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.
She ought to have the right to make her own mistakes. If she is successful in executing this decision, she certainly will never regret it.
She lived, so in about ten years when she has a husband and a family she will look back and be thankful that the attempt did not work if she doesn't feel that way already. It's strange that you are so nonchalant about a teenager making a rash and irrational decision about ending their life and calling it simply a "mistake" that she should be allowed to make. What would that "mistake" accomplish? What lesson does it teach? Aren't you supposed to learn from your mistakes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by micC
Anyway, my point was that, as you've said, the police will not take into account whether or not you are able to provide a rational account as to why you have attempted suicide. You are the government's property, and their job is to protect it from damage. But normally, the prejudice of the mental health professionals will misguide them towards diagnosing a mental illness.
Of course the police won't take any of that into account, because if the police left you alone to commit suicide your relatives would sue them into oblivion for not trying to preventing it. The government must save you from yourself in order to keep from being sued for doing what you want. That's the society we live in.
People who really want to commit suicide do it. They don't care about the law. You seem like an intelligent person, so I can't conceive how you weren't successful at suicide if you truly wanted to die. It's not that difficult to do if you do a minute amount of research and have a plan. Failed suicide attempts are almost always simply a cry for help with the exception of the people who just aren't smart enough to know how to do it the right way.
She lived, so in about ten years when she has a husband and a family she will look back and be thankful that the attempt did not work if she doesn't feel that way already. It's strange that you are so nonchalant about a teenager making a rash and irrational decision about ending their life and calling it simply a "mistake" that she should be allowed to make. What would that "mistake" accomplish? What lesson does it teach? Aren't you supposed to learn from your mistakes?
I don't consider it to be a mistake, but others would. The dead cannot regret not being alive, but those who are alive can certainly wish they were dead.
Quote:
Of course the police won't take any of that into account, because if the police left you alone to commit suicide your relatives would sue them into oblivion for not trying to preventing it. The government must save you from yourself in order to keep from being sued for doing what you want. That's the society we live in.
Of course. That doesn't mean that it is not something that should be changed. The fact that this is so is predicated on ancient religious dogma, just like the prohibition against homosexuality, for example. It still doesn't mean that it is morally right that the government should assume ownership our bodies under the guise of protecting us from ourselves. What you advocate is nothing less than slavery.
Quote:
People who really want to commit suicide do it. They don't care about the law. You seem like an intelligent person, so I can't conceive how you weren't successful at suicide if you truly wanted to die. It's not that difficult to do if you do a minute amount of research and have a plan. Failed suicide attempts are almost always simply a cry for help with the exception of the people who just aren't smart enough to know how to do it the right way.
In my case, I had it very well planned out, but needed to do it in my car, and chose a quiet road on which to do so. The plan involved releasing toxic gases, and therefore it would have endangered others in order to have done it at home. The police showed up within a couple of minutes of parking there (apparently they do patrols in out of the way areas) and saw me emptying out my bucket of hot water - used to keep the liquid solution warm on the journey to the destination and thereby increase reaction times between the two chemicals. I probably should have just brought an extra bucket, but I don't think that this unfortunate timing was a subconscious sign that I actually wanted to live.
What suicide has to do with religion is beyond me other than that there are religious folk who simply do not like the idea that someone may off themselves as it further proves that their divine construct is faulty, is cruel. All that moralism is to edify those who believe just enough to hang on in there until they naturally meet St. Peter or whomever.
But all that is for the religion forum.
Religion is the what the government uses to sell the population on anti-suicide measures, even if the reasons you listed later on in your post are its true motivations. Atheists tend to have more respect for the choice of the individual, because they are less likely to strike philosophical poses about the sanctity of live superceding quality of life. It is certainly the religious right which is proving to be the obstruction to the introduction of euthanasia and assisted suicide laws.
Quote:
The simple reason suicide is illegal is because anything that harms the welfare of society and of the State must be made to appear wrong and unjust, especially if committed upon oneself. Offing oneself causes one's society to come off as onerous and hurtful, uncompassionate and unfulfilling. The State doesn't want to lose a member that contributes or is available in some capacity to contribute or at least confirm that its ways are fair and just. Neither wants to come off as cruel or appear wrong and so suicide is given a set of silly moral/criminal judgments simply to pacify those no longer interested in being a part of the world in a very serious way. All these prohibitive laws (Really, as if a suicidal decision made honestly would weigh them) may be fine for the young and dramatic, but read them off to the terminal cancer patient or MS sufferer or those who can no longer enjoy life.
Then there is the concept of property, which is where this thread originated perhaps? Well, if a person genuinely wants to leave we tell them they are owned by the State and so cannot? Fascinating. Great for the young and dramatic, not so for anyone else who may or may not be suffering from a physical illness. At any rate, no one belongs to another in any way, shape or form and there are times when others simply do not or cannot suffice. Life is just life and proprietary legislation will never change the fact that some want out as the pain cannot be assuaged.
I think that you have touched upon the hidden motivation of the government to prevent suicide. A suicidal decision may very well weight the legal aspect of the situation, because there are risks of making matters so much worse in the event of a botched suicide attempt and ending up severely disabled. In which case, you'd truly be in for a very very long sentence imprisoned inside a now useless body, at the mercy of a system that will do its utmost to prolong your life to the last nanosecond that medical science can keep you from shuffling off your mortal coil.
While some people may say that suicide is a religious issue, I don't look at it that way. The vast majority of people who commit or attempt to commit suicide do so due to a mental illness, and their thought process at the time is not rational. Many of these people either don't know that they have a mental illness or do not receive the proper treatment, so if they can be guided to receiving help then that's what should happen. Again, those who are truly intent on committing suicide will carry it out no matter what, so I see no problem in trying to prevent those who are likely not acting rationally from making a mistake they'll never be able to change.
While some people may say that suicide is a religious issue, I don't look at it that way. The vast majority of people who commit or attempt to commit suicide do so due to a mental illness, and their thought process at the time is not rational. Many of these people either don't know that they have a mental illness or do not receive the proper treatment, so if they can be guided to receiving help then that's what should happen. Again, those who are truly intent on committing suicide will carry it out no matter what, so I see no problem in trying to prevent those who are likely not acting rationally from making a mistake they'll never be able to change.
The 'suicide can never be rational' is a reactionary religious attitude. It suggests that life is so precious that there can never exist circumstances under which it would no longer be worth continuing. It's a catch 22 - if you are mentally ill, the government should take custodianship of your life in order to prevent suicide. But if you are considering suicide in the first place, you must be mentally ill. That pretty much grants the government ownership of your body under any circumstances that might come up. Even those who are terminally ill or suffer from locked in syndrome or are constant physical pain are usually alleged to be suffering from mental illness, if they request assisted dying.
Also, some mental illnesses are resistant to treatment, so I don't think it's fair that they should never be allowed a way out, even if they've tried absolutely everything.
There's no problem with talking someone out of suicide, but if external agencies are permitted to physically intervene (except in cases where others would be endangered by someone's suicide bid, or perhaps if it is causing extreme inconvenience to others), then that crosses the line into slavery.
Religion is the what the government uses to sell the population on anti-suicide measures, even if the reasons you listed later on in your post are its true motivations. Atheists tend to have more respect for the choice of the individual, because they are less likely to strike philosophical poses about the sanctity of live superceding quality of life. It is certainly the religious right which is proving to be the obstruction to the introduction of euthanasia and assisted suicide laws.
I think that you have touched upon the hidden motivation of the government to prevent suicide. A suicidal decision may very well weight the legal aspect of the situation, because there are risks of making matters so much worse in the event of a botched suicide attempt and ending up severely disabled. In which case, you'd truly be in for a very very long sentence imprisoned inside a now useless body, at the mercy of a system that will do its utmost to prolong your life to the last nanosecond that medical science can keep you from shuffling off your mortal coil.
A correlation could be used with large populations being addicted to narcotics, such as in China in the 1790's with British merchants trading opium there or the more familiar US from the 1960's thru the 1990's, when it was mainstream and popular to get high often and usually on multiple substances. Too many people were either gone, going or no longer interested in doing much of anything other than seeking a high or maintaining one. Not quite suicide but almost worse considering the costs associated with caretaking and the need for outside replacements. And it doesn't look very good if a place or a society has too many unhappy, miserable people taking their lives or destroying them without a war or conquest being the cause. Governments need to keep people going on the mill in some regards, keep them somewhat happy or at least hopeful about how things are and where things are going.
Sure, one could argue that Big Pharma fights euthanasia legalization simply as there is no profit in it for them. And there is no profit in it for them. So they fight it and push everything they have to keep people... not distracted, rather engaged by their miracles and their dope, less harmful than street drugs and without stigma as it is known as legitimate medicine.
Religion tends to narcotize, pacify and motivate people into doing its will. It is at its base a power structure built like a pyramid. How would the Crusades have gone if everyone on either side Christian or Caliphate had simply committed Hare-Kari?
All those promises never to bear fruit except in fantasy... Imagine if those who depend upon it no longer had it?
But whether State or religion, it comes down to contentedness and acceptance by those who are within the sphere of influence. Neither arm of that despotic social construct truly cares except in convincing people they must continue on no matter what thru guilt and coercion and to never question that sacrosanct rule.
The 'suicide can never be rational' is a reactionary religious attitude.
I never said suicide can never be rational. In fact, in my first post in this thread I said that I support the idea of suicide for the terminally ill who make a conscious decision when faced with the facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by micC
It's a catch 22 - if you are mentally ill, the government should take custodianship of your life in order to prevent suicide. But if you are considering suicide in the first place, you must be mentally ill. That pretty much grants the government ownership of your body under any circumstances that might come up.
Again, not what I said. Refer to what I posted above. MOST suicide is brought about by mental illness, not rational, terminally ill people deciding to end their life. A teenager who kills themselves over bullying at school or because a love interest doesn't show reciprocal feelings has some sort of mental disease or defect in order to contemplate suicide over such a trivial matter. Someone with a mental illness should be offered help and treatment rather than being allowed to make an irrational decision when they are in an altered mental state.
The government also does not take custodianship of everyone with mental illness. The practice of institutionalizing the mentally ill ended half a century ago. The only people who are kept in custody against their will are the mentally ill who are deemed to present a danger to themselves or someone else. Once that danger has passed, they are released back into the public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by micC
Also, some mental illnesses are resistant to treatment, so I don't think it's fair that they should never be allowed a way out, even if they've tried absolutely everything.
Okay. If a team of psychiatrists will state that the person with the mental illness has been examined and is capable of rational thought to knowingly make a decision about suicide (like a terminally ill person), then they shouldn't be stopped just like the terminally ill shouldn't be stopped. But RATIONAL THOUGHT is the key there. Physicians need to assert that the person making the decision is capable of rational thought.
That's the same way it is for removing someone who is brain dead off of life support. Two to three separate neurologists look at the EEG and make their own determinations of whether or not the patient has any brain activity. If the neurologists agree, the person is declared brain dead. Someone who wants to commit suicide should be examined by two or three independent psychiatrists, and if the psychiatrists deem that they are capable of rational decision making, by all means, allow them to go ahead and do what they want....
I never said suicide can never be rational. In fact, in my first post in this thread I said that I support the idea of suicide for the terminally ill who make a conscious decision when faced with the facts.
I apologise for not checking your earlier responses.
Quote:
Again, not what I said. Refer to what I posted above. MOST suicide is brought about by mental illness, not rational, terminally ill people deciding to end their life. A teenager who kills themselves over bullying at school or because a love interest doesn't show reciprocal feelings has some sort of mental disease or defect in order to contemplate suicide over such a trivial matter. Someone with a mental illness should be offered help and treatment rather than being allowed to make an irrational decision when they are in an altered mental state.
If they are successful in killing themselves, they'll never regret their decision. So I don't think that it justifies suspending their autonomy.
Quote:
The government also does not take custodianship of everyone with mental illness. The practice of institutionalizing the mentally ill ended half a century ago. The only people who are kept in custody against their will are the mentally ill who are deemed to present a danger to themselves or someone else. Once that danger has passed, they are released back into the public.
Also in custody are those who are not mentally ill, but refuse to denounce their philosophical belief that death can sometimes be preferable to life. But what happens to someone who is chronically mentally ill and cannot be treated. Are they just supposed to wait around in intolerable mental torment just on the off chance that a cure eventually is discovered?
Quote:
Okay. If a team of psychiatrists will state that the person with the mental illness has been examined and is capable of rational thought to knowingly make a decision about suicide (like a terminally ill person), then they shouldn't be stopped just like the terminally ill shouldn't be stopped. But RATIONAL THOUGHT is the key there. Physicians need to assert that the person making the decision is capable of rational thought.
That's the same way it is for removing someone who is brain dead off of life support. Two to three separate neurologists look at the EEG and make their own determinations of whether or not the patient has any brain activity. If the neurologists agree, the person is declared brain dead. Someone who wants to commit suicide should be examined by two or three independent psychiatrists, and if the psychiatrists deem that they are capable of rational decision making, by all means, allow them to go ahead and do what they want....
I'm glad that you agree on this point, and in an ideal world, this would be at least a step towards justice. In practicality, I doubt it could work, because psychiatrists with deep religious convictions will inevitably abuse their position to block any attempt to win the right to choose between life and death. It's also just hard to imagine that anyone will ever be told that they have the right to go ahead and kill themselves.
I think that the only real solution is to legally classify any physical intervention in a suicide attempt (with the exception of cases where the suicide may endanger others) as assault. I think that the means to end of life should be available to all through their doctor, but perhaps subject to a waiting period and that those diagnosed with mental illness would be required to undergo treatment first before being allowed to access the lethal prescription.
If one is asking about 'ownership', at the very least needing to seek some sort of permission to end one's life, why consult with a psychiatric who would merely suggest a cocktail of pills to soothe and placate? Seems counter-productive or "dramatic" (not genuine). A team of psychs are not going to evaluate anyone as logical if they have been deemed mentally ill even if they are rational enough to understand that they are done w/suffering. It goes against their credo perhaps but certainly undermines authority in medical ethics, tarnishes the 'brand' as it were.
I agree that people in that situation (and I hesitate to accept the blanket generalization of exactly what is considered mental illness) have a harder time since there is too much marketing for pills and therapy involved in these revenue-generating diagnoses, again points to a society that refuses to acknowledge that it is unworthy to some, refuses to face deep-seated issues that tend to force a number of people into such tight corners. One more reason why a team of psychs aren't going to judge someone who is classified as mentally ill as rational. All in all, they would be accused of barbarity at worst or embracers of eugenics at best. Physical illness is apparent, even mental illness associated with a physical injury/breakdown may be allowable at an extreme. Mental illness still has the view of being self-created/self-inflicted thus illogical- usually resulting from a serious fantasy and in need of treatment. Perhaps it is. But officially that is how it will always be seen. Society wants everyone to be successful and productive and happy or at least as commiserative as they.
One must remember that the reason so many progressive democracies always rate themselves as so happy is sweet common denial, a necessary mental state that keeps citizens believing in progress and concentrated on the goal of keeping calm and moving on... and paying taxes and shopping and staying civilized.
That said, I don't think suicide by those not suffering from physical pain are done by the mentally ill but are officially categorized as such to prevent popularity, to keep a lid on it. I think sometimes sensible people simply realize they have had enough and are done, not by a spurious decision or sudden impulse either.
For them, they must tread a path that is not cherished. Certainly it is foolish to call them criminals or to desire they seek acceptance and permission from a group of bureaucrats whose entire business is keeping people alive no matter the pain and usually only because they understand the idea of a revenue stream.
My older brother was 43 when he took his own life 2 months ago. It's still so unreal. I miss him so much and I find myself in tears when I see places we used to go. I was shocked, sad, angry, depressed, betrayed that he would leave us without saying goodbye or asking for help. As much as it hurts me even as I type this I have to say that I forgive him and I would never have wanted him put in a padded room against his will. It was HIS life-it was HIS choice (as he stated in his letter).
It was not "selfish", what would be more selfish is for us, the family, to want him to exist in the emotional and physical pain that he lived in every second of every day. In his life he gave. He gave money to strangers, donated to numerous charities because he had no wife or children. The most selfless person I have ever known did one thing for himself to set himself free from a world in which he did not feel he belonged any longer. Love and memories are forever, my brother lives on in my mind in the those who he helped. Sorry if I rambled too much here, this is a very touchy subject to those who have lost someone to suicide.
To sum it up; In my personal opinion we should try to help a person we love, but by no means should we have them locked up indefinitely.
If my brother would have been locked up, yes he may be here today, but for how much longer and with what quality of life?
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.
