Nurses/doctors don't like to speak up about that part and people don't want to confront it. But MAID is probably the more humane option in these cases.
But we also have stories here of people deciding to die while they're still mobile and while their loved ones are begging them to not to. Those are much less clear cut to me.
Radical individualism would say that every person should have full autonomy to make any decision they want that doesn't physically damage those around them. But I'm not a radical individualist, so I can't accept that argument alone. There are cases where an individual's choice to end it all early would be a net loss for their immediate community, and there are cases where it would be a net loss for the wider community and the state. At some point that net loss must overrule the individual's autonomy. But where? How do you draw the line?
I'm presuming these are situations where a person has a terminal illness or something where it's a matter of time until they are disabled / not mobile / in great pain and so forth. What right does anyone else have to demand that a person continue living against their will in those scenarios? Why does a person have to wait for life to be unbearable before they can opt out?
My father died due to dementia. When he was of sound mind, he was very, very clear that he'd prefer to be dead than diminished that way. Unfortunately his condition crept up on him and he didn't live where assisted suicide was an option anyway. I'm convinced that caring for him actually killed his wife before her time, by contributing to her stress and so forth. (She died of a heart attack about 9 months before he did, despite being a decade+ younger.)
We don't give human beings the same dignity we give pets who are clearly dying because we have misguided ideas about longevity being more important than quality.
I'm curious why you think of this as such a concrete fact. It is hard to understand that you would consider it your right to override such a core component of human autonomy (the choice to continue living) because they owe you/society something.
If someone's suffering is so great (be it physical *or* mental) that they have reached a point where they personally would trade human life for non-existence, who are you to say "Sorry, we own you. You cannot make that choice"?
I am sorry if my comment sounds judgemental because I am genuinely interested in your opinion about who would ever be qualified to make that decision and decide "No, this person is bound to us."
I'm curious why you consider individualism to be the default state that should be assumed, while my very broad statement that there is some level of social responsibility that overrules individual autonomy at some point (where that point is being the question) is the one that needs justification. I'm specifically calling out that I'm unsure where that line is, just that there is a threshold where individual entitlement must give way to the needs of the community.
This has been the default position of every human society we're aware of, so much so that it's essentially the definition of a society. It's wired into our biology. Radical individualism that teaches otherwise is a very new phenomenon.
That said, neither position can be argued for logically, because they operate on totally different axioms.
What I'm not sure I agree with is that it translates to a responsibility to stay. Isn't someone who emigrates permanently away from their local community breaking the same social contract as someone who chooses medically assisted dying? Should that be prevented for the same reasons?
I can see the position that MAID is genuinely abdicating a true responsibility in some extreme cases, like a parent with minor children.
If there is one thing that should be beyond social control, it is the choice over existence itself.