Well, I was trying to push it in a political direction because I don’t like my beliefs being compared to anti-abortionists based on vibes and appearances. It’s necessary to engage more critically with the issue to demonstrate that any apparent similarities are just superficial.
There is no objective division between political and non-political. This is a question about government policy on which people are divided, so to me it’s inherently a political issue.
I don’t believe that they are different sides of the same coin. I see very little in common between the two.
From my perspective, it would be like saying opposition to war or the death penalty is just like being opposed to abortion, because anti-choice people claim to value life.
Assisted suicide and abortions are tied to informed consent and aren’t really something that can be done ‘on a whim’. (Obviously abortions should be easier to get access to than assisted suicide)
Getting murdered nonconsenting (through war or the death penalty) is something completely different.
There are valid reasons to restrict certain actions or substances even if someone gives informed consent. While bodily autonomy is a right, it isn’t absolute to the point of outweighing all other rights and all practical considerations (no right is absolute). For any given right, whether it’s bodily autonomy, free speech, etc, there are valid reasons why limitations may be placed on it, and it isn’t valid to lump all of those reasons together with bullshit reasons people might want to restrict it. It would be like saying that people who don’t want it to be legal to shout “fire” in a theater are just like people who want to ban criticism of the government.
In short, it’s difficult to evaluate how much of a person’s psychological pain is innate and inherent to them and how much of it is caused by broader social factors. Even if every treatment option is exhausted, therapists can’t change society. I’m concerned that social changes for the sake of accommodation will get more difficult if assisted suicide becomes seen as an adequate solution.
Assisted suicide is fundamentally the same thing as non-assisted suicide, the only difference is that it makes less of mess. But the person is still gone and it’s every bit as tragic. Changing norms about suicide wouldn’t address the actual problems, it would only make the problems less visible and easier to ignore. If we’re going to change something, we should instead work to improve the conditions people are living in. Suicide is not the answer.
So we just let people suffer until society changes itself? And even then there will be people where damage is already done.
Assisted suicide is fundamentally the same thing as non-assisted suicide,
I agree that those things are related. But with assisted suicide people get the option to properly say farewell, have a guarantee they won’t suffer and don’t risk mentally scarring first responders or otherwise involved people unnecessarily.
They’ll do it anyways, so why not make it less horrible for them?
They’ll do it anyways, so why not make it less horrible for them?
I disagree with that. Will they do it anyway? There is evidence that putting up simple barriers to suicide (such as guardrails on a bridge) is effective at reducing suicide, while having a method of suicide readily available (such as a gun) can increase risks of suicide. Suicide is often an impulsive and irrational decision.
If some percentage of people would be deterred from suicide by the inconvenience of doing it themselves, and some percentage of that group would go on to recover enough to lead happy lives, wouldn’t that at least potentially be a good enough reason to restrict it?
But to answer your previous question, yes. We do let people suffer until society changes. Because I believe that it is better to endure the suffering and injustice caused by society than to look for an easy escape that doesn’t actually solve the problem, at least for anyone else. If I see suffering, is the proper solution to rip out my eyes? No. That’s incredibly misdirected, but that’s the logic of suicide. Rather than seeking to address the actual problem, it’s directing violence towards one’s own ability to sense and perceive the world around them. It is the ultimate form of “out of sight, out of mind,” taking it so far that you eliminate your own mind for having the audacity to report to you about unpleasantness. Addressing the underlying cause is what’s important, the pain is merely a symptom, which exists for the reason of telling us something’s wrong.
There are exceptions to that generalization. It is possible that the real source of the problem is within one’s body, that it’s causing incurable and unbearable physical pain. In those cases, I think it’s acceptable - but no further.
Well, I was trying to push it in a political direction because I don’t like my beliefs being compared to anti-abortionists based on vibes and appearances. It’s necessary to engage more critically with the issue to demonstrate that any apparent similarities are just superficial.
There is no objective division between political and non-political. This is a question about government policy on which people are divided, so to me it’s inherently a political issue.
I don’t know what to tell you. It seems to me like you’re critical about assisted suicide but are pro choice when it comes to abortions.
In my opinion those two things are different sides of the same coin. Regardless of politics.
I don’t believe that they are different sides of the same coin. I see very little in common between the two.
From my perspective, it would be like saying opposition to war or the death penalty is just like being opposed to abortion, because anti-choice people claim to value life.
Assisted suicide and abortions are tied to informed consent and aren’t really something that can be done ‘on a whim’. (Obviously abortions should be easier to get access to than assisted suicide)
Getting murdered nonconsenting (through war or the death penalty) is something completely different.
There are valid reasons to restrict certain actions or substances even if someone gives informed consent. While bodily autonomy is a right, it isn’t absolute to the point of outweighing all other rights and all practical considerations (no right is absolute). For any given right, whether it’s bodily autonomy, free speech, etc, there are valid reasons why limitations may be placed on it, and it isn’t valid to lump all of those reasons together with bullshit reasons people might want to restrict it. It would be like saying that people who don’t want it to be legal to shout “fire” in a theater are just like people who want to ban criticism of the government.
What’s a valid reason in your opinion for banning assisted suicide?
I wrote out some of my reasons here.
In short, it’s difficult to evaluate how much of a person’s psychological pain is innate and inherent to them and how much of it is caused by broader social factors. Even if every treatment option is exhausted, therapists can’t change society. I’m concerned that social changes for the sake of accommodation will get more difficult if assisted suicide becomes seen as an adequate solution.
Assisted suicide is fundamentally the same thing as non-assisted suicide, the only difference is that it makes less of mess. But the person is still gone and it’s every bit as tragic. Changing norms about suicide wouldn’t address the actual problems, it would only make the problems less visible and easier to ignore. If we’re going to change something, we should instead work to improve the conditions people are living in. Suicide is not the answer.
So we just let people suffer until society changes itself? And even then there will be people where damage is already done.
I agree that those things are related. But with assisted suicide people get the option to properly say farewell, have a guarantee they won’t suffer and don’t risk mentally scarring first responders or otherwise involved people unnecessarily. They’ll do it anyways, so why not make it less horrible for them?
I disagree with that. Will they do it anyway? There is evidence that putting up simple barriers to suicide (such as guardrails on a bridge) is effective at reducing suicide, while having a method of suicide readily available (such as a gun) can increase risks of suicide. Suicide is often an impulsive and irrational decision.
If some percentage of people would be deterred from suicide by the inconvenience of doing it themselves, and some percentage of that group would go on to recover enough to lead happy lives, wouldn’t that at least potentially be a good enough reason to restrict it?
But to answer your previous question, yes. We do let people suffer until society changes. Because I believe that it is better to endure the suffering and injustice caused by society than to look for an easy escape that doesn’t actually solve the problem, at least for anyone else. If I see suffering, is the proper solution to rip out my eyes? No. That’s incredibly misdirected, but that’s the logic of suicide. Rather than seeking to address the actual problem, it’s directing violence towards one’s own ability to sense and perceive the world around them. It is the ultimate form of “out of sight, out of mind,” taking it so far that you eliminate your own mind for having the audacity to report to you about unpleasantness. Addressing the underlying cause is what’s important, the pain is merely a symptom, which exists for the reason of telling us something’s wrong.
There are exceptions to that generalization. It is possible that the real source of the problem is within one’s body, that it’s causing incurable and unbearable physical pain. In those cases, I think it’s acceptable - but no further.