Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a question of personal autonomy, and one that should be important to all freedom loving humans, regardless of whether or not one has ever fallen prey to a bout of suicidal ideation.
The right to commit suicide seems to be a very unpopular position to take, even in supposedly 'progressive' secular democracies. Whilst the right to die for terminally ill is gathering more support in recent years, most of us still seem to balk at the notion that physically healthy individuals should have the right to determine when they've had enough and wish to choose death instead of life.
Although suicide has been legalised in many countries, there are few, if any places in the world where the right to end ones life is legally protected. Someone who has failed to commit suicide, been intercepted in the process of preparing for suicide, or has disclosed personal information to a friend can still be detained for an unlimited amount of time (sometimes measured in years), in most countries, on the grounds of protecting them from themselves. Health authorities have even been sued by the families of suicidal individuals for allowing these patients to be released for an overnight stay at home.
Although a person who has been detained as a potential threat to himself might be able to provide rational explanations for his decision, and be able to pass through a battery of psychiatric tests without being diagnosed with a mental disorder; he is still not free to adhere to his personal philosophy. In this aspect of society, the religious right is still allowed to prevail and curtail freedom that might be distasteful to its adherents.
If you accept the notion that suicide should be forcibly prevented whenever it is possible to do so, then you accept the fact that your life does not belong to you; your body and life is property of the government.
With that said, do you believe that it is right for the government to protect us from ourselves? Do you believe in offering help to those in need or forcing it upon them? If you believe in forcing people to accept 'help', do you believe that if all these solutions fail, there is ever a time for mercy and for respecting a person's wishes?
In the US, the government does own us. We generate money and work 'for' them. They have a speculated $ amount attached to us based on the average life-span. They want to keep us alive.
While many reasons for suicide are just an 'easy way out', there are just as many that are valid or could be seen as honorable. What ever reason, right or wrong in the perspective of an individual, I am one who stands by having personal liberties.
If someone feels the need to end thier life, that should be their decision.
My take on this is that the prohibition of suicide is the legacy of medieval Christian morality. Suicide was/is seen as the sin of despair, and interestingly also the sin of pride. Despair is giving up on God and His ability to forgive, and pride is believing that one's crime is so great that even God cannot forgive you, thus placing yourself above God.
The ancient Romans practiced suicide, as did the Japanese traditionally. There may be others, although I suspect such things are generally rare. In most societies I suspect suicide was just not a part of the equation. You fought it out until you died, and that was life.
I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. I am saddened that some people give up on life so easily. On the other hand, I get that sometime the pain, be it physical of psychological, can be overwhelming.
Suicide being a taboo in our society stems from the christian belief system, as another poster has suggested. Personally I feel that it is the person right to end their life if they choose to do so, however, where does one draw the line on this. Is it okay for a 6 year old child to commit suicide, how about a teen is that okay?
This is a question of personal autonomy, and one that should be important to all freedom loving humans, regardless of whether or not one has ever fallen prey to a bout of suicidal ideation.
The right to commit suicide seems to be a very unpopular position to take, even in supposedly 'progressive' secular democracies. Whilst the right to die for terminally ill is gathering more support in recent years, most of us still seem to balk at the notion that physically healthy individuals should have the right to determine when they've had enough and wish to choose death instead of life.
Although suicide has been legalised in many countries, there are few, if any places in the world where the right to end ones life is legally protected. Someone who has failed to commit suicide, been intercepted in the process of preparing for suicide, or has disclosed personal information to a friend can still be detained for an unlimited amount of time (sometimes measured in years), in most countries, on the grounds of protecting them from themselves. Health authorities have even been sued by the families of suicidal individuals for allowing these patients to be released for an overnight stay at home.
Although a person who has been detained as a potential threat to himself might be able to provide rational explanations for his decision, and be able to pass through a battery of psychiatric tests without being diagnosed with a mental disorder; he is still not free to adhere to his personal philosophy. In this aspect of society, the religious right is still allowed to prevail and curtail freedom that might be distasteful to its adherents.
If you accept the notion that suicide should be forcibly prevented whenever it is possible to do so, then you accept the fact that your life does not belong to you; your body and life is property of the government.
With that said, do you believe that it is right for the government to protect us from ourselves? Do you believe in offering help to those in need or forcing it upon them? If you believe in forcing people to accept 'help', do you believe that if all these solutions fail, there is ever a time for mercy and for respecting a person's wishes?
Younger people who want to commit suicide shouldn't have the means to legally do so readily made accessible to them. I don't believe we should set up a suicide clinic for the severely ill and allow kids to come in who are healthy, for instance.
If a younger person wants to kill themselves, they will do it. I think most people who have tried to commit suicide and failed realize it was a mistake at the time. Now I believe its a slightly different circumstance, again, when the person is terminally ill and in pain.
Yes, if you commit suicide it is against the law and you will have to see a physician. However, if it is just a cry for help you need that help. If its you wanting to kill yourself, then yeah you are a danger to yourself and likely nuts if you are not terminally ill.
I feel that any single lifetime is a gift bestowed on us by a collaboration with our Higher Selves and Spirit.
Just the same as if a friend and I spent a lot of time hunting for something beautiful and one of a kind that she said she really wanted, then I bought it and gave it to her, as a gift freely given, it is then hers to do with as she wishes, including destroying it or throwing it away if she feels disappointed with it after a while.
But if she destroys it or throws it away, that is a waste and it makes me wonder why I bothered spending all that time researching and planning this gift for her. And I think someday she will be sorry she got rid of something so nice that could have created a stronger connection between the two of us.
I think you do own your body and can find a way to kill yourself if you really want to. However, I feel that physically healthy individuals who choose to commit suicide are throwing a precious gift away (and no, I'm not religious). Life can be hell sometimes, but if you decide to end it, you will never get to experience the good things. And most people who decide to commit suicide are not in their right mind and need psychological help.
This is a question of personal autonomy, and one that should be important to all freedom loving humans, regardless of whether or not one has ever fallen prey to a bout of suicidal ideation.
The right to commit suicide seems to be a very unpopular position to take, even in supposedly 'progressive' secular democracies. Whilst the right to die for terminally ill is gathering more support in recent years, most of us still seem to balk at the notion that physically healthy individuals should have the right to determine when they've had enough and wish to choose death instead of life.
Although suicide has been legalised in many countries, there are few, if any places in the world where the right to end ones life is legally protected. Someone who has failed to commit suicide, been intercepted in the process of preparing for suicide, or has disclosed personal information to a friend can still be detained for an unlimited amount of time (sometimes measured in years), in most countries, on the grounds of protecting them from themselves. Health authorities have even been sued by the families of suicidal individuals for allowing these patients to be released for an overnight stay at home.
Although a person who has been detained as a potential threat to himself might be able to provide rational explanations for his decision, and be able to pass through a battery of psychiatric tests without being diagnosed with a mental disorder; he is still not free to adhere to his personal philosophy. In this aspect of society, the religious right is still allowed to prevail and curtail freedom that might be distasteful to its adherents.
If you accept the notion that suicide should be forcibly prevented whenever it is possible to do so, then you accept the fact that your life does not belong to you; your body and life is property of the government.
With that said, do you believe that it is right for the government to protect us from ourselves? Do you believe in offering help to those in need or forcing it upon them? If you believe in forcing people to accept 'help', do you believe that if all these solutions fail, there is ever a time for mercy and for respecting a person's wishes?
In one paragraph, you are referring to suicide done hypothetically on "philosophical" grounds. In another paragraph you refer to "offering help to those in need" vs "forcing it upon them". Those are completely different scenarios. But in either case, I guess the premise is that whatever reason for the choice, someone has decided to commit suicide and is being involuntarily held in hospital. When someone is self-destructive, I think the onus is on society to attempt to help that person. If the suicidal person is kept in hospital involuntarily for years without experiencing a decrease in suicidal thinking, then clearly the "help" being offered is ineffective.
This being the case: Is the onus not on society and the medical profession to continue trying new approaches to help the suicidal person? For example, if one psychiatric approach fails, should the hospital then not try another? And another? Or should they give up on the patient and throw them away like a failed experiment, and leave them to their fate on the street?
To me, it isn't so much about the decision of the suicidal person to give up on life. It's about the responsibility of society to not give up on people who are self-destructive.
It wasn't too many decades ago, that patients with severe mental illnesses (clinical depression, schizophrenia, psychotic disorders, etc.) were locked away and kept sedated with no hope for improvement... until researchers at least developed new medications and therapies that have given millions of people their lives back. Is that not worth the effort?
Suicide being a taboo in our society stems from the christian belief system, as another poster has suggested. Personally I feel that it is the person right to end their life if they choose to do so, however, where does one draw the line on this. Is it okay for a 6 year old child to commit suicide, how about a teen is that okay?
I don't think that a 6 year old would be able to access the means required to commit suicide. I think that it's understandable for parents to be responsible for us, up to a certain stage in our lives. Although for severely disabled children, the issue becomes more problematic. The waters are somewhat cloudy in terms of child suicide, but for adult suicide it should a clear cut and inalienable right.
In one paragraph, you are referring to suicide done hypothetically on "philosophical" grounds. In another paragraph you refer to "offering help to those in need" vs "forcing it upon them". Those are completely different scenarios. But in either case, I guess the premise is that whatever reason for the choice, someone has decided to commit suicide and is being involuntarily held in hospital. When someone is self-destructive, I think the onus is on society to attempt to help that person. If the suicidal person is kept in hospital involuntarily for years without experiencing a decrease in suicidal thinking, then clearly the "help" being offered is ineffective.
This being the case: Is the onus not on society and the medical profession to continue trying new approaches to help the suicidal person? For example, if one psychiatric approach fails, should the hospital then not try another? And another? Or should they give up on the patient and throw them away like a failed experiment, and leave them to their fate on the street?
To me, it isn't so much about the decision of the suicidal person to give up on life. It's about the responsibility of society to not give up on people who are self-destructive.
It wasn't too many decades ago, that patients with severe mental illnesses (clinical depression, schizophrenia, psychotic disorders, etc.) were locked away and kept sedated with no hope for improvement... until researchers at least developed new medications and therapies that have given millions of people their lives back. Is that not worth the effort?
I think that the patient should have the right to accept or refuse treatment. I don't really like it being framed in terms of society giving up on the self destructive, because respecting people's wishes does not preclude doing everything possible to help anyone who is willing to accept treatment. There's a reason why the Samaritans helpline exists, and this is because some people want to be 'talked down', whilst others are settled in their wish to die. Society can have robust suicide prevention programs in place, whilst also respecting the wishes of those who want to exercise their right to die.
If someone is hospitalised for years, without their consent, perhaps that means that it is the paradigm of 'help' that needs to be redefined, rather than the specific treatment. I don't believe that violating someone's autonomy over an extended period of time is very 'helpful'. If the patient is amenable to being helped, then I believe that we should try as many approaches as possible. However, if their wish is to die, then that wish should be respected.
The fear of institutionalization also deters many vulnerable people from seeking help.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
