[Article] Even if my life was perfect, I would still WANT and support the right to die (v2)

[TAW122]

Maybe in the past I have written such an article before and stated my position, but this is more of thorough stance and also affirmation of my current stance, in more depth. Personally, my life is FAR from perfect, rather average in terms of basic needs and what not, but also full of anguish and suffering throughout my existence, so I just wanted to get that fact established before I proceed in my article here. Just because I may have been getting by it doesn't mean that everything is all well (even as I maintain a facade of success as to mainly deter any would be busybody from probing too much). Anyways, without further ado, here is the main topic of this article.

Suppose my life was perfect, in the sense of not only having my needs met (financially, basic needs, survival, not having to worry about anything and generally living a decent quality of life) and also my wants and desires (the goals, fantasies, and other special things that I dream of, fulfilled), I would still be heavily in support of the right to die and WANT the right to die to exist as a policy, program, or framework. This is because I know even at the best times or even most ideal circumstances (which we all know is not going to happen or likely to happen in reality!), not only could things change on a whim, but all good things eventually come to an end. From an objective point of view, no human being (even in very good health) will sustain forever, meaning that they wouldn't live forever (barring some immortality technology) and for the purpose of this article, I won't entertain that tangent or rabbit hole; I'm more focused on the current, present reality we live in. Even if hypothetically, I could live up to 100 years old or more and still have a good chance to die peacefully in my sleep, I would still WANT to have control over my own death on my own terms rather than leaving it to natural causes or other causes.

On the flipside, and more realistically, life is unpredictable of course, and even for those (most of us in this world) whose life is not super privileged or have things handed down on a silver platter or fed with a golden spoon, we would NEED to have the right to die (on our own terms) because life could only become more burdensome and has unlimited potential for immense suffering, even if our sentience is finite! Sure there are two counter-arguments that pro-lifers like to throw about it, one of which is the lifespan and duration of sentience that we only get one life (regardless of how shitty it may be we must live it according to them), and the other argument being that things might improve. Sure there are many other arguments for needing the right die it, but we'll just address these two briefly.

Rebuttal to Argument #1 – "You only get one life to make the most of it!" We need the right to die because although sentience may be finite, the immense undetermined amount of suffering is not worth all the pain just to appease others. Why drag out suffering (albeit finite) unnecessarily? We should be able to die on our own terms and spare ourselves unnecessary years of agony and suffering, we don't get rewarded (especially those who don't believe in a higher power or are non-religious) for doing so! It is also not fair to appease others at our own expense.

Rebuttal to Argument #2 – "It just might get better (or, it WILL get better)!" Such arguments are again just assumptions and rather a gamble on one's sentience. It is possible things may improve enough that a person may not wish to die, but the reverse can also be true, one's sentience can be even far worse than it really is and then a person would have wished that there was such an option to curtail the indefinite and unabating state of suffering that only worsens.

In conclusion, this article just states my position and reaffirms why I will support the right to die, regardless of whether my life is perfect or amazing (which it is NOT), or whether my life is really bad (or worse than my current state of sentience). Having an option, whether one needs it or wants it is better than having no option at all and then ending up suffering immensely. After all, an option (perhaps the most important option of all) is better than having none at all. Additionally, not all pleasure will be indefinite, and even those in the best circumstances would still enjoy having the ability to decide when they want to go (ultimate bodily autonomy) rather than allowing nature to take it's course and be left at the mercy of others.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Definitely, I agree. In part also because I believe the freedom to choose is our most important gift. The right to self autonomy is something we strive so hard to protect and romanticize even. The right to follow your dreams, to carve out your own destiny. To express your identity freely. We celebrate and strive for those things as a society because we see that as being civilised and respectful. Yet- the most important decision of all- whether we even want to participate in this life- is denied us. It's pretty weird.

Weirder still is- we can choose an obviously destructive path that will result in an early death (alchoholism, smoking, drug use, junk food.) Maybe not with impunity but, that choice will be respected more than a much quicker version of suicide.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

Same here. I would also support the right to die even if my life is perfect. After all, just because my life is perfect doesn't mean that everybody else's life is perfect. Not to mention that, even if my life is perfect, that doesn't mean that people's realistic assessment about existence being shitty is incorrect. Reality will always be the same regardless of what my life is like and reality has shown that it tends more towards negative valence than positive valence. Suicide preventionists want people to stay trapped in existence for as long as possible and I think that this will always be an immoral act. Just to clarify, I think that positive suicide prevention is fine (i.e. giving people the means to improve their quality of life so that they don't consider suicide) but I am absolutely vehemently against negative suicide prevention (i.e. restricting or banning access to peaceful suicide methods as well as forcibly resuscitating those who were unfortunate enough to get caught during their suicide attempt and also forcibly locking up those who are suicidal).

Life isn't special and suicide preventionists need to get rid of their notions about every life being sacred and preserving every second of somebody's life as a beautiful, perfect thing. It isn't, we are all going to die anyway and after death is permanent non existence where nobody gives a shit about the future or what could have been since there is no person anymore. There's just no objective reason as to why a life has to be perserved for as long as possible and that would be true regardless of my personal welfare state

 

[CTB Dream]

this ppl need lev pece no mtr hpne wat alws need opt leve lif rndm chaos, tell u thing this imrtl no psbl human lif nevit end

 

[OnMyLast Legs]

Now that I've reached the point of giving up, I'm appalled that euthanasia isn't available. The drugs exist. Scroll the Wikipedia list of suicides and you see all these people who took the Marilyn Monroe route: big dose of barbiturates. An adult should be able to buy a fatal dose, period. No exploded heads, no swinging bodies with purple hands, no blood puddles. Just let us go to sleep.

I'm just asking to be treated as compassionately as a golden retriever.

 

[TAW122]

I wanted to add another point to my article (a minor point but still an interesting position to consider...). Sure, some people could argue, but NEED is the wrong word, because one doesn't NEED it if all living things eventually die/pass away, but even if they did, it would still take a long time and succumbing to whatever natural causes or other undue causes is not just nor ethical. It is just unnecessary suffering and agony during the process, versus having a peaceful exit and dying on one's own terms.

@Forever Sleep I agree with your point that there are FAR more destructive (yet slow death) decisions that most people take (drugs, alcohol, smoking, poor diets, unhealthy lifestyles, etc.) and even some admit that alcoholism or even smoking (or vaping) is a slow suicide (ironically they say the 's-word' in this context, but it's true!) and are tolerant or socially accepting of it (while going through mental hoops to justify their position). I guess partly is due to the social and other aspects and death being far away kind of also means that they won't have to directly face it (maybe subconsciously they know, but of course as mainstream normies and the average person in society is concerned, it's (death) not there visibly and directly confronting it).

@ijustwishtodie Yes, I would say CTB prevention in the sense of trying to 'improve living conditions or some tangible benefit for the sufferer' is more ethical than the current paradigm of CTB prevention of forceful detentions, incarcerations, and confinement of 'suicidal' people just to protect them from themselves. The current status quo and paradigm only serves to alienate, traumatize, and only makes them (the suicidal) less likely to reach out, more likely to attempt (and possibly fail depending on the method), and cause collateral damage. CTB prevention, of course should be voluntarily and not coercive or imposed onto the person.