And I'm not primarily saying that for other people. I'm saying it because making one's own decisions is a basic right, and everyone, including me, should have that right. ...in all individual matters, including the matter of if and when to choose assisted auto-euthanasia. — Michael Ossipoff

I agree. Who would not? But again, this is fine for those for whom society works; for those who have not had their autonomy curtailed.

I read your posts as showing growth as you thought about the issue. That first "Basically you're right" meets with various constraints and checks on consideration.

Assisted suicide is no way to solve issues of equity. That suggestion in the OP is repugnant.

I haven't made any interpretation. — ChrisH

That's so insincere. Of course you have.

LikeTiff you seem to take the position that any disagreement with Stella Young is uncharitable. — ChrisH

Well, at the least I would have liked to see some discussion rather than this trite dismissal.

It reeks of disdain. Chris does not have to hear the words of disabled women.

k

And I'm not primarily saying that for other people. I'm saying it because making one's own decisions is a basic right, and everyone, including me, should have that right. ...in all individual matters, including the matter of if and when to choose assisted auto-euthanasia. — Michael Ossipoff


I agree. Who would not? But again, this is fine for those for whom society works; for those who have not had their autonomy curtailed. — Banno

But our autonomy is already curtailed, denied, if we aren't allowed to make our own life-choices. And that denial of autonomy is causing widespread suffering and misery.

Even if we don't require a doctor to assist, it would be enough to not use the law to forbid the assistance.

If anyone is concerned that vulnerable &/or dependent people will be subtly coerced to auto-euthanasia, then the law could be written so as to prevent that. But, ultimately, if it isn't possible to ensure that a dependent, elderly or severely-disabled person hasn't received any persuasion, or hints, or subtle coercion, then we just have to accept that the fact that someone's personal choices could conceivably be influenced by someone else, but that doesn't justify taking away people's right to make those choices.

That would be like making it illegal for anyone to go outside, because they could get murdered somewhere while they're away from home. It would be like saying that elderly people shouldn't be allowed to receive a pension, because someone could swindle them out of their check. ...or that they shouldn't be allowed to have any control of their own money, because maybe someone will cheat them out of it.

If we're saying things like that, then we aren't just on a slippery slope, we're already slid to the bottom.

We could make a good, and at least almost entirely successful, effort to write and enforce laws that prevent the auto-euthanasia option from being abused.

That first "Basically you're right" meets with various constraints and checks on consideration.

The only limitation that I'd impose would be that, if we had a good society where people had a fair chance to live (but we don't), assistance for auto-euthanasia wouldn't be permitted for people who obviously don't have pain or disability that a fairly reasonable person could conceivably consider entirely unacceptable or intolerable. That's the only "soundness of mind" consideration that I'd require.

But even that restriction would be meaningless and inappropriate in a society of harm, predation, unnecessary misfortune, inequality, etc.

But, in any society, if someone has pain or disability that isn't obviously trivial or minor, then they should be eligible for assisted auto-euthanasia upon request, no matter whether or not they're of sound mind, whatever that means.

Assisted suicide is no way to solve issues of equity.

Who says issues of equity can be solved? Haven't people been talking about that for centuries, completelyi futile-ly?

It isn't a solution for equity issues. It's just that denial of assisted autoeuthanasia makes no sense, for anyone, in a bad societyi. It's a moral issue. I believe that suicide (unnecessary auto-euthanasia) is a really bad idea. But it can't justifiably withheld or denied in a bad society.

Michael Ossipoff

then the law could be written so as to prevent that. — Michael Ossipoff

Only if that voice is heard.

And that is entirely my point.

That's so insincere. — Banno

It reeks of disdain. Chris does not have to hear the words of disabled women. — Banno

You're just reacting to disagreement with personal insults.

I don't know if you missed it but in a response to andrewk I said:

Her voice should be heard.... — ChrisH

Which is clearly at odds with your last comment.

Before we can talk about death with dignity, we need to ensure that all people, regardless of age or disability, can live with dignity.

This is a complete non sequitur. — ChrisH

Fuck that LOL.
Here I am dying of bowl cancer in great pain with defecting all over my death bed, but before I am allowed to die with some dignity I have to wait for "all people" to live with dignity. How long do I have to wait??

Fuck that LOL.
Here I am dying of bowl cancer in great pain with defecting all over my death bed, but before I am allowed to die with some dignity I have to wait for "all people" to live with dignity. How long do I have to wait?? — charleton

charleton, my heart aches for you and what you are enduring. Thank you for sharing your private thoughts for without them, many would not be heard but please know, we are listening.

I have had cancer and am over it, for the time being.
Thanks for your kind thoughts but I was talking HYPOTHETICALLY, but from some experience.

I have had cancer and am over it, for the time being.
Thanks for your kind thoughts but I was talking HYPOTHETICALLY, but from some experience. — charleton

I am thrilled to hear you are beating Cancer as your experience is something that others don't always make it back from. I rejoice in knowing that you are here to speak for those who are unable to. I wish for you a Cancer free future and a long healthy life~

Indeed, you clarified your position after your first dismissive post. Good.

Well said.

Equally, if you awake to find yourself a high quadriplegic, unable to move below the neck, and with a will to live your life, you should be supported in achieving the ability to live with dignity.

The argument set out in the OP is that the poor, if they are unhappy, should be allowed to terminate their own lives. That is set out explicitly in Point 4.

Now I do hope that most folk would see this as the atrocious proposition it is; that a far better approach to the devaluing caused by inequity is to improve the dignity of those devalued.

There is also the assumption that I pointed to in my first post, that folk are all in an equal position with regard to judging the values of their lives. They are not.

Hence one of the reasons for my introducing disability into the thread. Folk with disabilities live with others perpetually devaluing their lives; the best they can hope for is to be an inspiration to the able.

And the result was not something I expected to see from a philosophical oriented community. Summary dismissal and denial of Stella's right to speak.

When that was pointed out the discussion became a false juxtaposition, as if we could work for equity or introduce euthanasia, but not both.

These are the reactions of folk confronted by something they do not wish to consider.

If I've made you a bit more aware of disability issues, I will count that as a win.

And the result was not something I expected to see from a philosophical oriented community. Summary dismissal and denial of Stella's right to speak. — Banno

There's a difference between saying that someone doesn't have a right to speak for someone else and saying that someone doesn't have a right to speak.

The replies here might lead one to suppose that the thoughts of a woman with a disability were not worth reading with due care. — Banno

Where has anyone given that impression?

When that was pointed out the discussion became a false juxtaposition, as if we could work for equity or introduce euthanasia, but not both. — Banno

This false juxtaposition was of Stella's making, given that she said "Before we can talk about death with dignity, we need to ensure that all people, regardless of age or disability, can live with dignity."

These are the reactions of folk confronted by something they do not wish to consider. — Banno

Or the reactions of folk who have considered it but disagree.

The argument set out in the OP is that the poor, if they are unhappy, should be allowed to terminate their own lives. That is set out explicitly in Point 4.

Now I do hope that most folk would see this as the atrocious proposition it is; that a far better approach to the devaluing caused by inequity is to improve the dignity of those devalued.
— Banno

There is also the assumption that I pointed to in my first post, that folk are all in an equal position with regard to judging the values of their lives. They are not.

Indeed. Which makes it interesting that you're arguing for not introducing the option for assisted suicide.

Hence one of the reasons for my introducing disability into the thread. Folk with disabilities live with others perpetually devaluing their lives; the best they can hope for is to be an inspiration to the able.

And the result was not something I expected to see from a philosophical oriented community. Summary dismissal and denial of Stella's right to speak.

Everybody copes with disability different. It is unlikely the able can accurately gauge whatever joi de vivre disabled have or not. In fact, we cannot do so for other abled people and we cannot guess how we ourselves would react. One of my worst nightmares is losing a hand because I play the piano and I cannot imagine a live without being able to play. In my more dramatic moments I'd imagine I'd prefer to die. At other times I don't. The point really is I don't know how I'd feel if it would come to pass but neither does Stella where it concerns other people. What her unique perspective does offer is that we should not be so quick to assume we, as abled persons, could not be happy living as a disabled. Most disabled do. So an abled person becoming disabled probably can as well.

When that was pointed out the discussion became a false juxtaposition, as if we could work for equity or introduce euthanasia, but not both.

But isn't that what Stella is arguing for?

Before we can talk about death with dignity, we need to ensure that all people, regardless of age or disability, can live with dignity. We're not there yet. — Stella

Also, as a citizen of a country where euthanasia was first legalised I have to say her view on doctors having more of a say is a bit baffling to me. In 1998 already 98% of Dutch people were proponents of euthanasia.

This is my major concern with legalising assisted death; that it will give doctors more control over our lives. — Stella

That's not how it works and presumably won't work in other countries legalising it. In the Netherlands a doctor needs to meet the following duty of care before he can acquiesce to a request:

1. the doctor should be convinced that the patient came to his request freely and considered;
2. the doctor should be convinced that the patient is suffering unbearably and without any possibility of improvement (note, most disabled persons would fail here as lack of autonomy is not suffering!);
3. the doctor had informed the patient of his/her situation and his/her prospects;
4. together with the patient came to the conclusion that for this situation there is no reasonably alternative solution;
5. the doctor received a second opinion of another independent doctor who has seen the patient and has given his written assessment of the duty of care contained in numbers 1 through 4;
6. the actual euthanasia or assisted suicide is done appropriately based on current medical knowledge.

So if there's any "control" of the doctor here it is that he can actually tell "no" to people who want euthanasia or assisted suicide.

if you awake to find yourself a high quadriplegic, — Banno

If you are lucky enough to live in a society that can afford to provide you dignity.

Indeed; killing someone takes much less effort than looking after them.

There's a difference between saying that someone doesn't have a right to speak for someone else and saying that someone doesn't have a right to speak. — Michael

Michael, the reason given for Stella not being able to talk on the issue of euthanasia was that she was too independent.

Having once had the honour of putting a straw into her glass of red wine so that she could drink, I think that argument is obscene. It is far worse than rejecting light-skinned aboriginal voices because they are not black enough.

Notice also that it is an ad hominem. It does not address Stella's writing, but instead claims the privilege of ignoring her.

Where has anyone given that impression? — Michael

Look at the first replies, and consider how your own comment above would appear to a disabled woman.

This false juxtaposition was of Stella's making, given that she said "Before we can talk about death with dignity, we need to ensure that all people, regardless of age or disability, can live with dignity." — Michael

Fair point.

What her unique perspective does offer is that we should not be so quick to assume we, as abled persons, could not be happy living as a disabled. Most disabled do. So an abled person becoming disabled probably can as well. — Benkei

Indeed. I appreciate that you recognise this. Thanks.

Evidence indicates that those who become disabled return to the level of happiness they had before their disability within about a year.

Look at the first replies, and consider how your own comment above would appear to a disabled woman. — Banno

I'm not seeing it. ChrisH said that he didn't find Stella's argument compelling and both andrewk and ChrisH said that Stella can't speak for those for whom assisted suicide is a proposed option. This no more suggests that "the thoughts of a woman with a disability were not worth reading with due care" than saying that you can't speak for those for whom assisted suicide is a proposed option suggests that the thoughts of a man with a beard are not worth reading with due care.

both andrewk and ChrisH said that Stella can't speak for those for whom assisted suicide is a proposed option. — Michael

And yet they can.

And yet they can. — Banno

Did either or them claim that they could?

Claim? More than that, they do in advocating euthanasia.

"But they are just saying that folk should be able to make their own choice", you reply. And in so doing they imply the myth of the autonomous man.

Claim? More than that, they do in advocating euthanasia. — Banno

Are they?

"But they are just saying that folk should be able to make their own choice", you reply.

Neither has said anything remotely like that. ChrisH certainly hasn't voiced an opinion on euthanasia, and the closest andrewk has come is suggesting that God wouldn't mind.

In summary:

The repugnant argument is that state assisted suicide should be permitted for the disabled because life with disabilty is not worth living.

The reasonable argument is that state assisted suicide ought be permitted for those who have reasonably determined life isn't worth living.

The implicit argument is that people ought be reasonably informed of what life with disability is before making a decision about suicide (i.e. informed consent).

Fair?

Not just for the disabled, but for the disenfranchised more generally. The OP spoke of the poor; I introduced the disabled. But we could broaden it further: should the state assist the euthanasia of homosexuals who have not been able to accept their homosexuality? Should women who have not been able to move their career past the glass ceiling be allowed to take a pill to ease their sorrow? Would slavery be acceptable if slaves always had the right to suicide, and hence chose to be slaves?

Assuming informed consent, perhaps yes to all your questions. A state that enforces slavery and further forces the slaves to live in their oppression without the right to die isn't more progressive than one that doesn't. Bizarre hypotheticals no doubt, ignoring the obvious fact that it is the slavery which is the real evil, but it doesn't follow that suicide ought only be permitted when the pain isn't the result of injustice. Pain is pain, whether justly created, the result of prejuduce, or just divine created bad luck, and it's always subjective.

Assuming informed consent, perhaps yes to all your questions. — Hanover

Perhaps?

...ignoring the obvious fact that it is the slavery which is the real evil, — Hanover

In each case the disenfranchisement is a social phenomenon that could be corrected by means other than euthanasia.

SO the state ought not suport euthanasia as an answer to social issues that have other solutions.