Are there exceptions to your pro-choice position?

[dewdrop]

I imagine that there would be differing opinions about this topic, but it's something that's been brewing in my mind for a little while, and I'm especially curious of what people will think on here. I'm not sure if it's been asked before, but if it has, then feel free to disregard this post.

One of the arguments against suicide is that, in the case of severe mental illness, it can be done impulsively, in a bout of a psychological episode that can influence your ability to make sound decisions and have a good sense of judgement. Someone might impulsively make such a rash and permanent choice that usually should be thought through deeply beforehand.
If someone has thought about suicide for a very long time or it's a conclusion made soundly, then I understand it as their right, even though it's still very sad.

But if someone is in an altered state of mind, for example, in a severe psychosis, do they still have the right to make such a choice? Do you think someone under this circumstance should still be allowed to exercise their right to die, or should they be put into a temporary facility until their mental state is back to normal, at which point they can then decide to end their life if they still see fit?

(I know that mental institutions are often no help, but if there were any idealistic way to keep someone safe until they were in a better frame of mind to make decisions without convolution, would you support that? Or do they still have a right to their own autonomy and the right to take their own life?) I'm inclined to the latter, that autonomy doesn't depend on any circumstances, and it shouldn't be taken away from anyone.
I suppose that the emotional part of me just feels sad that someone may take their own life without really wanting that. But who's to tell them what they do or don't want?

 

[Jealous Blackheart]

This might be one of my most controversial takes but I believe that anyone that belongs to themself has the right to choose for themself.

Technically, children do not belong to themselves. They belong to their parents. Legally. Which is why their parents are responsible for their well-being, have access to their medical records, need to sign for them on documents, etc until they're an adult. Someone suffering severe psychosis would likely be placed under some kind of guardianship, in which case they no longer belong to themselves.

Literally speaking, anyone can choose when they want to go whenever they want. We're just not legally entitled to assistance or access to peaceful methods.
Morally speaking, anyone can choose when they want to go. It is their life, no one gets to choose for them. We are not slaves.
Legally, I believe that everyone who owns themself by law should be allowed to choose when they want to die by law.

I do recognize my bias on this issue and I'm willing to alter my position on compelling argument.

 

[Darkover]

true freedom include the right to leave at any time of your choosing

 

[dewdrop]

This might be one of my most controversial takes but I believe that anyone that belongs to themself has the right to choose for themself.

Technically, children do not belong to themselves. They belong to their parents. Legally. Which is why their parents are responsible for their well-being, have access to their medical records, need to sign for them on documents, etc until they're an adult. Someone suffering severe psychosis would likely be placed under some kind of guardianship, in which case they no longer belong to themselves.

Literally speaking, anyone can choose when they want to go whenever they want. We're just not legally entitled to assistance or access to peaceful methods.
Morally speaking, anyone can choose when they want to go. It is their life, no one gets to choose for them. We are not slaves.
Legally, I believe that everyone who owns themself by law should be allowed to choose when they want to die by law.

I do recognize my bias on this issue and I'm willing to alter my position on compelling argument.

Thank you for your response. I agree with you. Everyone has a right to their own bodies and it's very difficult for anyone else to even determine what someone's "right state of mind" is and who is capable of making decisions. It's a good point that those with severe mental disabilities are often placed under a guardianship. People also claim that anyone who's suicidal is "not in the right state of mind" as a way to take away their agency and right to their choice.

I guess my hesitation comes mostly from an emotional standpoint. It would be really sad if someone ended their life solely impulsively due to a sudden neurological switch, if they had never even thought of suicide until this brain disruption. Could that be considered a medical emergency instead, if it's such a biologically driven state? But again, who could even determine if it is or not, or whether they had been contemplating suicide or not? It seems situational, but you couldn't even trust anyone's external judgement on a situation like that. I guess I also couldn't bring myself to blame a family member for trying to save their loved one attempting suicide, but the police or government have no business interfering in such matters, and just make them worse anyways.

I guess that in the end, it is really up to the person making the decision— no matter what is going on in their head. A mental defect, whether temporary or not, doesn't invalidate someone's right to bodily autonomy.

 

[Namelesa]

Personally anyone of any age should be allowed to ctb as its just fair to allow others to leave whenever they want to when we are forced here in the first place. Also I don't see any consequences to death for the person that is dead as I would say after death is non existence which you can't be disadvantaged in any way as you can't feel, do, desire, fear or regret anything.

Only exception is with parents as they are responsible and obligated to care of their child, especially if they are biological parents who forced them into this world.

 

[Gustav Hartmann]

I don't believe that we have a free will, so we have no choice anyhow. We act like robots and what will happen happens.

 

[Jadeith]

People also claim that anyone who's suicidal is "not in the right state of mind" as a way to take away their agency and right to their choice.

Exactly. I find it very problematic to draw a solid line between what's right state of mind and what is not. Similar concerns arose while discussing guns and breakup suicides. Heartbroken people tend to act impulsively and guns do not provide "second chances", being the most effective methods to end a person. There are examples of those who stayed their hand stating that they lost their will to kill themselves after emotions went down. And they were glad that they stopped or were stopped from pulling the trigger. Is it safe to assume that they weren't in right state of mind, hence should be stopped from reaching for gun or other method? I guess so.
But what if a person lives in constant pain which literally drives them crazy? Are they in the right state of mind? Probably not since constant suffering alters their mindset. But their pain can't be removed due to medical conditions - what now? Should they be barred from ending their suffering only way they got? Guess many of us will answer no but there are still people who say that suffering hones spirit or something along those lines.
And what about aforementioned middle ground - suicide tendencies caused by occasional mental outbursts. One might suspect that it's a state closer to those after breakup. Temporary negative mindset after which suicidal tendencies are gone. But what if those episodes are tiring, there's no end of them and person affected doesn't want to live that way? Does it bring us closer to those in chronic pain or other crippling affliction?
We can blur the line even further, with those who want to die because of their financial/social situation - no job, no friends, no future. Are they in right state of mind or their view is skewed by some negative circumstances that potentially can be changed in long run? Should they be prevented from leaving and forced into "working on themselves"?

Personally i can't bring myself to decide for someone should they be allowed to kill themselves or not, no matter how much it pains me to see another human gone. Of course, IF ASKED, i will try to help struggling person find a reason to stay but ONLY if asked. And if someone needs advice how to leave, i will try to help as well.

 

[lamy's sacred sleep]

i'm very biased.

No exceptions.
Anyone can ctb if they want for any reason.

I think this because I don't really experience grief, or at least not to the same extent as most people.
As well as this, death isn't a harm to one who is dead.
Dying can be a harm though, which is why a painless (or at least instant) method is so important to me.
If I hear someone who wanted to die died, I may miss them, I may experience sadness. But ultimately I'm happy for them.
For me death is only bad if you want to live.

It's all about consent.

 

[hang in there]

I imagine that there would be differing opinions about this topic, but it's something that's been brewing in my mind for a little while, and I'm especially curious of what people will think on here. I'm not sure if it's been asked before, but if it has, then feel free to disregard this post.

One of the arguments against suicide is that, in the case of severe mental illness, it can be done impulsively, in a bout of a psychological episode that can influence your ability to make sound decisions and have a good sense of judgement. Someone might impulsively make such a rash and permanent choice that usually should be thought through deeply beforehand.
If someone has thought about suicide for a very long time or it's a conclusion made soundly, then I understand it as their right, even though it's still very sad.

But if someone is in an altered state of mind, for example, in a severe psychosis, do they still have the right to make such a choice? Do you think someone under this circumstance should still be allowed to exercise their right to die, or should they be put into a temporary facility until their mental state is back to normal, at which point they can then decide to end their life if they still see fit?

(I know that mental institutions are often no help, but if there were any idealistic way to keep someone safe until they were in a better frame of mind to make decisions without convolution, would you support that? Or do they still have a right to their own autonomy and the right to take their own life?) I'm inclined to the latter, that autonomy doesn't depend on any circumstances, and it shouldn't be taken away from anyone.
I suppose that the emotional part of me just feels sad that someone may take their own life without really wanting that. But who's to tell them what they do or don't want?

On the contrary, I believe people with mental illness have more of a "right" to suicide than people without.
The most common mental illness to cause suicide is depression. By this I don't mean the sort of "depression" normal people claim to suffer from, which requires only some tweaking of circumstances or attitude to "cure." I mean the physical disability of the brain which is either inherited familially or developed after an injury or with other neurological degeneration. People with clinical depression do not have fleeting, impulsive thoughts that they would be better off killing themselves. Their every waking moment has a backdrop of death. This allows them plenty of time to consider all aspects of taking their life. The effects on others, the lethality and likelihood of various methods, all the time in the world to balance the pros and cons in a scathingly realistic manner that "normal" people are simply too deluded to accept. They are able to see some truths hidden from others, mainly that of the objective lack of value of each individual life, the dwindling list of treatments they have yet to undertake to improve their condition, the acknowledgement that after grief life does move on for those they will leave behind. They can be planful and slow and deliberate to make sure they will make the correct choice on their own terms.
In contrast, those who do not suffer that sort of endless psychic torture are much more likely to make the wrong decision. People with personality weaknesses such as oversensitivity, impulsivity, sometimes even aggression, will attempt suicide for all the wrong reasons. There will be hours rather than decades of contemplation, an overemotional blurring of mental clarity, maybe intoxication removing behavioral control. They will feel an instant urge to harm themselves but not really know what will happen when they try. Their circumstances may be temporarily more stressful than they have learned how to handle, they may be in the midst of a relationship which is crumbling apart, their grades suck this semester, they don't think they're attractive enough, they can't wait for more money to come in, they are being bullied, any of these temporary situations when experienced by a vulnerable person may make them think they must commit suicide NOW, consequences be damned, lethality of their method be damned... So they are very likely to simply injure or disfigure themselves with whatever they have on hand at the moment, instantly regret their decision when it is too late, if they survive they will think they were "really" suicidal and that because all they needed was a pep talk over a hot line, that must be the universal "solution" forced upon everyone wanting to take their own life.
Unfortunately the latter type of person is in fact the majority of "suicidal" people, and for that reason society very rightly tries to stop them and protect them from their own emotions with things like 72h holds, group interventions, social support, tough love.
The rest of us are a small minority too unimportant to take into account...

 

[FuneralCry]

No as I don't believe in forcing humans to suffer in this torturous and cruel existence that was so tragically imposed, I find it so horrific how humans are enslaved in this existence with no limit as to how much they can be tortured just to decay and die anyway. The suffering of existing is endless and more than anything I wish I was never burdened with this existence, for me anti suicide is imprisonment and enslavement, there's so much cruelty in how the option of peaceful, guaranteed death is denied with the suffering and torture of human existence seen as to force and prolong no matter what.

 

[CentreMid]

No. I think everyone should have the right to ctb regardless of their metal state or situation. Goalposts are a dangerous thing, and once you start moving them to determine who "qualifies" for suicide, it can easily turn into something anti-choice.

 

[willitpass]

I personally find this a difficult thing to find a solid stance on, but I generally tend to come to the conclusion that any adult who is suicidal should attempt to remedy their situation to begin with before making the decision. If it's due to mental illness, try out therapy and meds for at least 6 months. If it's financial, set a time frame and budget and attempt to fix it first. Trauma? Get out of the situation ASAP and try treatment for awhile and see where things stand. Break-up? Give it 6 months and see where you are mentally after rebuilding your life. Grief? Try out support groups and therapy for a bit. I don't personally feel it's right to take such a drastic move without attempting to make things better first. So many people who are suicidal are in that frame of mind for a very brief time before things improve. Statistically, odds seem to show that it's the vast majority, although I'm sure those statistics are skewed. If things haven't improved after you give things a really solid effort, then I think it is that person's life and their decision to make. If their suffering cannot be eased by reasonable measures in a reasonable time frame, who is to say that they must continue suffering endlessly?

Minors are a hard thing for me. I've been severely suicidal since I was a young kid. I know the intense pain that they can live in and I am living proof that growing up isn't a magical cure for everyone. But I can't reasonably excuse allowing minors free will to off themselves at any given moment. I feel that they should wait until they are 18, meanwhile continuing to do everything they can to try and get into a better off place. Maybe they will be the lucky majority who do grow out of it, if not then when they are an adult, it is their choice to make.

 

[Orangee]

I agree. The line that I draw is short term(days, weeks, a few months) versus long-term (years) circumstances. Someone who is clinically depressed for years should be allowed to choose from themselves. Someone who in a crisis whether it be romantic, financial, mental health that is newly onset should be given help first. Should their situation not improve, it becomes a long-term circumstance and they should be given the choice to end their life.

My opinion here might be quite controversial, but I don't believe life itself is a negative thing for a large portion of the world. It is for me, and probably most people here, but I also respect (and envy) people who want to keep living and who enjoy living, just like how I would want them to respect my decision to die. That's why I find it incredibly sad when someone misses out on the rest of their life because they were not given help in a vulnerable moment (etc. breakup). Note, this is very different from people who have been suffering from a long time, have tried treatment, and not gotten better. Because they cannot forsee enjoying their life at any point in the future, just suffering, they should be able to choose because they have exhausted their options and clearly being alive is causing them suffering.

 

[JesiBel]

I think it's everyone's decision and no one should interfere.

Many (including me) will achieve to CTB thanks to an altered state of mind, since being completely rational they would never do it thanks to feelings of guilt and concerns. It is the push needed to break free from this prison.

For me, death is liberation and salvation for each individual. After all, it's the only thing we're guaranteed from birth. It's your life and you can do whatever you want with it.

Because, after all, you don't just choose to commit suicide overnight. You've been thinking about it for a long time... years.

I don't think I'll be of any help to others by stopping them, if I can't fix my existence either.

 

[sximii]

If it's impulsive and not planned out, or in an altered state of mind (like psychosis or if someone is on drugs). In those cases it makes sense to prevent or hospitalise the person. However, it's different if someone purposely goes into an altered state of mind for the purpose of ctb. Those are different things in my opinion

 

[Linda]

I think the discussion is a bit too theoretical. How do we determine what is a "right"? Is there any objective way of deciding what is a right and what is not? I don't think there is.
So I consider it more productive to think of how I would respond (and do respond) when interacting with someone who is considering taking their own life.

If it seems to me that the person's desire to ctb is likely to be only temporary, I would discourage them. That includes impulsive suicide attempts, attempts made when someone is not their normal self (e.g. because they are drunk, or unusually depressed), attempts in response to problems that are likely to be only temporary, and perhaps other situations. However, I would go no further than trying to discourage them. I would not take any steps beyond that. How they act is, ultimately, their business, not mine.
If someone has made a considered, rational decision that living is worse than dying, and it seems unlikely that they will change their mind, I would not (and do not) discourage them. However, I might, and sometimes do, suggest ways of dealing with their problems that may not have occurred to them.

This is a difficult topic, and it's not easy to find the right balance between respecting individual autonomy and trying to protect people when they probably need some protection. I don't claim that the way I go about this is the only way. It may not even be the best way, though I haven't found a better one. But I think it's a reasonable way, and a fairly good one in reality.

 

[Jealous Blackheart]

Thank you for your response. I agree with you. Everyone has a right to their own bodies and it's very difficult for anyone else to even determine what someone's "right state of mind" is and who is capable of making decisions. It's a good point that those with severe mental disabilities are often placed under a guardianship. People also claim that anyone who's suicidal is "not in the right state of mind" as a way to take away their agency and right to their choice.

I guess my hesitation comes mostly from an emotional standpoint. It would be really sad if someone ended their life solely impulsively due to a sudden neurological switch, if they had never even thought of suicide until this brain disruption. Could that be considered a medical emergency instead, if it's such a biologically driven state? But again, who could even determine if it is or not, or whether they had been contemplating suicide or not? It seems situational, but you couldn't even trust anyone's external judgement on a situation like that. I guess I also couldn't bring myself to blame a family member for trying to save their loved one attempting suicide, but the police or government have no business interfering in such matters, and just make them worse anyways.

I guess that in the end, it is really up to the person making the decision— no matter what is going on in their head. A mental defect, whether temporary or not, doesn't invalidate someone's right to bodily autonomy.

There are certainly layers to the argument. Your hesitation comes from an emotional standpoint. Many of our proponents make their stand on principle, but the part I'm most concerned with is what makes the most compelling legal argument.

There are really many factors. We know that state actors make certain people disappear and say that they killed themselves even though there is documentation of those people explicitly stating beforehand that they were not suicidal. If we really subscribe to everyone being able to choose whenever for any reason then this is a shut case. They changed their mind. No big deal. No reason to look into how, why, or signs of foul play.

What if it's chemically induced psychosis?

How does life insurance work if suicide is legally accessible and is it a crime to coerce someone into performing a legal act?

But on principle, I do believe that people should be allowed to choose for themselves and themselves alone.