
TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,955
This may go without saying and perhaps even preaching to the choir for many of us pro-choicers on here, SaSu, but this article details what the survival instinct is and how it is NOT indicative nor evidence of one wishing to live. First off, briefly what is the survival instinct (aka self-preservation instinct)?
I define the survival instinct as an involuntary biological instinct that is built-in all living organisms from inception and throughout the evolution of the organisms over time which serves to keep a living organism from dying, preserving sentience and avoiding danger or pain. Just because one's survival instinct kicks in (during an attempt), it doesn't mean that the person has changed their mind necessarily.
See the sentence in the MAID criterion regarding final consent and involuntary movements as it states:
For example, someone who has just jumped from a tall structure or a great height (a cliff for instance), it doesn't mean that they wanted to live necessarily during the fall, it is their biological mechanism that is involuntarily reacting and causing the person to be scared and doing whatever it can (regardless of whether it is effective or not) to preserve the body from harm. When asked about whether the person regrets mid-attempt or even after failure, it's obvious that they are going to say "yes" and it is not necessarily an admission of regret of the attempt, but rather the consequences of the attempt (being incarcerated in a psych ward after failing and surviving), being a vegetable (permanently) or severely disabled and/or incapacitated, among other consequences. It's almost like asking a suspect if they are looking to commit crimes or break the law, it's obvious that people under duress and with the threat (and fear) of actual consequences from honesty, WILL LIE to avoid (further) consequences!
Therefore, to use the survival instinct as evidence or indication of the fact that one wishes to live or changed their mind is at best disingenuous and inaccurate. People who have carefully deliberated their predicament and rationally arrived at a conclusion such that they no longer wish to die have already made their decision and just because a part of their physical biological component resists should not and is not an indicator of resisting consent nor an withdrawal of consent (especially according to the definition and criterion taken from the MAID program in Canada).
I define the survival instinct as an involuntary biological instinct that is built-in all living organisms from inception and throughout the evolution of the organisms over time which serves to keep a living organism from dying, preserving sentience and avoiding danger or pain. Just because one's survival instinct kicks in (during an attempt), it doesn't mean that the person has changed their mind necessarily.
See the sentence in the MAID criterion regarding final consent and involuntary movements as it states:
"Reflexes and other of types involuntary movements, such as a response to a touch or to the insertion of a needle, do not constitute refusal or resistance ".
For example, someone who has just jumped from a tall structure or a great height (a cliff for instance), it doesn't mean that they wanted to live necessarily during the fall, it is their biological mechanism that is involuntarily reacting and causing the person to be scared and doing whatever it can (regardless of whether it is effective or not) to preserve the body from harm. When asked about whether the person regrets mid-attempt or even after failure, it's obvious that they are going to say "yes" and it is not necessarily an admission of regret of the attempt, but rather the consequences of the attempt (being incarcerated in a psych ward after failing and surviving), being a vegetable (permanently) or severely disabled and/or incapacitated, among other consequences. It's almost like asking a suspect if they are looking to commit crimes or break the law, it's obvious that people under duress and with the threat (and fear) of actual consequences from honesty, WILL LIE to avoid (further) consequences!
Therefore, to use the survival instinct as evidence or indication of the fact that one wishes to live or changed their mind is at best disingenuous and inaccurate. People who have carefully deliberated their predicament and rationally arrived at a conclusion such that they no longer wish to die have already made their decision and just because a part of their physical biological component resists should not and is not an indicator of resisting consent nor an withdrawal of consent (especially according to the definition and criterion taken from the MAID program in Canada).