Ordinary Banana

"We often have a duty not to die" what duty? to whom? stipulated by what?

would you keep someone forcibly alive who was experiencing excruciating pain that is more socially recognized and validated? pain that has no cure? paraplegics? at what point do people become self righteous and selfishly attached to their own conceptions of ideology, of what is

or isn't sacred? at what point do you refuse to be deluded by your own, highly contrived cultural conceptions of ethics in order to admit to human limitations towards unstoppable existential forces? towards excruciation?

I am SURE that I am deaf to what a devil's advocate may lay out as the core dilemma; euthanasia, too, is an infohazardous topic like abortion. Conceptions of life, the value of conscious experience, are very poorly understood and ill-defined

and I imagine that such a devil's advocate is SYMPATHETIC to partisans at either extreme simply due to how inaccessible a more objective clarification of the problem is.

However I ask such devil's advocate sympathizers to side with those advocating more individualized autonomy at least in cases of crisis, because access to the consumption and formulation of knowledge and experience is in itself phenomenologically subjective.

I feel this is similar to innocent until proven guilty. Not having rule over someone else's base existential conditions unless you have some sufficiently compelling evidence.

Soldiers may voluntarily enlist, taking on existential risk for themselves. It is worth it, they say, for some noble cause. Perhaps euthanasia or self elected suicide is itself dying for a noble cause: to not proliferate untreatable excruciating suffering, even in yourself.