Re: Right to die and quality of life
@bashue
You write:
"If the disabled or indeed anyone is in such dire straights that supporting ones self is either
extremely difficult or impossible then yes they should be allowed to euphonies themselves."
This is better than the current societal attitude but still not good enough.
First, supporting oneself is a relative experience, and if the government already provides a minimal assistance, -- i.e 60 minutes homecare a week -- and current law stipulates that this is sufficient aid for the disabled whom according to the state now has all the 'necessary' aid to support himself, the individual might still feel that ain't good enough.
But if the state doesn't want to provide the disabled 120 minutes of homecare, and the individual still feels that there is a gap, he will not be permitted to euthanize himself because the state (according to its own yardstick) has already offered the individual all the aid that's due
.
Second, there may also be hard limitts to how much state aid or compensation can 'equalize' the -- life activities -- where the the disability either negate opportunity or reduces it to near zero regardless of money.
" However, such a thing should not be the first resort because
there could be something you can do. If all avenues have been exhausted and their living conditions are impossible then I see no problem with that."
This is very problematic -- or let me say a big loophole , given that the state already imposes struggling to last resort as a qualification for receiving aid.
However, if you by last resort and exhaustions of avenues mean that the individual himself should decide when enough is enough ffor availing himself of euthanasia, I agree.
I think that only the individual -- and never the state should determine when the right to die is an option.
The reason is that the state can never be a neutral arbit er of which life is 'worthy' or when the individual at last resort.
The state will always claim to offer the individual all 'necessary' aid, so if you can only exercise the right to die as last resort, and when all avenues have been exhausted, the state can always claim that there is more the individual must do in order to qualify for euthanasia.
And this is really not desirable that the exercise of this choice must depend on the whim of a third party who has all the self interest in covering itself.
This goes something like this:
-- The disabled person asks for aid from the state.
-- The state either refuses or only grant partial and insufficient aid or compensation.
-- Now the disabled says he wants to die on the ground that the aid is insufficient or unsatisfactory.
-- The state responds that yes, this is not good, but you have been granted all the help to which you are entitled as a matter of law, and we consider this sufficient and necessary to support yourself, so no way you can't exercise the right to die.
-- The individual might still not be satisfied,but this is of no consequence because the state both gets to define when aid is sufficient and when the individual is 'ready' to exercise his right to die.
_______________________________________________ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
