| I don't agree with the premise that because people are suffering societal neglect, they are unable to consent to die. > When the family of a 35-year-old disabled man who resorted to euthanasia arrived at the care home where he lived, they encountered ‘urine on the floor… spots where there was feces on the floor… spots where your feet were just sticking. Like, if you stood at his bedside and when you went to walk away, your foot was literally stuck.’ According to the Canadian government, the assisted suicide law is about ‘prioritis[ing] the individual autonomy of Canadians’; one may wonder how much autonomy a disabled man lying in his own filth had in weighing death over life. My counter would be: are you telling me it is better to live in your own filth. Unless somehow the man's living conditions would be better were suicide not allowed, then that's pretty bad and I think society's response shouldn't be to stop him from killing himself, but improving his living conditions.
Because it's unlikely that his living conditions would've actually improved, and ultimately he would just live in suffering for another thirty years. There is the argument that "oh well maybe in 5 years it would improve, and his living conditions would get better", but I would argue, that's really for him to decide. Does he believe that society will actually improve his life? Does he want to take that gamble or not? He's probably been living in these awful conditions already for a decade, does he feel like he can endure another decade of suffering. I do agree that society's failure to provide social care is a big problem, but I don't think we should force people to endure more suffering to encourage the systematic change. I also agree that coercion to kill yourself is completely unacceptable, and should be addressed with more checks and balances. |
I don't think the article is opposed to this. It sounds like the care home was violating their existing duty of care in not proving a clean living environment. I mean, who isn't going to want to kill themself when the people paid to take care of you and are legally obligated to take care of you let you live in sewage and you have no where else to go with nobody looking out for your best interest. So you aren't making the decision to kill yourself based on your medical condition but rather on the illegal level of care the facility is providing.
Although based on your statement about consenting to die, I could see that if you believe people should be allowed to consent to die without a terminal illness. For example, someone if someone is simply poor but is in good health. Although society has generally frowned on that so far.