TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,548
It is not necessarily a new argument and it has been argued before, but I am just emphasizing and explaining why, from one of EG's (existentialgoof) arguments how it can be used to push back against the paternalistic interventions by the State, and those in society. This argument stems from that "suicide is not a crime" and technically, on paper, that is true, but not so much in practice.
Now from that argument, because it [the act of suicide] is NOT a crime (at least in the textbook sense, where one goes through the legal process of booking, being charged, or other things), it is de jure (a fancy term to state that something is, by definition, not against the law) "legal", but de facto (in practice, in reality) not legal as people who are deemed suicidal are treated similarly to 'criminals' (as much as many forced-lifers like to beat around the bush, deflect, or act disingenuous when they state that). Therefore, it should not be treated as such, yet it is, thus it would just be another form of societally sanctioned discrimination! This is of course similar to how many different acts, activities, and even marginalized groups throughout the course of history are disenfranchised and even treated poorly just because they don't fit the status quo and such.
To expand on the argument of why CTB prevention itself, especially for those who are NOT harming others (Note: The "harm" from hurt feelings do not count, because from that criterion, nobody can have any rights that could hurt the 'feelings' of others, which in practice is not practical or realistic as each action there is always a drawback or pro, just depending on who it is – e.g. an employer will be sad if an employee leaves, a SO will be sad if the other partner leaves, one's cosmetic decision offends another, etc.) and have done nothing to impinge on the rights of others should have their negative liberty right (the right to not have their civil liberties infringed or imposed) respected, especially if there is not a positive liberty right granted. The absence of unfettered interference or intrusive by those in charge, the State, or other third parties is why programs like MAID or similar right to die with dignity (and to minimize the aftermath, minimize unnecessary suffering) exist because we live in an anti-choice, anti-suicide, paternalistic society when it comes to certain 'rights'.
The final part of the argument is that the label of being suicidal is based on the assumption that just by nature of being 'suicidal' that their judgment is compromised (while ignoring the context of the situation or even having their perspective being considered or heard) and incapable of understanding the decision that they are making and needing to be protected from their own (supposedly flawed, unsound) judgment. That is one of the most discriminatory and (akin to discriminatory views, perspectives, attitudes) stigmatizing labels that one could receive. If judging others' by their 'protected status(es)' is considered illegal (especially in areas that matter such as employment, education, public access, or things), socially unacceptable, and such, then the same could be argued that the assumption of those who are labelled or suspected to be 'suicidal' are automatically deemed incapable, mentally incompetent, and must be intervened, interference against to prevent them from carrying out or making said decision, are in fact, also being discriminated against, and have their civil rights violated (even if the right to die is NOT treated as a protected status or attribute)! In short, it is just legalized discrimination and tyranny wrapped up as 'care' and 'benevolence'!
While I may have been rehashing many of the arguments that EG has used, I am merely stating his argument and breaking it down into many parts to make it more understandable. I also added a little bit of my own wording not only to echo what he said, but also because I also agree with his arguments. Even though it is unlikely any meaningful change will happen anytime soon, at least this helps those who read this article to be able to understand why suicide prevention in it's current form is a discriminatory act that has been sanctioned by society and the public at large! We not only need to change the attitudes towards suicide prevention from that of a illness or only the act of an irrational, unsound individual, but to that of someone who is making a deliberate, carefully calculated decision with regards to how much suffering that one is willing to endure! Then we also have to depathologize the notion of the act of suicide as pathological to that of an act of the strongest expression of freedom and self liberation! Those last two points would be addressed in their separate threads instead.
Now from that argument, because it [the act of suicide] is NOT a crime (at least in the textbook sense, where one goes through the legal process of booking, being charged, or other things), it is de jure (a fancy term to state that something is, by definition, not against the law) "legal", but de facto (in practice, in reality) not legal as people who are deemed suicidal are treated similarly to 'criminals' (as much as many forced-lifers like to beat around the bush, deflect, or act disingenuous when they state that). Therefore, it should not be treated as such, yet it is, thus it would just be another form of societally sanctioned discrimination! This is of course similar to how many different acts, activities, and even marginalized groups throughout the course of history are disenfranchised and even treated poorly just because they don't fit the status quo and such.
To expand on the argument of why CTB prevention itself, especially for those who are NOT harming others (Note: The "harm" from hurt feelings do not count, because from that criterion, nobody can have any rights that could hurt the 'feelings' of others, which in practice is not practical or realistic as each action there is always a drawback or pro, just depending on who it is – e.g. an employer will be sad if an employee leaves, a SO will be sad if the other partner leaves, one's cosmetic decision offends another, etc.) and have done nothing to impinge on the rights of others should have their negative liberty right (the right to not have their civil liberties infringed or imposed) respected, especially if there is not a positive liberty right granted. The absence of unfettered interference or intrusive by those in charge, the State, or other third parties is why programs like MAID or similar right to die with dignity (and to minimize the aftermath, minimize unnecessary suffering) exist because we live in an anti-choice, anti-suicide, paternalistic society when it comes to certain 'rights'.
The final part of the argument is that the label of being suicidal is based on the assumption that just by nature of being 'suicidal' that their judgment is compromised (while ignoring the context of the situation or even having their perspective being considered or heard) and incapable of understanding the decision that they are making and needing to be protected from their own (supposedly flawed, unsound) judgment. That is one of the most discriminatory and (akin to discriminatory views, perspectives, attitudes) stigmatizing labels that one could receive. If judging others' by their 'protected status(es)' is considered illegal (especially in areas that matter such as employment, education, public access, or things), socially unacceptable, and such, then the same could be argued that the assumption of those who are labelled or suspected to be 'suicidal' are automatically deemed incapable, mentally incompetent, and must be intervened, interference against to prevent them from carrying out or making said decision, are in fact, also being discriminated against, and have their civil rights violated (even if the right to die is NOT treated as a protected status or attribute)! In short, it is just legalized discrimination and tyranny wrapped up as 'care' and 'benevolence'!
While I may have been rehashing many of the arguments that EG has used, I am merely stating his argument and breaking it down into many parts to make it more understandable. I also added a little bit of my own wording not only to echo what he said, but also because I also agree with his arguments. Even though it is unlikely any meaningful change will happen anytime soon, at least this helps those who read this article to be able to understand why suicide prevention in it's current form is a discriminatory act that has been sanctioned by society and the public at large! We not only need to change the attitudes towards suicide prevention from that of a illness or only the act of an irrational, unsound individual, but to that of someone who is making a deliberate, carefully calculated decision with regards to how much suffering that one is willing to endure! Then we also have to depathologize the notion of the act of suicide as pathological to that of an act of the strongest expression of freedom and self liberation! Those last two points would be addressed in their separate threads instead.
