[Article] Additional (in depth) example of why prohibition on CTB does NOT work

[TAW122]

While I have written similar threads on this topic, this is actually an example that came to mind just recently. From the thread "Prolifers keep finding ways to limit methods and crackdown on existing methods" as well as the thread "If life was voluntary and not imposed or forced, people may be less inclined to want to CTB", I have given examples and expressed how prohibition on methods as well as CTB do NOT work and don't solve the underlying problem. It merely stops one from being able to CTB, forces one to choose more violent (and riskier) methods resulting in worse outcomes (or lower chances of successful CTB's), and/or worse, unintentional consequences from some feeling trapped, leading to collateral damage.

So going in depth discussing about the potential damage from prohibition of CTB as well as methods, I will use the alcohol prohibition example and once again, apply the same arguments from the modern day to prove and illustrate how ineffective and damaging prohibition (in general) is.

The example scenario portrayed/explained below:
It is now January 17th​, 1920, and in the US, all sales, manufacturing, and distribbubtion of alcohol are now prohibited, banned, made illegal. The people who wanted to buy alcohol or drink were out of luck and the people who supported the prohibition (aka the prohibitionists) pushed their view onto those who were enjoyers of alcohol (aka the enjoyers). The enjoyers ended up resorting to other clandestine ways to acquire their booze, alcohol, or whatever substance. The enjoyers ended up going through risky means to not only produce alcohol (oftenly with varying qualities and sometimes with bad consequences – like too strong of an alcohol, too weak, or even improper quality control and ending up consuming a not good (possibly harmful) drink and thus endured more suffering. Other ancillary consequences are organized criminals that sprung up in the underground who take advantage of the enjoyers and/or committed other crimes as they rose to power.

Now how does this parallel to the prohibition on CTB and methods in the modern day? This example shows that preventing one from accessing what they want (alcohol in the 1920's) did not result in solving the problem of alcohol consumption or alcohol desire, but instead, only fueled other problems and people will still (try to) find other ways to obtain them, albeit illegally and other consequences. So instead of alcohol, in the modern day, it is CTB and method restriction. Instead of regulating it through voluntary euthanasia like what most/all pro-choicers wish for, the preventionists and pro-lifers continue to make it (psuedo) illegal by detaining, punishing, and persecuting those who plan, attempt, or acquire the means (method) and intent to do so. The pro-choicers and people who wish to exit suffering not only remain alive against their wishes, but continue to suffer until they either find an effective method to leave (in secret) or continue to suffer indefinitely (or until natural causes or other causes of death).

Therefore, prohibition (as illustrated and explained in the alcohol example) does not work as it doesn't address the problems that cause people to want to CTB, but rather infringes on their rights while doing nothing to alleviate whatever the person is going through.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I do agree with you- that making certain things illegal only pushes them underground- where they can be even less regulated. Same argument goes for street drugs as your alcohol example I expect.

I guess the major difference with CTB is possibly the matter of minors- or- people who are GENUINELY vulnerable- either acting impulsively or from some sort of psychosis. (I know that one's always a bit contentious but I suppose it isn't IMPOSSIBLE someone COULD commit suicide whilst in a manic phase.) I think- when it comes to regulation- 'protecting' children is usually at the top of the priorities.

I kind of see it that there are two sides to suicide prevention and pro-lifers: The cold hearted economics side of things- governments basically- we can't let able bodied people who can work and pay taxes kill themselves en masse. Then- the emotional side of families who have lost- or- are frightened of losing loved ones via suicide.

If we consider suicide via a substance that seems to be gaining a lot of traction- SN- it's kind of difficult. Realistically- when are we going to see assisted suicide being available wordwide? Perhaps in the next few years or so- for the terminally/critically ill. I guess following that- they may consider people with severe mental illness. Personally- I can't see them letting people die who don't quite fit their criteria but still simply don't like life anytime soon. So- till then- DIY methods are all the rest of us have.

There certainly are some pro-lifers out there who want no-one to be able to take their life- no matter how dire their circumstances. I expect others are more understanding. Some may even think that anyone over 18 has the right to choose. Still- they may STILL have concerns for children- including their own children.

Do parents/ governments REALLY then trust that individual companies will check proof of age before they sell them something like SN? ESPECIALLY seeing as it has some other non CTB uses- and it isn't illegal (for now.) I expect not. To be honest- I don't really know how we expect them to act... Many of the MOST angry pro-lifers have likely lost children or very young adults to suicide. I suppose- if they truly were clueless about how unhappy their children were- they could well look for someone else to blame. So- to them- an entire ban on the substance MAY seem reasonable- seeing as the alternative is to actually strictly regulate it as a substance to DIY suicide with- which our governments almost certainly won't agree to.

So- while I do HATE the way it's so hard to gain access to assisted suicide- unless you meet VERY specific criteria- I can't see that changing substantially. I also HATE it that DIY suicide methods are so difficult to obtain AND so risky- I CAN also see why they are- How do you strictly regulate a substance like SN without acknowledging what people are using it for? As soon as an official regulation comes in- which I imagine is necessary on a lethal substance- (to stop it getting into the hands of children) the government is opening the floodgates that anyone can take their own life (over the age of 18.)

I don't know if any of that makes sense... I suppose I'm trying to say that I agree with your sentiments. It's just the practicalities that I think become difficult.

To be honest- thinking about it even more- I'm afraid prohibiting methods IS somewhat effective I'm afraid as well... If we had all been able to obtain N the moment we first felt suicidal- how many of us do you think would still be here? It's certainly a cruel deterrent- but fear of pain and/or a DIY attempt failing is a major reason a lot of us ARE still here. It may not keep all of us here forever and it may not stop the most desperate of us out there from CTB but sadly- I would argue that it IS an effective deterrent. Plus- there's the fact that so many DIY attempts fail- and- no matter what condition the poor person is in after the attempt- the pro-lifers see that as a victory too.

 

[FuneralCry]

Any kind of suicide prevention and restriction of methods will certainly just cause more suffering and make people more desperate, it's inhumane to want to force people to suffer and make existence into a prison, suicidal people deserve to have a reliable way to exit and shouldn't have to resort to risky and brutal methods.

 

[NoLoveNoHope]

I've used the alcohol prohibition before to describe restricting certain methods and how harmful suicide prevention can be to those who just want a silent exit. I actually explained it to one of my friends and surprisingly he did agree with me, I guess seeing my state of mind changed his views on suicide prevention as a whole.

 

[LigottiSchopenhauer]

I agree 100%. My personal preferred method is the .44 magnum firearm I own, however in a better world I would have access to a more peaceful and less messy lethal injection. Pro-lifers have forced all of us to use methods that are gruesome and painful instead of the miraculous end-of-life drugs that medical science has devised.

 

[SilentSadness]

You are right that suicide prevention only creates harm, and all it does is keep people alive with no way to die and of course no way to talk about it due to risk of abuse. Despite the repeated lie, suicide is illegal in all but name, the only real difference is that suicidal people are treated like mentally deranged people as well as being locked up. This has created a very toxic society where we have to talk undercover, as if we were criminals, just to talk about basic human rights, let alone receive them. There could never be any benefit to abusing peoples' rights for the sake of some pro-life delusion, and I'm sure these ridiculous practices will end at some point in the future when its senselessness is finally realised. Suicide being illegal is also incredibly problematic because it causes people to be mistreated to the highest extremes without any repurcussions for the people that did that to them, and often the perpetrators are treated like heroes for "saving" suicidal people as well. Regardless of all of the above, there's no need to justify suicide being legal anyway as it really is a human right, and it's counter-intuitive to suggest it's not.

 

[ConstantineXI]

The issue that I see is this: The prohibition results in situations where somebody, given a window where they can act, will feel compelled to act then and there. IIRC there are a non-trivial number of cases where somebody gets a prescription for a terminal OD of something...and then never uses it, but if anything knowing the option is there helps them otherwise deal with a given illness.

Going with some phrasing from combat engineers, people will "find a way or make one". The problem is that when they do, it can be a complete mess (e.g. being unable to sort out will/estate stuff in a timely manner, having to resort to messy methods).