TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,542
I may be preaching to the choir here, but one of the common opposing arguments that forced-lifers, disability rights advocates (DRAs), and similar groups is that the allowance of MAID or similar programs (right to die, death with dignity, Dignitas, etc.) would hinder support to the most 'vulnerable' groups of people in society (which they tacitly label as unsoundness of mind, but I digress) than without it. However, the core counterargument, especially through existentialgoof (EG) one of the most staunch pro-choice advocates and voice in the Reddit platform as well as the Internet in general stated that the absence of MAID does not improve those who are suffering irremediably and in fact, only forces them to endure whatever unfortunate and intolerable, inhospitable conditions that they are experiencing (until nature or other factor takes it's course). I agree with EG, and while I may say the same thing, I would only approach it slightly differently and also in different wording albeit saying essentially the same thing. I would also elaborate further than EG himself.
1st part of the core argument:
The first part of the core argument is that the deprivation of choice does not magically imply things will automatically get better! In fact, even prior to MAID and similar programs, throughout centuries and more, things do not simply just improve and even after MAID, medical research itself is still improving not because people are being "forced" into choosing MAID. Those who are willing to endure and continue living will seek out appropriate support systems and structures to be able to do so. Articles that sensationalize or even "cherry pick" fringe, outlier cases are doing so in bad faith as they are pushing their narrative more than seeking actual truth or honest reporting. In fact, as there are more funding addressed to medical research, even after such programs are conceived (MAID did not become established until after 2015, first starting from a supreme court case, and even then, it was only limited to the terminally ill - effectively those whose death are in the foreseeable future, which means less than six months or so to live, the terminally ill for instance.). Even after the expansion in eligibility criteria to include those who have an irremediable condition and whose death is not in the foreseeable future (more than six months or a year) and whose physical and/or psychological suffering is intolerable and cannot be relived under conditions "THEY (the person themselves)" consider acceptable.
2nd part of the core argument:
Second point is that not everyone who is disabled is able (see Eddie last video before flying to Dignitas for example) let alone willing to endure such conditions to the very end. Everyone's level of tolerance, endurance, and personal situation/circumstance is different! A lot of DRAs push the narrative that all disabled people (which is far from the truth) would want to continue to live and endure whatever hardship (even if permanent or long term, for most of their adult life, barring late adulthood/nearing retirement age) they face, but they IGNORE the ones (including the example linked in this thread) that do not wish to endure for possibly years (decades) of suffering just for the chance things could improve to a tolerable existence for them.
In conclusion, many forced-lifers, DRAs, and similar groups or individuals often like to push the narrative that the existence and continued expansion of MAID will forgo improved conditions for the 'disabled' and 'vulnerable' person(s), however that is far from the truth because throughout time and history well before the establishment of MAID or so, the care and support for those groups are already minimal and they had since forever (decades and half a century more) to improve, but whatever support and care that already exists is independent of whether MAID exists or not! The existence of MAID is simply another 'option' and in fact, a very merciful and dignified exit compared to currently existing DIY (barring some of the more peaceful means) of exit/CTB, and the denial of expansion of MAID as well as the curtailing of MAID in general not only doesn't improve those circumstances, but only pushes those who are desperate to find other (and more brutal, less reliable) means to exit, often leaving more collateral damage behind! Then also, ironically, the same opponents of MAID (albeit not all, but a significant amount) also oppose increasing support (with taxpayer funds) to fund programs to improve quality of life and care to the marginalized (disabled and vulnerable groups as they claim) groups, but that is a different topic for another thread.
1st part of the core argument:
The first part of the core argument is that the deprivation of choice does not magically imply things will automatically get better! In fact, even prior to MAID and similar programs, throughout centuries and more, things do not simply just improve and even after MAID, medical research itself is still improving not because people are being "forced" into choosing MAID. Those who are willing to endure and continue living will seek out appropriate support systems and structures to be able to do so. Articles that sensationalize or even "cherry pick" fringe, outlier cases are doing so in bad faith as they are pushing their narrative more than seeking actual truth or honest reporting. In fact, as there are more funding addressed to medical research, even after such programs are conceived (MAID did not become established until after 2015, first starting from a supreme court case, and even then, it was only limited to the terminally ill - effectively those whose death are in the foreseeable future, which means less than six months or so to live, the terminally ill for instance.). Even after the expansion in eligibility criteria to include those who have an irremediable condition and whose death is not in the foreseeable future (more than six months or a year) and whose physical and/or psychological suffering is intolerable and cannot be relived under conditions "THEY (the person themselves)" consider acceptable.
2nd part of the core argument:
Second point is that not everyone who is disabled is able (see Eddie last video before flying to Dignitas for example) let alone willing to endure such conditions to the very end. Everyone's level of tolerance, endurance, and personal situation/circumstance is different! A lot of DRAs push the narrative that all disabled people (which is far from the truth) would want to continue to live and endure whatever hardship (even if permanent or long term, for most of their adult life, barring late adulthood/nearing retirement age) they face, but they IGNORE the ones (including the example linked in this thread) that do not wish to endure for possibly years (decades) of suffering just for the chance things could improve to a tolerable existence for them.
In conclusion, many forced-lifers, DRAs, and similar groups or individuals often like to push the narrative that the existence and continued expansion of MAID will forgo improved conditions for the 'disabled' and 'vulnerable' person(s), however that is far from the truth because throughout time and history well before the establishment of MAID or so, the care and support for those groups are already minimal and they had since forever (decades and half a century more) to improve, but whatever support and care that already exists is independent of whether MAID exists or not! The existence of MAID is simply another 'option' and in fact, a very merciful and dignified exit compared to currently existing DIY (barring some of the more peaceful means) of exit/CTB, and the denial of expansion of MAID as well as the curtailing of MAID in general not only doesn't improve those circumstances, but only pushes those who are desperate to find other (and more brutal, less reliable) means to exit, often leaving more collateral damage behind! Then also, ironically, the same opponents of MAID (albeit not all, but a significant amount) also oppose increasing support (with taxpayer funds) to fund programs to improve quality of life and care to the marginalized (disabled and vulnerable groups as they claim) groups, but that is a different topic for another thread.
