The Pro-Choice Spectrum: A matter of life and death

[Pluto]

The various ideas people have about 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life' views have tended to sharply divide this community at times, though fortunately we remain civil. I had the idea of making a graph which I believe includes an approximation of all possible perspectives on this issue. This is partly a question of political views on euthanasia, and partly a basic attitude that will inform our interactions with others on the forum.

A poll is included. I've also included a guide to positions, which will have some bias on my part even though I try to be fair. I've also included some commentary about my own position further down. Hopefully this will be a healthy discussion!



Guide to positions:

Outer extremes:
Pro-death - Everyone/everything should be killed, yesterday
Given that even the worst murderers in history chose select victims only, this is hopefully not considered a defendable position. It would be correlated with an extremist individual's "life bad, death good" position being imposed upon all others.

Pro-life - Every human must live as long as technologically possible
This is an extreme position that does not take into account deep suffering in any capacity. Generally, this position is correlated with fundamentalist Christianity but not the wider population at large. It often dominates due to the disproportionate political power wielded by this particular group.

Pro-choice extremes:
Extreme universal - euthanasia access for all humans. The counterargument is a reductio ad absurdum: a 7 year old child upset about being denied an ice cream can punish their parent by killing themselves.

Extreme restrictions - euthanasia only for situations of imminent terminal illness, plus various other safeguards. Already common in many places as an entry point to euthanasia laws. Does not account for disability, mental illness, chronic pain or other serious quality-of-life issues.

Moderate positions:
Significant limits: Restricted euthanasia access, but the process expands on 'extreme restrictions' and thoughtfully accounts for an assortment of serious quality-of-life issues, such as chronic pain and mental illness. Safeguards to limit the abuse of murder by coercion.

Basic limits:
Includes an age of consent and a time-delayed process to ensure no impulsivity as well as the possibly of addressing grievances. This further subdivides to a recovery spectrum:

Minimal recovery: Consider efforts to address any grievances. Mental health support resources and health care offered.

Moderate recovery: Encourage or require that at least a reasonable effort has been made to address grievances, such as accessing support services. (Note: 'Encourage' applies in the sense of informal forum discourse, 'require' in the imaginary context of implementing a legal voluntary euthanasia code of conduct.)

Heavy recovery: Encourage or require reasonably healthy people to undergo a substantial process of attempted recovery before death.


My unpopular opinion: defending the 'Heavy recovery' position
Attempting a serious recovery prior to giving up is brutally hard work (as many of us already know), but I encourage it out of respect for two groups of people whose voices are severely underrepresented here on the forum:
1) Survivors of recovery. There may not be even one on the forum as they are out in the world enjoying a reasonably fruitful existence and perhaps making a positive contribution. Their life was once on the edge of suicide, but somehow they found enough support (either understanding/compassion or support with addressing grievances) to recover. This life-saving process should be given a chance for their sake, as well as...
2) Loved ones of the deceased. A good political viewpoint should be balanced enough to be presentable outside of an internet forum. This includes respect for the seriousness of life-and-death issues and the immense effects of death on others. This can be accounted for without taking a hardline pro-life stance.

The other issue is the myriad of cognitive biases at play here, causing an drift in the direction of the pro-death end of the spectrum. Let's look at some of them:

* For many of us, lacking even the hope of access to peaceful end-of-life solutions can be immensely frustrating. The resulting anger at the legal system can slowly steer one's position away from a highly rational, sensibly balanced middle ground.

* The bitter tribalism of an ongoing ideological battle against pro-life forces (who I have already suggested are unreasonable extremists imposing their religious views on others) can also lead to a further movement of one's position away from a middle-ground stance.

* The internal echo chamber: thoughts of unworthiness or futility repeating over and over in the mind will tend to spiral downward to a place of extreme darkness. That does not make these thoughts accurate or balanced in the slightest.

* The external echo chamber: interacting with other people in a similar state of distress also repeatedly affirms a view of the world biased towards bleakness, which further reduces the accuracy of one's assessments.

* High-effort posts which are compassionate towards a poster's state of distress, but may research possible psychological ailments, resources or solutions can be difficult and time-consuming to produce. Low-effort posts which lack nuance and potray life bleakly in every situation can quickly and easily proliferate. This is a tragedy of circumstance rather than an argument for censorship, but yet another cause of negativity bias to be aware of.

* Young people who have grown up fighting their parents strongly object to being told what to do, even if it is in their own interests. However, too much immaturity or confusion means that a 'choice' is of questionable substance. This is analogous to the nuances of sexual consent, such as whether the consent of a person under the influence of drugs is legally valid.

* Individuals lacking life experience can easily adopt the view that 'all life is bad' without realising that they have a bias, and an enormous one at that.

The seriousness of death and the numerous forces that work distorting our cognition is the reason I encourage putting some effort into making an end-of-life choice. And yes, I realise that most people here have already gone through that process long ago, though the principle remains.

But enough about my views. Where do you stand on the spectrum of choice?

 

[jodes2]

I'm also in the (unpopular here) stance that someone should put significant effort into recovery. Somewhere in-between heavy and moderate. Anyone who disagrees and gives me the angry face can go and fuck themselves. Lazy cunts. I DID IT

Very well written post btw

 

[Bed]

I'm also in the (unpopular here) stance that someone should put significant effort into recovery. Somewhere in-between heavy and moderate. Anyone who disagrees and gives me the angry face can go and fuck themselves. Lazy cunts. I DID IT

Agreed, I chose heavy recovery. I don't think you can make a logical decision without at least trying to make your situation better. I also think you should wait until your brain is fully developed, which is around 25 years of age. Obviously, there are outlier cases.

 

[jodes2]

Agreed, I chose heavy recovery. I don't think you can make a logical decision without at least trying to make your situation better. I also think you should wait until your brain is fully developed, which is around 25 years of age. Obviously, there are outlier cases.

Good point. I totally agree about being 25. Besides, how much recovery can a person possibly have gone through by that point anyway? I'd push that to 30 y/o unless they're in incurable pain in which case 25 is fair enough - but it would be RARE.

I'm not gonna fucking help immature kids die on here. Sorry but if I get angry faces for this, once again, you can go fuck yourselves. Get help from someone else who doesn't mind violating their principles and/or risk prison.

 

[beingfree]

Basic limits, but recovery should be heavily encouraged through other means.

 

[BipolarExpress]

I chose moderate recovery. I think that people should try as many options as they can before ending their lives. I also don't want to force anyone to continue suffering if they've been driven to the point of suicidality and have already tried to recover. That's not being "pro-life," it's being pro-making-a-reasonable-choice-about-one's-own-death. Like @jodes2, I don't want teenagers and young adults who haven't tried therapy, medication, and other solutions to kill themselves, and it disturbs me that some people on here don't seem to care about impulsive suicides. Young people are more likely to be impulsive, since their decision-making abilities haven't matured yet.

 

[jodes2]

@BipolarExpress thank you my friend. You just totally made me feel a whole lot better about the situation

 

[Rounded Apathy]

Pluto my friend. Your contributions are part of what makes me feel like spending almost all my time here is not entirely addicted self-sabotage. I also laughed out loud for the first time in days at your description of the "pro-death" stance, so thanks! This is going to be less organized than ideal because caffeine.

I haven't been able to decide yet but maybe will as I write the post; I'm somewhere between moderate and heavy recovery. So many people here love to prattle on about how euthanasia is a human right and everyone should have access to nembutal, blah-fuckin'-blah...but most of these people are completely out of touch with fucking reality. A right is something that for all intents and purposes is granted by a state to an individual. That peaceful pill/injection/whatever didn't just come out of god damn nowhere; someone had to invent it. Produce it. Ship it, store it, administer it. And unless we're also on a path to overhaul society from the ground up, all of that means money. Which means, depending on the kind of society you live in, you're either gonna need the coin to cash out of life yourself, or taxes are gonna have to fund your death. And guess what? Most people don't like the idea of death, for better or worse. It's something to be avoided, skirted, delayed, held at bay as long as possible.

If you live in a state where you'd only need your own money to be euthanized then there probably won't inherently be too many safeguards on the process (i.e. Switzerland). But then you're gonna have a shit ton of people who can't take the option because of the prohibitiveness of the cost. The Pegasos service is well beyond the affordability of the average person, but sure you have a "right" to it. Just slave away till you can afford it. If, on the other hand, you live in a place where it's a publicly funded thing, you have to recognize that you dying takes a cog out of the machine of society. That's bad for society, which is full of people who mostly want to live and hope that others do too. It's also bad for those at the top who need those at the bottom to continue slaving away (see a theme here?), but that's a whole other topic. However, it does bring in the very real issue of people who are opting for euthanasia only because they no longer have the means to continue living a dignified existence, which they would rather do.

Which brings me to my convoluted roundabout coup-de-grace: the current paradigm of "recovery options" is excruciatingly out of step with and incompatible as a precursor to receiving clearance for euthanasia. Too many people want to die because of the ill effects living through late-stage capitalism in libertarian societies including: rampant climate change. Homelessness. Loneliness and isolation. No sense of purpose or community. Inability to provide for themselves, their loved ones, etc. The failing of existing institutional supports in helping with the effects of these things as well as trauma, poor mental and/or physical health, etc. ad infinitum. Most so-called "developed" societies are horribly broken, and funnily(?) enough, those on both sides of this debate see expansion of access to euthanasia as a positive step forward...which it could be, except for the fact that, once again, the powers that be are just treating the symptoms of our collective illness instead of the root cause(s).

If our social ills were eliminated or drastically reduced, there would be fewer suicidal people; full stop. How far fewer I don't know, but this isn't a point of contention. For those that still did want to die, there should be better and more robust ways of not only helping them identify whether or not there are any actionable alternatives, but also actualizing them if there are. Failing all of that, no one should be denied to continue to live a life they truly do not want to live and cannot be ameliorated, be it because of any kind or measure of pain, suffering, sadness, disdain, or any other thing. But this is an incredibly complex response to an equally complex issue that I find, now at the end of my brain-spilling, I still don't have an answer to the poll question!

I guess in the context of this more ideal social structure I've expounded, I'd advocate for moderate recovery since things would not only be better off for people in general to start, but they'd likely be more inclined to/have already made attempts at recovery on their own, and they're more likely to have been successful. In our current shit-hole version, however, I think I'd lean more to heavy, since people may not have made serious attempts, and even if they have, the shittiness of existing systems would've proved more likely ineffectual the first try (or several). Sadly this puts more undue onus on the sufferer, but most things in life do take more than one try to work out. I also think there should be general provisions for eligibility that are open to alteration based on specifics of particular cases - for example, a lower age limit informed by the most comprehensive research on general conclusion of neurological development, that was able to be bypassed for either terminal or incurable, suffering-inducing disease.

 

[brokensea]

I'm not sure even how to answer this. I just want everyone teleported away to an existence not like this. One where all the love and everything you need is there forever. As far as navigating this shit hole of a reality and what people should do I don't have a clue. It's not my life and you can't force people to live but no one should ever even feel they want to die because of this hideous reality we have to be born into. Existence just should not be this. People shouldn't have to be crippled with lifelong pain because someone they love took their own life and people shouldn't be forced to live a life of tortured unhappiness until they die naturally. I don't find any answer satisfactory. I feel like it's impossible to know what is best for someone else or to set up any criteria for what's ok or not ok within reason. I also don't want anyone so abused and unloved and abandoned or have such bad health issues in so much pain, to end up dying that way. No one should have to experience any of it. It's such a big complex thing I don't have any answers for it and can't really act as judge and jury over what I think anyone should do. I am for and against suicide. But mostly against the existence of all the things that make people want to commit suicide. Which includes existing in a survival/needs based life which always leads to suffering. Where we try to avoid pain at all costs and are constantly in discomfort if we aren't finding a way to fulfill our never satisfied needs. And dying is just a way in the end to stop the suffering from so many unmet emotional/physical/social needs that you just can't even feel anything anymore and death is the only way out of our traumatized brains which ultimately turn against us.

 

[Superdeterminist]

The idea of forced recovery is abhorrent imo.

 

[Girl-shaped Wound]

I am sorry

 

[Wisdom3_1-9]

Thank you for putting this together. I have actually been thinking about formulating such a post for the past few days (given the discussions that emerged after the recent pro-lifer infiltration). I decided against it because 1) I thought I wasn't yet able to cover all the nuances, and 2) I was worried about the negative comments that might result. You've managed to tackle the first point very effectively, I think. And I hope you don't have to suffer the second!

I did not submit an answer, because I don't think I fit well enough into any of the groups — another sign of how nuanced the spectrum is. I agree with certain elements of some philosophies, yet believe there are always situations that warrant exceptions.

I probably exist somewhere between "Extreme Universal" and "Basic Limits." I don't agree that anyone should kill themself impulsively or even without significant thought and experience. I believe someone has to come to a decision that life is not worth living, based on whatever criteria is important to them. The issue with restrictions is that there must always be an arbiter. This is what creates the stickiness for me. Any other external body will carry its own prejudices and own criteria. I have difficulty reconciling my own thoughts on what should be restricted with my belief in self-autonomy.

I also think the "Pro-Death" description might be too broad. I see two or three general subdivisions in that group, though it may take me some time to properly construct descriptions.

 

[FuneralCry]

The original post in this thread comes across as being arrogant and judgemental to me. You don't know anything about how others experience life, some people just want to die and I get that this offends people who aggressively force the idea of 'recovery' onto people and do some kind of pretentious analysis of people's feelings. The reality is that life is awful and many people want to be gone from it, there's no need to overcomplicate it really.

Other people may be pro suffering and want to force others to suffer as much as possible before their wish to ctb is 'valid', (which is insane to me) but others see suffering as being completely undesirable and that should be respected. If someone wishes to die then they should simply be able to leave peacefully without having to struggle in the process of planning suicide. If suicide is this difficult then existence is basically prison like and it's cruel and selfish to leave people with no choice but to resort to risky and painful methods. Like why should anyone be forced to exist if they don't want to. It's disturbing to suggest otherwise. Life is simply not an obligation.

All those who push the idea of 'recovery' are so arrogant to me. Like if life is valuable for you then just go and enjoy it, but not everyone views life as a gift or whatever nonsense delusional people come out with. People should realise this rather than force their beliefs onto others. I see non existence as being preferable to any kind of life as to die removes the true cause of all problems in the first place, and there's nothing wrong with that and there could never be anything wrong with suicide. The reality is that life is not for everyone. I find it irritating when people act like suicidal thoughts are the illness, like they are something to 'recover' from. These people are really so ignorant. No, life itself is the problem and wanting suicide is the most rational response to seeing the world for what it really is. Yes, people can live if they want but it doesn't give them the right to gatekeep suicide. Having positive views towards life is the real irrational thing to me as nobody can deny all of the endless torture that exists.

 

[Forever Sleep]

It's a very interesting post and very difficult to answer. I think a lot depends on age and experience in life. I probably fall somewhere in the pro-choice basic to moderate category. I don't think 'help' should be forced on someone but I definitely think the person should be encouraged to get help and most certainly councelled about their decision thoroughly.

So- looking at it from a selfish point of view- I'm 42- I'm relatively physically healthy and I have a very minimal medical history of mental health problems- having only been to a couple of sessions with a college therapist and one course of Fluoexetine (Prozac.) I know that I'd never be accepted for assisted suicide as my current situation stands either now or likely in the future.

However- If things changed- would an enforced amount of prolonged therapy/ medication help me? I'm really not sure. There's probably too much wrong to 'fix' by now! My biggest issue/ care is for my work- which is- in of itself unbalanced (I fully realise) but I am well enough to work. So- gaining in confidence and reducing social anxiety MIGHT make me more open to go for other jobs in my field that require working around others (I'm not brilliant but I probably have enough skills to get some work.) STILL- my chosen field is INCREDIBLY difficult to maintain financially.

So that likely means doing a job I will likely hate. I guess therapy lessons and mind numbing medication could try and help me hate it less and of course- they would encourage me to explore other things in life that brought me joy. I'm sure forming friendships would be a suggestion. But I have had friends... even best friends and they are more or less all gone now- living their own lives with families to raise. I don't really trust friendship anymore. I don't think I'm at all suited to a romantic relationship having been single for so long (plus ugly) and I DEFINITELY don't want children. I simply don't want to make my life better in order to be a wage slave and pay into a system I no longer want any part of.

However, back when I was 18, I didn't have quite the cynicism I have now. I probably would have been more open to suggestions that may have helped me in future. I think the younger you are, the more pathways are open to you- so maybe support would have helped at that point. I likely would have been more open to it too.

I suppose where I stand is- it's EXTREMELY dependant on the individual person's situation and mindset as they stand. I don't think everyone can be helped sadly. While I definitely think they should be given every encouragement and offered every resourse available- I suppose what pro-choice means for me is to be able to say- 'thanks but I don't think that will work for me because of this...' A reasonable discussion rather than a- 'You can't have this till you have tried every single thing possible.'

 

[Papilio_polyxenes]

As another poster mentions, legal euthanasia would already be very costly. Adding onerous requirements around recovery would disqualify virtually all suicidal applicants - especially with psychiatrists as chief decision makers. We don't want desperate people opting for painful or public suicides because of red tape.

Moderate recovery is the most sensible option. I'm sorry if it offends, but 18 or 19 is just too young to be making such a consequential decision. People who are actively having a psychotic or manic episode can't give consent for euthanasia.

And yes, you should be asked to present reasonable justification before being handed life-ending drugs in a supervised setting. We wouldn't want people impulsively waltzing into the euthanasia clinic after suffering a bad break-up or failing an exam.

I'm here because I genuinely do not believe there is any solution to the problems I face in life. Recovery is still a viable option for most people, and it isn't "pro-life" to acknowledge that.

 

[Sysiphos]

I think this is very interesting thread. I choose heavy recovery.

 

[Cathy Ames]

I fall somewhere in between Funeral Cry and anyone who imagines that because they "recovered" then Anyone Can Do It™. In fact, a lot of "recovered" people appear to be conveniently blind to their privileges.

 

[Givenuponlife]

I stumbled upon this rather later than the others.

After thinking about this, the approximate position closest to mine is Pro choice, basic limits plus minimal recovery, although I'd accept moderate recovery as a compromise. I'm also not in favour of merely restricting to those who are terminally ill, or even ill at all. However, I'm personally strongly against people who are caring for someone e.g. parents/guardians of underage children, pet owners, carers for disabled relatives being able to end their lives, at least not

I believe that we should have a few minimal safeguards such as a waiting period (A month ideally, but a year at most) plus an offer of counselling/therapy and recovery. I understand the arguments for moderate to heavy recovery as presented by @jodes2, but I tend to think that people willing to stick out the waiting period aren't the people I'd actually worry about, since I'd assume that they put more thought into their decision. I'd also say that 25+ is a good benchmark for allowing assisted suicide, since that's when one's mind has developed, as well as having a bit more life experience.

These safeguards ought to be in place to prevent the following:

- People being coerced into it.
- Impulsive suicides
- Those who lack capacity to reason through their decision making or understand what a living will/will e.g. those in the throes of psychosis or advanced dementia.
-Children and teenagers.

I also think that people who actively want to live, but want to die because they struggle with housing, money etc should be heavily discouraged, but not necessarily stopped if they are absolutely insistent; even if I would see such an outcome as utterly tragic, I would respect their decision if that is.

 

[jar-baby]

I think this should be bumped.

Basic limits: minimal recovery is where I stand. No doubt us SS members might be biased in favour of suicide but I'm sure this is offset against innate cognitive biases in favour of living (to some extent, at least). And assuming we're considering the entire population here, I think the general social attitude that holds life as axiomatically good, along with innate biological biases, create enough of a bias against death such that an age restriction and time delay are the only restrictions I think need to be implemented. I also think that the time delay would, ideally, give an individual enough time and space to independently opt for recovery if that's what they want.

(practically speaking, though, I agree with the OP that a heavy recovery approach would be a lot more palatable to most people outside the forum, and given that it's a significant step in the right direction, I think a pro-choice activist would be better off pushing that approach)

 

[willitpass]

While I chose moderate recovery, I would like to point out a counter argument to the comments about age listed above. While I agree that statistically younger people are more likely to go through with impulsive suicide or try to CTB without seeking adequate treatment first, that is a blanket statement that leaves many people out of the equation. I and many people I met through my years of residential and inpatient treatment have tried it all. I've been in therapy since I was 8. I've tried every therapy program available. I've tried every medication. I've tried shock therapy. I've tried every lifestyle change. And I still have a few years until I am 25. The notion that EVERYONE should have to wait until they are 25+ leaves many of us out in the dust to have to resort to painful and less reliable methods of suicide. It is very possible to reach the limit of available treatments before the age of 25, and if someone has done so I believe they should be allowed to make the decision that it simply is worth it to continue. I would like to clarify that I mean between the ages of 18-25.

 

[Praestat_Mori]

Pro-Choice: extreme universal (for adults 18+)

That includes all other recovery related options should someone be interested in giving them a try. That's also pro-choice.

 

[KafkaF]

The various ideas people have about 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life' views have tended to sharply divide this community at times, though fortunately we remain civil. I had the idea of making a graph which I believe includes an approximation of all possible perspectives on this issue. This is partly a question of political views on euthanasia, and partly a basic attitude that will inform our interactions with others on the forum.

A poll is included. I've also included a guide to positions, which will have some bias on my part even though I try to be fair. I've also included some commentary about my own position further down. Hopefully this will be a healthy discussion!

View attachment 101730

Guide to positions:

Outer extremes:
Pro-death - Everyone/everything should be killed, yesterday
Given that even the worst murderers in history chose select victims only, this is hopefully not considered a defendable position. It would be correlated with an extremist individual's "life bad, death good" position being imposed upon all others.

Pro-life - Every human must live as long as technologically possible
This is an extreme position that does not take into account deep suffering in any capacity. Generally, this position is correlated with fundamentalist Christianity but not the wider population at large. It often dominates due to the disproportionate political power wielded by this particular group.

Pro-choice extremes:
Extreme universal - euthanasia access for all humans. The counterargument is a reductio ad absurdum: a 7 year old child upset about being denied an ice cream can punish their parent by killing themselves.

Extreme restrictions - euthanasia only for situations of imminent terminal illness, plus various other safeguards. Already common in many places as an entry point to euthanasia laws. Does not account for disability, mental illness, chronic pain or other serious quality-of-life issues.

Moderate positions:
Significant limits: Restricted euthanasia access, but the process expands on 'extreme restrictions' and thoughtfully accounts for an assortment of serious quality-of-life issues, such as chronic pain and mental illness. Safeguards to limit the abuse of murder by coercion.

Basic limits:
Includes an age of consent and a time-delayed process to ensure no impulsivity as well as the possibly of addressing grievances. This further subdivides to a recovery spectrum:

Minimal recovery: Consider efforts to address any grievances. Mental health support resources and health care offered.

Moderate recovery: Encourage or require that at least a reasonable effort has been made to address grievances, such as accessing support services. (Note: 'Encourage' applies in the sense of informal forum discourse, 'require' in the imaginary context of implementing a legal voluntary euthanasia code of conduct.)

Heavy recovery: Encourage or require reasonably healthy people to undergo a substantial process of attempted recovery before death.


My unpopular opinion: defending the 'Heavy recovery' position
Attempting a serious recovery prior to giving up is brutally hard work (as many of us already know), but I encourage it out of respect for two groups of people whose voices are severely underrepresented here on the forum:
1) Survivors of recovery. There may not be even one on the forum as they are out in the world enjoying a reasonably fruitful existence and perhaps making a positive contribution. Their life was once on the edge of suicide, but somehow they found enough support (either understanding/compassion or support with addressing grievances) to recover. This life-saving process should be given a chance for their sake, as well as...
2) Loved ones of the deceased. A good political viewpoint should be balanced enough to be presentable outside of an internet forum. This includes respect for the seriousness of life-and-death issues and the immense effects of death on others. This can be accounted for without taking a hardline pro-life stance.

The other issue is the myriad of cognitive biases at play here, causing an drift in the direction of the pro-death end of the spectrum. Let's look at some of them:

* For many of us, lacking even the hope of access to peaceful end-of-life solutions can be immensely frustrating. The resulting anger at the legal system can slowly steer one's position away from a highly rational, sensibly balanced middle ground.

* The bitter tribalism of an ongoing ideological battle against pro-life forces (who I have already suggested are unreasonable extremists imposing their religious views on others) can also lead to a further movement of one's position away from a middle-ground stance.

* The internal echo chamber: thoughts of unworthiness or futility repeating over and over in the mind will tend to spiral downward to a place of extreme darkness. That does not make these thoughts accurate or balanced in the slightest.

* The external echo chamber: interacting with other people in a similar state of distress also repeatedly affirms a view of the world biased towards bleakness, which further reduces the accuracy of one's assessments.

* High-effort posts which are compassionate towards a poster's state of distress, but may research possible psychological ailments, resources or solutions can be difficult and time-consuming to produce. Low-effort posts which lack nuance and potray life bleakly in every situation can quickly and easily proliferate. This is a tragedy of circumstance rather than an argument for censorship, but yet another cause of negativity bias to be aware of.

* Young people who have grown up fighting their parents strongly object to being told what to do, even if it is in their own interests. However, too much immaturity or confusion means that a 'choice' is of questionable substance. This is analogous to the nuances of sexual consent, such as whether the consent of a person under the influence of drugs is legally valid.

* Individuals lacking life experience can easily adopt the view that 'all life is bad' without realising that they have a bias, and an enormous one at that.

The seriousness of death and the numerous forces that work distorting our cognition is the reason I encourage putting some effort into making an end-of-life choice. And yes, I realise that most people here have already gone through that process long ago, though the principle remains.

But enough about my views. Where do you stand on the spectrum of choice?

I'd say I'm moderate recovery but with a caveat.

I think society should make sure there's no abuse of euthanasia (like forcing others to take it for inheritance or something) and I think society should try to make sure the decision has been thought through and is not impulsive. I also think people should be encouraged to first exhaust whatever ways of recovery they realistically have.

That being said, ultimately I think the choice is a personal one. Only the individual can decide for themselves and has a right to die at any time. I don't think society HAS to help with that, but I think there should also be heavy limits to the degree to which society can restrict it if you decide to do it yourself. Then again, I do think society is right to restrict it to some extent and in some cases, given that options for recovery are freely made available and the option for ending things is presented under the right circumstances.

Ultimately, I think it's a complex issue in an ideal world everyone would go exhaust their options for recovery, society would make sure that there's no coercion and that the person is making a rational choice and then help. But we don't live in an ideal world. Sometimes it's too hard for someone to continue to suffer through more recovery attempts, it's impossible to be 100% sure someone is making a rational choice, and it's impossible to know 100% sure if someone is making an irrational choice.

Basically, moderate but every situation is different and the actual way things go should depend on the individual case. And at the core of it all should be individual choice because only the person themselves can at the end of the day decide whether they feel they're being rational and have exhausted all reasonable options for recovery. Society can never be sure.

 

[wait.what]

Interesting thread … I missed it the first time around. I find I don't entirely know how to respond, because the poll seems specific to euthanasia, which I take to mean some form of physician-assisted suicide. The issue of suicide is largely autonomy-related for me, so I don't really love the idea of putting healthcare gatekeepers at the center of the process. I understand that some people are so ill that it's not possible for them to end their lives without assistance, in which case some form of MAiD, while not ideal, is certainly a kinder way to go than VSED.

I'd really rather that we effectively "decriminalized" suicide. That would mean:

1) An end to using police as de facto enforcers of an unwritten code of "normal" or "healthy" behavior. It is not a crime to seem depressed, to not be like your "old self," or to contemplate suicide. Nobody in that position deserves to be handcuffed, threatened with arrest, forced into a squad car or ambulance, tased, or God forbid, shot.

You can insert your own Not All Cops™ speech here: ___. It must fit in the space provided. Thank you.

2) An end to involuntary hospitalization. It's bizarre that it's not only legal, but encouraged, to lock people up when they're not convicted or even accused of a crime. Involuntary commitment doesn't even accomplish its stated goal. Studies have shown that forced hospitalization doesn't even prevent suicide. People who feel coerced into treatment are actually more likely to attempt suicide in the year following the involuntary hospitalization.

3) We need a cultural sea change away from placing the highest value on gaining material wealth, especially in destructive ways that harm people. Instead, if we seriously want to reduce the suicide rate, we need to embrace an ethic of compassion and inclusion. I think it's significant that when people tell us we have to "reach out," they don't specify who or what we're reaching for. If you asked them, they'd probably give a vague reply about getting "help." But what does help look like? It's generally a revolving carousel of hotline operators, emergency rooms, psychiatric admissions, psychiatric discharges, and sometimes tent cities or group homes. That is not a support system. Your family and friends are supposed to be your support system, as you're supposed to be theirs. But they've by and large swallowed the idea that only strangers with lists of letters after their name can help you. Sadly, they couldn't be more wrong.

4) Reduce the use of chemical restraints, especially ones a patient doesn't want. Somebody might be a less troublesome patient if they're shuffling around, drooling like a zombie St. Bernard. That's not much of a life, though.