Venting When it comes to advocacy groups that support marginalized people, all of them reject CTB as a valid option!

[TAW122]

While it is great that there are various groups that support and stand up for various marginalized people, whether minorities, people with disabilities, or those who are not accepted by mainstream society, or even persecuted, pretty much all of the groups and organizations that support said marginalized people reject CTB as a valid option, when their support fails or if there is no other solution for said people.

It really infuriates me because I always viewed CTB as an option. It is NEVER NOT a (valid) option and in fact, logically speaking, it is indeed the solution when there is no other solution that suffices for said individual (and is also a personal choice that only the individual themselves can make). Anyways, back on the topic, by this I mean just pick any marginalized group that support disenfranchised groups or the marginalized within society. I do appreciate that they do talk about certain social issues and bring whatever grievance said group of people are facing and suffering from and try to work towards a solution. However, sometimes the "solution" just isn't good enough and almost always even in those 'supportive' groups they all turn down the idea of CTB being an option. I think instead of out-right rejecting CTB as even an option, it shouldn't be the first option, but it also should NOT always be rejected. Doing so only makes the marginalized individual feel even more trapped and without a say, a voice, or any autonomy within their support group.

Here is an example, and this is prevalent even in social media platforms (not limited to FB, Reddit, IG, other specific communities, and more). Take one of the subreddits called r/Aspergers and there are even some people who are within the marginalized group that are rational and self-aware enough to recognize sentience and suffering. Some of these individuals decide to talk about the right to die or even allow voluntary euthanasia for people (Said person of that thread is also one who has the condition, so that alone should already dispel any attempt to discredit said person's view because said person IS A PART of that group! However, that isn't always the case…), and of course, the majority of the subreddit seems to disregard even their own for trying to be a voice of reason or giving said person a chance to hear them out.

While there are many other examples, the overall gist of this thread is pointing out how it is really horrible that many supportive groups especially those who support the "fringes and marginzalied" segments of society (not only limited to those that are known mainstream, but even the undesirables by normies and the masses), don't even see some of their own as valid, when those few rational people discuss even the idea of CTB being an option. I can understand that people shouldn't be pressured into CTB (as a pro-choicer, I can see problems of coercion and pressure, and I fully support individual autonomy, not be influenced or pushed, pressured, or coerced by a third party or anyone), but NOT blanket dismissal and denial of CTB ever being a 'valid' and sometimes even 'rational' option. I think that if they at least respect the negative liberty right (they have no obligation to provide a positive right or actively assist), meaning that they do not impinge on said individual(s) or intervene against one's own attempt or plan to CTB.

 

[Loaf of bread]

Right to die isnt viewed as a marginalised group or civil rights movement currently. Its the primitive dark ages for us. Maybe in 5-10 decades there will be advocates, but right now its like womens rights in the 19th century

 

[ShatteredSerenity]

It's frustrating that we aren't able to have open discussions about right to die in more forums. My state passed the Death with Dignity Act in 2008 which legalized medically assisted dying in certain cases, but it's extremely limited and little further progress has been made in the 17 years since it was passed. It would be controversial to expand this law, but people need to start talking about it at least to get the ball rolling.

On the other hand, I can understand hesitation of groups supporting marginalized people to broach this topic publicly. It could give off vibes of Nazi euthanasia programs, and regardless of how inaccurate that is the toxic negative PR could be devastating. It's also really hard to overcome the opposition to right to die based on religious moral arguments, at least here in the US. The headwinds against right to die are so strong, people will generally try to avoid the topic entirely in order to avoid damaging their own cause.

 

[diy-event]

While it is great that there are various groups that support and stand up for various marginalized people, whether minorities, people with disabilities, or those who are not accepted by mainstream society, or even persecuted, pretty much all of the groups and organizations that support said marginalized people reject CTB as a valid option, when their support fails or if there is no other solution for said people.

I think it should be a valid option, even if it's no more than they want to CTB. I have always thought there should be safe suicide sites, like safe injection sites. They just make sure you do it right with the least amount of pain. Might be something a funeral home business could take over (lol)

 

[Deleted member 94706]

advocating the right to die would make them look bad

 

[TAW122]

I just found some good quotes from the passionate, right to die user, existentialgoof on Reddit:

If you believe that the government should force people to remain alive when they want to die, then you're the one lacking in empathy. Some people genuinely do feel that way when they become severely disabled. For example, Tony Nicklinson. It's YOU that wants to ceremoniously torture people like Nicklinson and have the whole spectacle play out on TV for the sake of ideology. I just want people to have a choice.

If people's lives are their own to take, then they should be entitled to the most reliable and humane method of doing that. Whether they are quadriplegic, depressed, or they just have a hangnail. Anything that seeks to make it more difficult and risky for them to end their life is an effort to enslave and entrap them. You can't make an ethical argument about abuse of the disabled, when you're the one wanting the government to be actively forcing them to suffer.

He is mainly referring to some of the commentors who rail against the right to die and often make arguments in bad faith, and I think he made good counterpoints against the pro-lifer's, anti-choicers' rhetoric. In addition to this, I do have some points that I'd add to his existing arguments and points. I do believe that even if someone were in the shoes of those who are unfortunate (the severely physically disabled, Nicklinson and Crews for instance), they are still likely to be dismissed, deflected, and deferred by many DRAs and most generic pro-lifers. Their suffering are oftenly dismissed as 'part of life', they are deflected by the fact that these pro-lifers often gaslight and victim blame them (citing their own mental anguish as a part of a mental defect rather than a rational and understandable reaction to the harsh, unforgiving realities that sentience has dealt them), and of course, deferment (passing them off to other DRA groups and other similar people just to silence them or drown out their unique perspective - as it doesn't fit the narrative of the DRAs). In other words, I'm saying that even if said person presenting the argument fits the criteria, pro-lifers, especially DRAs will oftenly and still shut them down, silencing their opinion and not even consider their plights.

This is, of course, disingenuous and bad faith because the very people, the DRAs will often overlook even those who are actually severely physically disabled (not necessarily terminal) and just blatantly disregard their valid opinions (albeit unpopular and not what their narrative states) just to virtue signal and reject that the fact someone's life can be objectively bad enough that assisted death with dignity can be a valid option. Therefore, I think many DRAs and similar groups are just equally bad as pro-lifers when it comes to legitimate grievances, even by those who may differ from what the status quo believes in.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I suppose the hope with marginalised groups is that society will reform to ensure that they aren't marginalised. So- for example, employers and colleagues will better support people with disabilities. Societies will or rather- should be more inclusive and fair. Obviously, that doesn't seem to be happening. In fact, we seem to be going in reverse!

However, by saying- 'It's ok to kill yourselves', I suppose they worry that it is giving our governments and society a 'get off free' card. So, our societies should be providing proper support for the homeless, unemployed, disabled, those suffering with addiction and those who commit crime for instance. However, these are in some effect 'problem' citizens for our governments. Hell- even retired and old people. They all take more from the system than they give.

So- you can bet there are some ruthless arseholes in our governments who would [secretely] like these people to start offing themselves in great numbers! They could probably get their balance sheets in better order if they didn't have so many of them needing support.

Then, it all starts to look dangerously like eugenics. Maybe certain marginalised and targetted groups of people won't be FORCED to kill themselves. However- they'll be given the option freely because- that's their right- right? How difficult would it be for our governments to nudge them in that direction? Withdraw funding from this or that service. Make it harder for them to find work. They'll likely do it anyway to be honest.

Still- for the people that advocate for these people's rights- they're trying (I imagine) to hold our governments and leaders accountable. They're not saying- I know we're a nuisance to you. Tell you what- we'll start supporting our members right to die- take a few of them off your hands.

I suppose it's one of those things that- on a personal level, we ought to be able to empathise with a person who's life is so debilitatingly bad that, they just want out. However, in an ideal world- there probably are things that could change to better support them and give them a better quality of life. Advocates are likely pushing for those changes for all those afflicted. If they support all their members right to die, they'll have no one left to represent! Then, there will be less need for our societies to change. If you have 50 people requiring wheelchair access to a building- it's a strong need. It can't be catered for with shitty half measures. If 48 of those people then kill themselves, 2 people are easier to ignore.

Take another example. A group of people who were targetted falsely. The UK Post Office Horizon scandel. Basically, Sub Post Masters were falsely accused of false accounting and theft because the computer system they used was riddled with bugs. Some did jail time. Some lost their jobs, their reputation. Some even killed themselves.

Imagine the pressure they were under for years on end. They're quality of life must have nose dived. Being forced to pay back thousands they didn't even owe! Having their reputation dragged through the mud. It's no wonder some did get depressed. Enough to want to end it. They were maybe justified in how they felt but, would it have been a good result if they'd all been given the support to end their lives? Because at the time, things looked so bleak? Who would be left trying to bring the shitty Post Office to justice now?

So it's like- people with problems are a problem to the government that advocates are pressuring them to help. Get rid of those people- which may be the kinder thing to do on a personal level but, it relieves some of that pressure for the government to act.

There again- it can have the effect of drawing public attention to it. So- maybe you have a point. It's utterly scandalous when groups of people suicide because they've basically been shafted or abandoned. On a personal level though, it's going to look tragic to a more pro-life person if someone kills themselves because effectively, they weren't being supported sufficiently. They'll view it as an avoidable tragedy I imagine. A waste.

 

[SilentSadness]

Sadly these people always forget that suicide is a human right, it doesn't matter whether there's some "slippery slope" into the lives of existing people getting worse. It is completely indefensible to use suicidal people to better existing lives by forcing them to stay alive, suffer and work. Sadly, they have never been about helping anyone, people are so delusional it's surprising anything has been achieved in this society.