[Article] Pro-lifers common argument against MAID (often made in bad faith) cuts both ways too!

[TAW122]

It is no surprise one of the common arguments made by pro-lifers against MAID is that it would be abused and that if there are non-zero (more than one person harmed) then it should be strictly forbidden and never allowed. However, such an argument is often made in bad faith and ignores the relevant details and facts when it doesn't suit their (the pro-lifers') stance. It is willful and deliberate ignorance too.

More importantly, their (the pro-lifers') own argument can be turned against them (it cuts both ways), because if one was going to argue that CTB or RTD should NEVER be allowed because of bad actors or insert bad faith argument, then one could say that for other things too (social justice issues, societal issues, etc.).

Here is a good example too, which not only takes the same argument that pro-lifers' made and turn it against them. Since the pro-lifers' argument stems and revolves around the fact that if there are non-zero amount of people harmed by MAID, then it is one too many and should NEVER be allowed (also presuming that death is permanent and cannot be reversed – though that is another point for another topic). However, it cuts both ways when applied to forbidding MAID or the right to die for people who DO wish to die on their own terms, and while there are some people (albeit they are the minority), there are still more than zero (or non-zero) amount of people who suffering due to the lack of maid. This is where the argument cuts both ways, and not only does it counter the original argument that pro-lifers have against maid, but also points out the fact that in other cases, the same argument could apply too – especially the lack of maid for people who are suffering also results in a non-zero amount of people harmed. If pro-lifers want to adamantly stand by their argument of non-zero amount of people harmed by the existence of MAID, then the same could be argued that the lack of MAID (especially for the majority of human history) also results in a non-zero amount of people harmed.

The story of Dan Crews is a good example, as he was a quadriplegic ever since he was just 3 years of age, and throughout the majority of his life, he always wanted to die. However, many pro-lifers (especially DRAs – disability rights' activists) overrule and override his wishes and while he may be a minute minority, he is harmed by the lack of legal policies such as MAID for him (he lives in the US and in the US at that time, even up to present day), therefore, he ended up not only not having his wishes honored, but suffered through more than three decades of sentience until finally nature took it's course. It could all have been avoided had MAID been legal and available as well as his wishes honored. Therefore, this is a strong example illustrating that as much as pro-lifers oppose maid due to a commonly presented argument of there will be non-zero amount of people harmed (especially by bad, unscrupulous actors), there are ALSO non-zero amount of people who are harmed by the lack of MAID!

In conclusion, pro-lifers who make such arguments are not only hypocritical (they want it when it applies to them, or is convenient, yet the moment it is no longer logically convenient for their argument, they will bend and twist their own premise to fit their narrative and perceptions), but also very intellectually dishonest and disingenuous. It is also a bad faith argument because the pro-lifers are NOT attempting to seek the truth, but rather to belittle, condescend, attack, and shut down those who don't share the same sentiments or philosophy on life itself. They would even go as far as to impinge on one's personal liberties.

 

[L'absent]

The criticisms against MAID by those who identify as 'pro-life' often seem more like strategic choices than genuine concerns. It's not about defending life, but about perpetuating control over the most intimate right we have: the ability to decide how and when to face the end.
Believing that existence is always better than death is a privilege of those who have never known inescapable pain. But those living in that prison should at least have the freedom to choose whether to keep fighting or to rest. When risks are discussed, we should remember that the greatest abuse is denying someone the dignity to decide for themselves.

 

[Hvergelmir]

It's not about defending life, but about perpetuating control over the most intimate right

I think rhetoric like this is counter productive.

To be against MAID is to be against doctors killing patients. It's not about control or oppression.
It would open up for bad actors. I can also see why doctors would be very hesitant to add killing to their duties.
Doctors have agreed to do their very best and never give up. Giving up, and helping others die, is simply not what they signed up for. (I would refuse, unless I personally agreed with the reason. ...and refusing people health care is not a right a want to give doctors.)


I don't think pro-choice will gain any ground by 'exposing the hypocrisy' of pro-life, and especially not on SS.
You're better off focusing on the need for assisted dying, and reaching the right audience.
The right for people like Dan Crews to die is something that easily can gain widespread support. The right for animals to die peacefully when too many bad circumstances accumulates, already have widespread support.

Too much focus is put on some misguided attempt to have the pro-lifers realize their oppressive ways and retreat in shame. (That won't happen, and even if it did, it wouldn't benefit the pro-choice cause much.)

bend and twist their own premise to fit their narrative and perceptions [...] intellectually dishonest and disingenuous [...] belittle, condescend, attack, and shut down those who don't share the same sentiments or philosophy

You have those kinds of activism everywhere, from the left to the right, and across any other dimension you can come up with.
By accusing an entire opinion group of this, you completely disregard their legitimate arguments and concerns, and frankly becomes guilty of the same.

I don't think activism should be about venting frustration, but to create change.

 

[SilentSadness]

I think rhetoric like this is counter productive.

To be against MAID is to be against doctors killing patients. It's not about control or oppression.
It would open up for bad actors. I can also see why doctors would be very hesitant to add killing to their duties.
Doctors have agreed to do their very best and never give up. Giving up, and helping others die, is simply not what they signed up for. (I would refuse, unless I personally agreed with the reason. ...and refusing people health care is not a right a want to give doctors.)


I don't think pro-choice will gain any ground by 'exposing the hypocrisy' of pro-life, and especially not on SS.
You're better off focusing on the need for assisted dying, and reaching the right audience.
The right for people like Dan Crews to die is something that easily can gain widespread support. The right for animals to die peacefully when too many bad circumstances accumulates, already have widespread support.

Too much focus is put on some misguided attempt to have the pro-lifers realize their oppressive ways and retreat in shame. (That won't happen, and even if it did, it wouldn't benefit the pro-choice cause much.)


You have those kinds of activism everywhere, from the left to the right, and across any other dimension you can come up with.
By accusing an entire opinion group of this, you completely disregard their legitimate arguments and concerns, and frankly becomes guilty of the same.

I don't think activism should be about venting frustration, but to create change.

Actually MAID is about doctors being allowed to give patients the means to kill themselves. Seeing death as "giving up" is an inherently pro-life stance since it assumes life is always to be preferred if possible, but for the suicidal person that's often not true at all. Pro-choice ideology will honestly not gain ground anyway, this site is a drop in the bucket for what would actually be needed, governments around the world are far too corrupt and authoritarian to implement assisted dying for everyone in the near future. It's perfectly reasonable to vent about frustration when this entire issue is about the horrible way suicidal people are treated, which has created a large amount of trauma and hurt overall.

 

[Loaf of bread]

Bump

 

[TAW122]

@L'absent Well said, and very true. The right to die is one of the most, if not the most important right that an individual has because no one ever consented to be conceived (to come into existence).

@Hvergelmir I don't think I have accused an entire group by presenting their argument and dissecting it. In fact, by dismantling their argument it is not an attack on them as a person (not an ad hominem), but rather an attack on the argument and exposing the flaws of it. I recognize their arguments and concerns as I do acknowledge that they aren't entirely wrong (there will and always be bad actors), but that the same logic they use could be applied to those who are harmed by the lack of MAID being available. Finally, I think activism can both be venting about frustrations (as well as raising awareness of the issues at hand), and also push for change.

@SilentSadness True, and yes, having more options doesn't detract from existing options. If MAID was more prevalent, not just in countries like Canada, The Netherlands, Belgium, and a few others, it would greatly alleviate a lot of suffering that most people are going through. I also agree that it is unlikely that MAID will become more widespread. The best we can get is hopefully in our lifetimes to see MAID expand to more nations and also eligibility for more than just terminal illnesses (less than 6 months of life left among other criterion).

@Loaf of bread Thanks for the bump!

 

[Hvergelmir]

I don't think I have accused an entire group by presenting their argument and dissecting it.

What I really criticized, was the implication of your conclusion - which I read as: Anyone presenting this argument ought to be seen as malicious.
The frequency of loaded words (''very intellectually dishonest and disingenuous", "bad faith argument"), is what made it come across like this.

The fact that the argument can be turned both ways, is common sense. You also presented a good example to show this.

Finally, I think activism can both be venting about frustrations...

Honestly, I didn't even think about peoples desire to vent before SilentSadness mentioned it. I'm not sure what to think about public venting, or if SS even is to be considered 'public', in that context.
My previous post ought to be largely disregarded, if the intent was to relieve frustration.

 

[TAW122]

What I really criticized, was the implication of your conclusion - which I read as: Anyone presenting this argument ought to be seen as malicious.
The frequency of loaded words (''very intellectually dishonest and disingenuous", "bad faith argument"), is what made it come across like this.

The fact that the argument can be turned both ways, is common sense. You also presented a good example to show this.

Honestly, I didn't even think about peoples desire to vent before SilentSadness mentioned it. I'm not sure what to think about public venting, or if SS even is to be considered 'public', in that context.
My previous post ought to be largely disregarded, if the intent was to relieve frustration.

Thanks for the clarifications and yes, most of the time I write threads mainly for informational and educational purposes, but also partly to vent as well. I suppose such loaded words may come off strong, but there are times where I think it encapsulates the situation pretty accurately, especially when describing how others' perceive and react to various arguments.

 

[voldetort785]

As a Doctor myself, the idea that we do 'everything we can to keep someone alive' is a common misconception. For patients that are unlikely to benefit from CPR or invasive ventilation, we set their ceiling of care at ward level care, and we may further de-escalate that if someone who is very frail/elderly/multiple co-morbidities becomes more unwell.

As someone who is vehemently pro-choice in this regard, I struggle with the idea of directly helping someone and I also struggle with the idea of forcing someone to live against their will. It's hard. I think the solution is allowing people the means to CTB (i.e. with sodium pentobarbital) after lengthy and repeated evaluations in the case of wanting to die for existential reasons (which I think are valid) and quicker evaluation for people who are suffering and near death. As for people who are physically unable to take the medication, there are devices that could be developed to assist ingestion or legislation passed to protect a family member/friend that helps them.

 

[TAW122]

As a Doctor myself, the idea that we do 'everything we can to keep someone alive' is a common misconception. For patients that are unlikely to benefit from CPR or invasive ventilation, we set their ceiling of care at ward level care, and we may further de-escalate that if someone who is very frail/elderly/multiple co-morbidities becomes more unwell.

As someone who is vehemently pro-choice in this regard, I struggle with the idea of directly helping someone and I also struggle with the idea of forcing someone to live against their will. It's hard. I think the solution is allowing people the means to CTB (i.e. with sodium pentobarbital) after lengthy and repeated evaluations in the case of wanting to die for existential reasons (which I think are valid) and quicker evaluation for people who are suffering and near death. As for people who are physically unable to take the medication, there are devices that could be developed to assist ingestion or legislation passed to protect a family member/friend that helps them.

Thanks for your inputs and yes, I think you may be among the few doctors and medical providers in the field that are empathetic and understanding of bodily autonomy and quality of life. Just out of curiosity, are you in a country that allows MAID or similar programs or in the US? In the US, while there is death with dignity (which is only available in a few states, haven't expanded more since the last few years), even then, it is a very narrow criteria, where a patient would have to be terminally ill - less than six months of life remaining among other criteria to be able to be eligible for such services.

 

[purelydaft]

I think it's less about harm or suffering and more that death is irreversible. A major reason why some oppose the death penalty as well.

 

[Rymrgand]

Actually MAID is about doctors being allowed to give patients the means to kill themselves. Seeing death as "giving up" is an inherently pro-life stance since it assumes life is always to be preferred if possible, but for the suicidal person that's often not true at all. Pro-choice ideology will honestly not gain ground anyway, this site is a drop in the bucket for what would actually be needed, governments around the world are far too corrupt and authoritarian to implement assisted dying for everyone in the near future. It's perfectly reasonable to vent about frustration when this entire issue is about the horrible way suicidal people are treated, which has created a large amount of trauma and hurt overall.

As a prochoice, I agree with you mostly. Suicide is not necessarily the worst alternative and should be a personal choice. I think that saying that doctors are trying their best to help people and that's why some oppose assisted suicide and euthanasia is naive, since a lot of them (often, the same ones who claim to be prolife) wouldn't care if a homeless person dies. The real reason is that they are conservative and reject new ideas, but they should do their freaking job and obey the law, even if they dislike it.

However, I think that blaming the corrupt and authoritative governments for this is a bit of a conspiracy theory. Suicide and euthanasia (except for the most extreme cases where it's already legal and normalized in some countries) is an absolute taboo. Yes, there are economic reasons to ban suicide, but most people isn't against suicide because of that. We are biologically engineered to avoid death and to consider it the worst thing it can happen. Besides that, if we see someone else die (especially if they do it voluntarily), we remember how horrible the world we live is, and the illusion breaks. Even here, in SS, some users try to avoid recommending suicide to other users.

Nowadays, in my country, I think the only way for a politician to implement assisted suicide for everyone is, ironically, if they were authoritarian and refused to listen to their voters. But of course, if they were authoritarian they wouldn't care.

 

[voldetort785]

Thanks for your inputs and yes, I think you may be among the few doctors and medical providers in the field that are empathetic and understanding of bodily autonomy and quality of life. Just out of curiosity, are you in a country that allows MAID or similar programs or in the US? In the US, while there is death with dignity (which is only available in a few states, haven't expanded more since the last few years), even then, it is a very narrow criteria, where a patient would have to be terminally ill - less than six months of life remaining among other criteria to be able to be eligible for such services.

MAID is unfortunately not available in my country at present, but is currently being discussed by government. I worry for the people in the US at the moment, as MAID is most certainly a provision which the government will cast their eyes on, if they haven't already.

 

[TAW122]

Bumping this topic here as I just found some good quotes from the passionate, right to die user, existentialgoof on Reddit:

If you believe that the government should force people to remain alive when they want to die, then you're the one lacking in empathy. Some people genuinely do feel that way when they become severely disabled. For example, Tony Nicklinson. It's YOU that wants to ceremoniously torture people like Nicklinson and have the whole spectacle play out on TV for the sake of ideology. I just want people to have a choice.

And also:

If people's lives are their own to take, then they should be entitled to the most reliable and humane method of doing that. Whether they are quadriplegic, depressed, or they just have a hangnail. Anything that seeks to make it more difficult and risky for them to end their life is an effort to enslave and entrap them. You can't make an ethical argument about abuse of the disabled, when you're the one wanting the government to be actively forcing them to suffer.

He is mainly referring to some of the commentors who rail against the right to die and often make arguments in bad faith, and I think he made good counterpoints against the pro-lifer's, anti-choicers' rhetoric. In addition to this, I do have some points that I'd add to his existing arguments and points. I do believe that even if someone were in the shoes of those who are unfortunate (the severely physically disabled, Nicklinson and Crews for instance), they are still likely to be dismissed, deflected, and deferred by many DRAs and most generic pro-lifers. Their suffering are oftenly dismissed as 'part of life', they are deflected by the fact that these pro-lifers often gaslight and victim blame them (citing their own mental anguish as a part of a mental defect rather than a rational and understandable reaction to the harsh, unforgiving realities that sentience has dealt them), and of course, deferment (passing them off to other DRA groups and other similar people just to silence them or drown out their unique perspective - as it doesn't fit the narrative of the DRAs). In other words, I'm saying that even if said person presenting the argument fits the criteria, pro-lifers, especially DRAs will oftenly and still shut them down, silencing their opinion and not even consider their plights.