Discussion An 'hypothetical' experiment to prove whether one truly wishes to CTB

[TAW122]

Note: I know this experiment is unlikely to happen, but with all things considered, and for discussion and educational purposes, I will discuss this just to get an idea of whether this is something that could (in theory) help prove the prohibitionists, preventionists, and pro-lifers wrong about some of their beliefs and claims.

With that said, here is my experiment that I had as an idea. The idea is to prove and confirm seriousness about someone's decision to CTB, and maybe in this 'hypothetical' experiment, perhaps it might debunk some of the claims that prolifers have? The experiment I had in mind is to gather the people who are already willing to CTB (those who have already finalized their decision and are going to go through with it on their own), maybe a sample size of n = 100, maybe n = 1000, or whatever, just adequate sample sizes of people who wish to be a part of the study or experiment. Additionally, all participants are those who are not terminally ill whose prognosis is less than 6 months (or even less than a month) of life remaining. The participants will range from those who are healthy but wish to die for whatever reason, physical and mental condition (not terminal but severe), physical and mental conditions that are mild to moderate, to name a few.

The reason for the exclusion of terminally ill participants are:
1) Because it would be unethical to further delay their (inevitable) deaths which would cause them to suffer even more than necessary and also
2) Most pro-lifers (not all, but a good majority) recognize terminal illness to be a point of no return and would approve of having a peaceful dignified exit.

With the amount of participants, each participant will be given a capsule (or a small vial). This will be a inert capsule or vial (inert ingredients and will have no effect on the participant, most likely just normal saline/sterile water encased in whatever capsule or liquid in a vial). Each participant will be given a short waiting period, which is a day or few (could be longer if needed, but for simplicity purposes, 1-3 days). After that, the facilitator/proctor will give them the inert capsule or vial or be taken. Again, the participants will not know that it is inert.

Possible Outcomes and what it means:
Scenario A: If the participant takes the capsule or vial (not knowing it is inert), then it would prove that the person has intent and is serious in their decision. This would also prove that the participant is not doing so impulsively and has had time (albeit short, because of the experiment) to make his/her decision and go through with it.

Scenario B: If the participant does not take it or hesitates, then it could be proven that the person isn't ready to CTB or has changed his/her mind. However, this could also imply that a participant may be more at peace knowing that he/she has the option to CTB at any time in the future, in a reasonable, peaceful and dignified manner.

Finally, to ensure that no participants are harmed, their rights will be honored at the end (especially those who have elected and already finalized their decision - unless they too, changed their mind somehow), and minimal (only as much as necessary for the integrity of the study/experiment) deception is used in order to generate and emulate a realistic response. Why deception though? I believe that in such an experiment if the participants know that what they are doing is staged or faked, then their response and behaviors would not be 'true', therefore ruining the experiment and failing to achieve the outcome. While no experiment nor study is ever perfect, I think this is pretty close if not at least on the right track towards debunking pro-lifers' ridiculous claims about how every person who wants to die, secretly wants to live or that it is a cry for help. Furthermore, it may also disprove the claim of impulsivity towards a permanent decision without the risk of not being able to go back once it's done, which was why I specifically included a waiting period in the experiment.

What do you all think, would this experiment perhaps be a good way to debunk pro-life sentiments and (fallacious) claims?
@Forever Sleep @ksp @RainAndSadness

 

[Huntfish34]

Dang, I'm not sure if it would work but I think your whole idea / scenario is pretty fckn neat and interesting. I've had Brief thoughts about something.... kinda like this but not near to what you laid out.

Sorry I'm not much help, but thanks for sharing this with us. Curious to see what others have to say.

 

[FuneralCry]

I guess that this is similar to what it would be like if there was a process for legalised assisted suicide with waiting times after it being first requested, it would give people time to think if this is what they really want, but anyway it's a good idea what you wrote about in your post. But I do believe though that no matter what pro lifers will always label suicidal people as being 'irrational' unless the pro lifers somehow became suicidal themselves, as accepting suicide as being a rational solution would shatter their worldview that life is always worth enduring.

 

[Rainy_days]

Do you realize how utterly insane you sound?

 

[Dot]

Note: I know this experiment is unlikely to happen, but with all things considered, and for discussion and educational purposes, I will discuss this just to get an idea of whether this is something that could (in theory) help prove the prohibitionists, preventionists, and pro-lifers wrong about some of their beliefs and claims.

With that said, here is my experiment that I had as an idea. The idea is to prove and confirm seriousness about someone's decision to CTB, and maybe in this 'hypothetical' experiment, perhaps it might debunk some of the claims that prolifers have? The experiment I had in mind is to gather the people who are already willing to CTB (those who have already finalized their decision and are going to go through with it on their own), maybe a sample size of n = 100, maybe n = 1000, or whatever, just adequate sample sizes of people who wish to be a part of the study or experiment. Additionally, all participants are those who are not terminally ill whose prognosis is less than 6 months (or even less than a month) of life remaining. The participants will range from those who are healthy but wish to die for whatever reason, physical and mental condition (not terminal but severe), physical and mental conditions that are mild to moderate, to name a few.

The reason for the exclusion of terminally ill participants are:
1) Because it would be unethical to further delay their (inevitable) deaths which would cause them to suffer even more than necessary and also
2) Most pro-lifers (not all, but a good majority) recognize terminal illness to be a point of no return and would approve of having a peaceful dignified exit.

With the amount of participants, each participant will be given a capsule (or a small vial). This will be a inert capsule or vial (inert ingredients and will have no effect on the participant, most likely just normal saline/sterile water encased in whatever capsule or liquid in a vial). Each participant will be given a short waiting period, which is a day or few (could be longer if needed, but for simplicity purposes, 1-3 days). After that, the facilitator/proctor will give them the inert capsule or vial or be taken. Again, the participants will not know that it is inert.

Possible Outcomes and what it means:
Scenario A: If the participant takes the capsule or vial (not knowing it is inert), then it would prove that the person has intent and is serious in their decision. This would also prove that the participant is not doing so impulsively and has had time (albeit short, because of the experiment) to make his/her decision and go through with it.

Scenario B: If the participant does not take it or hesitates, then it could be proven that the person isn't ready to CTB or has changed his/her mind. However, this could also imply that a participant may be more at peace knowing that he/she has the option to CTB at any time in the future, in a reasonable, peaceful and dignified manner.

Finally, to ensure that no participants are harmed, their rights will be honored at the end (especially those who have elected and already finalized their decision - unless they too, changed their mind somehow), and minimal (only as much as necessary for the integrity of the study/experiment) deception is used in order to generate and emulate a realistic response. Why deception though? I believe that in such an experiment if the participants know that what they are doing is staged or faked, then their response and behaviors would not be 'true', therefore ruining the experiment and failing to achieve the outcome. While no experiment nor study is ever perfect, I think this is pretty close if not at least on the right track towards debunking pro-lifers' ridiculous claims about how every person who wants to die, secretly wants to live or that it is a cry for help. Furthermore, it may also disprove the claim of impulsivity towards a permanent decision without the risk of not being able to go back once it's done, which was why I specifically included a waiting period in the experiment.

What do you all think, would this experiment perhaps be a good way to debunk pro-life sentiments and (fallacious) claims?
@Forever Sleep @ksp @RainAndSadness

Cnnt C a stdy lke tht b-ing cnsidrd ethicl

Th/ stdy wld ask ppl 2 belive tht thy r abt 2 face deth & thn aftrwrds realse tht wht thy hve emotnlly prepard thmslves fr = nt happnng & tht thy hve bn decived on tp of tht -- tht xperience cld prime thm fr uncertnty or ds-trust wth thr doctrs @ n.e furthr attmpts

Perhps a stdy tht wld hve bn allowd in th/ 1970s bt fls smewht problmatc nw

 

[Forever Sleep]

It's a REALLY interesting idea... I think I'd be pretty furious if I took part in it to be honest but I totally get your reasoning. A taste of death as it were.

I suspect it MIGHT make some people reconsider and not take it at all- but wouldn't those same people refuse the REAL suicide pill? They believe it's real after all. The people that take it and lay back to die- presumably with their family around them- also waiting for them to die? But don't... Will that make them any more grateful for life? I don't know. I think I'd want to sue for incompetence and emotional distress!

It actually surprises me the percentage of people they CLAIM are glad that an attempt fails. I vaguely remember it's 80% or something. I don't particularly like how they reason this. It seems to be because those people didn't attempt again. That doesn't necessarily mean they 'recovered' or were happy!

Anyway- a part of me wonders if this is because they (likely) got a lot more support after a failed attempt. Would they in fact get this same level of support after a placebo?

It's an interesting idea though definitely.

 

[TransilvanianHunger]

The experiment as described would be incredibly unethical, for starters. Also, "pro-lifers" don't usually base their position on reasonable, objective arguments. Someone who is convinced that life is precious because, for example, "God wants you to live" isn't going to change because you show them that some people participated in an experiment and were willing to take a capsule.

That being said, the essence of this hypothetical experiment is not too far off the mark. Some right-to-die initiatives include the use of wait lists to, in a way, make sure that the person applying is making the correct decision, has received other types of assistance first, and is not acting on impulse or out of desperation. So, there is something to the idea after all.

 

[TAW122]

I guess that this is similar to what it would be like if there was a process for legalised assisted suicide with waiting times after it being first requested, it would give people time to think if this is what they really want, but anyway it's a good idea what you wrote about in your post. But I do believe though that no matter what pro lifers will always label suicidal people as being 'irrational' unless the pro lifers somehow became suicidal themselves, as accepting suicide as being a rational solution would shatter their worldview that life is always worth enduring.

True, I don't see something like this to ever become reality, but the idea is a start for sure. I think if there is anything to disprove any myths or misconceptions of CTB held by pro-lifers, it's a small step in the right direction..

Cnnt C a stdy lke tht b-ing cnsidrd ethicl

Th/ stdy wld ask ppl 2 belive tht thy r abt 2 face deth & thn aftrwrds realse tht wht thy hve emotnlly prepard thmslves fr = nt happnng & tht thy hve bn decived on tp of tht -- tht xperience cld prime thm fr uncertnty or ds-trust wth thr doctrs @ n.e furthr attmpts

Perhps a stdy tht wld hve bn allowd in th/ 1970s bt fls smewht problmatc nw

That's a good point, I definitely think there are likely many problems that arise from this, especially ethics related problems and the "deception" part. I think there may be a different experiment that could still achieve the same (or at least similar) results without the unethical aspect to it... I just need to find a way to prove that "someone's decision to die isn't impulsive and that they are sincere."

It's a REALLY interesting idea... I think I'd be pretty furious if I took part in it to be honest but I totally get your reasoning. A taste of death as it were.

I suspect it MIGHT make some people reconsider and not take it at all- but wouldn't those same people refuse the REAL suicide pill? They believe it's real after all. The people that take it and lay back to die- presumably with their family around them- also waiting for them to die? But don't... Will that make them any more grateful for life? I don't know. I think I'd want to sue for incompetence and emotional distress!

It actually surprises me the percentage of people they CLAIM are glad that an attempt fails. I vaguely remember it's 80% or something. I don't particularly like how they reason this. It seems to be because those people didn't attempt again. That doesn't necessarily mean they 'recovered' or were happy!

Anyway- a part of me wonders if this is because they (likely) got a lot more support after a failed attempt. Would they in fact get this same level of support after a placebo?

It's an interesting idea though definitely.

Thanks for your response and yes, indeed it is an interesting idea. Regarding the point that people who failed didn't attempt again, I agree with your sentiments that pro-lifers incorrectly believe that the survivors have 'recovered' or were 'happy'. In fact, I think what pro-lifers miss is that just because they did not attempt again it is not because they recovered or were happy again, but because they did not wish to fail again, resulting in the consequences they faced with; and also, the survival instinct too.

The experiment as described would be incredibly unethical, for starters. Also, "pro-lifers" don't usually base their position on reasonable, objective arguments. Someone who is convinced that life is precious because, for example, "God wants you to live" isn't going to change because you show them that some people participated in an experiment and were willing to take a capsule.

That being said, the essence of this hypothetical experiment is not too far off the mark. Some right-to-die initiatives include the use of wait lists to, in a way, make sure that the person applying is making the correct decision, has received other types of assistance first, and is not acting on impulse or out of desperation. So, there is something to the idea after all.

Yes, that's another good point to consider, pro-lifers don't base their position on reasonable, objective arguments but rather just unproven, asserted statements such as "life is good.", "God wants you to live.", "life is a net positive.", etc. In fact, those are nothing more than subjective claims and what not... I do agree that right to die initiatives have the correct idea of including wait lists as well as having the person try other alternatives before going to the last resort; that to me, is a reasonable compromise if at the end, the person is still (ultimately) granted their wish to die and allowed to follow through.

 

[TransilvanianHunger]

I do agree that right to die initiatives have the correct idea of including wait lists as well as having the person try other alternatives before going to the last resort; that to me, is a reasonable compromise if at the end, the person is still (ultimately) granted their wish to die and allowed to follow through.

Yes, that's supposed to be the goal. Making sure that a person isn't applying for an assisted death out of desperation, or on impulse, when their situation could be improved or fixed through therapy, medication, etc. and then the person's wish to die would go away. If someone applies, goes through all the assessments, and by the end they still want an assisted death, then they get it in a safe, dignified, painless manner. I think it's a decent compromise.

 

[Dot]

Yes, that's supposed to be the goal. Making sure that a person isn't applying for an assisted death out of desperation, or on impulse, when their situation could be improved or fixed through therapy, medication, etc. and then the person's wish to die would go away. If someone applies, goes through all the assessments, and by the end they still want an assisted death, then they get it in a safe, dignified, painless manner. I think it's a decent compromise.

Tht snds lke wht Digntas etc alrdy d/ tbf

 

[jodes2]

I don't think it would rule out impulsive suicides. Especially if the pill is given by an authority figure, many people would gain great trust that it's an ok thing to do and just take the pill, like many people unquestioningly take meds given by doctors. A lot of people wouldn't think too hard about the consequences

 

[TransilvanianHunger]

Tht snds lke wht Digntas etc alrdy d/ tbf

Yes, something along those lines pretty much. Of course, in an ideal world you wouldn't need to pay a membership fee and travel to another country. In reality, folks are on wait lists to even see a mental health professional and hopefully get a diagnosis. In other places, not even that is available. We have a long way to go as a species, I think.

 

[locked*n*loaded]

They've already done pretty much this same experiment, except instead of causing harm to oneself (taking a poison pill), they had the participants press a button that would flow a current of electricity onto another thereby "harming" them.

 

[MidnightCat]

knowing that he/she has the option to CTB at any time in the future, in a reasonable, peaceful and dignified manner.

This is actually one of the few things that keeps me "sane-ish"

 

[Dot]

They've already done pretty much this same experiment, except instead of causing harm to oneself (taking a poison pill), they had the participants press a button that would flow a current of electricity onto another thereby "harming" them.

Milgrm - Tht ws dffrnt xpernnt tho - tht ws 2 rsearch hw mch a pain sme1 wld pt anothr persn thru bcse thy wre tld 2 b/ sme1 els
Testng th/ 'jst follwng ordrs' reasnng givn b/ formr Nzi offcrs & soldrs

 

[Source Energy]

Note: I know this experiment is unlikely to happen, but with all things considered, and for discussion and educational purposes, I will discuss this just to get an idea of whether this is something that could (in theory) help prove the prohibitionists, preventionists, and pro-lifers wrong about some of their beliefs and claims.

With that said, here is my experiment that I had as an idea. The idea is to prove and confirm seriousness about someone's decision to CTB, and maybe in this 'hypothetical' experiment, perhaps it might debunk some of the claims that prolifers have? The experiment I had in mind is to gather the people who are already willing to CTB (those who have already finalized their decision and are going to go through with it on their own), maybe a sample size of n = 100, maybe n = 1000, or whatever, just adequate sample sizes of people who wish to be a part of the study or experiment. Additionally, all participants are those who are not terminally ill whose prognosis is less than 6 months (or even less than a month) of life remaining. The participants will range from those who are healthy but wish to die for whatever reason, physical and mental condition (not terminal but severe), physical and mental conditions that are mild to moderate, to name a few.

The reason for the exclusion of terminally ill participants are:
1) Because it would be unethical to further delay their (inevitable) deaths which would cause them to suffer even more than necessary and also
2) Most pro-lifers (not all, but a good majority) recognize terminal illness to be a point of no return and would approve of having a peaceful dignified exit.

With the amount of participants, each participant will be given a capsule (or a small vial). This will be a inert capsule or vial (inert ingredients and will have no effect on the participant, most likely just normal saline/sterile water encased in whatever capsule or liquid in a vial). Each participant will be given a short waiting period, which is a day or few (could be longer if needed, but for simplicity purposes, 1-3 days). After that, the facilitator/proctor will give them the inert capsule or vial or be taken. Again, the participants will not know that it is inert.

Possible Outcomes and what it means:
Scenario A: If the participant takes the capsule or vial (not knowing it is inert), then it would prove that the person has intent and is serious in their decision. This would also prove that the participant is not doing so impulsively and has had time (albeit short, because of the experiment) to make his/her decision and go through with it.

Scenario B: If the participant does not take it or hesitates, then it could be proven that the person isn't ready to CTB or has changed his/her mind. However, this could also imply that a participant may be more at peace knowing that he/she has the option to CTB at any time in the future, in a reasonable, peaceful and dignified manner.

Finally, to ensure that no participants are harmed, their rights will be honored at the end (especially those who have elected and already finalized their decision - unless they too, changed their mind somehow), and minimal (only as much as necessary for the integrity of the study/experiment) deception is used in order to generate and emulate a realistic response. Why deception though? I believe that in such an experiment if the participants know that what they are doing is staged or faked, then their response and behaviors would not be 'true', therefore ruining the experiment and failing to achieve the outcome. While no experiment nor study is ever perfect, I think this is pretty close if not at least on the right track towards debunking pro-lifers' ridiculous claims about how every person who wants to die, secretly wants to live or that it is a cry for help. Furthermore, it may also disprove the claim of impulsivity towards a permanent decision without the risk of not being able to go back once it's done, which was why I specifically included a waiting period in the experiment.

What do you all think, would this experiment perhaps be a good way to debunk pro-life sentiments and (fallacious) claims?
@Forever Sleep @ksp @RainAndSadness

Take into consideration though, the nocebo effect. Giving someone a fake vial of N, while they believe it real, can result in them c.b.t. No problem for those who are ready, but not ethical for those who are not.

 

[locked*n*loaded]

Milgrm - Tht ws dffrnt xpernnt tho - tht ws 2 rsearch hw mch a pain sme1 wld pt anothr persn thru bcse thy wre tld 2 b/ sme1 els
Testng th/ 'jst follwng ordrs' reasnng givn b/ formr Nzi offcrs & soldrs

Hi Dot.....Yes, I agree it was a different experiment, but the only commonality I was attempting to convey was that the OP's scenario was an experiment designed to see if someone would harm themselves, while the Milgram experiment was designed to see if someone would harm another, notwithstanding the influence of the authority figure in the latter. It could be argued that even the OP's experiment would have a passive authority figure influence on the subjects since someone would be there to proctor the tests.

 

[blackroseRM]

So, people have already pointed out that such a study would be highly unethical for multiple reasons, but I'll give you some (maybe) interesting info:

In psychology, when it comes to categorizing suicidal people (I know, I know), therapists/psychologists basically have to determine whether or not someone is a "hardcore" suicidal person, aka someone who is actually out to die by whatever means they can get their hands on, or someone who just has chronic ideations because they very badly want to escape their pain/circumstances/environment or whatever else. Both groups of people are still suicidal, but one group is the kind a therapist has to report for possible involuntary commission, and the other is not.

What you're suggesting highlights the differences between these two groups, and also the ethics behind assisted suicide, particularly for terminally ill patients. It's not ethical to even bring the kind of study you're suggesting before a board (they'd probably either laugh you out of the room or remove your license), but we do have a lot of research to show that when given the opportunity, hardcore suicidal people will take the first chance they get. People in the second group typically will only act on a sudden impulse, and it's important to note that it usually only takes one obstacle to prevent them from dying. For example, let's say someone who isn't particularly hardcore suddenly has a horrible day, and they decide to CTB. They have a method in mind, but the gun that is normally in their house has been removed by a family member. Because of this, they give up on the idea, make it through the day, and realize they didn't actually want to CTB, they were just having a particularly bad day. There are millions of stories/incidents like this recorded (not just with gun method, that's just an example).

To be clear: I'm not a pro-lifer. I just have a psych degree and think this post posits a lot of questions the field of psychology has been trying to answer for a long time, but the world of psychological research is... Unfortunately a slow one. Science is slow. Psychology is a baby of a science compared to all the rest, so it is trying to catch up. Freud wrote his Doctoral dissertation on the medical benefits of cocaine. That was in the 20th century! We've got a long way to go.

 

[SeeminglyFine]

Wtf, it takes me months or years to gather to courage and/or to recover after chickening out, if id be tricked after going through such intense SI the only realisation id come to is that im suddenly eager to develop sociopathic tendencies and take out whoever tricked me like its some april fools joke.

Most of us already realise that SI might stop you and make you think that maybe you dont want to ctb, even if you probably do.. so a last second regret is proving nothing in my opinion, theres a reason every1 want to be high out of their mind as part of the preperation