However, I am also aware that moral relativism comes with it an objection that there can be no moral progress, and so that undermines any idea of making suggestion as core to this would be that there is no increased in 'goodness' by making the above changes - there is no room for progress.
Furthermore, my own arguments as to why we should be using moral relativism in this case (it increases autonomy, respect and dignity at the end of life) are all undermined by my previous argument that 'goodness' is not fixed and therefore the qualities that i am trying to promote are not inherently good. — AlexMcGram

I think it would depend on your position:

(1) There is no basis to say that anything is good or bad

OR

(2) Good and bad are relative to the individual

If the latter, ostensibly not just goodness itself, but the degree of goodness is relative. By providing more options, you are providing opportunity for the subjective goodness for that person to increase?

Our deaths affect those who are close to us and possibly the future and perhaps the whole of society that is based on social agreements. Many years ago I contemplated suicide and thought I would have to take others with me so they did not experience the pain of my death, and then I thought I had to take those associated with the people closest to me so they would not experience the pain of the deaths of those closest to me. Like the circle of people I would have to take with me just got bigger and bigger and I realized I could not undo my life. I could not not exist because we are all connected. At which point, I decided I could not take my own life so I better figure out how to make my life the best it can be.

However, this is many years later and my family has agreed euthanasia is okay when we have a condition that will sooner or later end our lives. Now the thought is what is a good life and then when that good life is not possible, what is a good death?

I want to go before I become a burden on others because of something like dementia or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. I do not want to be blind and deaf and forced to sit through family gatherings because they want to know I am loved. Now this is very problematic because the death would have to happen before it was too late for me to execute my own exit. In Oregon, we have the right to die, but this does not mean we can plan our deaths like we plan a wedding. I wish we could plan our deaths like we plan a wedding. I think the individual's death should be up to the individual and God (whatever god is) and that government should stay out of our final decision. None of us are going to get out of dying. It happens to all of us and what could be more important than how we manage this?

Next problem. I think we should maintain the courage to live as long as we have quality of life and that we should leave an explanation of our death if we so chose to end our lives. Oh, brother, is that a difficult thing to do! At least it is for me. What do I want my last communication with those closest to me to be? This is the future I am thinking about. How will my thoughts and actions affect those I leave behind and their children?

If we had planned deaths might that make it easier to have good closers with everyone concerned? A planned death would mean tieing up all the loose ends and not ending our lives perhaps years earlier than need be in fear that if we wait too long, we will become burdens on others and suffer a long time before we are finally released. What is the good life?

What is a good death? I think everyone I know agrees that means a fast and painless death. Like go to bed happy and just not wake up. How wise is it to deny that to anyone? I am at that time in life where I wonder, do I want all the tests and medicine that is about keeping me alive or should I make peace with my life and death and let nature take its course without doing things to extend my life? In case you miss the point- preventing me from planning my death means making decisions to avoid extending my life.

I've been thinking that moral relativism can provide a good framework to suggest that one's idea of 'goodness' in death is individually determined based on ones cultural and individual factors, and therefore the only definition of goodness in death can be 'that which is satisfactory to those involved. — AlexMcGram

When I talk about a "good death" I'm not making a moral statement. I mean that the death is psychologically satisfying to those involved, especially the person dying. What's considered a good death is certainly based on cultural and individual factors.

yes interesting distinction, thank you! I guess the first verges into anti-realism rather than moral relativism, and fortunately the second works with the arguement that I want to make - so it's maybe a good idea! Thanks :)

Yes that's true - but do you think that means you can't apply the concepts that moral relativism provide about morality to the concepts of 'goodness' within death? Is that a stupid way to think about metaethical theories? Would appreciate an opinion as I'm writing an essay on the subject.

I generally agree with your sentiment there Athena, especially when talking about the relationship with medicine and death. My personal opinion on the matter is that death has become too medicalised, and this striving of society towards prolonging life at all costs is generally detrimental to those involved. Planning death, in my opinion, does not necessarily mean shortening life, but it does allow people to create their own narrative around death, and have more autonomy over how they die.

I generally agree with your sentiment there Athena, especially when talking about the relationship with medicine and death. My personal opinion on the matter is that death has become too medicalised, and this striving of society towards prolonging life at all costs is generally detrimental to those involved. Planning death, in my opinion, does not necessarily mean shortening life, but it does allow people to create their own narrative around death, and have more autonomy over how they die. — AlexMcGram

Thank you so much for that agreement. Added to my concern is the difference money makes. If I could afford retirement living that cost a few thousand dollars monthly, I would be assured of having the best life money can provide. People I know can not afford that and they are struggling to manage without help as they lose their strength, energy, eyesight, and hearing. I am mindful of what I eat and I swim almost daily and work out in a gym to rebuild the strength I have lost because of inactivity. I am fighting to maintain my independence. This is about quality of life, right? But-

I keep thinking especially of one elderly neighbor who did not like family holidays when her family insisted she be present even though she was losing her vision and could not hear well enough to participate in discussions. She was an amazing woman but I do not want to experience life in that way because even though she was in the room with family, she felt isolated.

I cared for people with Alzheimer's and ALS. I do not want to lose my independence and this is especially a problem for those without money. We leave severely disabled people on the streets or isolated in apartments that get filthy because someone has lost the ability to maintain a home. They have called for help but there are not enough people nor enough money to meet the demand for help. Then we comfort ourselves by believing the homeless people want to be homeless and it probably is their own fault because of drugs. My Medical Care Provider is a very nice person but she is not in touch with reality. We do not live happily ever after and we might want to take that into consideration.

If we could set the boundaries of how bad is bad enough, we could risk being alive longer than we want but now we get into the fear of the state killing off people who are no longer useful. This is not pleasant to think about but as our numbers increase we may need to think about how to deal with reality. Just ignoring reality is not a solution.