• ⚠️ UK Access Block Notice: Beginning July 1, 2025, this site will no longer be accessible from the United Kingdom. This is a voluntary decision made by the site's administrators. We were not forced or ordered to implement this block.

AtreusMacabre

AtreusMacabre

Member
Sep 4, 2024
11
Having experienced both physical and mental illness, I know firsthand how debilitating and arbitrary they can be. I believe that either on its own should be sufficient for exit.
I am no longer in a place as dark as I used to be, and I am deeply inclined to channel this energy towards the goal I consider to be the most important- eradication of unnecessary suffering. Most immediately, legalizing Euthanasia, the Right to Die peacefully and with Dignity with safeguards to prevent it's exploitation and addressing the other worries that often lead skeptics to dismiss the entire concept.

I have been involved in planning the development of devices to facilitate this, and Europe is turning unfavourably overregulated, so I look upon the upcoming debate in Canada with hope and will be doing everything in my power to make it an accessible option to all who have rationally decided their life to be no longer worth living. Law should encourage the free assertion of one's will and autonomy, and lift such unreasonable restrictions based on outdated morals and notions of suffering and suicide.
I expect to be there soon and contribute to activism and beyond in doing whatever ought to be done in order to achieve recognition of this most noble and desirable right.

Outside of my academic obligations and as much as my cognitive constraints allow, I am actively preparing by studying philosophy, the history of euthanasia laws around the world and how they came to be the way they are in the present, and how the increased integration of psychological and neuroscientific research in law could inform this debate (presumption of free will is what seems to underlie harsh blame and judgment, and quantification of the neural correlates of suffering might help as convincing biological evidence reflecting one's phenomenological reality, at least up to an extent).

I believe that Neuroscience holds the key not only to understanding and eradicating suffering but also to transcending it, potentially unlocking states of tranquility and bliss we can not imagine, and liberating us from these flesh prisons, one way or another. Combined with strategic and truthful application of it to the law--All resistance may stem from ignorance, lack of Empathy, to be defeated by the Truth.

If not, creation of a new charter city or sovereign community with those of us who wish things to be different, but are too scattered and powerless to make change or derive strength from like-minded people.
For those who feel scattered and powerless- let's unite. If we cannot reform the old system, we will build a new one. Since we are here anyway, let's make every living second count!
 
  • Like
Reactions: wilting_flower
U. A.

U. A.

Some day the dream will end
Aug 8, 2022
1,851
How "rational" is it to choose death at the hands of a state who makes it a guarantee, when said state:
-does not guarantee food
-does not guarantee income
-does not guarantee housing
-does not guarantee higher education
-does not guarantee (timely or quality) medical care
-does not guarantee dignified conditions in long-term care homes
-does not do anything to address these issues despite citizens regularly calling for it
-etc. etc.
?
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: FadingDawn, wilting_flower and Pale_Rider
AtreusMacabre

AtreusMacabre

Member
Sep 4, 2024
11
How "rational" is it to choose death at the hands of a state who makes it a guarantee, when said state:
-does not guarantee food
-does not guarantee income
-does not guarantee housing
-does not guarantee higher education
-does not guarantee (timely or quality) medical care
-does not guarantee dignified conditions in long-term care homes
-does not do anything to address these issues despite citizens regularly calling for it
-etc. etc.
?
Well, what do we mean by "rational"? I cannot give an exact definition, but a few thoughts. I agree that it is totally unfair for one to be driven by such political or environmental forces to even consider exit as an option, but is it just to deprive even the truly "rational" ones? Especially when there is no clear progress in the political domain, is it fair to close the only option they have to get rid of the unbearable suffering they experience? Does the risk exceed the amount of suffering that can be prevented? How do we determine who is "truly rational" and who has a more realistic chance to improve through environmental changes in the foreseeable future? Tricky question, and lots of terms to define more clearly to arrive at only a probabilistic estimate, no definitive answers, but again, doesn't mean we should dismiss the whole idea. We cannot allow so much suffering to continue at such a scale while we debate questions that are essentially value-based and hypotheticals involving a large-scale reformation of the current system. Thought must be balanced with Action. I might be wrong here, and I would like to be corrected if you think that is the case, as I'm still learning, and eager to change my views or update my beliefs in light of new relevant information.
 

Similar threads

nyotei_
Replies
31
Views
2K
Recovery
Downdraft
D
D
Replies
1
Views
441
Politics & Philosophy
DarkRange55
D
Rainork
Replies
15
Views
2K
Suicide Discussion
stardewwindceres
stardewwindceres
D
Replies
2
Views
464
Politics & Philosophy
noname223
N