Terry Pratchett ready to be test case for suicide law

[Knife]

That said, that's getting into the nitty gritty of laws; I bring it up some what like Shroomy because the very idea that some one wants to kill themselves is in all other realms a sign of mental illness.

As much as people'd go on about how it's shitstaining to say that all people who want to die have mental illness, it IS a fact that wanting to die IS a legitimate health problem. "Risk for self-harm/injury" and "Risk for suicide" is a nursing problem/diagnosis according to our books (you guys use the NANDA, right Knife?) and DOES require intervention. Jesus Christ, what kind of healthcare professionals would we be if we just let people fucking die just because they "felt" like they "wanted" to kill themselves then and there? That's bloody contrary to what we're supposed to be doing, which is helping people LIVE HEALTHILY. If they want to die, then there's obviously something UN-HEALTHY that should be fixed so that they'll WANT to LIVE. Assisted suicide should be an absolute last resort, not a first resort.

Sure, like I just posted, they have a RIGHT to refuse treatment; however, as medical personnel we have an ethical duty to recognize and attempt to treat mental illness that may be affecting them and their judgment.

[Shroom Man 777]

It doesn't have to be mental illness at all, just another problem that's affecting their outlook and... well, that's making them want to kill themselves. In most circumstances, suicide/killing yourself doesn't really make things better for anyone at all - not the person who's dead, not the grieving and traumatized and horrified people they leave behind (hell, it might even increase THEIR chances of suicide, or at least fuck them up badly). I mean, geeze, you're going to have to be in a pretty terrible state for death to be a preferable alternative to life - and a LOT of suicides aren't from terminally ill people who are in constant pain, a LOT of those suicides are from people who've eaten guns or jumped off buildings when other SOLUTIONS might've helped fix their lives and the lives of their loved ones better!

The fact that we're killing them instead of doing other things that would make suicide unnecessary at all would reflect poorly on medical/health care personnel - it shows that we're not doing our fucking jobs right!

We're supposed to be HELPING people! Since when is killing people helping them?! Yes, for those circumstances when life is too painful or too costly. But for other circumstances? The situation we're discussing here, with seriously ill people wanting euthanesia, is NOT applicable to a whole lot of suicides.

[Singular Intellect]

It seems to me Shroom Man 777 that we're mostly in agreement; the goal we want is to try to give people the options for treatment for the causes of their suicidal impulse. The fact is that if people are aware of society's willingnes to give them a humane way to end their lives and all we ask in return is for them to let us give them possible alternatives, we're intervening in those gun eating/building jumping/etc cases because they have a better, more human solution available.

Where we might differ is my assertion that once all possible options have been explored and said person still wishes to die, it's inhumane for society to say 'fuck you, we won't give you the means to die humanely, you'll be forced to eat a gun or jump off a cliff, etc'. All because we arbitrarily declare we know the worth of their life better than the one living it.

Whether the person is 'objectively suffering' or not makes no real difference; all society can do is determine whether we're capable of convincing them otherwise, either through therapy, drugs, maybe just time to cool off, etc. So long as those options are never forced upon them.

In the end, when we're faced with an individual who's going to kill themselves no matter what we do, as a society we can either give them a humane means to do so, or force them to take more violent and disruptive measures to accomplish their objective.

I see zero rational justification for the latter.

[Shroom Man 777]

I guess so. Eh. But the problem is, aside from cases where people are so sick that they'd be better off dead rather than enduring the pain of their illness... eh, we just don't know how the ones who are "going to kill themselves no matter what we do" respond to therapy. Or do we? I don't know. I mean, geeze, so a person who's not sick, who's not ill, who's not in financial, social, personal, or whatever difficulty, who's not on medication because he has no mood disorder or imbalance, whose family loves him very much, who has no problem (that might cause him to want to kill himself) to fix, just wants to kill himself and there's nothing anyone can do about it and inevitably he's just going to off himself? What?

Honestly, if there's a person who's going to kill himself no matter what's done to try to help him, I would have no idea what to do, man. Just have him do it himself? Help him kill himself? What the hell?

What kind of person is this, anyway? What kind of suicidal person, what type of suicidal whatever, are we talking about? That's nuts!

[Singular Intellect]

I guess so. Eh. But the problem is, aside from cases where people are so sick that they'd be better off dead rather than enduring the pain of their illness... eh, we just don't know how the ones who are "going to kill themselves no matter what we do" respond to therapy. Or do we? I don't know. I mean, geeze, so a person who's not sick, who's not ill, who's not in financial, social, personal, or whatever difficulty, who's not on medication because he has no mood disorder or imbalance, whose family loves him very much, who has no problem (that might cause him to want to kill himself) to fix, just wants to kill himself and there's nothing anyone can do about it and inevitably he's just going to off himself? What?

And therein lies the problem. You're so uncomfortable with the idea of people ending their own lives that you'll seize on any excuse to insist they are functioning under mental duress and not making a decision they otherwise would, because of your personal judgement value of life.

You're simply going to have to come to terms with the fact there are people who don't hold life in the same light as you do, those that who don't place it on your pedestal that must be preserved at all costs.

Honestly, if there's a person who's going to kill himself no matter what's done to try to help him, I would have no idea what to do, man. Just have him do it himself? Help him kill himself? What the hell?

What kind of person is this, anyway? What kind of suicidal person, what type of suicidal whatever, are we talking about? That's nuts!

See above. You're argument against those who want to commit suicide fixates on absolutely any excuse to define it as a problem that shouldn't permit the outcome. Anyone who considers suicide a viable option must be mentally ill, right? Historically, other groups of people were also classified in the same catagory. Atheist? Mentally ill! Homosexual? Mentally ill! Suicidal? Mentally ill!

Said person has financial debt? Lost a loved one? Their dog died? Their car got taken away? Lost their internet connection?

My point is a person's reasoning ultimately doesn't matter, although it certainly help society when doing our best to present alternate options for said person.

You can't force a person to want to live, and I strongly object to bullying tactics like 'you're hurting other people by ending your own life', which is just another way of saying 'what you want doesn't matter, it's what other people want from you that does'.

[Shroom Man 777]

There's a difference between religion, sexual orientation, and wanting to kill yourself. If the value of life was so dependent on the individual person's perspective, then what's the whole bloody point of trying to present "alternate options" if wanting to kill oneself was as trivial as religion or sexual orientation preferences and isn't, in fact, a self-destructive impulse? According to your logic, these "alternate options" are like having society try to convince a homosexual by presenting him "alternate orifices" or trying to convince a non-Christian by presenting him alternate names to call his holidays (from Kwanza to Hanukkah to Kurisumasu) - which are all matters of personal preference. If killing oneself was as unobjectionable as religion or sex, then why bother at all with presenting alternate choices? I mean, hey, gun-sandwiches and brain-wall-paintings are totally okay, right?

[Knife]

And therein lies the problem. You're so uncomfortable with the idea of people ending their own lives that you'll seize on any excuse to insist they are functioning under mental duress and not making a decision they otherwise would, because of your personal judgement value of life.

You're simply going to have to come to terms with the fact there are people who don't hold life in the same light as you do, those that who don't place it on your pedestal that must be preserved at all costs.

That may be true, but you are equally wrong on the other side by thinking they have some sort of 'right' to it. Stopping medicine from extending life is different than asking medicine to actively end life.

[Shroom Man 777]

Frankly, the fact that suicide is being equated on the same level as religious preference or gender identity is fucked up. But hey, killing people is a-okay and there's totally no problem at all when someone wants to fucking kill himself! It's totally just a matter of personal preference!

[Singular Intellect]

That may be true, but you are equally wrong on the other side by thinking they have some sort of 'right' to it. Stopping medicine from extending life is different than asking medicine to actively end life.

In both cases, the only thing concerning me is the person making that decision, and that should be the person who's getting the medicine. Not someone else who will decide whether or not that person's life is 'worth living'.

There's a difference between religion, sexual orientation, and wanting to kill yourself.

Not in the context I'm talking about, which is simply arbitrarily declaring something as mental illness simply because you don't personally understand or subscribe to it.

If the value of life was so dependent on the individual person's perspective, then what's the whole bloody point of trying to present "alternate options" if wanting to kill oneself was as trivial as religion or sexual orientation preferences and isn't, in fact, a self-destructive impulse?

There is absolutely no denial on my part that suicide is 'self destructive' in the physical sense. My objection is to the argument 'that is absolutely unacceptable', which is what I feel I'm getting from you.

According to your logic, these "alternate options" are like having society try to convince a homosexual by presenting him "alternate orifices" or trying to convince a non-Christian by presenting him alternate names to call his holidays (from Kwanza to Hanukkah to Kurisumasu) - which are all matters of personal preference. If killing oneself was as unobjectionable as religion or sex, then why bother at all with presenting alternate choices? I mean, hey, gun-sandwiches and brain-wall-paintings are totally okay, right?

At what point did I lose you whereas I've been suggesting the goal is to avoid forcing individuals into violent and disruptive means of ending their lives, if in the end we cannot convince them life is worth living? Give them the humane tools to end their lives peacefully if we can't convince them life is worth living for themselves.

Obviously you and I have our reasons for considering life worth living; the difference is I'm not so arrogant to think my reasons must be good enough for anyone else or that other people should be subject to my personal judgement values. People have the right to decide for themselves if life is worth living; all I and others can justifiably do is present alternative solutions, and if those solutions aren't good enough for a person, we shouldn't stand in their way. But neither should we just say 'fine, we can't convince you not to end your life, go find your gun/cliff/train, we're not going to help you because our views are different from yours."

[Knife]

In both cases, the only thing concerning me is the person making that decision, and that should be the person who's getting the medicine. Not someone else who will decide whether or not that person's life is 'worth living'.

Again, incorrect. Society has a duty to consider a persons place inside of it. Or more practically, if a person is using the infrastructure of a society, let alone bring pain to family and loss of productiveness by using infrastructure like health care, society as a whole and the members of the infrastructure have an ethical duty to help decide. Unless you live in a lean-to out in the middle of butt-fuck nowhere, your actions have consequences to others around you, as such we have a ethical responsibility to partake in those choices. The very fact that voters, congress critters, and I'll assume lawyers and judges, that made it possible for Oregon to have the laws it does for doctor assisted suicide, demonstrates this point explicitly.

A person can make up his or her own mind to whether THEY feel like their life is worth living, but society also has the same right to determine if society thinks that persons life is worth living and direct it's infrastructure accordingly.

[Alyrium Denryle]

In both cases, the only thing concerning me is the person making that decision, and that should be the person who's getting the medicine. Not someone else who will decide whether or not that person's life is 'worth living'.

In other words you reject the notion that people have moral obligations to others, and that we have a right to enforce those obligations.

Read Ayn Rand much?

Not in the context I'm talking about, which is simply arbitrarily declaring something as mental illness simply because you don't personally understand or subscribe to it.

Except that it is not arbitrary. To want to die when you one does not have a good rational reason (like intractable pain, or the prospect of slowly losing what it is to be them) is a sure sign that they are mentally ill or distraught. These things are measurable with the right equipment, but generally we dont need that to get to a diagnosis.

People have the right to decide for themselves if life is worth living; all I and others can justifiably do is present alternative solutions, and if those solutions aren't good enough for a person, we shouldn't stand in their way.

And fuck everyone else who has an interest in that person? Damn the fact that a person who, in the general case (IE. not a case where they have a rational reason) is not in their right mind?

Are you high? Have you ever seen the devestation that happens to a person's loved ones when they kill themselves?

At least with medical cases the people around generally acknowledge that yes, this person has a good reason, and are prepared for it. They can grieve as if the illness killed them but take solace in the fact that the loved one did not suffer or waste away.

What you propose is fucking monstrous.

[Singular Intellect]

In both cases, the only thing concerning me is the person making that decision, and that should be the person who's getting the medicine. Not someone else who will decide whether or not that person's life is 'worth living'.

Again, incorrect. Society has a duty to consider a persons place inside of it. Or more practically, if a person is using the infrastructure of a society, let alone bring pain to family and loss of productiveness by using infrastructure like health care, society as a whole and the members of the infrastructure have an ethical duty to help decide. Unless you live in a lean-to out in the middle of butt-fuck nowhere, your actions have consequences to others around you, as such we have a ethical responsibility to partake in those choices. The very fact that voters, congress critters, and I'll assume lawyers and judges, that made it possible for Oregon to have the laws it does for doctor assisted suicide, demonstrates this point explicitly.

A person can make up his or her own mind to whether THEY feel like their life is worth living, but society also has the same right to determine if society thinks that persons life is worth living and direct it's infrastructure accordingly.

Alright, I'll concede society has the capability to assign worth to any given individual. Doesn't change my point though; the decision to remain alive sits solely with the individual, not society. Not unless you're adovcating a slavery mentality whereas an individual is forced to remain alive for 'society's purposes', which is truly an abhorrent concept.

[Knife]

Alright, I'll concede society has the capability to assign worth to any given individual. Doesn't change my point though; the decision to remain alive sits solely with the individual, not society. Not unless you're adovcating a slavery mentality whereas an individual is forced to remain alive for 'society's purposes', which is truly an abhorrent concept.

It is the exact opposite of what you berated Shroomy and his life above all else view. It is truely a muddled grey area where there is more than just a persons want to die and societies want to keep them alive, and it is why I take exception to some of the ethics being tossed around in this thread. I have sympathy for your view point, as I've pointed out I've participated in threads like this on your side of the issue; however, the ethics for society and for the medical personnel have relevance as well.

[Singular Intellect]

In both cases, the only thing concerning me is the person making that decision, and that should be the person who's getting the medicine. Not someone else who will decide whether or not that person's life is 'worth living'.

In other words you reject the notion that people have moral obligations to others, and that we have a right to enforce those obligations.

I reject the notion that any individual should be coerced into rejecting suicide simply because others don't want that outcome.

Not in the context I'm talking about, which is simply arbitrarily declaring something as mental illness simply because you don't personally understand or subscribe to it.

Except that it is not arbitrary. To want to die when you one does not have a good rational reason (like intractable pain, or the prospect of slowly losing what it is to be them) is a sure sign that they are mentally ill or distraught. These things are measurable with the right equipment, but generally we dont need that to get to a diagnosis.

Your premise is that the desire to die by default suggestions mental illness. I don't dispute that possibility; what I dispute is the notion that desire to die is caused only by mental illness.

People have the right to decide for themselves if life is worth living; all I and others can justifiably do is present alternative solutions, and if those solutions aren't good enough for a person, we shouldn't stand in their way.

And fuck everyone else who has an interest in that person? Damn the fact that a person who, in the general case (IE. not a case where they have a rational reason) is not in their right mind?

Other people's emotional considerations are not something to be dismissed out of hand, but attempting to coerce someone to stay alive for the benefit of others is an abhorrent argument. You can justify slavery on the same grounds.

Are you high? Have you ever seen the devestation that happens to a person's loved ones when they kill themselves?

Yes, I have. And it in no ways alters my position that if someone truly wants to die, we don't have any kind of ethical justification to prevent them from doing so.

At least with medical cases the people around generally acknowledge that yes, this person has a good reason, and are prepared for it. They can grieve as if the illness killed them but take solace in the fact that the loved one did not suffer or waste away.

What you propose is fucking monstrous.

No, what you're proposing is monstrous; suggesting that a person's life isn't theirs to do with as they please. I get irked at those who think it's ethical to try and emotionally bully those who want to end their own lives.

If someone truly wants to die and rejects society's presented options for alternative solutions, we should not stand in their way. By that logic, neither we should we force them to seek out violent and disruptive means of ending their lives because we lack the compassion to let them die humanely.

[Broomstick]

Your premise is that the desire to die by default suggestions mental illness. I don't dispute that possibility; what I dispute is the notion that desire to die is caused only by mental illness.

Actually NO ONE in this thread argues that mental illness is the ONLY reason to want to die. Every person (including myself) has mentioned that intractable pain or terminal illness can be a valid reason.

Other people's emotional considerations are not something to be dismissed out of hand, but attempting to coerce someone to stay alive for the benefit of others is an abhorrent argument. You can justify slavery on the same grounds.

Are you high? Have you ever seen the devestation that happens to a person's loved ones when they kill themselves?

Yes, I have. And it in no ways alters my position that if someone truly wants to die, we don't have any kind of ethical justification to prevent them from doing so.

You are arguing that there is no justification from preventing one person from harming others? WTF kind of jacked up "ethics" are you operating from?

No, what you're proposing is monstrous; suggesting that a person's life isn't theirs to do with as they please.

Well, it's not - and that doesn't apply to just suicide. You aren't allowed to murder others, even if it "pleases" you, you aren't free to rape children, even if it "pleases" you, and so on.

[hunter5]

Well, it's not - and that doesn't apply to just suicide. You aren't allowed to murder others, even if it "pleases" you, you aren't free to rape children, even if it "pleases" you, and so on.

To put it another way it is illegal to emotionally abuse someone by doing and saying hurtful things. Suicide is a very hurtful act and can emotionally harm someone else therefore your action of committing suicide has violated the rights of someone else therefore you can't have the right to hurt or kill yourself (exceptions permitting) because it will violate the rights of others.

[Broomstick]

Crap- third paragraph of the above post of mine should have either been deleted or quoted, and it seems I can't edit any longer. If a passing mod would like to correct that, great, otherwise, make note the error

[Alyrium Denryle]

I reject the notion that any individual should be coerced into rejecting suicide simply because others don't want that outcome.

Which is extensionally equivalent to saying that people have no obligations to others.

The two are identical statements, just worded differently.

Your premise is that the desire to die by default suggestions mental illness. I don't dispute that possibility; what I dispute is the notion that desire to die is caused only by mental illness.

As I specified, there are valid reasons like intractable pain, the wasting away of the self that comes with some degenerative neurological conditions etc. Those are valid reasons, and the families of those suffering from conditions like that typically understand it, and can deal with it as they were going to deal with the eventual death had it come later.

Arbitrarily deciding to off one's self is a sign of mental illness. It flies against the massive survival instincts built into our brains, and is a damn sure sign of mental illness.

You can justify slavery on the same grounds.

Not very easily. This argument does not imply ownership of the other person. It simply argues that the individual has obligations to society, and to the people who love them, that make it unethical for them to arbitrarily kill themselves. There are a lot of things that we coerce people to do in society because of their moral obligations to others. Like taking care of children, and paying taxes.

Are you going to say that slavery can be justified using the rationale for that as well?

[Singular Intellect]

Actually NO ONE in this thread argues that mental illness is the ONLY reason to want to die. Every person (including myself) has mentioned that intractable pain or terminal illness can be a valid reason.

Let me rephrase then: people seem to be suggesting that unless suffering some severe physical pain or terminal illness, the only reason a person would contemplate suicide is mental illness rather than exercising choice.

You are arguing that there is no justification from preventing one person from harming others? WTF kind of jacked up "ethics" are you operating from?

There's no dispute that in most cases someone ending their life is going to emotionally injure others.

However, unless we discover immortality anytime soon, everyone is eventually going to die and contribute to emotional strain on others. The only difference here is denying individuals to die on their own terms, deny them the choice, and that's unacceptable.

Well, it's not - and that doesn't apply to just suicide. You aren't allowed to murder others, even if it "pleases" you, you aren't free to rape children, even if it "pleases" you, and so on.

We're not talking about murder or physically hurting other people. We're talking about allowing individuals to chose for themselves if they want to live or not.

If you're going to claim emotional blackmail is a valid reason for preventing a person from exercising choice, then you'd also have to support the action of denying a homosexual the choice of engaging in homosexual activity if it's demostrated that that choice inflicts emotional/physcological pain on other people (like loved ones).

Unfortunately, there are examples of family and loved ones being emotionally injured by such examples, yet that carries no weight with me regarding the fact said individual should be permitted to do as they please.

Nobody choses to be gay, just as nobody choses to be born. I assert society has no right to dictate what choices a person makes based on who they are, whether it's who they have intercourse with or how and when they die.

To put it another way it is illegal to emotionally abuse someone by doing and saying hurtful things. Suicide is a very hurtful act and can emotionally harm someone else therefore your action of committing suicide has violated the rights of someone else therefore you can't have the right to hurt or kill yourself (exceptions permitting) because it will violate the rights of others.

If you're going to argue that someone's rights are being violated, the more severe case is the one where a person is being denied a choice regarding their own life.

I reject the notion that any individual should be coerced into rejecting suicide simply because others don't want that outcome.

Which is extensionally equivalent to saying that people have no obligations to others.

The two are identical statements, just worded differently.

I'm not saying people don't have obligations to others. Obviously we do; I'd agree every individual does have obligations to others, but those obligations only go so far.

Forcing someone to live against their will is stepping over the line; there's no compassionate or humane reason justifying that, obligations to others notwithststanding.

Your premise is that the desire to die by default suggestions mental illness. I don't dispute that possibility; what I dispute is the notion that desire to die is caused only by mental illness.

As I specified, there are valid reasons like intractable pain, the wasting away of the self that comes with some degenerative neurological conditions etc. Those are valid reasons, and the families of those suffering from conditions like that typically understand it, and can deal with it as they were going to deal with the eventual death had it come later.

Arbitrarily deciding to off one's self is a sign of mental illness. It flies against the massive survival instincts built into our brains, and is a damn sure sign of mental illness.

I agree for the most part; what I don't agree with is the suggestion that unless a individual is suffering physically or from terminal illness, the only other possible alternative is mental illness.

You can justify slavery on the same grounds.

Not very easily. This argument does not imply ownership of the other person. It simply argues that the individual has obligations to society, and to the people who love them, that make it unethical for them to arbitrarily kill themselves. There are a lot of things that we coerce people to do in society because of their moral obligations to others. Like taking care of children, and paying taxes.

Taking care of children, paying taxes, etc are indeed obligations, but they are still optional ones. Children are a optional choice and dictated by choices made; paying taxes are a optional choice dependent upon one's desire to live in a society that requires them to maintain itself.

Continuing one's existence is absolutely an optional choice, since no person every had the ability to chose to exist in the first place.

[Broomstick]

Actually NO ONE in this thread argues that mental illness is the ONLY reason to want to die. Every person (including myself) has mentioned that intractable pain or terminal illness can be a valid reason.

Let me rephrase then: people seem to be suggesting that unless suffering some severe physical pain or terminal illness, the only reason a person would contemplate suicide is mental illness rather than exercising choice.

Bullshit. In no way is say "usually suicidal actions are a symptom of mental illness" saying that is the ONLY reason. You're attempting to force people into a stance they don't hold.

Another, non-mental illness reason is suicide to save others, like the iconic "soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his fellows" scenario. That, arguably, is a valid reason to kill oneself. So there's another reason - which, frankly, I'm very surprised you don't use an example.

There's no dispute that in most cases someone ending their life is going to emotionally injure others.

Not most cases - ALL cases.

However, unless we discover immortality anytime soon, everyone is eventually going to die and contribute to emotional strain on others.

Some deaths are more emotionally painful than others. WTF is wrong with you? Have you never experienced the death of someone you care about?

The only difference here is denying individuals to die on their own terms, deny them the choice, and that's unacceptable.

No, the issue is causing others pain, and when it is or is not justified. The answer being "not usually justified".

Well, it's not - and that doesn't apply to just suicide. You aren't allowed to murder others, even if it "pleases" you, you aren't free to rape children, even if it "pleases" you, and so on.

We're not talking about murder or physically hurting other people. We're talking about allowing individuals to chose for themselves if they want to live or not.

You don't know that emotional pain can be every bit as bad as physical pain? How old are you, 12? No, it's not OK to hurt people, especially not in as painful a manner as suicide is to those left behind.

If you're going to claim emotional blackmail is a valid reason for preventing a person from exercising choice, then you'd also have to support the action of denying a homosexual the choice of engaging in homosexual activity if it's demostrated that that choice inflicts emotional/physcological pain on other people (like loved ones).

That is the reason some people stay in the closet, but while you might be able to conceal homosexuality you can't conceal that you're dead. Seriously, you are incapable of seeing a different there?

Unfortunately, there are examples of family and loved ones being emotionally injured by such examples, yet that carries no weight with me regarding the fact said individual should be permitted to do as they please.

I see - you're all about selfish. Well, I now know what sort of morally bankrupt piece of shit you are.

Mind you - I'm not telling you to change. Believe and feel how you want. And I will continue to feel as I want - that you are an unethical slimeball.

I assert society has no right to dictate what choices a person makes based on who they are, whether it's who they have intercourse with or how and when they die.

So... if someone is planning to die by blowing up themselves up in a building full of people society has no obligation to stop that individual to prevent them from killing OTHER people? But what if that's how the person really really wants to die? Whose rights take precedence?

You don't have a "right" to hurt people ever.

To put it another way it is illegal to emotionally abuse someone by doing and saying hurtful things. Suicide is a very hurtful act and can emotionally harm someone else therefore your action of committing suicide has violated the rights of someone else therefore you can't have the right to hurt or kill yourself (exceptions permitting) because it will violate the rights of others.

If you're going to argue that someone's rights are being violated, the more severe case is the one where a person is being denied a choice regarding their own life.

How do you justify that? After all, the suicide has no feelings once he or she is dead, but the living left behind could endure DECADES of pain from that act. You're OK with that? Seems to me you're holding the dead person's "rights" as being more important of those of multiple living people left behind.

I agree for the most part; what I don't agree with is the suggestion that unless a individual is suffering physically or from terminal illness, the only other possible alternative is mental illness.

Examples have been given.

You just will not accept that "mental illness" is NOT seen as a valid reason to off yourself, will you?

[hunter5]

If you're going to argue that someone's rights are being violated, the more severe case is the one where a person is being denied a choice regarding their own life.

An individuals rights end the moment their choice affects the rights another living human being.

[Singular Intellect]

Bullshit. In no way is say "usually suicidal actions are a symptom of mental illness" saying that is the ONLY reason. You're attempting to force people into a stance they don't hold.

I'm not disputing most suicidal people are 'usually suffering mental illness' of some sort. What I'm disputing is that all individuals contemplating suicide must be mentally ill, even if they don't have any physical pain or terminal disease.

Another, non-mental illness reason is suicide to save others, like the iconic "soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his fellows" scenario. That, arguably, is a valid reason to kill oneself. So there's another reason - which, frankly, I'm very surprised you don't use an example.

I'm not talking about people sacrificing themselves to save others. I'm talking about people chosing the option of ending their lives (and only theirs) without being forced to bend to the criteria you and others insist they must meet before being 'allowed' to do so.

There's no dispute that in most cases someone ending their life is going to emotionally injure others.

Not most cases - ALL cases.

Your idealistic notion of every human being being loved by others is nice, but unrealistic. Maybe you need to get out into the real world more.

Some deaths are more emotionally painful than others. WTF is wrong with you? Have you never experienced the death of someone you care about?

Why would I deny that, if someone I cared about choses to end their life, it would be emotionally painful for me? This doesn't justify my position of 'you're not allowed to end your own life because of how it affects me'. It's their life, not mine.

The only difference here is denying individuals to die on their own terms, deny them the choice, and that's unacceptable.

No, the issue is causing others pain, and when it is or is not justified. The answer being "not usually justified".

Ah, so if someone truly wants to die and yet suffers from no physical pain or terminal illness, you're position is 'fuck them, they need to stick around so other people don't get hurt'?

Insisting a person must stay alive so others don't experience emotional strain is fucking cruel and inhumane.

Emotional pain is a part of life. Dying is a part of life. Deal with it. And while you're dealing with it, kindly don't step in and pretend your attempts to infringe on other people's choices is a matter of being 'selfless'.

We can give people alternative choices, we can do our best to convince them life is worth living. Indeed, having a system in place whereas people are aware of society's willingness to provide humane ways to die could have a very positive effect: it could easily prevent many suicide victims from chosing more violent and disruptive means of killing themselves, while at the same time giving us the opportunity to convince them maybe it's not the best solution.

I repeat: if somone truly wants to die, they are going to kill themselves, one way or another. Now as a society we can either provide humane and civilized means to do so while giving said society a chance to convince them otherwise, or force them to hang themselves in a closet/eat a gun sandwich in their garage because certain fuckwits insist anyone wanting to die should not be allowed to do so.

For some reason, you're insisting on the latter.

You don't know that emotional pain can be every bit as bad as physical pain? How old are you, 12? No, it's not OK to hurt people, especially not in as painful a manner as suicide is to those left behind.

See above. You're basically saying 'fuck anyone who wishes to die because their death can emotionally hurt other people'. You're insisting that their feelings and their desires mean nothing compared to others, even though it's their own life in the equation.

That is the reason some people stay in the closet, but while you might be able to conceal homosexuality you can't conceal that you're dead. Seriously, you are incapable of seeing a different there?

Ah, so you're of the opinion that being forced to 'stay in the closet' is a good thing because coming out can emotionally affect others negatively?

Maybe instead there should be a focus on changing society's perceptions on issues like these, not forcing individuals to compensate for humanity's immature attitudes.

I see - you're all about selfish. Well, I now know what sort of morally bankrupt piece of shit you are.

Everyone is selfish; deal with it. Selfish reasons are why people like you insist suicide is a unacceptable option; you seemingly don't give a shit about the person who actually wants to die and think other people's feelings are more important than the individual's in question.

Let me put it this way: I love both my brothers very much. If one of them wanted to end their life, I would do everything in my power to give them reasons for living and staying around. If my reasons, arguments and feelings didn't change their desire and I have every reason to believe this is what they truly want, I would not stand in their way. And I sure as fuck wouldn't pretend my personal feelings are more important than theirs. That would be seriously fucking selfish.

I love my brothers enough to concede that their life is theirs. They don't 'owe me' anything.

Mind you - I'm not telling you to change. Believe and feel how you want. And I will continue to feel as I want - that you are an unethical slimeball.

Just as I perceive your argument that people shouldn't be allowed to die if they freely chose to as a inhumane, cruel, emotionally blackmailing and bullshit stance, unless that decision meets criteria you personally approve of. Because it's all about what you approve of, not what others think, eh? And you have the audacity to throw 'selfish nature' in my direction.

So... if someone is planning to die by blowing up themselves up in a building full of people society has no obligation to stop that individual to prevent them from killing OTHER people? But what if that's how the person really really wants to die? Whose rights take precedence?

You don't have a "right" to hurt people ever.

We're not talking about anyone killing other people by virtue of killing themselves, and you fucking know it. People die, people get emotionally hurt when it happens. If you can't deal with this simple fact of life, that's not my problem.

You state the obvious and then pretend as if this common knowledge somehow justifies preventing people from deciding their own fate.

How do you justify that? After all, the suicide has no feelings once he or she is dead, but the living left behind could endure DECADES of pain from that act. You're OK with that?

Yes, I am. Because every person's life belongs to them and them alone; not to others and most certainly not to holier than thou self righteous people who think it's their right to dictate whether a person can chose to die or not.

Seems to me you're holding the dead person's "rights" as being more important of those of multiple living people left behind.

No, I'm talking about living people's rights. A person contemplating suicide is still alive, and still has rights. The arbitrary and subjective nature of rights aside, I've seen absolutely no reason to place the rights of any person over another.

I agree for the most part; what I don't agree with is the suggestion that unless a individual is suffering physically or from terminal illness, the only other possible alternative is mental illness.

Examples have been given.

You just will not accept that "mental illness" is NOT seen as a valid reason to off yourself, will you?

What I won't accept is your circular logic that mentally ill people contemplate suicide, therefore anyone contemplating suicide is mentally ill.

An individuals rights end the moment their choice affects the rights another living human being.

My sentiments exactly. I just don't subscribe to the notion that it's a human right to infringe on another person's choices just because it causes someone else emotional strain.

[Broomstick]

There's no dispute that in most cases someone ending their life is going to emotionally injure others.

Not most cases - ALL cases.

Your idealistic notion of every human being being loved by others is nice, but unrealistic. Maybe you need to get out into the real world more.[/quote]
You don't have to love someone to be hurt by their death. You don't even have to know the person to be hurt by their death. Or do you think people who witness suicide-by-train aren't hurt? What about the guy driving the train, who is instantly put on leave, taken to the hospital for drug testing, and subjected to inquiries and even if cleared by his employer my still be sued by the suicide's relatives because he couldn't change the laws of physics and stop that train on a dime - you think that doesn't hurt someone? Do you think that no one witnessing that is mentally traumatized by seeing a human being reduced to mush?

Or, how about the old homeless guy who offs himself - you think whoever cleans up the resulting mess is happy about that?

Ah, so if someone truly wants to die and yet suffers from no physical pain or terminal illness, you're position is 'fuck them, they need to stick around so other people don't get hurt'?

Yes.

Emotional pain is a part of life. Dying is a part of life. Deal with it.

I have dealt with it you amoral shitstain.

See above. You're basically saying 'fuck anyone who wishes to die because their death can emotionally hurt other people'. You're insisting that their feelings and their desires mean nothing compared to others, even though it's their own life in the equation.

No, I'm saying they have to have a good enough reason to justify causing that pain and "gee, I just don't feel like living" is NOT good enough!

That is the reason some people stay in the closet, but while you might be able to conceal homosexuality you can't conceal that you're dead. Seriously, you are incapable of seeing a different there?

Ah, so you're of the opinion that being forced to 'stay in the closet' is a good thing because coming out can emotionally affect others negatively?

Stop misrepresenting my words cocksucker - NOWHERE in that statement did I mention "force". Or do you think that homosexuals are incapable of choosing to withhold information on their own? Are you saying that you would force someone out of the closet no matter how THEY feel about it?

Everyone is selfish; deal with it. Selfish reasons are why people like you insist suicide is a unacceptable option; you seemingly don't give a shit about the person who actually wants to die and think other people's feelings are more important than the individual's in question.

I care a great deal about such people, that is why I don't hand them a bottle of pills and say "swallow". The reason I don't condone their proposed action is because I care.

Let me put it this way: I love both my brothers very much. If one of them wanted to end their life, I would do everything in my power to give them reasons for living and staying around. If my reasons, arguments and feelings didn't change their desire and I have every reason to believe this is what they truly want, I would not stand in their way.

Then you DON'T love them. You are a worthless, scum-sucking evil piece of shit. If you aren't willing to act to protect your brothers you... you're just a monster.

And I sure as fuck wouldn't pretend my personal feelings are more important than theirs. That would be seriously fucking selfish.

No - you will elevate the feelings of a suicide above all others. You still have not justified why the desires of the suicide (to die) outweigh those of multiple other people (not to suffer life-long pain).

I love my brothers enough to concede that their life is theirs. They don't 'owe me' anything.

If you don't care enough to intervene in the suicide of a loved one then you don't love them at all.

How do you justify that? After all, the suicide has no feelings once he or she is dead, but the living left behind could endure DECADES of pain from that act. You're OK with that?

Yes, I am. Because every person's life belongs to them and them alone; not to others and most certainly not to holier than thou self righteous people who think it's their right to dictate whether a person can chose to die or not.

I simply can not agree with your stance. You are putting one person's desire about those of everyone else who knows them. You are putting one person's pain above that of everyone else who knows them. Why is the suicide so privileged in your mind?

Seems to me you're holding the dead person's "rights" as being more important of those of multiple living people left behind.

No, I'm talking about living people's rights. A person contemplating suicide is still alive, and still has rights. The arbitrary and subjective nature of rights aside, I've seen absolutely no reason to place the rights of any person over another.

Yet you can't see that a suicide's act of suicide inherently violates the rights of other people.

What I won't accept is your circular logic that mentally ill people contemplate suicide, therefore anyone contemplating suicide is mentally ill.

You will STOP mischaracterizing my position RIGHT NOW. That is NOT what I have said, I have even given fucking examples to counter that argument.

An individuals rights end the moment their choice affects the rights another living human being.

My sentiments exactly. I just don't subscribe to the notion that it's a human right to infringe on another person's choices just because it causes someone else emotional strain.

I don't subscribe to the notion that the effect of one's actions on others is somehow irrelevant.

[hunter5]

My sentiments exactly. I just don't subscribe to the notion that it's a human right to infringe on another person's choices just because it causes someone else emotional strain.

So you are okay with emotional abuse after all that is nothing more than emotional strain. Your argument can be used to justify all sorts of abuse. You have obviously never had anyone close to you die or even have someone you care about have someone close to them die. I have seen it tear people apart to the point they can't function. That is more than "emotional strain", suicide is the most selfless act every and the only thing that gives you the right to hurt others is to protect yourself or others from harm. Please explain to me how killing one self protects anyone from harm?

[K. A. Pital]

Other people's emotional considerations are not something to be dismissed out of hand, but attempting to coerce someone to stay alive for the benefit of others is an abhorrent argument. You can justify slavery on the same grounds.

I'd heavily advise you to stop with the exaggerations and drama, Singular Intellect. Every time I hear someone rant about how X and Y is "the same as justifying slavery" or something, I get real angry because most of the time it's fucking idiot students writing who had no experience of privation. No, being "coerced" to live a normal, physically painless life (that is, not a life of eternal physical pain like in case of some diseases) is most definetely not comparable to slavery. If you are too much of a moron to understand it, don't throw around ridiculous comparisons.