Resource The roadblocks to voluntary euthanasia (and suggestions on how to solve them)

[TAW122]

These factors (possibly more) are reasons to why voluntary euthanasia is not legal in many countries and jurisdictions as well as heavily restricted in countries that have them (but with very strict criteria to access them). The factors listed below aren't new topics on their own, however, this thread is to summarize and put together all the reasons and factors clearly to gain a general picture of the roadblocks that prevent legalization and acceptance of voluntary euthanasia. Feel free to consider this as somewhat similar to a megathread of factors and roadblocks that prevent the legalization of voluntary euthanasia.

It is frustrating that many of these reasons and the people who are reluctant to accept or even consider legalizing voluntary euthanasia (with safe guards) are oftenly runarounds of each other. What do I mean by runarounds of each other? I am referring to people giving one reason, by pointing out the other reason to be the reason, and then those reasons referencing each other. (We can't have voluntary euthanasia because reason a and then reason a references reason b, b references a, etc.) In essence it is almost (if not) like circular logic, but just more complex. Another way to look at this is similar to the chicken and the egg. The chicken came from the egg, but the egg is what made the chicken, but no one can really objectively argue that it is the chicken that came from the egg and the other group of people claim the egg produced the chicken. It is a neverending circular logic that can never be fully proven.

With that said here are the factors and roadblocks that are in the way of legalization of voluntary euthanasia (as well as brief suggestions on countering them)

[Legal] "We cannot do this because it is illegal!"
With regards to legality, the law should be changed. First one has to figure out "why" it was made illegal and then work towards striking down an unconstitutional law as well as any other legal matter. Most likely there is/are reasons and causes for making something illegal and once that is addressed, then the road to legalization can start.

[Fear] "It will be abused! Vulnerable people are already at risk, this makes it even easier for them to be harmed!"
This is a slippery slope. There are MANY things that can be abused, but they are not banned, but regulated, have measures and safeguards in place, and bad actors are held accountable. Furthermore, those who wish to stay will stay and should be encouraged. But the rights of those who don't wish to continue the fight, struggle, or (forced) recovery should be given a way out.

[Economic] "But it will cut into our profits! How will we profit from the dead?!"
There are many jobs that existed in the past that don't exist anymore (e.g. Pyramid builder) as technology and the times evolved to replace them, therefore to keep up with the times, there can be new jobs once policy changes. Just because one's current job is made irrelevant does not mean that new jobs cannot be formed. Instead of psychiatry being a coercive institution, there could be arbiters and assessors for the service of voluntary euthanasia.

[Ethics] "This will discourage people from trying to get better! It is a false choice!"
The people who wish to get better will attempt to do so and there is an abundance of motivational content in the world. Ultimately, being a "voluntary" option means that it is not imposed on people, but giving people an additional option other than the default option (to live at all costs, regardless of circumstance). We support people who wish to persevere, as well as people who do not wish to fight to the bitter with no guarantee of success.

[Moral/Religious] "It's against the sanctity of life! Only God can decide, nobody should decide!" (plus other arguments using religion as a justification)
Religion and personal beliefs should not be used as policy or to make laws. Imposition of one's morals, beliefs, and personal values onto another person is wrong. Furthermore, laws and regulations should be made based on logic and pragmatism, not personal beliefs and religion.

All these factors and roadblocks interact with each other and are intertwined, therefore in order to break them, it would require having them resolved separately, having each and every roadblock adequately addressed with proper solutions. There are likely more factors that aren't listed, but these are the ones that I know of and can come up with so far. In addition to this, coming from a place of logic, pragmatism, and compassion. Religion and personal beliefs should not be used to enact policy, law, and regulations, especially when it infringes upon another's rights. Policies and laws should be constructed from logic and reasoning.

I believe if we can overcome and find working solutions for these roadblocks, then there is no (or little, if any) reason why voluntary euthanasia (with proper safeguards) cannot be legalized.

 

[Someone123]

There is one other big factor to consider- if this is allowed for reasons like depression in young people, this opens the floodgates and many people would use this system to murder people. So it will never become so big that this is a viable possibility- this will almost certainly only be used for the very physically ill and possibly the very old and broken down who choose this- it's never going to be available on demand because people will then use this to make others disappear- they'll say things like- say that you want to do this or we'll go after your family, things like that.

 

[Pluto]

Everything you say makes sense, but the elephant in the room is that we are not in a position to affect public policy. Even our gathering here is constantly in danger.

Fundamentalist Christians outnumber us by about 100,000 to 1. Might is right.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Very good points. I'd say another roadblock often addressed here is the labelling of someone as 'mentally ill'- so I assume- infirm and unable to rationally and legitimately make the decision to end their own life.

I read on the Pegasos website that: 'Pegasos does not accept young people with depression or other severe mental illness.' I guess I wonder how this is defined. Via doctors obviously but I imagine the moment you mention suicidal thoughts, you will be diagnosed with depression.

I expect even now they assess people on a case by case basis. Still, I get the firm impression that assisted suicide is only granted when it is pretty much the last option (other multiple treatments have failed). Conversely- there seems to be a restriction against people who WANT it (rather than NEED it) ie suicidal people. I just don't know how and who decides/ will decide on who is eligible.

Honestly, I wouldn't even like to say what the 'right' thing is. The younger the person is and the less visible the health (especially mental health) problems are- I imagine the harder things get.

Still, overall, I think this concept of mental illness being connected to suicidality is a big hurdle. One that many people here are trying to challenge in fact. Many people here see it as a logical choice rather than the product of a poorly mind.

 

[ksp]

what i see as the main roadblocks to voluntary euthanasia

1. old mentality - religion; most countries without voluntary euthanasia are mostly religious
2. current mentality - mental illness; voluntary euthanasia stopped by unclear definitions

i think that if all countries will overcome these 2, we'd get to the 80% acceptance (80/20 rule)

---

[Legal] "We cannot do this because it is illegal!"
legality will be adapted and changed based on compassion, common sense, and intelligence
laws are created by men, not gods
old laws were created by rigid men (not women) - old mentality and the fear of god
current, and new laws will be made by men AND women (open-minded, smart, with a basic sense of logic)
(i'll continue to believe that most people are smart and competent)

[Fear] "It will be abused! Vulnerable people…"
who defines vulnerability? i want to die - why am i vulnerable?
abuses can be anywhere - implement reasonable constraints / regulated (like you mentioned)

[Economic] "But it will cut into our profits! How will we profit from the dead?!"
you made good points, but based on canada, the loss of profits will be offset by savings (by a lot)
healthcare is overwhelmed by expenses: 1 year of care for a terminal ill person reduced to a fraction (maybe 50k reduced to 3k for voluntary euthanasia)

[Ethics]
i'm not sure i understand this… but i agree with this: 'We support people who wish to persevere, as well as people who do not wish to fight to the bitter with no guarantee of success' (i'm not see this as a roadblock)

[Moral/Religious] "It's against the sanctity of life! Only God can decide, nobody should decide!"
Religion and personal beliefs should not be used as policy or to make laws. Imposition of one's morals, beliefs, and personal values onto another person is wrong. Furthermore, laws and regulations should be made based on logic and pragmatism, not personal beliefs and religion.

exactly! very clear and concise point.
i see this as the main problem caused by religious politicians and policy makers, and when they are removed from power, society will make great progress; canada has a young prime minister:

The non-religious people are an underrepresented group (CNN, 2019, in the chart bellow)

Whatever the causes, the non-religious represent a growing constituency. Yet this demographic is greatly underrepresented in Washington's halls of power. There is not a single open atheist amid the most diverse Congress in history, according to a Pew study.

The Congressional Freethought Caucus's 10 members try to represent non-theist interests while protecting the secular character of government.

"This growing group of Americans can feel like there is at least some people in Congress who believe they matter." says the co-chair and founder, Rep. Jared Huffman of California

---

There is one other big factor to consider- if this is allowed for reasons like depression in young people, this opens the floodgates and many people would use this system to murder people

good point; didn't consider it until now, but there is a clear distinction between voluntary euthanasia and murder. there might be cases of 'say that you want to do this or we'll go after your family, things like that' but regulation may fix this

---

Everything you say makes sense, but the elephant in the room is that we are not in a position to affect public policy.

i disagree with this: we are the front line on our views, and we should use our legal visibility as much as possible

'Even our gathering here is constantly in danger' this should't make us afraid;
we are constantly under scrutiny: we should always fight for our right
(the most basic right of all: i have the right to exist, therefore i have the right to die)

—-

'Fundamentalist Christians outnumber us by about 100,000 to 1. Might is right.'

A growing number of Americans reject organized religion (CNN, 2019; the red line is 'no religion')



in canada, 82% of people agree to voluntary euthanasia

---

Still, overall, I think this concept of mental illness being connected to suicidality is a big hurdle. One that many people here are trying to challenge in fact

excellent point; i think is one of the main taboos we have to face
society equates suicide to mental illness, and it is completely wrong
i want to die, and I AM NOT MENTALLY ILL

every person in the history of world was, or is mentally ill, just as
every person in the history of world had, or has a headache
both come and go

terminal mental illness is when a person cannot reasonably exist in this world
society needs to educate itself about this

 

[Pluto]

A growing number of Americans reject organized religion (CNN, 2019)

Of course, I'd like to think you are right. I'm just trying to be a realist.

My understanding is that regardless of increasing rejection of organised religions, Catholics have essentially taken over the US Supreme Court and are successfully reversing previous progress in areas like abortion. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

And any exposure we get is in the context of being pariahs rather than progressive visionaries.

But hopefully I am wrong and you are right. It's not like our opinions on these issues differ.

 

[ksp]

I'm just trying to be a realist.

i get where you're coming from, and understand your skepticism: 'one step forward, two steps back'
i choose to see it as 'two steps forward, one step back' :)

'any exposure we get is in the context of being pariahs rather than progressive visionaries' - i aggree with this too, but we can't fight with our heads down: i deserve my rights - please respect my choice, the same way i respect yours !

i'm encouraging all members to focus more on the 'pro-choice' aspect (most of us do, anyway), understanding, and compassion - this is what our society needs right now

 

[FuneralCry]

Of course I believe that assisted suicide should be legalised everywhere. I hope that in the future things are different and that attitudes towards suicide are changed. At the end of the day all humans will die eventually so why make suicide so stigmatised and difficult for people.

To me it's very unfair how methods are restricted and people have to resort to more risky ctb methods to end their suffering with others having to be shocked by finding a dead body as the result of a suicide. I just believe that it would make life more bearable for people if they knew there was a process for them to get a peaceful exit from this life if that is what they wish for. Not having assisted suicide legalised is just creating unnecessary suffering.

 

[TAW122]

There is one other big factor to consider- if this is allowed for reasons like depression in young people, this opens the floodgates and many people would use this system to murder people. So it will never become so big that this is a viable possibility- this will almost certainly only be used for the very physically ill and possibly the very old and broken down who choose this- it's never going to be available on demand because people will then use this to make others disappear- they'll say things like- say that you want to do this or we'll go after your family, things like that.

That may be true if/when it does get implemented, but when proper safeguards and protocols are put into place, the risk of that happening should be almost next to none. As for depression and psychological reasons, yes, there may be more vetting before granting said person the right, but at the end the person should still have the right, albeit it may take longer.

Still, overall, I think this concept of mental illness being connected to suicidality is a big hurdle. One that many people here are trying to challenge in fact. Many people here see it as a logical choice rather than the product of a poorly mind.

Well said, and if suicidality and mental illness can be decoupled and suicidality seen as a logical choice to life's problems, then it will be a massive step into legalization and recognization of the right to die.

in canada, 82% of people agree to voluntary euthanasia

That's a good sign that the majority of Canadians support voluntary euthanasia in many cases of suffering, I only wished that there are more people in the US that do the same. In addition to this, I read your other points too, especially the two factors that you listed, religiousity of a country (countries without legal euthanasia are generally religious) and the mental illness conflation with voluntary euthanasia. I agree that once those two factors are resolved (prevent laws from being made because of religion and decouple mental illness with voluntary euthanasia, have clear definitions on what constitutes "voluntary" euthanasia), then I could see more countries ending up legalizing some form of euthanasia (with safeguards and protocols in place).

Of course I believe that assisted suicide should be legalised everywhere. I hope that in the future things are different and that attitudes towards suicide are changed. At the end of the day all humans will die eventually so why make suicide so stigmatised and difficult for people.

To me it's very unfair how methods are restricted and people have to resort to more risky ctb methods to end their suffering with others having to be shocked by finding a dead body as the result of a suicide. I just believe that it would make life more bearable for people if they knew there was a process for them to get a peaceful exit from this life if that is what they wish for. Not having assisted suicide legalised is just creating unnecessary suffering.

Yes, I agree and well said.

 

[TAW122]

I'm going to give two examples of what I mean by these roadblocks (as well as how they circularly feed off each other) to illustrate and elaborate what I mean by the roadblocks and this way, it will become clearer. By no means are these examples comprehensive, but they should cover most situations.

Example #1
Patient A (refer to as 'A' in this example) has a non-terminal illness, but rather a horrible quality of life and has applied for voluntary euthanasia. However, A lives in the US and none of the current states have a legal voluntary euthanasia law (even less than Dignitas, Pegasos, or similar organizations). The medical professionals are not able to honor A's request for voluntary euthanasia because of the law (legally they cannot euthanasia A as they would be in violation of said law as well as their overseeing board (which overlaps with the law but have their own set of ethics and code which if violated results in sanctions as well as discipline for said professional(s).). The law would not allow it because of certain medical organizations that oppose it hence the law was designed to enforce said organizational bodys' wishes, but then the medical bodies don't allow it because they quote it's against the law. Basically, it is a conundrum and it's a circular issue (X cannot be allowed because of Y, but Y exists because of X.)

Example #2
Similarly to A, this time, B, is tired of life. B has lived a relatively good life in terms of having needs met and generally in otherwise good health. The medical professionals would not honor B's request for voluntary euthanasia (for this example, let's presume B is healthy, rational, and has decision making capacity) because of their fear of not being able to make money (greed) once he is gone and no longer existing. Thus the law makes this illegal because the government cannot make money from dead patients either (through taxation and such, providing jobs for caretakers and caregiver assistants, home health-aide, etc.). Then the medical professionals refuse to change the system which could easily allow them to make money while still honoring and respecting the patient's wishes, citing the fact that it is unethical. Somehow all these three roadblocks interconnectedly play off each other. It's basically a whole run around of bullshit logic to put it succinctly. Roadblock X plays into Y, which plays into Z, and Z plays back into X and Y, etc.

This can easily be solved by introducing new positions and transforming the medical model, the laws, and even new roles (similar to how Canada's MAID program has assessors to take on each case).

I've color-coded parts of each example to illustrate and show how they play on each other, kind of in a circular fashion, which is the whole conundrum.

In short, I believe that once all those roadblocks are adequately resolved (it doesn't have to be simultaneous, but must be thorough and comprehensive so that it leaves no room for ambiguity, doubt, or weakness that could be exploited by pro-lifers and preventionists), then we could see little to no reason as to why voluntary euthanasia will not be granted (legally, ethically, and similarly). In other words, if we tackle multiple fronts/roadblocks and address them all, then the circular logic (or illogical rather) bullshit would be gone. Of course, the roadblocks that I originally listed are just the tip of the iceberg (hence this thread would be treated more as a megathread or summary of major roadblocks that impede the legalization of voluntary euthanasia) and it is more complex than that.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Thus the law makes this illegal because the government cannot make money from dead patients either (through taxation and such, providing jobs for caretakers and caregiver assistants, home health-aide, etc.).

I've always wondered about this. I COMPLETELY agree that one of the reasons there is such opposition to assisted suicide (especially for those of us still considered physically healthy) is money. That our governments want to squeze all they can out of us in tax- especially income tax. What about the people who are too sick to work though? From an utterly ruthless, capatalist viewpoint (which I tend to think our governments are) how does it benefit them to keep those people alive? I'm not suggesting anything here by the way! It's just an observation.

Honestly, I hadn't considered the larger picture though. That the sick and 'infirm' provide the need for healthcare jobs while I suppose our leaders can pat themselves on the back for taking the 'moral highground' and 'saving us'.

Hmmm, sorry about the changes in font size- not sure what I've done but can't seem to fix it...

 

[ksp]

Example #1 - i'm having difficulty reading this because of my communication issue (stroke); when i read a long phrase, by the time i get to its end i forgot the beginning, so i don't have a rebuttal for it (i need small sentences to exercise my comprehension)

Example #2 - i think i understand: society needs to make profit on individuals - agreed

the suggestion to overcome this roadblock is to follow canada; this solution works in canada because they approve voluntary euthanasia for terminal / disabled people, so instead of spending millions on health care, they save by reducing cost through the procedure; voluntary euthanasia will not be approved there, for healthy people (we need another solution for this roadblock)

 

[TAW122]

Thus the law makes this illegal because the government cannot make money from dead patients either (through taxation and such, providing jobs for caretakers and caregiver assistants, home health-aide, etc.).

I've always wondered about this. I COMPLETELY agree that one of the reasons there is such opposition to assisted suicide (especially for those of us still considered physically healthy) is money. That our governments want to squeze all they can out of us in tax- especially income tax. What about the people who are too sick to work though? From an utterly ruthless, capatalist viewpoint (which I tend to think our governments are) how does it benefit them to keep those people alive? I'm not suggesting anything here by the way! It's just an observation.

Honestly, I hadn't considered the larger picture though. That the sick and 'infirm' provide the need for healthcare jobs while I suppose our leaders can pat themselves on the back for taking the 'moral highground' and 'saving us'.

Hmmm, sorry about the changes in font size- not sure what I've done but can't seem to fix it...

Rregarding the people who are too sick to work, I believe that's when they use the other workers' taxes to pay for them, not enough to live well but enough to stay alive (as per usual like most pro-lifers, pro-suffering people). By taxes I mean programs like Social Security and Medicaid as well as Medicare. I do mention that even if they didn't have jobs for care takers or the market shrinks, another new market could come up such as assessors and planners for the right to die, similar to how lawyers and other professionals do for adjudication on cases, but instead it would be for voluntary euthanasia; being able to assess each case individually and ensure that all laws and regulations are followed. Then after everything checks out, the person is then granted the ability to go peacefully and this would greatly prevent violent deaths, impulsive CTBs, and minimize/avoid collateral damage.

Also, no worries about the font size.

Example #1 - i'm having difficulty reading this because of my communication issue (stroke); when i read a long phrase, by the time i get to its end i forgot the beginning, so i don't have a rebuttal for it (i need small sentences to exercise my comprehension)

Example #2 - i think i understand: society needs to make profit on individuals - agreed

the suggestion to overcome this roadblock is to follow canada; this solution works in canada because they approve voluntary euthanasia for terminal / disabled people, so instead of spending millions on health care, they save by reducing cost through the procedure; voluntary euthanasia will not be approved there, for healthy people (we need another solution for this roadblock)

For the first example, it's basically CTB cannot be granted by medical professionals because it is illegal. Then the law says it is illegal because medical professionals oppose it. It's basically circular reasoning and thus illogical. Hope that helps you understand the first example.

With regards to Canada and MAID legislation, yes that is a great example to follow. It is not without fault or weaknesses, but it is something to work with and use as a base for legalizing voluntary euthanasia in other places around the world. I know on March 17th, 2023, the eligibility will include mental illness as the sole underlying condition.