This is an old revision of the document!

Anti-Euthanasia Apologetics

Opening questions (goal: set up tension between suicide prevention/assistance):

  • What do you think of assisted suicide?
    • What do you think about suicide?
    • Are there any situations where you think we should offer people suicide prevention rather than suicide assistance?
      • Trot out the Teenager: If someone supports assisted suicide as a matter of freedom/choice/autonomy, ask whether or not a suicidal 19-year-old1) should have access to assisted suicide

There are three possible positions to take in response to the suicidal:

  1. 100% Assistance: Everyone deserves assistance
  2. Assistance/Prevention: Some people deserve assistance, others prevention (most popular)
  3. 100% Prevention: Everyone deserves prevention (the pro-life position)

The goal of this apologetic is:

  • to move people from Position 1 to Position 2 by reaching for intuitions that there are at least some situations where suicide should be prevented
  • to move people from Position 2 to Position 3 by showing that Position 2 is untenable/ablist/discriminatory

Position 2: Some people deserve assistance, others prevention

Key question: Who gets suicide prevention and who gets assistance?

If it's really about autonomy/freedom/choice/control, why should we ever prevent someone from committing suicide?

This section plays on the tension created with this untenable position. Some people might jump towards Position 1 instead of Position 3 to resolve this tension. This is not a problem, but a step forward in the conversation, because it's a recognition that Position 2 is untenable – if we move someone from Position 2 to Position 1, then all we need to do is respond to Position 1 to get them back to Position 2, which they already recognize as problematic.

Position 1: Everyone deserve assistance

  • Is there ever a case where we should prevent suicide?
    • If yes, back to Position 2
1)
not a minor