Kawaii_Shoujo215
Eternal Torment of Thy Flesh-Prison
- Jul 27, 2022
- 31
The Right To Die as a Fundamental Human Right
The Right to Die is a philosophical, moral, ethical, social and political standpoint which holds the position that every individual
(sentient being) must have a fundamental, inalienable right to express thoughts of, plan, and execute suicide, that is, to end their
own life, without being restrained, having access to effective suicide methods restricted, being forcefully hospitalized, or coerced
into submission (such as through gaslighting). This right would also extend to services (governmental or private), which would assist
those who are unable to end their own lives of their own accord, yet still wish to die. As such, the legalization of euthanasia for all
(within certain legal boundaries) would be uncompromisable.
The choice to end one's own life is an expression of autonomy; if we truly own our own bodies and lives, then we must have the freedom and
libery to do what we want with our own bodies and lives, so long as it does not directly harm others. If we cannot choose to end our existence,
then we are slaves; we live, not by choice, but by compulsion, as such a world is not a home, but rather a prison. Why should someone be forced
to exist, to experience what they deem to be unacceptable circumstances, if they do not want to? What value is there in a life that does not
want to be lived? What is to be gained, other than unnecessary suffering and isolation?
Life itself is undeniably filled with suffering, and always ends in death. These are both inevitable facets of life. In addition, the process
of dying is often slow, gruesome torturous. A peaceful and painless exit with dignity must be availible to everyone, then, to prevent this
unnecessary suffering, as we have the technology and medicine to supply such. After all, no one chose to be born; We must have a choice
to opt out, as we did not back then. It isn't a choice if only one option can be chosen.
As individuals, we all have different thresholds of pain that we can tolerate. Because of this, as well as the inherent subjectivity of
experience, only an individual can judge whether or not their suffering is severe enough to warrant ending their life. It doesn't matter
whether it's stubbing one's toe, having a horrible disease, aching bones, being skinned alive or being slightly bored or in mild discomfort;
Some people can handle even the most extreme forms of pain, others cannot bear what may seem trivial to an outsider. This doesn't mean that
either person is wrong, just that they have different experiences and different limits to what they can take. Ultimately, only the individual
can determine whether or not they are willing to put up with whatever they are going through or not. After all, only an individual experiences
their own suffering, not any third party, so no one else can have the right to make decisions on their behalf without their consent.
Regardless of age, all creatures suffer (potentially extreme) forms of pain. While a certain level of maturity may be necessary to understand
the weight of this decision and what it implies, nobody should be forced to suffer and be denied peace because of an arbitrary amount of time
that has or hasn't passed. Suffering doesn't discriminate, nature does not wait for the 18th or 25th or 50th year to torment us. Thus, the right
to end one's own life must apply to everyone, as everyone experiences suffering which they may not be able to tolerate or be willing to put up
with. If suffering applies to everyone, then so should the right to ending one's existence which causes this suffering in the first place.
Besides, what's wrong with having euthanasia as an option? If someone chooses for themselves to end their life, they aren't directly harming
anyone else. It is their body and life, and therefore their choice, and no one else's. Nobody should be forced to live a life they never asked
for, nor ask to continue.
Unfortunately, there is a great stigma surrounding suicide, personal autonomy and self-determination, and assisted dying in our society.
Death is already a severely taboo topic as-is, but suicide is always seen as unacceptable. If one expresses the wish to die, they are
labelled as being mentally ill, unsound of mind and incapable of understanding and making such an important decision. Basically, you can't
decide to die because you are mentally ill, and you are mentally ill because you have decided to die. Notice the logical fallacy? Thus, suicidal
people are infantilized using this self-fulfilling prophecy, stripped of dignity and rights through obvious circular logic, yet nobody seems
to question the scientifically unproven and arbitrary nature of psychiatry (or, at the very least, this branch of it), its baseless and
ever-changing definition of what constitutes a mental illness, and its obnoxious and patronizing attitude towards legitimate critisicm that
challenges its notions and medicalization of depressively realistic worldviews and pessimist philosophy, which do not imply that the holder
of such views is mentally impaired for doing so.
Despite an individual's right to do as they wish with their body and their life, so long as it does not directly harm others, which is
protected by law in many jurisdictions under the right to private life, people are still persecuted for thinking of, planning, sharing
thoughts of or attempting suicide. In addition to being heavily discouraged, doing any of the above mentioned actions can lead to
forceful involuntary hospitalization, loss of autonomy, gaslighting, and alienation. Suicide is still treated as a crime, despite being
formally "decriminalized".
Even simply privately assisting someone else in ending their life (per their request, with their consent) will lead to homicide and/or
manslaughter charges. Your reward for aiding someone in ending their suffering when the law, the government and their physical body
fail to do so? Jail time. Straight to the gulag with you, how could you possibly do the only ethical and humane thing for someone who
has actively asked you for help? You receive suffering in return for assisting someone in relieving theirs. Completely ridiculous.
In some jurisdictions, even NOT actively stopping someone from ending their life when you are in a position to do so can lead to punishment.
It's as if we value the mere FACT that someone exists over their well-being, that we prefer to have someone who exists in misery over not
having the person, even if it means they are no longer miserable. Utterly selfish behavior.
In addition to this, information on effective and peaceful methods of ending one's life are restricted, and any constructive conversations
held from a positon other than that of life-affirmation and anti-choice beliefs will be promptly censored, removed, and hushed. How is
one supposed to make an informed decision on how to properly and peacefully end their life, when they have neither the physical capacity
nor the technical know-how to do it themselves, but cannot be assisted or even assist themselves in this endeavor? To add insult to injury
(or injury to insult, depending on how you see it), the inability to simply TALK to people about suicide and choices between life and death
only makes people MORE desperate to end their life, as they feel alienated and alone, on top of not knowing HOW to end their life, leading to
painful, brutal and messy deaths that involve harming others (such as train drivers), which could have easily been avoided by simply being able
to TALK about this sort of stuff and having access to an ethical and humane way to leave, just as we offer to our pets when they get old
and frail, devoid of QUALITY of life, even if we decrease their QUANTITY of life (thanks TAW122). All of this points away from personal
liberty, autonomy and pro-choice notions and instead paints a dark picture of enslavement, compulsion and endless unnecessary misery.
The fundamental right to die is in an unfortunate position, where, despite many strides in the right direction in progressive countries such
as Belgium, Canada and the Netherlands, it remains as a privilege for the few, rather than a basic right for everyone. It is still lightyears
away from reaching a halfway acceptable standard of universal acceptance, complete riddance of (most) restrictions and destigmatization.
Until we can all receive euthanasia as easily as we can buy a box of cornflakes, there will still be a long way to go on the road of human
rights, freedom and liberty, and humane and ethical treatment of our fellow sufferers.
The Right to Die is a philosophical, moral, ethical, social and political standpoint which holds the position that every individual
(sentient being) must have a fundamental, inalienable right to express thoughts of, plan, and execute suicide, that is, to end their
own life, without being restrained, having access to effective suicide methods restricted, being forcefully hospitalized, or coerced
into submission (such as through gaslighting). This right would also extend to services (governmental or private), which would assist
those who are unable to end their own lives of their own accord, yet still wish to die. As such, the legalization of euthanasia for all
(within certain legal boundaries) would be uncompromisable.
The choice to end one's own life is an expression of autonomy; if we truly own our own bodies and lives, then we must have the freedom and
libery to do what we want with our own bodies and lives, so long as it does not directly harm others. If we cannot choose to end our existence,
then we are slaves; we live, not by choice, but by compulsion, as such a world is not a home, but rather a prison. Why should someone be forced
to exist, to experience what they deem to be unacceptable circumstances, if they do not want to? What value is there in a life that does not
want to be lived? What is to be gained, other than unnecessary suffering and isolation?
Life itself is undeniably filled with suffering, and always ends in death. These are both inevitable facets of life. In addition, the process
of dying is often slow, gruesome torturous. A peaceful and painless exit with dignity must be availible to everyone, then, to prevent this
unnecessary suffering, as we have the technology and medicine to supply such. After all, no one chose to be born; We must have a choice
to opt out, as we did not back then. It isn't a choice if only one option can be chosen.
As individuals, we all have different thresholds of pain that we can tolerate. Because of this, as well as the inherent subjectivity of
experience, only an individual can judge whether or not their suffering is severe enough to warrant ending their life. It doesn't matter
whether it's stubbing one's toe, having a horrible disease, aching bones, being skinned alive or being slightly bored or in mild discomfort;
Some people can handle even the most extreme forms of pain, others cannot bear what may seem trivial to an outsider. This doesn't mean that
either person is wrong, just that they have different experiences and different limits to what they can take. Ultimately, only the individual
can determine whether or not they are willing to put up with whatever they are going through or not. After all, only an individual experiences
their own suffering, not any third party, so no one else can have the right to make decisions on their behalf without their consent.
Regardless of age, all creatures suffer (potentially extreme) forms of pain. While a certain level of maturity may be necessary to understand
the weight of this decision and what it implies, nobody should be forced to suffer and be denied peace because of an arbitrary amount of time
that has or hasn't passed. Suffering doesn't discriminate, nature does not wait for the 18th or 25th or 50th year to torment us. Thus, the right
to end one's own life must apply to everyone, as everyone experiences suffering which they may not be able to tolerate or be willing to put up
with. If suffering applies to everyone, then so should the right to ending one's existence which causes this suffering in the first place.
Besides, what's wrong with having euthanasia as an option? If someone chooses for themselves to end their life, they aren't directly harming
anyone else. It is their body and life, and therefore their choice, and no one else's. Nobody should be forced to live a life they never asked
for, nor ask to continue.
Unfortunately, there is a great stigma surrounding suicide, personal autonomy and self-determination, and assisted dying in our society.
Death is already a severely taboo topic as-is, but suicide is always seen as unacceptable. If one expresses the wish to die, they are
labelled as being mentally ill, unsound of mind and incapable of understanding and making such an important decision. Basically, you can't
decide to die because you are mentally ill, and you are mentally ill because you have decided to die. Notice the logical fallacy? Thus, suicidal
people are infantilized using this self-fulfilling prophecy, stripped of dignity and rights through obvious circular logic, yet nobody seems
to question the scientifically unproven and arbitrary nature of psychiatry (or, at the very least, this branch of it), its baseless and
ever-changing definition of what constitutes a mental illness, and its obnoxious and patronizing attitude towards legitimate critisicm that
challenges its notions and medicalization of depressively realistic worldviews and pessimist philosophy, which do not imply that the holder
of such views is mentally impaired for doing so.
Despite an individual's right to do as they wish with their body and their life, so long as it does not directly harm others, which is
protected by law in many jurisdictions under the right to private life, people are still persecuted for thinking of, planning, sharing
thoughts of or attempting suicide. In addition to being heavily discouraged, doing any of the above mentioned actions can lead to
forceful involuntary hospitalization, loss of autonomy, gaslighting, and alienation. Suicide is still treated as a crime, despite being
formally "decriminalized".
Even simply privately assisting someone else in ending their life (per their request, with their consent) will lead to homicide and/or
manslaughter charges. Your reward for aiding someone in ending their suffering when the law, the government and their physical body
fail to do so? Jail time. Straight to the gulag with you, how could you possibly do the only ethical and humane thing for someone who
has actively asked you for help? You receive suffering in return for assisting someone in relieving theirs. Completely ridiculous.
In some jurisdictions, even NOT actively stopping someone from ending their life when you are in a position to do so can lead to punishment.
It's as if we value the mere FACT that someone exists over their well-being, that we prefer to have someone who exists in misery over not
having the person, even if it means they are no longer miserable. Utterly selfish behavior.
In addition to this, information on effective and peaceful methods of ending one's life are restricted, and any constructive conversations
held from a positon other than that of life-affirmation and anti-choice beliefs will be promptly censored, removed, and hushed. How is
one supposed to make an informed decision on how to properly and peacefully end their life, when they have neither the physical capacity
nor the technical know-how to do it themselves, but cannot be assisted or even assist themselves in this endeavor? To add insult to injury
(or injury to insult, depending on how you see it), the inability to simply TALK to people about suicide and choices between life and death
only makes people MORE desperate to end their life, as they feel alienated and alone, on top of not knowing HOW to end their life, leading to
painful, brutal and messy deaths that involve harming others (such as train drivers), which could have easily been avoided by simply being able
to TALK about this sort of stuff and having access to an ethical and humane way to leave, just as we offer to our pets when they get old
and frail, devoid of QUALITY of life, even if we decrease their QUANTITY of life (thanks TAW122). All of this points away from personal
liberty, autonomy and pro-choice notions and instead paints a dark picture of enslavement, compulsion and endless unnecessary misery.
The fundamental right to die is in an unfortunate position, where, despite many strides in the right direction in progressive countries such
as Belgium, Canada and the Netherlands, it remains as a privilege for the few, rather than a basic right for everyone. It is still lightyears
away from reaching a halfway acceptable standard of universal acceptance, complete riddance of (most) restrictions and destigmatization.
Until we can all receive euthanasia as easily as we can buy a box of cornflakes, there will still be a long way to go on the road of human
rights, freedom and liberty, and humane and ethical treatment of our fellow sufferers.
