Why the “Even if one unwilling death is caused then it’s one too many!” is a poor argument

[TAW122]

I'm sure we have heard of the retort and argument presented by pro-lifers being against the right to die due to the fact that people who may otherwise not want to die will end up dying. Whether it is due to duress, abuse, or otherwise snap judgments and such. This is a poor argument against the right to die because it presumes that because there is a non-zero chance for misuse, abuse, poor application, impulsive decision, or even those who are pressured to die (who may otherwise not chosen death), that we should never allow it. With all things in life, there will always be some form of harm, misuse, or abuse, but we couldn't simply disallow, forbid, nor ban things because of the non-zero possibility of harm. Otherwise, there will be nothing we can have in this existence! Why would humanity even advance technology and seek innovation when the very same tools and technology can be misused or holds a possibility of harm? (rhetorical question) Basically, I'm exposing the flaw that pro-lifers have in their logic about never allowing something because of the non-zero possibility of harm done to unwilling participants and subjects.

Symmetrically, the reverse argument is also true:
However, in reverse, there is an argument that could be made too; that there is also a non-zero amount of people who would still wish to die even if they are prevented from doing so initially (as well as repeated wishes to escape suffering), and in fact, these people (again, a non-zero quantity of people) would be harmed by the pro-lifers subjecting them to be tortured by continuous sentience against their will. Is it fair or just that these people be subjected to continued, unwanted sentience that is filled with torment, anguish, and suffering just to appease the atavistic morals and values of the pro-lifers? Absolutely not! It is taking a gamble on the person's welfare and well-being in the sliver of hope for the person to one day change their minds. Should the person fail to do so, even after an inordinate amount of time, be it decades or more, and then ending up dying from something else, it is even more dystopian and disingenuous that pro-lifers not only get away with such abuse and wanton cruelty, but also relieve themselves of their burden; all the while ignorantly and pompously congratulating themselves on getting away with imposing suffering on another individual who doesn't share their moral code or values. The real tragedy is not only just the lack of cessation of suffering through the invocation of bodily autonomy and going out peacefully with dignity (or even avoiding unnecessary suffering), but the lack of justice and accountability for those who unethically and unjustifiably subjected those who did not wish to suffer an unnecessary prolongation of sentience.

So in this thread, I aimed to point out not only that the argument of denying or forbidding a particular policy or program based on the pretext of misuse, abuse, or harm is a faulty one and short sighted one at best. Then I also introduced a similar reverse argument to prove that it is equally insufficient and immoral to subject people to continued sentience against their will, essentially using reflection and symmetry to prove that their argument is insufficient. Finally, since they (the pro-lifers) don't have adequate justification (even though they "think" they do), they should NOT have the right to impose their will or arbitrary value of what they hold to be true onto those who don't share their views! Ultimately, it should be the individual's decision to decide whether to pursue a service or not, even if the service may result in the cessation of a person's life. If there is a non-zero chance of harm or misuse, but also a non-zero chance of recovery, then the best thing would be for the pro-lifers to just go laissez-faire or "hands off and not meddle" in others' personal decision regarding one's won bodily autonomy!

 

[Forever Sleep]

Exactly. Is it acceptible that anyone should die of diseases related to smoking and alcoholism and processed food consumption?... Oh- but that's ok is it because those deaths make money? It was even worse when they knew all that shit was killing people but didn't tell them! Did those people want to die? Or- did they just get addicted to the dangerous and highly addictive products you knowingly released to them? Not to mention companies like Dupont who knowingly poisoned water supplies with C8- all so we can cook with non stick frying pans. Woohoo! Those poor sods were drinking tap water unknowing it could well lead to cancer. They're quite happy to kill us slowly so long as they make money from it but allow us to go on our own terms? Nah.

 

[FuneralCry]

And it's like those pro-life people forget that they are just going to die anyway as well, I don't understand how death is supposedly a harm when nobody can suffer from not existing. Suicide is just a way for an individual to take control and reach that inevitable fate at an earlier date, I bet that someday most of us won't even exist in the memories of those who continue to stay here, we will just be forgotten about like we never existed at all.