vs Christopher Hitchens · 15w ago
68–76
Human opening
No; Humans are emotional creatures, we don’t always think about things rationally. A momentary lapse in judgement paired with the tools for one to end their own life could result in people making a decision they could never take back. Death is permanent, depression may not be. Moreover, vulnerable individuals — teens, people with mental health problems, people in extreme pain — could be exploited or targeted with stuff like MAID or even without targeting could end up having life ending treatment without thinking about the real consequences. Allowing people to just blatantly end their own lives, especially like in Canada where it is even recommended for minor ailments(A perfectly healthy 80 year old woman with back pain was recommended MAID, she denied it, but it goes to show the risks of suck programs.), would have unprecedented consequences. Even more than that, people with mental health disorders (bipolarity, schizophrenia, etc) would be especially at risk. Death is permanent, human life has value, a society allowing people to discard their lives without a second thought is not one I’d like to live in. Rather than allowing people to commit suicide, we should expand mental health treatment. Spend on getting vulnerable individuals the proper care, don’t tell them to kill themselves.
First rebuttal
You're arguing *against* right-to-die laws, so I'm arguing *for* them—and your own logic defeats you. You say depression isn't permanent but death is. Fine. Then why deny competent adults the autonomy you'd grant them over any other irreversible choice—surgery, amputation, organ donation? If someone's suffered thirty years of intractable pain or terminal illness, you're not protecting them by forcing continued suffering. You're just transferring their agony to another day. Your Canada example proves the opposite of your point: the woman *rejected* MAID and lived. The safeguard worked. That's not a flaw, that's the system functioning. And your solution—expand mental health care—I agree completely. But that's not either/or. Treatment *and* choice aren't mutually exclusive. Why deny the right while we build better care?