MAYWAY Blog

×

January 19, 2025

The Tyranny of "For Your Own Good"

"For your own good" is perhaps the most insidious phrase that exists. It presents itself as an act of love, care, and protection. But it often hides a fundamental arrogance: the presumption of knowing better than others what is right for their lives.

The Hidden Violence of Benevolence

When a doctor says "it's for your own good," when a family member insists "we're doing this for you," when society establishes that certain choices cannot be left to the individual, a subtle form of violence is being perpetrated. A violence that cloaks itself in good intentions, that hides behind the veil of protection, but that denies the very essence of human dignity: the capacity for self-determination.

Medical Paternalism: A Tradition to Overcome

For centuries, the doctor-patient relationship has been characterized by deep-rooted paternalism. The doctor knows, the patient must only obey. The doctor decides, the patient must accept. This model, still sadly current, ignores a fundamental truth: no one can understand better than ourselves what it means to live in our condition, what it means to bear certain sufferings, what it means to face certain choices.

The Society that "Protects" by Imprisoning

Paternalism is not limited to the medical field. Society as a whole often sets itself up as guardian of its members' lives, deciding which choices are acceptable and which are not. Normative, moral, and social cages are constructed, always "for the good" of those who are locked within them. But how much good can protection do when it transforms into a prison?

The Roots of Benevolent Arrogance

Behind "for your own good" often lies fear. Fear of the different, fear of choices we don't understand, fear of having to question our certainties. It's easier to decide for others, imposing our vision of the world, than to accept that there exist choices different from our own, paths we don't share, decisions that frighten us.

The Price of Paternalism

The cost of this approach is devastating. Not only for those who are denied the right to decide about their own life, but for society as a whole. We create a world of silent suffering, where people are forced to carry burdens they haven't chosen, to live lives they haven't wanted, all in the name of a "good" defined by others.

Towards a New Understanding

It's time to overcome the tyranny of "for your own good." To recognize that true care, true respect, true protection lie in listening, in understanding, in accepting. In recognizing that every individual is the only true expert of their own life, the only one who can decide what is truly "good" for themselves.

Conclusion

"For your own good" must transform from an instrument of control into a true expression of respect. Respect for individual autonomy, for their capacity to choose, for their dignity. Only then can we say we are truly acting for the good of others: when we recognize their right to define what is good for themselves.

×

January 8, 2025

The Right to Support: A Dignity Paradox

In the vast landscape of life choices, modern society has developed an increasingly articulated and accepted support network. Whether it's divorce, a career change, or an important decision about education, finding people willing to listen, advise, and support is not only possible but encouraged. Yet, when it comes to end-of-life choices, this same support suddenly becomes taboo, transforming from an act of human solidarity into a potential crime.

The Weight of Isolation

While sharing is seen as a positive and necessary element for every other existential choice, those facing end-of-life decisions are often left in forced solitude. This solitude is not merely emotional but translates into genuine social and legal isolation, where even the most sincere expressions of support risk being interpreted as "incitement."

The Hidden Costs of Denial

This criminalization of end-of-life support carries enormous costs, both human and material. For the patient, it means facing an already dramatic period in conditions of emotional isolation, seeing their dignity eroded not only by illness but also by the impossibility of receiving open and sincere support.

For the healthcare system, this translates into:

• Prolonged occupation of beds in already overcrowded facilities
• Employment of medical and nursing staff in treatments that the patient may not desire
• High costs for treatments that do not improve quality of life
• Psychological stress for healthcare workers, forced to continue treatments they know are unwanted by the patient

The Impact on Families

Families find themselves in a paradoxical position: on one side, the natural desire to support their loved one in their choices; on the other, the fear of legal consequences for any form of support that might be interpreted as "aiding." This creates situations of prolonged emotional stress, guilt for not being able to act according to conscience, internal conflicts between the desire to help and fear of consequences, and psychological trauma that can persist long after the loss of their loved one.

A System That Generates Suffering

The greatest paradox is that a system theoretically designed to protect life ends up generating additional suffering. Prolonged care against the patient's will not only fails to add quality to life but extends situations of physical and psychological suffering, consumes resources that could be allocated to those who actively desire care, creates trauma in healthcare workers and family members, and violates the dignity and self-determination of the person.

Towards a New Paradigm

It's time to recognize that support in end-of-life choices is no different from support in other existential choices. Just as we support a friend who decides to change jobs or separate from their partner, we should be able to support those who, with full lucidity and awareness, make decisions about their end of life.

This doesn't mean promoting specific choices, but ensuring that every individual can face these crucial moments with the dignity they deserve, surrounded by the affection of their loved ones, supported by competent professionals, free from the fear of legally compromising those close to them.

Conclusion

The right to support in end-of-life choices is not just a matter of individual freedom, but of civilization. A society that criminalizes human solidarity in life's most delicate moments is a society that has lost sight of the true meaning of protecting life and human dignity.

It's time to open a serious dialogue on this topic, recognizing that true respect for life also comes through respect for individual choices and the possibility of receiving support in every phase of existence, including the final one.

×

December 31, 2024

Forced Solitude

In the journey towards self-determination, one of the most painful obstacles is the solitude imposed by society. It's not about a voluntary choice of isolation, but a forced condition that arises from the taboo surrounding certain personal decisions, especially those related to end of life.

The Weight of Silence

When a person begins to reflect on their self-determination, they often find themselves forced to carry the weight of these thoughts in solitude. They cannot share them with their loved ones for fear of involving them in legal issues. They cannot seek professional support without the fear of being reported. They cannot even openly express their doubts and fears on social media or in other public contexts.

This wall of silence has profound consequences. The person finds themselves having to process enormous decisions alone, deprived of the natural dialogue with other human beings that characterizes every other important aspect of life. Solitude thus becomes a form of psychological violence imposed by society.

The Paradox of Denied Information

Particularly painful is the confrontation with those who possess the necessary information but deliberately choose not to share it. Doctors, healthcare workers, legal experts - figures who could provide concrete support often choose to turn their backs, hiding behind restrictive interpretations of regulations or behind personal moral objections.

This refusal to share information doesn't prevent individual choices - nothing and no one can really prevent someone who has made a decision from carrying it out - but inevitably makes them more risky and traumatic. Those seeking information find themselves forced onto tortuous and uncertain paths, when they could benefit from competent and safe guidance. This forced solitude has devastating consequences: it almost always forces violent and traumatic methods of implementation, both for those who make the choice and for those who remain, forced to confront dramatic discoveries that could be avoided.

The Spiral of Silence

Forced silence creates a perverse spiral: the less it's talked about, the more the topic becomes taboo. Those who have lived through similar experiences cannot share them to help others. Those going through the journey cannot benefit from the experience of those who preceded them. An artificial void is created where there would naturally exist a community of mutual support.

Breaking the Isolation

Forced solitude is not a natural condition but the product of a society that prefers not to see, not to hear, not to speak. It's a form of silent violence that adds to the suffering of those already facing difficult decisions.

Breaking this isolation is possible. It means creating safe spaces for discussion, allowing the sharing of factual information without moral prejudices, and above all recognizing that self-determination is a fundamental human right that shouldn't be experienced in solitude.

The real challenge isn't so much guaranteeing the right to self-determination itself, but allowing this right to be exercised in the light of day, with the support and understanding of the community, without having to add the weight of solitude to decisions that are already complex in themselves.

×

December 24, 2024

The Economy of Suffering

What is the cost of preventing someone from deciding about their own life? We're not just talking about terminally ill patients or those suffering from debilitating conditions. We're talking about human beings who, with full lucidity and awareness, decide that their journey has come to an end. The price of denying this freedom is much higher than we can imagine.

The Price of Forced Existence

Modern society has built a complex system of constraints that forces people to continue existing, even when they have made a different choice. It's not just about laws and prohibitions, but an entire economic and social apparatus that transforms existence into an obligation rather than a choice.

Life thus becomes a categorical imperative, no longer a right but a duty. A duty that carries enormous costs, not only for the individual forced to continue an existence they no longer desire but for the entire society.

The Hidden Costs

When someone decides they no longer want to live but is forced to do so, it triggers a chain of rarely considered economic consequences:

• Forced productivity in work environments
• Obligatory consumption of goods and services
• Maintenance of unwanted social relationships
• Use of public resources for "prevention" and control

Conclusion

A mature society must be ready to accept that life's value isn't measured in years or GDP contributions, but in the freedom to manage it according to one's own convictions and decisions.

×

December 15, 2024

Not Just Terminal Patients

When discussing conscious choice and self-determination in end-of-life situations, the conversation is almost always channeled towards terminal patients. "Of course," society says, "in those cases we can discuss." But this restrictive view hides a deeper truth: self-determination is a fundamental right that shouldn't depend on any physical condition.

Life's Banquet

As Lucretius wrote in the third book of "De Rerum Natura": "Have you eaten enough? Have you enjoyed the feast? Rise and leave the table." There's no need to reach nausea, no need to consume every dish to the last crumb. The banquet can end when we feel we have lived enough.

The "Justification" Trap

Society seems willing to accept a choice only when it can be "justified" by extreme medical conditions. As if the freedom to choose required "permission" based on external criteria, rather than individual awareness.

Conclusion

A truly free and civil society should recognize the right to self-determination for all its members, not just those who can "justify" their choice with a terminal illness.

×

December 10, 2024

The Words That Kill

Every day we hear words like "suicide", "to kill oneself", "to take one's life" - terms loaded with stigma and moral judgment. The choice of language is never casual: it's a powerful tool to direct thought and control the debate on self-determination.

The Power of Words

When someone speaks of "suicide", it immediately evokes images of desperation, mental illness, tragedy. When instead we talk about "conscious choice" or "self-determination", the focus shifts to individual dignity and freedom.

Conclusion

Words have the power to liberate or to chain. It's time to adopt language that respects the dignity of individual choices, that doesn't judge, that doesn't stigmatize, that doesn't kill.

×

December 3, 2024

The Value of Life: A Matter of Geography?

The sanctity of human life seems to have precise boundaries. When an individual seeks to self-determine, society rises up scandalized. But this same society remains strangely silent when lives are cut short en masse, thousands of miles away.

The Variable Geometry of Morality

We observe this disconcerting disparity: an individual asking to decide about their own life is opposed by every means, while entire populations can be sacrificed on the altar of "reason of state".

Conclusion

The time has come to recognize that the true sanctity of life lies in respecting individual choices, not in its instrumentalization for political or economic ends.

×

November 26, 2024

Deontology or Alibi? When Silence Kills

Fifty years ago, a young nurse handed a vial to someone who was reflecting on freedom of choice, saying: "Here, now you are free to decide." That vial was never used, but for years it represented an incredible source of serenity and freedom.

The Tale of Two Doctors

The case of those two doctors who refused to help a man asking for information is emblematic. The man walked thirty meters away and shot himself. Their "deontology" avoided providing information but caused a violent and traumatic death.

The Deontology of Silence

But what is this deontology that allows someone to go towards a violent death? That permits denying information that could prevent trauma?

Conclusion

Sometimes the true respect for deontology lies precisely in going beyond its formal limits to respect its deeper spirit: helping people to live - and, if they desire and choose it, to die - with dignity and serenity.

×

November 24, 2024

Who's Afraid of Self-Determination?

Self-determination in end-of-life is a fundamental human right, yet it continues to face strong resistance in many societies. To better understand these oppositions, we need to analyze the interests - economic, political, and ideological - that hide behind the denial of this fundamental freedom.

The Interests at Play

The current system serves multiple interests: from religious institutions to the private healthcare system, from the pharmaceutical industry to insurance companies.

Conclusion

The right to self-determination doesn't threaten society - it strengthens it, recognizing the dignity and autonomy of every human being.

×

November 17, 2024

Natural Stupidity: The Paradox of Acceptable Deaths

Our society has developed a complex system of "acceptable deaths". Young people sent to die in senseless wars: acceptable. Civilians bombed in the name of democracy: acceptable. Deaths at work to cut costs: acceptable. People who consciously choose to end their existence with dignity: unacceptable.

"Natural Stupidity"

This is what we might define as "natural stupidity" - the uniquely human capacity to accept the unacceptable while refusing the reasonable.

Conclusion

The real stupidity isn't in claiming the right to a dignified death. It's in accepting a system that considers mass deaths "normal" while being scandalized by conscious individual choices.

×

November 10, 2024

Society's Double Standard: Cui Prodest?

It's a disturbing paradox of our "civil" society: I can freely buy a weapon on the black market, I can jump from a building, I can throw myself under a train - but if I ask for information about how to conclude my existence peacefully and with dignity, I encounter a wall of scandalized refusal.

Cui Prodest?

Who benefits from this contradiction? Who benefits from forcing people into violent and traumatic choices, denying them the possibility of a peaceful and dignified farewell?

Conclusion

True civilization lies not in pretending certain choices don't exist, but in allowing them to happen in the least traumatic way possible.

×

November 3, 2024

Free Spirits: A Nietzschean Reflection on Freedom of Choice

When Nietzsche dedicated "Human, All Too Human" to free spirits, he wasn't simply addressing his book to an existing audience. He was invoking a type of human being that, according to him, was yet to come: one who would free themselves from all moral, religious, and social chains.

True Freedom

For Nietzsche, being free meant having the courage to think the unthinkable, to challenge conventions. For us today, it means claiming the right to be masters not only of our life but also of its conclusion.

Conclusion

As Nietzsche dedicated his book to the free spirits yet to come, we dedicate our movement to all those who believe in total freedom - including the