Venting [Article] Pro-lifers like to defer the option of suicide then eventually denying it

[TAW122]

Over the years, I've noticed a consistent pattern that pro-lifers like to take, which is to defer the choice of suicide and while on the surface, it appears benign, it actually isn't. I know this when I followed certain Reddit users' posts from when they first posted and then into present/recent times when the same or similar people (who either read the user's original threads or not) still deny the suicidal person from being able to choose to die on their own terms.

For example, I found a thread from years ago where the user talked about dying and what not, then a couple of users under the OP's thread claims that suicide is indeed an option, and that one can always CTB later (option) but first try xyz. Sure, at first, it seems to be innocuous and even supportive, but after that time, the same or different person defers the option again, almost indefinitely. In the end, when pro-lifers like to defer, what they mean is when they pass the buck or kick the bucket further down the road, eventually they are de facto, denying the OP the choice through simple stalling. They figured that after enough time, the OP would forget and not wish to CTB anymore (while sometimes true), it really is all about buying time and (eventually) denying said person the option through stalling time.

So truth be told, pro-lifers are not only dishonest and sneaky, their main goal is denying the person the option to CTB on their own terms through stalling and deferment.

 

[SilentSadness]

It's true, I see it as a torturer whipping their slave and telling them they will have freedom soon, they just need to wait one more day. Of course the best option is to break free, even if that means losing the forgettable perks being a slave has to offer. It certainly is mean when people treat others this way and it's one of the reasons you can't trust anyone. I hope you find peace from this world of betrayal and ignorance.

 

[TAW122]

Yes, originally I wrote this article a few years ago, but I couldn't find it anymore on this forum so I pulled my archive (of all the threads, or as many as I can recall) and then posted it. I was thinking that it was an important topic that isn't as commonly discussed and is a loophole that prolifers like to exploit so I wanted to raise awareness to it.

I believe that if there was definite goalposts and also contracts that could not be amended and if violated results in (legal) action taken against the violator, then there would be less people willing to abuse and move goalposts and instead, be more inclined to honor one's wishes to death with dignity.

 

[FuneralCry]

Those types of people just come across as so insensitive to me with how they force their invalidating life valuing beliefs onto other people. It's sad how so many in this world refuse to accept the right to die, this is why I think that it's better not to open up to people at all.

 

[Twoped538]

The trick of delaying suicide (by any means possible) until it doesn't happen anymore, is indeed a well known tactic by pro-lifers. However, is that a bad thing? Call me naive, but I'm convinced that many of these pro-lifers play that trick with good intentions. We even have to agree with them that some problems are resolved (at least partly) with the passage of time.

So, do I agree with these pro-lifers? No, the main problem I have with their approach, is that the prevention of suicide seems to be the one and only ultimate goal, instead of minimizing the suffering of people in very bad situations. This is bad for a specific group of people: those for whom suicide would have been the best option.

 

[TAW122]

The trick of delaying suicide (by any means possible) until it doesn't happen anymore, is indeed a well known tactic by pro-lifers. However, is that a bad thing? Call me naive, but I'm convinced that many of these pro-lifers play that trick with good intentions. We even have to agree with them that some problems are resolved (at least partly) with the passage of time.

So, do I agree with these pro-lifers? No, the main problem I have with their approach, is that the prevention of suicide seems to be the one and only ultimate goal, instead of minimizing the suffering of people in very bad situations. This is bad for a specific group of people: those for whom suicide would have been the best option.

I would say it can be a bad thing depending on the context. For example, if someone was suffering an illness that will eventually result in death but isn't terminal, and the stupid pro-lifers (treatment/care team) refused to let said person die and continually deferred until other cause (which is what happened to this poor individual). On the other hand, one example where it could be helpful is when/if someone's decision was impulsive and if the root problem was addressed, resolved, then the person would not have chosen to CTB. (I'm not trying to sound pro-life when I say this, but this just one small example of where the delaying of CTB helped a particular person as said particular person wouldn't have CTB'd under normal circumstances, without the root cause/stressor.)

For the second paragraph, I agree with you, it is important that CTB is always an option, which is something that prolifers fail to grasp since they always view it as NEVER an option and to ultimately prevent it while failing to address the suffering and/or root causes that lead people to want to CTB to begin with. For people whose problems are unsolvable, then it makes sense for them to have the option to CTB to avoid unnecessary suffering.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think I'm more curious as to why someone is posting about wanting to suicide on a site that is likely to attract pro-lifers. I guess maybe they were hoping for a reasoned argument...

Still- if it's full of people who value life and see suicide as something utterly wrong- it's kind of predictable that they will try and put the person off. For whatever reason- they obviously don't recognise the distress the OP is in and therefore- they don't think it's their best option to end their lives. Maybe they do have this flimsy belief that things always get better given time.

I don't think there's all that much you can do to sway public opinion. Just politely agree to disagree- at the end of the day- those pro-lifers can't keep that person alive against their will. If- on the other hand- the OP is asking them- 'Should I kill myself? Is it appropriate under the circumstances?' Then I'm afraid I would say- they're not ready. If you need to get the advice of internet strangers on such a personal decision- then- perhaps you're not sure enough yourself.

What concerns me more is if/when it's a professional who CAN decide if we are given access to assisted suicide. I do wonder just how long people with non physical illnesses and problems have to wait and just how much treatment they have to go through to be considered eligible. That definitely concerns me. Seeing as maybe mental illness and shitty life circumstances can't exactly be diagnosed as terminal. Some are certainly debhilitating though... I guess we are moving in the right direction- they do at least accept mental illness as reasonable cause now don't they?

 

[TAW122]

I think I'm more curious as to why someone is posting about wanting to suicide on a site that is likely to attract pro-lifers. I guess maybe they were hoping for a reasoned argument...

Still- if it's full of people who value life and see suicide as something utterly wrong- it's kind of predictable that they will try and put the person off. For whatever reason- they obviously don't recognise the distress the OP is in and therefore- they don't think it's their best option to end their lives. Maybe they do have this flimsy belief that things always get better given time.

I don't think there's all that much you can do to sway public opinion. Just politely agree to disagree- at the end of the day- those pro-lifers can't keep that person alive against their will. If- on the other hand- the OP is asking them- 'Should I kill myself? Is it appropriate under the circumstances?' Then I'm afraid I would say- they're not ready. If you need to get the advice of internet strangers on such a personal decision- then- perhaps you're not sure enough yourself.

What concerns me more is if/when it's a professional who CAN decide if we are given access to assisted suicide. I do wonder just how long people with non physical illnesses and problems have to wait and just how much treatment they have to go through to be considered eligible. That definitely concerns me. Seeing as maybe mental illness and shitty life circumstances can't exactly be diagnosed as terminal. Some are certainly debhilitating though... I guess we are moving in the right direction- they do at least accept mental illness as reasonable cause now don't they?

Interesting points and I might partially disagree with "pro-lifers can't keep that person alive against their will." because depending on the circumstances, an individual may/not have the means to reliably CTB (whether it is lack of a certain method, their physical and psychological capability, personal circumstances, etc.). Furthermore, prolifers do intervene (forcibly) against said individual and do (just about) ANYTHING to prevent an attempt/save said person.

Yes, when professionals are the ones to dictate the criteria, I think a standard criteria with safeguards would be a start. For example, say someone with treatment resistant depression and some other mild to moderate conditions (maybe very mild physical condition, while not severely affecting one's life, it certainly does impact it), then one could set a time period of counseling and trying other treatments (could be concurrent with the waiting period). During this time, an individual would not immediately get the right to die, but after trying means to improve or fix the problem fails, then after a certain time (be it a year or so, multiple therapies and treatments, and still fail), then the individual will be given the greenlight to access the right to die. I believe Canada is moving in the right direction and while (presuming that the exclusion (to those whose sole underlying condition is a mental illness) expires on March 17, 2024) it is still in it's early stages of implementation and criteria for the right to die for those suffering non-terminal mental illness(es). So from that direction, yes, over the years after MAiD's further expansion, then there could be set criteria of waiting period, the amount of therapy/treatment to try before giving the greenlight for it. I would think as long as it is reasonable (like <1 year waiting period, maybe 2-3 treatments, therapies, some counseling and time to think), then guaranteed the green light afterwards (NO MOVING/SHIFTING GOALPOSTS!), I think that would be a fair compromise (for now).