What does "pro-choice" mean to you?

[Un-]

Huge fucking apple pie to digest but.. let's put down some basic markers to consider:

- do you think everyone, regardless of age, should have the option to kill themselves (kt)?

- do you think euthanasia, and methods of suicide should be gatekept somehow? E.g money, your reasoning for wanting to die, et alia?

- do people have to make a concentrated effort to recover in their predicament before they kt?

- should euthanasia be a government program, or something done by citizens?

- do you think opening up suicide or euthanasia at all would be more harmful than good? Would it be better if things remain as they are, with more aspects surrounding suicide being a bit more legal?

Add in some other stuff if you want.

 

[ksp]

i think Nembutal should be made available to everyone, and people should be free to decide

if people want help, help should be offered, and not forced

 

[Chinaski]

I think suicide should be a last resort rather than a first response, l think suicide is in itself a tragic event which should not be romanticised or celebrated, and l think the clamour for "free death clinics on demand" is ill-considered and would not be a healthy societal step - all of these things are probably seen as being at odds with whatever is considered the collective "philosophy of the forum" by those on here with bigger brains than mine.

However, l also think if someone wishes to kill themselves it is entirely up to them and they are at liberty to do just that. That is what being pro-choice is, to me. I don't waffle on about it as if this place is central to some ideological militancy because tbh it's a pretty basic belief and imo it doesn't need as much discussion as it takes up. I also feel a bit icky about these EXACTLY HOW PRO-CHOICE ARE YOU threads tbqh.

 

[Un-]

I also feel a bit icky about these EXACTLY HOW PRO-CHOICE ARE YOU threads tbqh.

I hope this thread didn't come off like that. There's just a lot of opinion about it and I thought it'd be interesting to see people's takes on it..

 

[SamTam33]

I'd be ok with a government-ran program. Having to be at least 18 years of age. You'll need to sign some consent forms, waivers, etc. Pay a fee and observe a reasonable waiting period.

Nothing over-the-top. No exorbitant costs. No efforts to change your mind. If none of that stuff is required before conception, it shouldn't be required before death.

 

[Chinaski]

I hope this thread didn't come off like that. There's just a lot of opinion about it and I thought it'd be interesting to see people's takes on it..

Yeah that's fair tbh, there's just a tendency on here just lately to point at any old shit they don't like and call it "pro life" and l think there's an established collective mentality here which one must be seen to be subscribing to and imo this often emerges in these discussions.

 

[RainAndSadness]

I'm pro-choice because I believe in consent and individual autonomy. Suicide is a deeply personal decision and nobody has a right to interfere with decisions concerning your body and your life and as long as you don't consent to any third party interferring with your decision, it's a violation of your basic human rights if someone tries to stop you from exercising your right to die. As the European Court of Human Rights already declared suicide an expression of individual autonomy and that's my line as well.

We're all talking about suicide in this thread because assisted suicide is outlawed in pretty much the entire world with a few exceptions. That tells us that human dignity isn't really valued in this world and that's the problem. In an empathic and compassionate society assisted suicide would be normal and everyone, regardless of age, should have a right to leave in peace and without pain. It shouldn't even be controversial. I think the goverment has a responsibility to provide for peaceful means to exercise your right to die. It should be considered a human right because we value and respect humans and we care for their welfare, right? It's pretty cruel to let people die in violent, slow and brutal ways when there are more peaceful options on the table like barbiturates, which for whatever reason are inaccessable to us. There is no reason to deprive us from peaceful means to end our lives and our suffering.

That's my stance on the right to die, in a TL;DR summary.

 

[jodes2]

I think people over 18 should be able to get VAD as long as they've spent quite a bit of time trying to fix things, unless they have an incurable, deadly disease etc, and unless they're in severe physical pain without solutions.. Other than that, the reason shouldn't matter.

I guess it could be a government managed thing, where companies can be vetted to do the job.

I think overall it would be a good thing, since most people would just CTB without it anyway, and it could even prevent impulsive suicides by giving people hope that they can do it "the right way" if they just give things a bit of a chance to work themselves out first. People will be able to say goodbye to loved ones properly before departing.

I believe that's more or less the pro-choice method of choice for all concerned

 

[Forever Sleep]

I'm definitely pro-choice for individuals making the choice- ie. CTB on their own. No matter what their age or circumstance- if their life seemed SO terrible that the only way out they saw was to end it- then it WAS terrible and they were justified. (Even though it 'could' have gotten better.)

HOWEVER- when it comes to assisted suicide, or even sites like this- that give access to suicide methods, I do believe there need to be restrictions- most especially for children (under 18.)

I feel like if assisted suicide came into practice and children under 18 wanted to utilise it, that their parents, doctors and therapists should be consulted along with the child to make sure they have fully explored their options and this was the best one.

I think we all love the idea of being able to just walk into one of these places and ask to be put out of our misery- no questions asked. I'm just not sure this is altogether even practical though. I made a post earlier to see how many people thought their families would support them in their decision to die (if assisted suicide was legal and available to all.) There were actually a number of people who said their families would understand. However, some said they would go ahead and do it without even telling anyone. In which case- don't you think some of those families would try and sue? Just from a company perspective- they would want certain procedures in place to show the decision to terminate a life was supported by people other than the one they just killed. I imagine preferably doctors, therapists and ideally that the family is aware.

I guess there would have to be a payment made but the way the current clinics seem to do things would trouble me if they were rolled out and government subsidised- the whole- you end up paying even if you are rejected. I know the current clinics have to cover admin/ medical consultant costs but presumably, that could be further spread out if the government subsidised. I'm UK based... Wonder if the far distant future, people will be able to end their lives for 'free' on the NHS.

I think it would be good if people were given every opportunity and resource available to improve their lives but I'm not sure it should be a prerequisite for them receiving assisted suicide. Some people (like me) don't have a whole long medical history of treatment but I'm sure I want to end it.

I think it should be something run by the government in conjunction with hospitals- so that those who wish to donate their organs can.

I think allowing assisted euthanasia without very strict guidelines definitely would cause problems. However- as a starting point, I think ALL of those in chronic incurable pain or with terminal disease or even debhilitating illness that robs them any quality of life should be offered a peaceful death if they want it. Then, work from there I guess on who to allow next. Sorry for the long post...

 

[Domimi]

- do you think everyone, regardless of age, should have the option to kill themselves (kt)?
Yes

- do you think euthanasia, and methods of suicide should be gatekept somehow? E.g money, your reasoning for wanting to die, et alia?
No

- do people have to make a concentrated effort to recover in their predicament before they kt?
No

- should euthanasia be a government program, or something done by citizens?
I'm inclined towards it being a government program.

- do you think opening up suicide or euthanasia at all would be more harmful than good?
It all depends on the current culture and society view towards death, that's why I don't like any drastic changes, everything should be done slowly so the society has time to adapt.

- would it be better if things remain as they are, with more aspects surrounding suicide being a bit more legal?
No, but depending on these "aspects", this could be a good step.

I wouldn't call myself a pro-choice person, my views are too extremist and more to the promortalist side of the spectrum, where I think pro-choice is in the middle. I think that a pro-choice view is more or less like the way Chinaski thinks: a focus on the reabilitation of the suffering individual with a sort of open mindness in relation to suicide should they see that as their best/only option, where I particularly tend to believe that life does more harm than good in almost all circunstances.

 

[Dot]

Apolgies in advnce fr th/ essay

do you think everyone, regardless of age, should have the option to kill themselves (kt)?

persnl opinn - d/ nt thnk tht minrs shld b allowd 2 mke tht decsn alne - thnk tht famly/gurdians & doctrs shld b all b prt of decsn & tht parnts shld also b screend fr facttous dsordr e.g Mnchausn b/ Prxy & abse -- slf d/ nt lke th/ idea in genrl wth minrs howvr ag ds nt dict8 suffrng & thre wll alwys b unque circmstncs

do you think euthanasia, and methods of suicide should be gatekept somehow? E.g money, your reasoning for wanting to die, et alia?

Thnk reglatn in genrl wld b rsponsble bcse thnk ctb nds 2 b ratnl decsn & nt 1 tht cn jst b jumpd on bcse sme1 = temprrly ovrwhlmd whn deth = nt wht thy actlly wnt - nt sre abt $$ b-ing a brrier tho - tht jst mkes escpe frm sfferng a luxry fr th/ rch/wlthy

thre wll nt a 'r-turn polcy' on ctb s/ i.m.o nds crefl cnsidratn

- do people have to make a concentrated effort to recover in their predicament before they kt?

Thnk a persn nds 2 b in clearst mnd-st possbl & tht xplorng altrnatvs educ8tes thr decsn furthr - thnk = imprtnt 2 knw whthr sch a decsn = mde on transient feelngs

As abve - sme ppl d/ nt wn2 die & jst wn2 escpe thr stuatn s/ infrmatn of all pssble altrntves 2 tht shld b mde avble 2 thm i.m.o

- should euthanasia be a government program, or something done by citizens?

Thnk tht thre shld b accntblty & lack of ultrior motve of whoevr wld b provdng fr ethcl reasns - ideally gvrnmnt wld hve mre of th/ formr bt = depnds on gvrnmnt & thnk tht shld b prt of reasn fr propr prcss & rgulatn

- do you think opening up suicide or euthanasia at all would be more harmful than good? Would it be better if things remain as they are, with more aspects surrounding suicide being a bit more legal?

Thnk wld b bettr 2 rsearch cntries tht hve th/ optn & C wht = happnng alrdy

In th/ UK ppl wh/ cnduct gnuine 'mrcy killngs' r nt lkely 2 b proscutd bcse u.k hs bcme slwly mre accptng of realties & thre hve bn famly membrs pt in2 positn of doin ths whch t.b.h mst b v dstressng fr thm - espclly whn thy or persn wantng ctb d/ nt knw wht thy r doin

Add in some other stuff if you want.

@Chinaski mde intrstng pnt abt th/ philsphy of th/ frum -- th/ pinnd pst abt SaSu philsphy = ends wth th/ follwng

"If we had to say in a sentence what the purpose of the forum is, it would be to provide a space to discuss taboo topics without being judged, and to help other people be happier and have a more fulfilling life - suicidal thoughts are a serious concern, and we all deserve a chance at a happy life"

Fr slf & mny othrs = nevr abt b-ing pr-deth bt lke RaS sd = abt welfre & whatvr tht mns

 

[ksp]

the clamour for "free death clinics on demand" is ill-considered and would not be a healthy societal step - all of these things are probably seen as being at odds with whatever is considered the collective "philosophy of the forum"

i think the most most 'healthy societal step' should be to respect basic human rights

is war and dictatorship a 'healthy societal step' ?
is delusional immortality and ignorance of death a 'healthy societal step' ?
i see a society that makes a lot of unhealthy steps - outside of this website

the 'collective "philosophy of the forum"' is to promote pro-choice,
and not to 'romanticise or celebrate' suicide - very big difference

there's an established collective mentality here which one must be seen to be subscribing to and imo this often emerges in these discussions

these threads are combating the removal of choices at the end of life, and support individual autonomy and respect of final decisions, whatever they may be - respect basic human rights

i don't subscribe to any 'collective mentality' - i am capable of introspection, so i don't need the 'protection' of society; i can make my own decisions, without interference from condescending pro-lifers; i made my decision, in spite of it being 'ill-considered', just looking for a peaceful and dignified exit

 

[Chinaski]

i think the most most 'healthy societal step' should be to respect basic human rights

is war and dictatorship a 'healthy societal step' ?
is delusional immortality and ignorance of death a 'healthy societal step' ?
i see a society that makes a lot of unhealthy steps - outside of this website

the 'collective "philosophy of the forum"' is to promote pro-choice,
and not to 'romanticise or celebrate' suicide - very big difference



these threads are combating the removal of choices at the end of life, and support individual autonomy and respect of final decisions, whatever they may be - respect basic human rights

i don't subscribe to any 'collective mentality' - i am capable of introspection, so i don't need the 'protection' of society; i can make my own decisions, without interference from condescending pro-lifers; i made my decision, in spite of it being 'ill-considered', just looking for a peaceful and dignified exit

Yeah I'm not sure where l suggested war and dictatorship, or ignorance of death, are healthy societal steps tbh. Similarly l literally did not state that celebrating suicide is a core philosophy of this forum. I did not use the term "ill-considered" to describe whatever individual decision you might make regarding your own life either. You're making up a character to be angry at, this is unnecessary.

 

[ksp]

You're making up a character to be angry at

i'm not making up a character to be angry at: society is forcing me to ignore my death, and that's a fact

and i don't support your implied view that i should listen to a delusional society

 

[Chinaski]

i'm not making up a character to be angry at: society is forcing me to ignore my death, and that's a fact

and i don't support your implied view that i should listen to a delusional society

There wasn't an implied view there, you can literally do what you want as far as I'm concerned - you can even sit and wait for a kindly government to send a doctor round to kill you and this means of exit would be convenient for you (and also for me) , however l don't believe it would be particularly healthy for the wider society for such a policy to exist.

I have no legislative power btw, I'm not the one standing in the way of anyone's suicide so it's pretty pointless being angry about this post imo.

 

[Musketeer]

- do you think everyone, regardless of age, should have the option to kill themselves (kt)?
as long as we have an 18+ age before hand sure (unless the minor is terminally ill)

- do you think euthanasia, and methods of suicide should be gatekept somehow? E.g money, your reasoning for wanting to die, et alia?
definitely some form of reasoning and a delay between making the application and executing the plan. I believe suicide should be used to relieve suffering, and that we should be extra sure it's not impulse.

- do people have to make a concentrated effort to recover in their predicament before they kt?
no, although they should be bumped up the list if they do, they should be expedited.

- should euthanasia be a government program, or something done by citizens?
interesting question, i guess if it's done by the citizens there goes the criticism of government programs being used to kill people. either or in my case, police no longer locking people up for suicide should suffice in my opinion.

- do you think opening up suicide or euthanasia at all would be more harmful than good? Would it be better if things remain as they are, with more aspects surrounding suicide being a bit more legal?
devil is in the details, Canada did a poor job in my opinion, i believe there should be a separation of medical doctors who treat patience and ones who do P.A.S.

 

[ksp]

l don't believe it would be particularly healthy for the wider society for such a policy to exist.

why?

also, what would you consider a 'healthy step' for society?

 

[Rounded Agony]

I think suicide should be a last resort rather than a first response, l think suicide is in itself a tragic event which should not be romanticised or celebrated, and l think the clamour for "free death clinics on demand" is ill-considered and would not be a healthy societal step - all of these things are probably seen as being at odds with whatever is considered the collective "philosophy of the forum" by those on here with bigger brains than mine.

However, l also think if someone wishes to kill themselves it is entirely up to them and they are at liberty to do just that. That is what being pro-choice is, to me. I don't waffle on about it as if this place is central to some ideological militancy because tbh it's a pretty basic belief and imo it doesn't need as much discussion as it takes up. I also feel a bit icky about these EXACTLY HOW PRO-CHOICE ARE YOU threads tbqh.

you can even sit and wait for a kindly government to send a doctor round to kill you and this means of exit would be convenient for you (and also for me) , however l don't believe it would be particularly healthy for the wider society for such a policy to exist.

This, in a nutshell. Maybe I can preempt you even answering the question @ksp just asked - @well2hell has been making some interesting posts about the upcoming changes to MAiD in Canada, and providing links to stories being reported on of people who are applying - seemingly successfully - only because other perfectly possible services are unavailable and have been systematically undercut for a disgustingly long time. Search their posts for those examples, but this is one I found on a cursory google:

Toronto, Canada and Global Breaking News – CP24

Most recent News News business news stories and video from CP24

www.cp24.com

As the woman from the story, whose main motivator in choosing MAiD is financial instability, states:

"The government as a body is telling people that they're willing to assist them to death because they don't have enough money to live with dignity. That is a pretty clear signal to me that, unless you are able-bodied enough or able-minded enough to work to produce profit, then you don't have any place here."

The sad truth.

 

[Chinaski]

why?

also, what would you consider a 'healthy step' for society?

Rounded Apathy has kind of covered it but I've consistently stated how l see Free Death On Demand playing out and this example sees it come to reality. I've gone in to it so frequently elsewhere and gotten a resoundingly furious response to it that l kind of cba to do it again (this isn't personal against you jsyk) but in summary, it will basically lead to the poorest, the weakest in society offing themselves as a convenience. As an example, if you need a health procedure to cure a chronic, severe, debilitating pain which costs 10k which you don't have, you may well opt for death. The person who can afford the healthcare does not.

A healthy society is one which seeks to minimise the many societal drivers to suicide, not one which offers death on request to its poorest members. This is just my opinion and l stand by it but please remember this is not my call either way, please can anyone reading who feels enraged by this view direct any furious missives to those with the actual power to make the changes you want.

 

[FuneralCry]

They should just let people have the option of assisted suicide or they can take N themselves if that is what they want. There is no need to over complicate this subject and there is no need to make suicide unnecessarily difficult. Suicide shouldn't be gatekeeped, no one should be forced to suffer. We have no right to say that suicide is wrong for someone else, I mean suicide could never, ever be wrong in a world like this. Existence is pointless and useless, we will all die anyway, there's really not much difference at the end of the day if someone dies now or in 50 years or whatever.

I find complicated posts about this subject to be tiring, but seriously even if there is some kind of system for adults to get assisted suicide in society even if there is waiting times and things like that then that is fine for me, I would wait as I just want to be gone from this world without having to research complicated suicide methods and potentially attempt risky and painful suicide methods. It's wrong how we like have to be punished because of people's decisions to selfishly procreate. We shouldn't have to struggle so much to be free from this life that we never asked for in the first place. It's all very tiring to me and I hate this pro suffering and torture society.

And in my case suicide is a perfectly rational decision, life is a terrible horrific concept, I'm not mentally ill, there is no 'recovery', wanting suicide is the rational response to seeing life for what it really is.

 

[ksp]

A healthy society is one which seeks to minimise the many societal drivers to suicide, not one which offers death on request to its poorest members.

thanks for elaborating; we're complicating the subject (i'm not angry at you personally)

i still maintain that most people are capable to decide for themselves, and society needs to respect the right to die, the same way its respecting the right to live

 

[Chinaski]

thanks for elaborating; we're complicating the subject (i'm not angry at you personally)

i still maintain that most people are capable to decide for themselves, and society needs to respect the right to die, the same way its respecting the right to live

Yeah l also think people are capable of deciding for themselves but a society which withdraws basic services and safety nets whilst also offering death to those who suffer the impact is not a healthy one. It's not about capability of decision making as much as it is a preference that society offers the best chance at life before it offers death.

 

[Rounded Agony]

@ksp (& @Chinaski?) - I think it depends on how you interpret @Un-'s original question without looking bigger picture. Anyone has the physical capacity to attempt to take their life (whether they do or are able to choose to do so). But this question was about facilitation, MAiD, euthanasia and P.A.S. which are different from someone independently choosing to off themselves. You can't answer the question without it being a complicated answer, because societies are inherently more complex than one human.

This is the post/thread I mentioned, which gets to the heart of the matter: people will, and already are, choosing death who would rather choose life, if only the state would support them with what they needed to make life bearable (in some cases fairly basic things like food, housing, medication - ostensible human rights):

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/thre...-of-duty-for-governments.103754/#post-1781756

 

[BipolarExpress]

Being pro-choice means avoiding coercive methods and policies that force people to live—or die—against their will.

A lot of medical professionals, care workers, and policymakers devalue the lives of people with disabilities, and many people who would be otherwise eager to live are pushed to suicidality because systems aren't set up to support them. I agree with @well2hell that Medical Aid in Dying is risky for people with chronic illnesses and disabilities who aren't receiving enough care under the current system.

But if someone is determined to die, there should be no coercion to force them to stay alive. Suicide should not—must not—be encouraged. I'd rather see barbiturates and fentanyl on the open market—these drugs can be and are used by nonsuicidal people—than assisted suicide as a replacement for comprehensive care for disabled and chronically ill people.

Hell, I'm suicidal in part because the world is inaccessible for me. I have weird triggers, aversions, and sensitivities from being an autistic person with OCD and intense synaesthesia. There are certain words and expressions that will make me stop reading a text as soon as my eyes come across them (and if the word/expression appears frequently in some kinds of texts, then it's REALLY hard). I can't tolerate certain kinds of noises or music. All the treatments are focused on forcing me to adapt to everything else, rather than having things adapted to me for a change. With my brand of synaesthesia, hearing and reading and seeing certain things is like alarms going off, scraping cutlery, rancid oil, and all manner of unpleasant sensations. I know that I don't and can't control the world and all the other people in it, and that's part of the problem. I can't seal myself off from every aversive stimulus I come across, but I also don't want to spend months doing exposure therapy so I have to keep encountering that shit all the time. Neither option is optimal for my mental well-being. On top of that, I'm full of shame and self-hatred for my other mental health conditions, including bipolar disorder that led to an acute manic/psychotic episode earlier this year. And now I'm at the point where I'm seriously considering suicide to release myself from the pain, since my access needs are not being, and cannot be, reasonably met.

 

[DysphoriaKilledMe]

Pro choice means allowing us to be able to make our own choices as long as it doesn't hurt others.

 

[well2hell]

Being pro-choice means avoiding coercive methods and policies that force people to live—or die—against their will.

A lot of medical professionals, care workers, and policymakers devalue the lives of people with disabilities, and many people who would be otherwise eager to live are pushed to suicidality because systems aren't set up to support them. I agree with @well2hell that Medical Aid in Dying is risky for people with chronic illnesses and disabilities who aren't receiving enough care under the current system.

But if someone is determined to die, there should be no coercion to force them to stay alive. Suicide should not—must not—be encouraged. I'd rather see barbiturates and fentanyl on the open market—these drugs can be and are used by nonsuicidal people—than assisted suicide as a replacement for comprehensive care for disabled and chronically ill people.

Hell, I'm suicidal in part because the world is inaccessible for me. I have weird triggers, aversions, and sensitivities from being an autistic person with OCD and intense synaesthesia. There are certain words and expressions that will make me stop reading a text as soon as my eyes come across them (and if the word/expression appears frequently in some kinds of texts, then it's REALLY hard). I can't tolerate certain kinds of noises or music. All the treatments are focused on forcing me to adapt to everything else, rather than having things adapted to me for a change. With my brand of synaesthesia, hearing and reading and seeing certain things is like alarms going off, scraping cutlery, rancid oil, and all manner of unpleasant sensations. I know that I don't and can't control the world and all the other people in it, and that's part of the problem. I can't seal myself off from every aversive stimulus I come across, but I also don't want to spend months doing exposure therapy so I have to keep encountering that shit all the time. Neither option is optimal for my mental well-being. On top of that, I'm full of shame and self-hatred for my other mental health conditions, including bipolar disorder that led to an acute manic/psychotic episode earlier this year. And now I'm at the point where I'm seriously considering suicide to release myself from the pain, since my access needs are not being, and cannot be, reasonably met.

Herein lies the problem: "All the treatments are focused on forcing me to adapt to everything else, rather than having things adapted to me for a change."

It is society that must adapt to the needs of the disabled and chronically ill, not the opposite. There is no denying that it is a massive and constant struggle — disabled activists can get burnt out quickly (and tank their health because of the strain activism takes on them) — but the options are either to keep on fighting for better recognition or to die, despite the fact that many of us wish nothing but to live a healthy life. Or, at least, one where our respective conditions are less painful to live with.

I've heard about therapy for autistic people and I must say that it is horrifyingly ableist. If you could withdraw from it, and the environment that pushes you into doing it, you may well be better off. Again - this is not easy.