3,494
04-08-2024, 10:08 AM
This post was last modified 04-08-2024, 10:29 AM by Maxmars.
Edit Reason: spelling
While I agree that deciding to accept one's "fate" in regard to illness is often characterized as "stoic" and "brave" it is not for me to assess whether it actually is. It is for the individual to carry into their own heart, the consequences are for the individual. It is a personal choice to live, as much as it is a personal choice to end one's life.
I may not be able to entirely sympathize with any given example's "point of no return" moment or circumstance. I may not be able to agree with any given choice. However, I do not presume that I am the judge or arbiter of what is right or wrong, and when that is so - except for me personally.
I agree that in moments of supreme despair a person can be easily victimized by anyone that person trusts. It happens ALL the time. We have specially trained individuals (doctors, lawyers, priests, etc.) who are supposed to be capable of dealing with those victimized by circumstance with at least some assurance that the trust won't be exploited. Traditionally we rely on that relationship to secure some piece of mind...
Has such trust been breached? Yes. Often enough that we don't naively deny it. Is it somehow a "success" to usher someone to the surrender of their life? Can that be answered by anyone other than the person in question? I am not at any point near wanting to explore the orchestration of my demise... perhaps I never will be... when I do, (presumably) I will do it alone... I need no "professional" to make it 'palatable' to society - or make it easier for me (as if the choice could be "made" "easier.")
The problem has been (and usually is) that someone always wants to be "inserted" into the equation... like those who want to tell you with whom you should mate, what religion you should practice, how you should vote... always "in your face," "always prejudging your choices," "always holding out their hand" for you to fill either with your own hand, or money.
Euthanasia is someone interceding in life for a purpose other than the individual (there's always at least one) ... Suicide eliminates all intercession. There is no in-between.
I may not be able to entirely sympathize with any given example's "point of no return" moment or circumstance. I may not be able to agree with any given choice. However, I do not presume that I am the judge or arbiter of what is right or wrong, and when that is so - except for me personally.
I agree that in moments of supreme despair a person can be easily victimized by anyone that person trusts. It happens ALL the time. We have specially trained individuals (doctors, lawyers, priests, etc.) who are supposed to be capable of dealing with those victimized by circumstance with at least some assurance that the trust won't be exploited. Traditionally we rely on that relationship to secure some piece of mind...
Has such trust been breached? Yes. Often enough that we don't naively deny it. Is it somehow a "success" to usher someone to the surrender of their life? Can that be answered by anyone other than the person in question? I am not at any point near wanting to explore the orchestration of my demise... perhaps I never will be... when I do, (presumably) I will do it alone... I need no "professional" to make it 'palatable' to society - or make it easier for me (as if the choice could be "made" "easier.")
The problem has been (and usually is) that someone always wants to be "inserted" into the equation... like those who want to tell you with whom you should mate, what religion you should practice, how you should vote... always "in your face," "always prejudging your choices," "always holding out their hand" for you to fill either with your own hand, or money.
Euthanasia is someone interceding in life for a purpose other than the individual (there's always at least one) ... Suicide eliminates all intercession. There is no in-between.
