There are a number things here I would like to inquire further upon because of some (in my opinion) problems with logic and would like to see it expanded.upon, if you or anyone else would want to respond.
This is a potentially very counter-productive sweeping claim. I do agree that there are cases where it's acceptable to end one's life. And I've said this before here, but often rationalizing an action can have the consequence of drastically increasing frequency, or in this case, serving as a means to halt innovation for treatment/cure. There are certainly cases where having a severe medical condition or an untreatable mental illness is grounds for death, but if we decide suicide is a good conclusion, why would anyone stop the suffering of non-suicidal victims. If society decided "if you have x condition, you can simply commit suicide" or some people would add, "should". There will be no development of further medical treatment or cure if a "cure" already exists, and now all the non-suicidal victims would have to suffer because of that. But as someone said I was saying, no, people with medical conditions are not going to "suffer for the greater good". Treatment is not because there is a certain amount of people suffering, it is developed because there is no existing treatment. So people suffering immensely can commit suicide, but it should not be offered as a general treatment/solution.
.
Here, the key word is "when". The majority of people who commit suicide do not have untreatable conditions, usually there is either a logistical lack of refusal of treatment, but the vast majority of suicidals have a treatable (and effectively treatable, for most cases of the probable underlying condition people report feeling better after treatment) underlying disorder. So I hesitate to allow everyone this opportunity when they could in many cases recover. And also, regardless of underlying condition, if I recall correctly most survivors of attempts regret it. So making it so people who could either alleviate pain or would regret suicide die is unnecessary.
In your next paragraph, I feel like my above text covers that.
I do not understand what you mean by "forced to see wrongs". They... die, and they don't see what they did wrong when they're dead, but like I said I don't get it so that's probably a strawman of whatever your point was. I highly disagree toxicity will.be reduced. I think the only way to reduce that is increased quality and access to psychological services. And regarding the last sentence, it's probably not very peaceful if most people (as empirically suggested) realize they regret suicide just as they are irreversibly CTBing. Like I said, I think a much better solution is increased access and quality of care and treatment.
First of all, there is no problem with logic unless you misinterpret or don't agree with being Pro-choice.
Rationalizing and decidability could be applied to everything else but when its about ending one's life, then its a taboo and shouldn't be discussed? Well, lets see an opposite example of how this works, "Should I bring a baby to this world?" and then the overwhelming majority would say yes which is clearly hypocritical. Someone could ask "Should I study maths?" or anything else within life and get mixed replies. But almost all of those replies share one common factor, they don't consider the asker point of view and circumstances. Now if someone says "Should I ctb?" and everyone would say no, what do they know about this person and about the amount of suffering and pain inside? whats little for you or anyone else could be big for this person and nobody knows the amount of suffering other than oneself. So instead of just saying no, we should try to understand this person from their own point of view rather than our point of view. If we know the real problems, we could start thinking about and applying real solutions rather than ignoring. If the problem is unsolvable then why should we force someone to suffer and make them suffer for a lifetime just to be used as an expirement and exploited by humans and their systems.
There is no increasing frequency or anything, this is a conclusion that should be reached, the application is something else. I clearly mentioned bureaucratic problems and hindrances to this process.
The right to die doesn't halt the advancement of medicine, its about choice. There are many things in life that halts the medicine advancement but none of them is the right to die, do you want to know some examples? Academics, politics, capitalism are existing problems and there are more, can everyone study medicine efficiently with less time and cost? So instead of attacking something that isn't existing, why not attack the real problems that slow or stop the real medical advancement?
Its not about a symptom x, if someone with symptom x wants to live then thats their choice.
But lets talk about one fundamental problem within life that you clearly talked about, which is the existence of people who suffers and used as a test materials for the species. Treatment is developed because of enough existing samples and those samples suffer for the species, unavailability of treatment could be ignored if its not a serious thing or is affecting extremely small number of people, why would they research about a disease if it affects only 10 people worldwide and could be gone forever after that? They won't give a fuck unless the number gets larger.
So if someone wants to develop a new treatment, people should reproduce more and bring more samples so we reach the conclusion which is treatment? Millions of people suffer from cancer for example but its alright to have more and more people with cancer in the future just to reach the conclusion of cancer treatment?
But all of this doesn't contradict the right to die, the right to die gives the choice and don't force everyone to die and even those people who suffer will stay if they want.
Medical problems aren't everything within life, there are mental problems also, financial problems, family problems, philosophical problems and anything else. So people should just get fucked more and suffer just because they have no medical problems? And no, not everything could be solved, you are in a forum that discusses suicide and you can clearly see how many problems that are unsolvable. Even if there is a "solution" and they don't want it then we shouldn't force them to accept it. If you recall, most of them regret it? That's your personal opinion, just look how many members here who try to ctb again and again despite the pain.
As for the last paragraph, I was referring to "humans" and not the dead people. The humans would be forced to face a serious problem as a species rather than ignoring the suffering of the unheard. The wrongs that humans do and make those people suffer and choose to die, if they think death is a big problem, then they'll stop doing those wrongs and the quality of life will increase. Toxicity will decrease, lets say bullying was found as a reason of traumatic experiences and mental problems that leads to people ending their lives, bullying would decrease and stop eventually.
I stand with the sufferer and this life is based on suffering and abuse. Yes, I'll stand against life and the species game, the unheard sufferer is far more important than this rotten game and enforcing people to live when they clearly don't want and the forum here has many examples.
TL;DR Right to die is a choice and doesn't enforce anyone to die. Medical problems arent everything and not everything is solvable within life
