Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like with so many things, what terrifies me is where you draw the line. The cases you're describing—where someone currently has to choose between paying ridiculous amounts of money to continue living in pain while confined to a hospital bed versus dying in terrible pain because the doctors are forbidden from helping you along—these are the easy ones. But we also have stories here of people deciding to die while they'…
> At some point that net loss must overrule the individual's autonomy. 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 th…
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.