyway and there are no disadvantages to something so inevitable as death, so we shouldn't have to struggle so much to get there. A peaceful way to exit this existence is what we deserve the option of after so unfairly being forced here in the first place. And anyway I see no benefit to existing, it's something so useless and unnecessary where we exist just to deteriorate and die anyway. To me being here could never be worth it under any circumstances, I just wish for nonexistence, it's ideal for me.

 

[OutOfTheVoid]

Two questions in the poll above, both of which represent opposing ideals.
It is somewhat hypothetical, but I would be interested to see your choice.

Would you rather:

1. No barrier access to physician assisted suicide.
Physician assisted suicide would be legal, free, with no intervention from other doctors or psychiatrists. It's YOUR uninhibited choice.

2. Dramatically improved social services for dealing with mental health issues and personal life problems.
If you had an issue, you could access a service that would take a holistic look at your life and would thoroughly go through things with you to quickly and effectively deal with issues; mental health issues, financial problems, housing issues, family problems, etc.

i dont agree that these choices equate to "pro-choice/pro-life" stances. are these choices even mutually exclusive anyway? they seem compatible to me

personally, i believe people should be allowed to choose suicide. i even believe people should be allowed to assist others' suicide. i oppose any government or medical institution forcing someone to live. but i also oppose any government or medical institution assisting with suicide. these institutions are the very ones inflicting mass suffering and pain and making life miserable in the first place. for this oppressive system to hurt us so deeply that we'd want to die to escape the pain, and to then offer to 'assist' our suicide, is murder. its also eugenics and genocide against disabled people and all marginalized people that society wants to eliminate. you can see why i, a disabled trans girl, wouldnt be a fan of that

to be clear: im in favor of abolishing medical institutions altogether, along with all institutions. im not a fan of the 'mental health services' that those institutions offer either. i prefer to advocate for just regular people building community and supporting each other

 

[aikoelis6]

The first. Not everyone wants help. I've felt this way since I was 13 and it has only intensified. I think some people know that they weren't meant for this life. You should have sovereignty over your own body.