Do you think euthanasia should be allowed in Ireland?

Tommy Halpin Kelly

Even in cases of non-terminal illness (body paralysis, or even mental illness)?

I find it interesting how people react 'reasonably' well towards discussions of euthanasia on the internet and irl but when you interchange it with suicide, there's a lot of condemnation of it being "cowardly" and "selfish". Why is that?

One eyed Jack

Tommy Halpin Kelly wrote: »

Even in cases of non-terminal illness (body paralysis, or even mental illness)?

I find it interesting how people react 'reasonably' well towards discussions of euthanasia on the internet and irl but when you interchange it with suicide, there's a lot of condemnation of it being "cowardly" and "selfish". Why is that?

Because people on the internet generally don’t care what you think either way, whereas face to face, people are confronted with the fact that they’re dealing with someone who doesn’t understand the difference between suicide and euthanasia.

dashoonage

there is a few people id like to put down all right.

theteal

I would hope so.

Tommy Halpin Kelly wrote: »

Why is that?

Because people, in general, are quite thick*











*not the loverly folk of AH though :cool:

wexie

Yes, provided (and this is a big if with the mess the HSE is) it would be regulated carefully and sensibly

Yes, it definitely should. With all the obvious safeguards and protections of course.

Deebles McBeebles

If there's a market for it, why not? Of course the inevitable 3 year waiting list might be a bit of an issue.

Tom Mann Centuria

Yes, it should be allowed. There should also be a broader discussion about allowing people to die with dignity in hospitals.

Yes, in a mature and functioning democracy if the individual has no quality of life.

Spleerbun

I'd be in favour of it as well. Could be worth throwing up a vote

ESMITH29

Allowing someone to rot away, stuck inside their own body in pain and without any dignity is horrible. For me, that is far worse than any death so yes, it should be legal as long as it's regulated correctly.

Knowing this ****hole, there'll be 3 year waiting list.

One eyed Jack

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

If there's a market for it, why not? Of course the inevitable 3 year waiting list might be a bit of an issue.

And that’s every reason why not - because people’s lives are not commodities, and should not be regarded as something which there is a market for which can be exploited.

Deebles McBeebles

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And that’s every reason why not - because people’s lives are not commodities, and should not be regarded as something which there is a market for which can be exploited.

I should have said need, not market.

We have too many people, if some want to end it in a dignified way instead of rotting in a home, fair play.

One eyed Jack

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

I should have said need, not market.

We have too many people, if some want to end it in a dignified way instead of rotting in a home, fair play.

That just suggests to me not that we have too many people, but that we have too many people rotting in homes. We do, but suggesting euthanasia as a means to address the issue of too many people rotting in homes isn’t going to address the issue of too many people rotting in homes. We’ll simply have a population where people who can afford medical and senior care get a better level of services and support than people who cannot afford medical and senior care. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that people would rather live with dignity than die with it.

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That just suggests to me not that we have too many people, but that we have too many people rotting in homes. We do, but suggesting euthanasia as a means to address the issue of too many people rotting in homes isn’t going to address the issue of too many people rotting in homes. We’ll simply have a population where people who can afford medical and senior care get a better level of services and support than people who cannot afford medical and senior care. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that people would rather live with dignity than die with it.

But should that decision not be down to the individual? You do realise nobody is proposing mandatory euthanasia?

wexie

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That just suggests to me not that we have too many people, but that we have too many people rotting in homes. We do, but suggesting euthanasia as a means to address the issue of too many people rotting in homes isn’t going to address the issue of too many people rotting in homes.

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting euthanasia as a means of population control?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We’ll simply have a population where people who can afford medical and senior care get a better level of services and support than people who cannot afford medical and senior care.

We already have that situation....

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that people would rather live with dignity than die with it.

Probably, but what about those people for whom living with dignity is no longer an option? By what they consider to be dignity that is, not you?

Should they not at least be afforded a dignified death, on their terms, at a time of their choosing?

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

people are confronted with the fact that they’re dealing with someone who doesn’t understand the difference between suicide and euthanasia.

I see nothing in the OP to suggest the writer fails to understand that difference.

Also why are you attempting to explain a distinction between the behaviours or people online, and those in real life, when the OP did not describe one? You appear to have misread the OP entirely, and answered a question that was not even asked.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And that’s every reason why not - because people’s lives are not commodities, and should not be regarded as something which there is a market for which can be exploited.

Why not? Quite a lot of the pharmacy industry is doing just that. They are creating and producing drugs for profit. Profit that is based on exploiting the lives of others. Saving peoples lives with drugs that are profitable is instantly a place where peoples lives are "something which there is a market for which can be exploited."

Market forces are not in and of themselves automatically a bad thing. How the market manifests and how we as a society regulate them.... that is where the issues are formed or prevented.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that people would rather live with dignity than die with it.

Thankfully suggesting it does not make it true. The reality is people are diverse and many wish to have that choice to make for themselves. And quite often I do not think it is a case that they rather one over the other, but in fact want both. They want it to be THEIR choice what to live with dignity and for how long, and when to then die with it.

fergus1001

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

If there's a market for it, why not? Of course the inevitable 3 year waiting list might be a bit of an issue.

Cant be any worse than the 9 month waiting list for an abortion :pac:

The Bishop Basher

Yes.

razorblunt

With proper procedures, checkpoints and signoff? Yes, I wouldn't hesitate.

That's a big caveat though with the fcuking shambles that is the HSE.

Deebles McBeebles

fergus1001 wrote: »

Cant be any worse than the 9 month waiting list for an abortion :pac:

Don't get us started on that one

SEPT 23 1989

Yes once the persons gives the go ahead

It's twisted putting a person through agony when they are terminally ill

trixi001

No
Assisted Suicide - yes (Where it is the person who wants to die, who makes the final decision and administers the medication to themselves, ie like Dignatas)
Actually Euthanasia - no, its not about allowing people to die with dignity, its about not putting anyone (family members, doctors, nurses etc) in the position where they are asked to end a life

ancapailldorcha

Absolutely. Can't really see an argument against it.

Bitches Be Trypsin

Definitely. I don't like the idea of being a vegetable for myself, I'd rather be euthanised.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Assisted dying (which is a bit different from euthanasia in that the life-ending medicine is self-administered) for terminal illnesses and chronic illness that cause endless pain should be legalised. People should be able to die at home rather than having to go to Switzerland too soon when they are still physically capable of doing so. The trip to Switzerland is also very expensive.

I do have time for the arguments about coercion and the slippery slope but put safeguards in place to ensure coercion is avoided and legalise it to fück. The arguments against aren’t compelling enough to stop it being legalised, IMO.

One really interesting statistic I heard is that in Oregon, a third of the people who are prescribed life-ending medication never use it. Just having it in their possession gives them peace of mind and they die a natural death. I think that’s amazing. Anything that can mentally help a terminally ill person is fine by me.

One eyed Jack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

But should that decision not be down to the individual? You do realise nobody is proposing mandatory euthanasia?

No, I don’t think it should, as facilitating euthanasia in Ireland would require a change in the Constitution, which would mean it would be a matter for every citizen in Irish society. I do of course realise that nobody is proposing mandatory euthanasia, it wouldn’t be euthanasia if they were.

wexie wrote: »

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting euthanasia as a means of population control?

I figured that might have been what Deebles might have been suggesting with the “we have too many people” comment.

We already have that situation....

We do, and legislating for euthanasia would only make it worse as people who couldn’t afford healthcare would be ‘encouraged’ to save their families the ‘financial burden’ of their care.

Probably, but what about those people for whom living with dignity is no longer an option? By what they consider to be dignity that is, not you?

I think in those circumstances we have an obligation as a society to ensure that people have the ability and the means to be able to live their lives with dignity. I would be of the opinion that there’s simply no dignity in death.

Should they not at least be afforded a dignified death, on their terms, at a time of their choosing?

No. There’s no dignity in death. I think it’s sending the wrong message to society that we would facilitate them in simply allowing people to die when and how they choose. I totally get that there’s the element of ultimate control over one’s destiny in the idea of suicide, but with euthanasia, control of their destiny at that point is no longer within the control of the individual.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Why not?

Because you touch yourself at night.

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I don’t think it should, as facilitating euthanasia in Ireland would require a change in the Constitution, which would mean it would be a matter for every citizen in Irish society. I do of course realise that nobody is proposing mandatory euthanasia, it wouldn’t be euthanasia if they were.





I figured that might have been what Deebles might have been suggesting with the “we have too many people” comment.





We do, and legislating for euthanasia would only make it worse as people who couldn’t afford healthcare would be ‘encouraged’ to save their families the ‘financial burden’ of their care.





I think in those circumstances we have an obligation as a society to ensure that people have the ability and the means to be able to live their lives with dignity. I would be of the opinion that there’s simply no dignity in death.





No. There’s no dignity in death. I think it’s sending the wrong message to society that we would facilitate them in simply allowing people to die when and how they choose. I totally get that there’s the element of ultimate control over one’s destiny in the idea of suicide, but with euthanasia, control of their destiny at that point is no longer within the control of the individual.

There is more dignity in a peaceful death than existing with no quality of life. The control does lie with the individual. only they can make the decision for themselves. Nobody can make it for them.

Hoboo

Id go further and have a 30% cull. Too many people on the island.

One eyed Jack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

There is more dignity in a peaceful death than existing with no quality of life. The control does lie with the individual. only they can make the decision for themselves. Nobody can make it for them.

I don’t think the two are in any way comparable seeing as I see no dignity in death whatsoever, while also seeing that there is no dignity in existing with no quality of life. In that regard, I’m more interested in enabling someone to have a good quality of life than ensuring they have an expedited death.

I don’t know how you can argue that the control lies with the individual when the whole purpose of legislating for euthanasia is to permit someone else to end someone else’s life. The person has no control over whether or not that person carries out their request, and currently under Irish legislation that person could find themselves facing criminal charges for ending a persons life. The person who dies faces no repercussions.

wexie

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think in those circumstances we have an obligation as a society to ensure that people have the ability and the means to be able to live their lives with dignity.

And that would be great, but barring massive leaps in medicine and technology that's not likely to be happen anytime soon.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that there’s simply no dignity in death.

But that's your opinion, would you be comfortable forcing that opinion on others who may not share it? Why? Do you think your opinion is somehow of more value than others? Especially when it comes to how they feel about how they are living their lives?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No. There’s no dignity in death. I think it’s sending the wrong message to society that we would facilitate them in simply allowing people to die when and how they choose.

Well then perhaps we could change the message? How about :

You don't need to suffer needlessly?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I totally get that there’s the element of ultimate control over one’s destiny in the idea of suicide, but with euthanasia, control of their destiny at that point is no longer within the control of the individual.

I'm working on the assumption here OP is talking of 'assisted suicide' rather than actual euthanasia, they tend to be used interchangeably, lets not get hung up on semantics here.

JupiterKid

No brainer. Yes of course. Let those who are terminally ill and in great pain die with dignity. But there must be very strict criteria to be met.

wexie

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and currently under Irish legislation that person could find themselves facing criminal charges for ending a persons life. The person who dies faces no repercussions.

What repercussions do you suggest we put on this? Post mortem dismemberment? Not being allowed to be buried in a consecrated plot?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We do, and legislating for euthanasia would only make it worse as people who couldn’t afford healthcare would be ‘encouraged’ to save their families the ‘financial burden’ of their care.

There is no evidence of this happening in countries and US states with legal assisted dying. In fact, the uptake is quite low and there are safeguards in place.

I think in those circumstances we have an obligation as a society to ensure that people have the ability and the means to be able to live their lives with dignity. I would be of the opinion that there’s simply no dignity in death.

The terminally ill person is going to die that death much sooner rather than later. The death is going to happen so whether you find the moment of death undignified is neither here nor there. It’s coming. People who want assisted dying want to save themselves the extreme pain and indignities that come with the dying period preceding death. Hospices do their best but sadly sometimes the illness is one step ahead of them and the pain can’t be completely controlled or the patient needs to heavily sedated to do so. Many people don’t want to live their last weeks unaware of their surroundings with various tubes protruding from them removing waste products. The death part is the certainty but what leads up to the point of death can be very undignified and very uncertain. That is what people mean by a dignified death. Dignity in how it plays out.

marketty

No .

They can stay in Asia.

One eyed Jack

wexie wrote: »

And that would be great, but barring massive leaps in medicine and technology that's not likely to be happen anytime soon.

It’s only from my own perspective of course, but I would see that as a motivating factor in overcoming those barriers which require massive leaps in medicine and technology. I understand that of course it’s not likely to happen any time soon (if indeed ever, for many conditions), but I would see assisted suicide as literally allowing people to give up.

But that's your opinion, would you be comfortable forcing that opinion on others who may not share it? Why? Do you think your opinion is somehow of more value than others? Especially when it comes to how they feel about how they are living their lives?

I feel comfortable forcing my opinion on others, I do it all the time. I don’t see any reason why I should feel uncomfortable about expressing my opinion when the alternative is that someone will die unnecessarily in my opinion. How close I am to that someone will naturally be a determinant factor in whether or not I choose to share my opinion with them. There are some people who if they asked for my assistance in helping them to end their own lives, I’d have a pillow in hand before they could say ‘where’d you get that pillow from?’, and there are others who I would have no problem whatsoever in telling them they’re not going anywhere if it means keeping them alive until I have found a way to make them want to live.

Well then perhaps we could change the message? How about :

Sure, there’s nothing about assisted suicide in there, and it can be inferred that we don’t want people to suffer, but that we want to support people and enable them to live and enjoy life.

I'm working on the assumption here OP is talking of 'assisted suicide' rather than actual euthanasia, they tend to be used interchangeably, lets not get hung up on semantics here.

Sure, I can stick with assisted suicide, my arguments against either would be pretty much the same though.

One eyed Jack

wexie wrote: »

What repercussions do you suggest we put on this? Post mortem dismemberment? Not being allowed to be buried in a consecrated plot?

I’m not saying we have to consider repercussions for people who are dead, I was making the point that there aren’t any, whereas for the people who assist a person in ending their own life, there can be.

Spanish Eyes

It happens every day in hospitals and hospices. I am sorry if this upsets anyone, but once the morphine pump goes in, that's it within 24 hours usually. I know this from personal experience.

TBH it was a blessing. My family members were never going to recover and if their passing was peaceful and pain free (it was) that was good for them and for us. You never get over it though.

I am not sure what OP is referring to though. Maybe it relates to those who are not at end of life, but just feel no quality of life anymore and want to go.

It's a difficult question, but once the person is of sound mind, and not being influenced by anyone, and at least two medical professionals agree, they should be free to go.

Hector Savage

I thought there was a thread on this allready ? and yes was well ahead.
But yes definetely, I would be one of the first to sign up !

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

There is no evidence of this happening in countries and US states with legal assisted dying. In fact, the uptake is quite low and there are safeguards in place.

That’s in other countries. This is Ireland, where I can’t even turn on the tv without being blasted with news about people on waiting lists years long, advertisements for senior care, advertisements for funeral care and not ‘leaving the financial burden on your loved ones’, etc, etc. If advertising didn’t work, it wouldn’t be nearly as effective as it is.

The terminally ill person is going to die that death much sooner rather than later. The death is going to happen so whether you find the moment of death undignified is neither here nor there. It’s coming. People who want assisted dying want to save themselves the extreme pain and indignities that come with the dying period preceding death. Hospices do their best but sadly sometimes the illness is one step ahead of them and the pain can’t be completely controlled or the patient needs to heavily sedated to do so. Many people don’t want to live their last weeks unaware of their surroundings with various tubes protruding from them removing waste products. The death part is the certainty but what leads up to the point of death can be very undignified and very uncertain. That is what people mean by a dignified death. Dignity in how it plays out.

Certainly I get all that, but that’s how we have developed the very high standards we have in palliative care.

Zorya

I would have said an unequivocal yes at one stage, especially as my dying parent begged for assistance committing suicide for a year before dying. But over time I have reservations which would fall into the slippery slope category. Belgium and the Netherlands, two European countries with liberal euthanasia laws, have legalised euthaniasia for competent minors (and euthanised children including a 9 and 11 year old), and in both countries there have been an increasing number per annum of people euthanised without having specifically given consent. This can be up to 20% of cases in the Netherlands where other doctors regularly report guidelines are not followed. Belgium with just over twice our population euthanised over a hundfred people in 2014 with mental and behavioural issues. I wonder how we would feel here with (proportionally similar) one person a week being euthanised without express consent given by them? One fifth of people euthanised in Belgium do not have a terminal illness.
I can see reasons to withdraw or minimise care and to provide for assisted suicide under the patients control. Euthanasia facilitated by the state sits far, far less well with me.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s in other countries. This is Ireland, where I can’t even turn on the tv without being blasted with news about people on waiting lists years long, advertisements for senior care, advertisements for funeral care and not ‘leaving the financial burden on your loved ones’, etc, etc. If advertising didn’t work, it wouldn’t be nearly as effective as it is.

It’s most curious that you think Ireland would somehow differ from all the countries and states where assisted dying is legal. And that ads like the above wouldn’t happen in those countries. And safeguards would be built in to prevent these hoards of coercive relations that are apparently greater in number in Ireland than anywhere else. In countries where it is legal, sound mind must be established and the person is thoroughly interviewed. I’m sure psychologists are brought in to try and detect reticence on the part of the individual. You are really taking a dim view of the competence of the people who would be assessing the indiviual.

Certainly I get all that, but that’s how we have developed the very high standards we have in palliative care.

And again, even with those high standards, it’s not always possible to control the pain especially with unpredictable illnesses like metastatic cancer. People can and do still die in agony every day even with palliative care. It’s far from perfect. And impossible to predict whether a person’s death will be pain-free. And, as I said, the painkilling sometimes involves sedation. Many people don’t want their last weeks to be like that.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Zorya wrote: »

I would have said an unequivocal yes at one stage, especially as my dying parent begged for assistance committing suicide for a year before dying. But over time I have reservations which would fall into the slippery slope category. Belgium and the Netherlands, two European countries with liberal euthanasia laws, have legalised euthaniasia for competent minors (and euthanised children including a 9 and 11 year old), and in both countries there have been an increasing number per annum of people euthanised without having specifically given consent. This can be up to 20% of cases in the Netherlands where other doctors regularly report guidelines are not followed. Belgium with just over twice our population euthanised over a hundfred people in 2014 with mental and behavioural issues. I wonder how we would feel here with (proportionally similar) one person a week being euthanised without express consent given by them? One fifth of people euthanised in Belgium do not have a terminal illness.
I can see reasons to withdraw or minimise care and to provide for assisted suicide under the patients control. Euthanasia facilitated by the state sits far, far less well with me.

How do you know those people didn’t give consent? Having a mental or behavioural problem doesn’t necessarily mean that you are not competent to give consent.

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It’s most curious that you think Ireland would somehow differ from all the countries and states where assisted dying is legal. And that ads like the above wouldn’t happen in those countries. And safeguards would be built in to prevent these hoards of coercive relations that are apparently greater in number in Ireland than anywhere else. In countries where it is legal, sound mind must be established and the person is thoroughly interviewed. I’m sure psychologists are brought in to try and detect reticence on the part of the individual. You are really taking a dim view of the competence of the people who would be assessing the indiviual.

It’s really not all that curious at all. Ireland is a very different culture to those other countries you mentioned. That’s not to say I agree with your overwhelmingly positive assessment of their processes and procedures either with regard to assisted suicide.

And again, even with those high standards, it’s not always possible to control the pain especially with unpredictable illnesses like metastatic cancer. People can and do still die in agony every day even with palliative care. It’s far from perfect. And impossible to predict whether a person’s death will be pain-free. And, as I said, the painkilling sometimes involves sedation. Many people don’t want their last weeks to be like that.

Sure, and like I said - I get all that. It still doesn’t go anywhere near making a compelling argument in support of legislating for assisted suicide. If anything, it makes a compelling argument for more resources to be diverted into providing care and assistance for people while they are living, as opposed to providing resources and facilitating expediting their death.

feargale

Tommy Halpin Kelly wrote: »

Even in cases of non-terminal illness (body paralysis, or even mental illness)?

I find it interesting how people react 'reasonably' well towards discussions of euthanasia on the internet and irl but when you interchange it with suicide, there's a lot of condemnation of it being "cowardly" and "selfish". Why is that?

I'm for euthasia where, say, a person has a painful, terminal illness and is capable of making a rational, free choice in the matter.
There can be a selfish element in suicide, for instance if a parent leaves young children behind. Think of the hurt and perplexed reactions.

decky1

it's a bit like the Abortion subject, who are we to tell people how to live their lives --everyone should be free to choose what suits them.

TheValeyard

It will be allowed. But probably should have strict guidelines around it.

screamer

Yes of course it should. Anyone who is dying or doesn't want to live anymore should have the choice to die with some dignity and in the most painless way possible. Nanny state Ireland will kick in though.... Sure abortion is fine but people wanting to terminate themselves.... Can't be doing that now.....

Spleerbun

One eyed Jack wrote: »

.


No. There’s no dignity in death. I think it’s sending the wrong message to society that we would facilitate them in simply allowing people to die when and how they choose. .

I see absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with this "message" , nor with the sending out of said message.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I don’t think it should, as facilitating euthanasia in Ireland would require a change in the Constitution

That is not an answer. That is a dodge. The user asked if it should be done, you deflected by talking instead about HOW it could or would be done. Which is not an answer to what was asked.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We do, and legislating for euthanasia would only make it worse as people who couldn’t afford healthcare would be ‘encouraged’ to save their families the ‘financial burden’ of their care.

Any evidence that that WOULD happen? Or do you just want to pretend it would happen in order to manufacture arguments against it where you have otherwise failed to find some?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think in those circumstances we have an obligation as a society to ensure that people have the ability and the means to be able to live their lives with dignity. I would be of the opinion that there’s simply no dignity in death.

And your opinion is likely to be entirely irrelevant to someone who wants to die. They are unlikely to even seek it, let alone take it seriously. I know I don't. Your "opinion" here appears baseless. Especially as you did not offer a basis.

Further the presence or lack of dignity in death is also not likely to be their concern. It is retaining their dignity in life and HOW they die that is generally the concern of those who seek to die. Dignity in death is different to dignity in dying. And it is the latter, not the former as you pretend, that tends to be of concern here.

So I agree when you say "we have an obligation as a society to ensure that people have the ability and the means to be able to live their lives with dignity" and offering options in how and when they die is part of that, not an exception to it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because you touch yourself at night.

Real mature. No answer I guess. As expected.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m more interested in enabling someone to have a good quality of life than ensuring they have an expedited death.

Which would be relevant if somehow they were mutually exclusive. I on the other hand would be focused on offering people BOTH and also the choice between them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

currently under Irish legislation that person could find themselves facing criminal charges for ending a persons life.

True, and interestingly that quite often does not stop them. Micheal Nugent for example has talked at some length on how during the illness of his wife he made the commitment to end her life if and when she came to the point she required it of him. A commitment he made entirely cognisant of the repercussions he would face upon fulfilling it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would see assisted suicide as literally allowing people to give up.

And I see that wording as literally claiming that we have some right to NOT allow them to give up. As if we own them or something. And I see little to no defence outside "appeal to status quo" to justify the idea we should have that kind of ownership.

wexie

One eyed Jack wrote: »

but I would see assisted suicide as literally allowing people to give up.

Allowing people to give up?

......

So?

What makes you think you or I or the legislature would have the right to NOT allow people to give up?

Or rather, what makes you think any of those would have the right to force people to continue down a path they no longer want to walk?

I appreciate you probably don't quite grasp or intend the sheer arrogance in your choice of words but you should probably try to give that some serious thought and maybe think of a way of rephrasing it.