Venting Are you 100% pro-choice towards suicide?

[GasMonkey]

still impossible to make it happen.

I just know for a fact that it will never be allowed for everyone.​

Assisted suicide is already 100% legal for all adults in Switzerland, in fact we had a member of the forum who assisted suicide to one of his friends. This will inevitably generalize once the Sarco is finished.​

 

[020x]

Assisted suicide is already 100% legal for all adults in Switzerland, in fact we had a member of the forum who assisted suicide to one of his friends. This will inevitably generalize once the Sarco in finished.​

Under what conditions? I know in most countries where it's legalised, a person has to be terminally ill to be approved. Even if the Sarco will be finished, there will still be a lot of restrictions.

 

[GasMonkey]

Under what conditions?

There are no conditions, just being an adult and the person has to execute the act themselves (cannot be touched once the process has started). The process has to be recorded on camera for the Police. That's how things work in Switzerland.​

I know in most countries where it's legalised, a person has to be terminally ill to be approved.

In Switzerland that's only for the cases where Nembutal is used (which has to be prescribed by a doctor), so the doctors can gatekeep/restrict the process as much as they want. With Nitrogen there is no need for any doctors, they are left completely out of the process.​

Even if the Sarco will be finished, there will still be a lot of restrictions.

Nope, not in Switzerland buddy . Being an adult of sound mind (with mental capacity to understand the consequences of their actions) will be enough. As I have said, there have been already cases of assisted suicide with inert gases with no "conditions", @LetzteAusfahrt's friend hasn't been the only case.

The entire goal of the Sarco project is to remove all gatekeeping (except being an adult of sound mind).​

 

[AllFoxedOut]

Nope, not in Switzerland buddy . Being an adult of sound mind (with mental capacity to understand the consequences of their actions) will be enough. As I have said, there have been already cases of assisted suicide with inert gases with no "conditions", @LetzteAusfahrt's friend hasn't been the only case.​

so having a mental illness (such as depression or bipolar disorder) does not preclude you from being assessed as "of sound mind"? not arguing or anything, that would just be the assumption i make. if it's not like that I'm very happy.

as for answering the thread, I am not 100% pro choice, no. I think there should be an age limit of 18 years and a cooling off period after applying. this would be miles better than the system we have now, and most everyone on this forum would qualify. I just don't think children can properly consent to decisions this large.

 

[NoHorizon]

I'm pro choice for adults, but not for children. I struggle with the idea of young adults as well, but I'm not sure I have a decent enough rationale to back that part up. That's just my opinion.

 

[GasMonkey]

so having a mental illness (such as depression or bipolar disorder) does not preclude you from being assessed as "of sound mind"?

The folks operating the Sarco won't know that you have depression or bipolar disorder, because there won't be any investigation to discover if you have any illness.

From what Dr Philip Nitschke has said, the test will be done by an AI that will ask the questions:
▪ Who are you?
▪ Where are you?
▪ What day is it?
▪ What will happen if you press the button?​

 

[sammiechzxv]

Maybe 85%, there are some situations where I'm not but usually I am

 

[Grimscribe]

Yes. I believe conscious existence is overall an awful experience and the bad far outweights the good in life. I also think any sane society should bear the responsability of giving it's members the choice to quick and painlessly end their own existence according to their own desires.
A society or group that denies this righr are objectively vile.

 

[borderline-feline]

I have a very close friend, with whom I've recently reconnected. There was a time when he was my favorite person, and some of those feelings still linger. I missed him with all of my heart in his absence and self-harmed when he left me before. I was at the point that I would do anything to have him back in my life. He had become extremely suicidal, and I reached out to him by the request of a mutual friend.

I told him that I wouldn't tell him not to do it and that I would support any decision he made so long as it was his own decision. My only request was that I be able to talk to him one last time so that I could leave him on a better note than before. He matters so much to me, and I missed him so much, yet I was willing to allow him to die by his own hand because of that love I have for him. It would be malignantly selfish of me to try and force him to endure pain for my benefit. I care about his quality of life more than whether or not he remains alive.

So yeah, I'd say that I'm 100% pro-choice.

 

[Holu]

I'll become anti suicide when the world fixes the mental healthcare system. So long as it continues to fail I see no point in not being pro-suicide and pro-euthanasia.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I'm absolutely pro-choice FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN CHOOSE. I don't think a 3 year old understands the concept of death very well. There are also people who experience their ideation in a manic state presumably. Some people don't find these thoughts welcoming. I don't think it's right that someone suffering from psychosis be handed nembutal. That seems to me like selling alcohol to someone who is already blind drunk.

There's a big difference also between a state authorised assisted suicide programme and an individual person wanting to end it. When children take their own lives- I think it's terribly sad. Having said that- I don't get all superior about it and claim they didn't know what they were doing because they were too young. They were obviously in enough pain to end it- that's terrible but we ought to acknowledge that they made that decision for a reason. (And we should be looking at the reason!)

As for allowing children to kill themselves via assisted suicide in a clinic without the knowledge of their parents- whether that's morally right or not- it's impractical. Who on earth do you think would agree to that?!! You already know your parents wouldn't be in favour. So- I guess morally it's interesting to debate but realistically- it seems very unlikely to happen to me.

Of course- our current system (in my opinion) leans too far the other way. Seems to me like they decide that anyone who wants to kill themselves doesn't have the mental capacity to make that decision! Which I utterly disagree with. Having said that- no- I'm not pro-suicide for all- no questions asked.

I do understand where you're coming from. To you, life has absolutely no positive aspect. It's all hell. You seem determined that it's going to be that way for everyone else as well. Whether they see it like that or not. So- of course- with that viewpoint- death is the best option for everyone as a kind of default. Therefore it makes sense to you to say anyone should have that choice because basically- death is the right option for everyone anyway.

You simply don't seem to care about other people's experiences of life though. You'll only empathise with people who share the same views as you. I guess you just think everyone is delluded who enjoys a single thing in life. They may not see it like that- they may NEVER see it like that.

I guess I'm curious really. Do you ever think that your way of thinking and seeing the world is different to others? I think mine is. I'd say, our take on this world is far less common in fact. I don't know whether some of my thinking is skewed. I know I'm a pessimist. Still- I simply can't say that my perception of the world is 'right' anymore than theirs is.

Yes- it's frustrating that their dominant pro-life views affect my life but I don't think it would be right to impose a pro-death society on anyone either. I think the important think is to fimly ascertain what the individual wants and whether that is indeed the best option for them. Some people might actually want to live if they only got a bit more support. Ultimately- it needs to be their decision but I think help should be offered- not just kill anyone who asks.

Of course- ultimately we don't know. That 3 year old may well have been better off killing themselves at that point. Maybe their life would have just gotten worse from then on. Still- maybe not though. I think you have to acknowledge that suicidal people are still a minority group within society. Some people DO recover. We're all different. I think people should at least be given the chance to recover if they want it. Plus- I think mental capacity needs to be ascertained. I imagine the majority of people would pass that though.

 

[Huggs]

Not for children who often can't even comprehend what death is, or people that have been content and functional all their lives but become suddenly suicidal because of a recent event such as their spouse passing—because these periods often pass and people readjust. But for adults that have been suffering nearly all their lives with no improvement, yes.
Also, I completely agree with barring people that are presently experiencing psychosis or the like from taking their own life because that is true mental impairment, but I find all the arguments against people that are depressed foul. When you've been in immense pain that can't be resolved with a poor quality of life for many years, you're going to be depressed, and suicide in that case can be a rational choice. I'm not vulnerable or mentally impaired the way people claim, and the faux-sympathetic, patronizing way people like me are talked about is sickening.

 

[fwompie]

Short answer: no, it's complex.

Long answer: this is going to have some layers.
So, I believe any person of any age has the ability to decide whether they want to go on living or not. But that decision has to be made over a longer period of time. This will prevent emotional teenagers from choosing suicide over high school or a break up. This will prevent people in an mental health crisis to just up and go and end it all even if they had plans for life. Just to name some examples.

I say that, believing some people love and enjoy life. There are people who will have regretted the choice, looking back, if they didn't die. There are people who have tried and failed and regret trying.

The reason for suicide should be endless suffering with no light at the end of the tunnel. But this is tricky, for example: I deal with multiple mental health issues that have messed up my life to a big extent. The only reason I'm semi-okay right now is because I'm middle class. To me right now, this is too much suffering but I am on waiting lists for therapy. In my head I have to sit this suffering through until I'll even get a slight chance of help and recovery. I'm not sure yet if I call that fair to myself or not. It's a long time. And there's not surety that it will get better.

Problem is, people with problems that can be solved with money shouldn't be allowed to ctb by my logic, since it's not endless. BUT they also won't get to those solutions if they don't have the money. It would still be endless suffering. How endless should it be? How long should suffering have to last? At what point is suffering too much?
If the government doesn't want to help people ctb peacefully then they should help people who's suicide reason is entirely solvable. That part infuriates me. People who want to die because of financial circumstances. Just shows how shit this economic system is.

I'm also afraid that a peaceful ctb method supported by the government could become eugenicist (if I phrased that correctly). Encouraging those who are too much trouble, cost too much money for the state or just don't fit into the mold of productivity, to end it all.

And I suppose there's also the question of "do we care?", if someone ends their life whilst we personally think it wasn't time, that there was hope. Is life so good that it matters wether someone dies or not? What difference does it make? How would we know what someone else feels? Should it even be up to a doctor? I don't have an answer for those questions.

TL;DR: someone should think about ctb whilst letting some time pass and trying everything actually available. Children should also get the choice. Whether it's a right time to die is incredibly complex, imo: think about it for a long time. I have many unanswered questions about it that I'm still thinking about.

 

[busybee]

Fundamentally it should be a human right BUT the person needs to be 100% aware of the meaning and consequences, absolutely sure of the decision and not kill themselves impulsively (unless planned ahead and waiting for said inpulse for courage) or harm others in the process

 

[risanya]

i think the reality of living in this world is to cruel to reasonably force someone to bear. its completely understandable to hate life in many countries so it should be reasonable to be understanding of one's choice to ctb.

 

[doneforlife]

There are no conditions, just being an adult and the person has to execute the act themselves (cannot be touched once the process has started). The process has to be recorded on camera for the Police. That's how things work in Switzerland.


In Switzerland that's only for the cases where Nembutal is used (which has to be prescribed by a doctor), so the doctors can gatekeep/restrict the process as much as they want. With Nitrogen there is no need for any doctors, they are left completely out of the process.


Nope, not in Switzerland buddy . Being an adult of sound mind (with mental capacity to understand the consequences of their actions) will be enough. As I have said, there have been already cases of assisted suicide with inert gases with no "conditions", @LetzteAusfahrt's friend hasn't been the only case.

The entire goal of the Sarco project is to remove all gatekeeping (except being an adult of sound mind).​

I guess post Sarco , Nitrogen will become an illegal substance..

 

[Aergia]

No. I don't think it should be OK for anyone younger than 25 to CTB. The reason I say that is that the human brain is not fully developed until that age. If you think back to what it was like being an adolescent, everything that happens in a young person's life is like a major crisis. Someone gets dumped by their gf, it's the end of the world. You accidentally blow off a fart in class, it's the end of the world. You trip in the cafeteria and spill your entire tray of food all over the place, it's the end of the world. You spill your books and notebooks all over the hallway floor, and your "secret" doodles of how you love so and so get seen by everyone, and it's the end of the world. You're talking to your friends and discover you have a booger hanging from your nose, and it's the end of the world. You bend down and split your jeans open, and it's the end of the world. You get a D on a test, and it's the end of the world. You send some nude pics of yourself to your bf (which is really stupid btw), and he disseminates them to all of his friends, and it's the end of the world.

And I know full well that many younger people are dealing with much more serious issues, like abuse for example, than typical high school stuff. I still say that a younger mind is unable to process events properly, even serious events, and keep things in perspective. Just about everything negative that happens is doom and gloom when you're a teenager.

The mind just doesn't have enough real life experience before the age of 25 (or so) and is unable to rationalize properly about normal life happenings and makes them out into much bigger issues than they really are (in many cases).

That's how I feel and I make no apologies for it.

Then I think the question is, how bad does a situation have to objectively be for suicide to be a rational response? If you're claiming the ability to ctb should be dependent upon one's capacity for mental maturity to recognise ctb-worthy circumstances (which I don't dispute), you need to set some kind of threshold that determines what those circumstances can be.

What if I'm an efilist and I say that since nonexistence means experiencing no negative emotion, while living means experiencing significant embarrassment because you farted in class— suicide shouldn't be off the table? What if a good enough reason to ctb is just that one will inevitably experience pain and since the presence of pain is worse than the absence of pleasure, suicide is just the most utilitarian option (assuming no one else will be emotionally affected by said suicide)?

The argument is that suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem, as I see it, still posits that one needs a problem at all to ctb, and thus that life is by default good— that if you have no problems, you shouldn't leave. I've seen members here who aren't psychologically or physically ill but want to leave because they feel they've done enough in the world— that there's just no significant reason to live.

I'm not saying we should allow fifteen-year olds to kill themselves over the things you've mentioned… but I'm just curious as to what would a moral argument against that would look like.

(I'm also curious as to how you've arrived at the figure of 25. If this is about encephalic maturity, it seems that different cognitive abilities peak at different times, some not till one's thirties or fourties, so why 25?)

 

[woh6]

yes

 

[tiyijinn]

No. I don't think it should be OK for anyone younger than 25 to CTB. The reason I say that is that the human brain is not fully developed until that age. If you think back to what it was like being an adolescent, everything that happens in a young person's life is like a major crisis. Someone gets dumped by their gf, it's the end of the world. You accidentally blow off a fart in class, it's the end of the world. You trip in the cafeteria and spill your entire tray of food all over the place, it's the end of the world. You spill your books and notebooks all over the hallway floor, and your "secret" doodles of how you love so and so get seen by everyone, and it's the end of the world. You're talking to your friends and discover you have a booger hanging from your nose, and it's the end of the world. You bend down and split your jeans open, and it's the end of the world. You get a D on a test, and it's the end of the world. You send some nude pics of yourself to your bf (which is really stupid btw), and he disseminates them to all of his friends, and it's the end of the world.

And I know full well that many younger people are dealing with much more serious issues, like abuse for example, than typical high school stuff. I still say that a younger mind is unable to process events properly, even serious events, and keep things in perspective. Just about everything negative that happens is doom and gloom when you're a teenager.

The mind just doesn't have enough real life experience before the age of 25 (or so) and is unable to rationalize properly about normal life happenings and makes them out into much bigger issues than they really are (in many cases).

That's how I feel and I make no apologies for it.

But why is life the default? Why does suicide require informed consent, while life doesn't? I think it's awful to keep anyone here against their will.

 

[Dmoore3232]

So you're a libertarian. I am too. Suicide is tough though in my opinion. If you are sick and can be fixed then perhaps the person would even want that and would want to be saved even though they are suicidal. They would be glad you saved them if they end up happy.

 

[doneforlife]

But why is life the default? Why does suicide require informed consent, while life doesn't? I think it's awful to keep anyone here against their will.

Thought provoking..

 

[CrazyDiamond04]

Very simple. Just make it legal at whatever age is the age of majority where someone lives.

 

[byebyemadworld]

Not 100% pro choice.
It's difficult in case of children and teenagers.
But adults should be able to choose when and how to leave this world, especially when sick.

 

[GasMonkey]

I'm 100% pro-choice for any person over the age of majority, with absolutely no requirements/conditions.

 

[locked*n*loaded]

But why is life the default? Why does suicide require informed consent, while life doesn't? I think it's awful to keep anyone here against their will.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, just as I am to mine. I can't change how things are "set up" here in that there is either life or death. Nor, can I change the way life comes about through the actions of others. No, it's true, you don't get a choice whether you are brought into this world or not. It may sound cavalier, but that's just the way it is. So, if a 5 year old child was able to verbalize to you that they no longer wanted to be "kept" here on this planet, you would give them your blessing, or even provide assistance to them, so that they would no longer have to be kept here against their will? How about if it were your 5 year old child? Oh, you say, well, 5 years is too young, I wasn't talking about anyone that young. Well, what's the arbitrary cut-off age then? I believe that going by what science tells us to be the case is the safest answer, and that is that human minds are not fully developed until around the age of 25. The human mind is what differentiates us the most from other animals, since it gives us the ability to reason amongst other things. It stands to reason that a not fully developed mind lacks full capacity to make such a momentous decision.

(I'm also curious as to how you've arrived at the figure of 25. If this is about encephalic maturity, it seems that different cognitive abilities peak at different times, some not till one's thirties or fourties, so why 25?)

Current scientific consensus.

You have your opinions and I have mine. I stand by mine and I don't have to defend them to anyone. I expressed my opinion in direct response to the OP's question. Perhaps you could set up shop on the corner near a school and hand out guns and a bullet to any minor who decides that it's just too much for them to continue on because of that giant zit they have in between their eyes.

 

[tiyijinn]

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, just as I am to mine. I can't change how things are "set up" here in that there is either life or death. Nor, can I change the way life comes about through the actions of others. No, it's true, you don't get a choice whether you are brought into this world or not. It may sound cavalier, but that's just the way it is. So, if a 5 year old child was able to verbalize to you that they no longer wanted to be "kept" here on this planet, you would give them your blessing, or even provide assistance to them, so that they would no longer have to be kept here against their will? How about if it were your 5 year old child? Oh, you say, well, 5 years is too young, I wasn't talking about anyone that young. Well, what's the arbitrary cut-off age then? I believe that going by what science tells us to be the case is the safest answer, and that is that human minds are not fully developed until around the age of 25. The human mind is what differentiates us the most from other animals, since it gives us the ability to reason amongst other things. It stands to reason that a not fully developed mind lacks full capacity to make such a momentous decision.

I would never have a child in the first place. People shouldn't be brought into existence to suffer, especially not without their consent. Whether a mind is "mature enough" is completely subjective, science is not an objective moral authority. If humans could actually get even more mature and intelligent, say until they are 100 years old, would a 25-year-old be too stupid to make the decision? Even if in our world they are be able to consent? If humans only matured to the level of 5-year-olds, should absolutely no one consent to anything?

I think that anyone and anything wanting death should get it. Death isn't bad, people shouldn't be forced to live. It's extremely sad that a child could get depressed enough to want to kill themself, but it does happen, and they shouldn't be forced to live, either. Death. Isn't. Bad. It's not hurting anyone. If I had an adopted child who didn't want to be here anymore, I wouldn't want them to suffer longer, even if I would miss them.

 

[jessisme]

Pro choice only for 25 years of age and older, with some possible exception.

 

[Homo erectus]

I'm absolutely pro-choice FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN CHOOSE. I don't think a 3 year old understands the concept of death very well. There are also people who experience their ideation in a manic state presumably. Some people don't find these thoughts welcoming. I don't think it's right that someone suffering from psychosis be handed nembutal. That seems to me like selling alcohol to someone who is already blind drunk.

There's a big difference also between a state authorised assisted suicide programme and an individual person wanting to end it. When children take their own lives- I think it's terribly sad. Having said that- I don't get all superior about it and claim they didn't know what they were doing because they were too young. They were obviously in enough pain to end it- that's terrible but we ought to acknowledge that they made that decision for a reason. (And we should be looking at the reason!)

As for allowing children to kill themselves via assisted suicide in a clinic without the knowledge of their parents- whether that's morally right or not- it's impractical. Who on earth do you think would agree to that?!! You already know your parents wouldn't be in favour. So- I guess morally it's interesting to debate but realistically- it seems very unlikely to happen to me.

Of course- our current system (in my opinion) leans too far the other way. Seems to me like they decide that anyone who wants to kill themselves doesn't have the mental capacity to make that decision! Which I utterly disagree with. Having said that- no- I'm not pro-suicide for all- no questions asked.

I do understand where you're coming from. To you, life has absolutely no positive aspect. It's all hell. You seem determined that it's going to be that way for everyone else as well. Whether they see it like that or not. So- of course- with that viewpoint- death is the best option for everyone as a kind of default. Therefore it makes sense to you to say anyone should have that choice because basically- death is the right option for everyone anyway.

You simply don't seem to care about other people's experiences of life though. You'll only empathise with people who share the same views as you. I guess you just think everyone is delluded who enjoys a single thing in life. They may not see it like that- they may NEVER see it like that.

I guess I'm curious really. Do you ever think that your way of thinking and seeing the world is different to others? I think mine is. I'd say, our take on this world is far less common in fact. I don't know whether some of my thinking is skewed. I know I'm a pessimist. Still- I simply can't say that my perception of the world is 'right' anymore than theirs is.

Yes- it's frustrating that their dominant pro-life views affect my life but I don't think it would be right to impose a pro-death society on anyone either. I think the important think is to fimly ascertain what the individual wants and whether that is indeed the best option for them. Some people might actually want to live if they only got a bit more support. Ultimately- it needs to be their decision but I think help should be offered- not just kill anyone who asks.

Of course- ultimately we don't know. That 3 year old may well have been better off killing themselves at that point. Maybe their life would have just gotten worse from then on. Still- maybe not though. I think you have to acknowledge that suicidal people are still a minority group within society. Some people DO recover. We're all different. I think people should at least be given the chance to recover if they want it. Plus- I think mental capacity needs to be ascertained. I imagine the majority of people would pass that though.

Very true. Politics is about who has what power, e.g. who should decide whether a 3-year old should live or not? Some members here appeal to the concept of human rights. But it is really quite irrelevant. Freedom is transient, temporary result of all current conditions. It's not a final, stable state that will last forever. In the past, the family had much power in deciding what people should do, learn, live or die. But most of these powers have been taken by the state. Average people have little influence in the big picture. The appeal to human rights may move some people. But it will be a black swan that makes universal euthanasia available. It seems there is a black swan lurking in a distance.

 

[DeathSleep]

I'd have to say that in general I think everyone should have a right to end their own life. After all it's not really fair for me to deny someone that right when I'm not them and I don't know what they're experiencing. Definitely an interesting topic though.

 

[Sweet Tart]

Yes, no age limit of course, i would have do it at 6, i know it sounds bad, but if you got trauma life can be torture even at that age, and honestly if a kid have some trauma at that age and want to die, society have failed to protect him/her

This is a very meaningful point, thank you for stating it so clearly.

I used to feel that a child wanting to die is a sign that the fucking world needs to change, not that the child should get to carry out their wish to die. I still believe the world should be a safe place for all vulnerable people. But it isn't and it isn't ever going to be.

Humane methods to die should be accessible to anyone who needs them.