[Article] Regarding Keith Emerson’s death (my take)

[TAW122]

Disclaimer: Any reason (or lack thereof) for CTB'ing is valid and this article isn't to debate whether he made the right decision or not. This article is to emphasize and expose the problem of a prohibitive world that doesn't respect others' right to die.

With that said here is my thoughts regarding Keith Emerson's CTB, even though it is over 7 years ago. First off, I acknowledge that the people around him and know him will be sad, there is no denying that and their feelings are valid. However, it is Emerson's life and he finds it unbearable, especially the circumstances that he finds intolerable (all the issues in his life including his chronic health condition), then it's his prerogative to decide when it's time (for him) to go, and nobody else.

I find it rather glib and flippant that pro-lifers put the onus onto Emerson for him to find a reason to live for. Perhaps he lived for the stage (performance and the concert musician's life style) and the enjoyment of his ability to play the keyboard at such a remarkable level. However, due to his condition and injuries, it prevented him from being able to perform to the level in which he is satisfied with. He shouldn't have to settle. He shouldn't have to adapt. He shouldn't have to accept it (his circumstances). Whether he could be a manager, a teacher, a businessman, a statesman, or whatever else one may fancy him becoming, it's ultimately his prerogative and if he did not find solace nor enjoyment in a different life, then he should have the right to call it quits.

As someone who had experience with music and rather an enjoyer of music of many genres and high quality music, I can somewhat relate to the loss of such an ability, whether it is due to accident, disease, illness, or other causes. The loss of what was once meaningful for one's life and what one has built over a lifetime is almost akin to death. While it is possible for him to adapt, settle, and accept the circumstances, he shouldn't be obligated to. It's his life after all and no one else's. I will, however, accept a compromise if it means that he will still ultimately be able to have his choice, wishes respected (even if it results in death).

This hypothetical scenario with the reasonable compromise would be as follows:
Suppose Emerson lost his ability to play well and after some years, he wants to CTB. However, at first, he has a waiting period where he is given the opportunity to explore other alternatives and at least try out other avenues to see if he can find solace in them. He could try performing different kinds of instruments or other works on the keyboard (even if one-handed), he could try to be a statesman, a businessman, or even an instructor. However, after a reasonable time, be it like a year or two (or however long he wishes to and is agreed upon), if he is still disappointed and dissatisfied with the outcome of other avenues, then he will be granted the right to die (peacefully).

Now I understand some would say, but why the compromise and not just straight up CTB on demand? While that would be the most ideal situation, a compromise would still be better than having outright prohibition because it at least GUARANTEES that one will still their wishes and choice honored at the end.

Sadly, we live in a prohibitive, pro-life world and even in 2016, both in the US and UK, Emerson would not have been granted the right to die. Both countries are still very pro-life (even in present day, but moreso back then) and fewer states in the US have death with dignity laws on the books. In present day, even death with dignity only applies to people who are terminally ill with less than six months to live in order to qualify. Even Canada has yet to have MAID available that soon, and if I remember, in the early stages of Canada's MAID program, only those who death is foreseeable and soon will qualify (e.g. likely terminal illnesses with very poor prognosis), so even if Emerson was Canadian (which he isn't), he still would NOT qualify under the law at that time.

 

[TAW122]

Just bumping this article as it has been buried by other threads.

Personally, I understand why Emerson did what he did and it's his life, his experiences, and prerogative. He doesn't owe it to anybody to stay alive for them and if he would rather die by his own hand (which he did, at age 72), then that's his decision. In fact, I would even applaud him for sticking out for a long time despite all the challenges he faced over the course of his life (and his music career). Many people wouldn't have endured for such a long time, and the fact that he did shows his tenacity and endurance, which should be respected. It is rather flippant and insulting when pro-lifers claim that he lost his battle to depression because it undermines his struggles and the cause of his agony.

 

[doneforlife]

Disclaimer: Any reason (or lack thereof) for CTB'ing is valid and this article isn't to debate whether he made the right decision or not. This article is to emphasize and expose the problem of a prohibitive world that doesn't respect others' right to die.

With that said here is my thoughts regarding Keith Emerson's CTB, even though it is over 7 years ago. First off, I acknowledge that the people around him and know him will be sad, there is no denying that and their feelings are valid. However, it is Emerson's life and he finds it unbearable, especially the circumstances that he finds intolerable (all the issues in his life including his chronic health condition), then it's his prerogative to decide when it's time (for him) to go, and nobody else.

I find it rather glib and flippant that pro-lifers put the onus onto Emerson for him to find a reason to live for. Perhaps he lived for the stage (performance and the concert musician's life style) and the enjoyment of his ability to play the keyboard at such a remarkable level. However, due to his condition and injuries, it prevented him from being able to perform to the level in which he is satisfied with. He shouldn't have to settle. He shouldn't have to adapt. He shouldn't have to accept it (his circumstances). Whether he could be a manager, a teacher, a businessman, a statesman, or whatever else one may fancy him becoming, it's ultimately his prerogative and if he did not find solace nor enjoyment in a different life, then he should have the right to call it quits.

As someone who had experience with music and rather an enjoyer of music of many genres and high quality music, I can somewhat relate to the loss of such an ability, whether it is due to accident, disease, illness, or other causes. The loss of what was once meaningful for one's life and what one has built over a lifetime is almost akin to death. While it is possible for him to adapt, settle, and accept the circumstances, he shouldn't be obligated to. It's his life after all and no one else's. I will, however, accept a compromise if it means that he will still ultimately be able to have his choice, wishes respected (even if it results in death).

This hypothetical scenario with the reasonable compromise would be as follows:
Suppose Emerson lost his ability to play well and after some years, he wants to CTB. However, at first, he has a waiting period where he is given the opportunity to explore other alternatives and at least try out other avenues to see if he can find solace in them. He could try performing different kinds of instruments or other works on the keyboard (even if one-handed), he could try to be a statesman, a businessman, or even an instructor. However, after a reasonable time, be it like a year or two (or however long he wishes to and is agreed upon), if he is still disappointed and dissatisfied with the outcome of other avenues, then he will be granted the right to die (peacefully).

Now I understand some would say, but why the compromise and not just straight up CTB on demand? While that would be the most ideal situation, a compromise would still be better than having outright prohibition because it at least GUARANTEES that one will still their wishes and choice honored at the end.

Sadly, we live in a prohibitive, pro-life world and even in 2016, both in the US and UK, Emerson would not have been granted the right to die. Both countries are still very pro-life (even in present day, but moreso back then) and fewer states in the US have death with dignity laws on the books. In present day, even death with dignity only applies to people who are terminally ill with less than six months to live in order to qualify. Even Canada has yet to have MAID available that soon, and if I remember, in the early stages of Canada's MAID program, only those who death is foreseeable and soon will qualify (e.g. likely terminal illnesses with very poor prognosis), so even if Emerson was Canadian (which he isn't), he still would NOT qualify under the law at that time.

This. Couldn't have worded it better.

 

[Forever Sleep]

In terms of assisted suicide- yes. I think for people with non chronic/ terminal illness, a 6 month waiting period is a good idea. I think that would ensure that people aren't making impulsive decisions and aren't acting out of some temporary psychosis- I imagine that is possible. In that period, the person could be assessed in terms of their mental capacity to make the decision and they could be OFFERED help. I don't think that the offer of an assisted death should be contingent on them accepting that help personally- but I definitely think help and support should be offered.

In terms of an individual deciding to take their own life by themselves. That's a highly personal decision. It's really down to the individual on whether they want to give recovery a bash. Many people here have had ideation for a long time. Some, years, some even decades. Some will have given their all into 'recovery'. Some may not even want to try. I personally don't feel it's up to us to judge whether they were too 'hasty' in their decision.

It's natural to grieve someone's passing. It's natural to miss their contribution to our lives if they were blessed with talent. I guess it's natural perhaps to think it was tragic that they couldn't find a way to mitigate their circumstances. Still- at the end of the day- they couldn't. Their experience of life was painful enough to push them into risking CTB. I firmly believe we ought to respect that decision- no matter when they made it.

Being creative myself and it being so central to my life (as pathetic as that may sound,) I can fully understand the sense of loss an artist feels when they can no longer create in a satisfying way to them. It's like they lose their purpose in life. That can feel devastating. We can grieve for that just the same as we grieve for other losses in life. It may not make sense to everyone but they maybe ought to consider that it would be insensitive to suggest to someone who has been recently widowed to immediately just get out there and look for a new partner. It may seem like a crass comparison but for some people- their work is everything to them. Their whole character and future is wrapped up in it. It's not always just a case of finding something else to occupy your time!

 

[shantyizlit]

In terms of assisted suicide- yes. I think for people with non chronic/ terminal illness, a 6 month waiting period is a good idea. I think that would ensure that people aren't making impulsive decisions and aren't acting out of some temporary psychosis- I imagine that is possible. In that period, the person could be assessed in terms of their mental capacity to make the decision and they could be OFFERED help. I don't think that the offer of an assisted death should be contingent on them accepting that help personally- but I definitely think help and support should be offered.

In terms of an individual deciding to take their own life by themselves. That's a highly personal decision. It's really down to the individual on whether they want to give recovery a bash. Many people here have had ideation for a long time. Some, years, some even decades. Some will have given their all into 'recovery'. Some may not even want to try. I personally don't feel it's up to us to judge whether they were too 'hasty' in their decision.

It's natural to grieve someone's passing. It's natural to miss their contribution to our lives if they were blessed with talent. I guess it's natural perhaps to think it was tragic that they couldn't find a way to mitigate their circumstances. Still- at the end of the day- they couldn't. Their experience of life was painful enough to push them into risking CTB. I firmly believe we ought to respect that decision- no matter when they made it.

Being creative myself and it being so central to my life (as pathetic as that may sound,) I can fully understand the sense of loss an artist feels when they can no longer create in a satisfying way to them. It's like they lose their purpose in life. That can feel devastating. We can grieve for that just the same as we grieve for other losses in life. It may not make sense to everyone but they maybe ought to consider that it would be insensitive to suggest to someone who has been recently widowed to immediately just get out there and look for a new partner. It may seem like a crass comparison but for some people- their work is everything to them. Their whole character and future is wrapped up in it. It's not always just a case of finding something else to occupy your time!

I think a 6 month wait period is ludicrous, but as long as the persons opinion is respected regardless that's a start.
I just think the problem with gatekeeping something like this, even with just a wait period, is imposing on others freedom. If they can put a time on how long they have to endure with their complications, certainly it's not far from that, to put some restrictions on the conditions of the people that want assisted suicide. I think it's a slippery slope to impose any criteria on anyone wanting assisted suicide, because the freedom to choose whether one wants to be dead or not is completely up to oneself. You're essentially having your freedom oppressed, even if the only criteria is that you have to wait 6 months.
The real issue is that in general it's ok for authority to impose criteria upon your freedom already, and as long as what you do freely doesn't impose on the freedom of others, you should have the option to do it, because it is your life to live, and your decision what to do. But we are already expected to diminish our personal freedom under certain criteria set by the government, and that's why they feel it just to impose the criteria upon us that it not in our right, as it is right now, to commit suicide.
It's not that it's entirely illegal to commit suicide as it has been in times before, but you are severely punished if you end up failing.
We're literally being told what we can or can't do, as did our parents do to us as children, since they in a sense owned us, even if these actions wouldn't have negative consequences for us, our parents simply did not want to see that kind of behavior. This creates the tolerance of a sort of nanny-state, where we accept that there are imposed limitations upon our personal freedom of choice.
It's also why I think criminalizing drugs is completely absurd. They simply don't want to deal with the implications of people having free access to any drugs of their choosing.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think a 6 month wait period is ludicrous, but as long as the persons opinion is respected regardless that's a start.
I just think the problem with gatekeeping something like this, even with just a wait period, is imposing on others freedom. If they can put a time on how long they have to endure with their complications, certainly it's not far from that, to put some restrictions on the conditions of the people that want assisted suicide. I think it's a slippery slope to impose any criteria on anyone wanting assisted suicide, because the freedom to choose whether one wants to be dead or not is completely up to oneself. You're essentially having your freedom oppressed, even if the only criteria is that you have to wait 6 months.
The real issue is that in general it's ok for authority to impose criteria upon your freedom already, and as long as what you do freely doesn't impose on the freedom of others, you should have the option to do it, because it is your life to live, and your decision what to do. But we are already expected to diminish our personal freedom under certain criteria set by the government, and that's why they feel it just to impose the criteria upon us that it not in our right, as it is right now, to commit suicide.
It's not that it's entirely illegal to commit suicide as it has been in times before, but you are severely punished if you end up failing.
We're literally being told what we can or can't do, as did our parents do to us as children, since they in a sense owned us, even if these actions wouldn't have negative consequences for us, our parents simply did not want to see that kind of behavior. This creates the tolerance of a sort of nanny-state, where we accept that there are imposed limitations upon our personal freedom of choice.
It's also why I think criminalizing drugs is completely absurd. They simply don't want to deal with the implications of people having free access to any drugs of their choosing.

I agree that it's a compromise but I think compromises are just more realistic really. It's not just about an individual's autonomy- it's thinking about how a very open system could be abused- including by our governments!

On an individual level, I think a major factor would be that it would- hopefully make people realise that choosing to end your life isn't always an impulsive, fleeting thought. It's one that can be sustained over a period of time. Personally- I'd be happy to wait if I knew I'd be guaranteed a peaceful way out.

Personally- I'm not in favour of assisted suicide for all- no questions asked. That could include for instance- children, people in some sort of psychotic episode- how would you expect a person only paid to administer Nembutal to asses a person's mental capacity? It could also leave the system open to elderly or ill relatives being coerced into ending their lives. We don't live in a very nice world! If some people can get away with legally murdering their unwanted 'loved ones' by pushing them towards an early death- I'm sure they would!

Plus- as a society- the ideal is to provide people who are struggling with assistance. That probably doesn't happen well enough as it is. Imagine if assisted suicide for all with no wait time and no expectation to provide support is green lighted. What incentive is there for governments to provide any kind of assistance to its 'undesirable' members? Why bother providing homeless drug addicts with costly support? If their lives just get worse rather than better- chances are they'll off themselves and it will be their 'choice'... Or will it? Won't it be more that the 'system' failed them?

I'd argue that our governments care about money over everything else. I'm sure they're actually itching to bring in assisted suicide for the chronically ill and elderly. We must be reaching a tipping point- because so many people are living longer that they don't have the money to 'keep' all these elderly people. I imagine they'd actually like to bring in assisted suicide for all members of society who take more than they give.

In terms of drugs, my opinions are mixed really. I can see the positives in legalising drugs- making sure they aren't cut with crap. Reducing the amount of money policing it all. I wonder how many drug addicts would agree with you though. How many are grateful they got into drugs in the first place? Doesn't look that fun to me in the long term. I wonder if they think it would be great to just be able to pick them up anywhere...

 

[FuneralCry]

At least now he is free from all suffering, existing here really can be so torturous. Nobody should be expected to stay here and suffer against their wishes even if other people see existence as being something so valuable, it would be inhumane expecting people to, I don't understand the view where suicide is supposedly worse than suffering as after all there are no disadvantages to not existing.

 

[TAW122]

In terms of assisted suicide- yes. I think for people with non chronic/ terminal illness, a 6 month waiting period is a good idea. I think that would ensure that people aren't making impulsive decisions and aren't acting out of some temporary psychosis- I imagine that is possible. In that period, the person could be assessed in terms of their mental capacity to make the decision and they could be OFFERED help. I don't think that the offer of an assisted death should be contingent on them accepting that help personally- but I definitely think help and support should be offered.

In terms of an individual deciding to take their own life by themselves. That's a highly personal decision. It's really down to the individual on whether they want to give recovery a bash. Many people here have had ideation for a long time. Some, years, some even decades. Some will have given their all into 'recovery'. Some may not even want to try. I personally don't feel it's up to us to judge whether they were too 'hasty' in their decision.

It's natural to grieve someone's passing. It's natural to miss their contribution to our lives if they were blessed with talent. I guess it's natural perhaps to think it was tragic that they couldn't find a way to mitigate their circumstances. Still- at the end of the day- they couldn't. Their experience of life was painful enough to push them into risking CTB. I firmly believe we ought to respect that decision- no matter when they made it.

Being creative myself and it being so central to my life (as pathetic as that may sound,) I can fully understand the sense of loss an artist feels when they can no longer create in a satisfying way to them. It's like they lose their purpose in life. That can feel devastating. We can grieve for that just the same as we grieve for other losses in life. It may not make sense to everyone but they maybe ought to consider that it would be insensitive to suggest to someone who has been recently widowed to immediately just get out there and look for a new partner. It may seem like a crass comparison but for some people- their work is everything to them. Their whole character and future is wrapped up in it. It's not always just a case of finding something else to occupy your time!

Excellent response and yes, you really hit all the relevant points and it's important to note that not everyone is capable of (or even if they theoretically are) adapting, they shouldn't be compelled to do so. It's disgusting how the majority of society and government seem to be ok with violating and ignoring others' wishes if it doesn't align with their views on what they find acceptable (always choosing life or that life is sacred, a virtue, a gift, etc.). I agree with your last paragraph as it summarizes the situation up really well.

I think a 6 month wait period is ludicrous, but as long as the persons opinion is respected regardless that's a start.
I just think the problem with gatekeeping something like this, even with just a wait period, is imposing on others freedom. If they can put a time on how long they have to endure with their complications, certainly it's not far from that, to put some restrictions on the conditions of the people that want assisted suicide. I think it's a slippery slope to impose any criteria on anyone wanting assisted suicide, because the freedom to choose whether one wants to be dead or not is completely up to oneself. You're essentially having your freedom oppressed, even if the only criteria is that you have to wait 6 months.
The real issue is that in general it's ok for authority to impose criteria upon your freedom already, and as long as what you do freely doesn't impose on the freedom of others, you should have the option to do it, because it is your life to live, and your decision what to do. But we are already expected to diminish our personal freedom under certain criteria set by the government, and that's why they feel it just to impose the criteria upon us that it not in our right, as it is right now, to commit suicide.
It's not that it's entirely illegal to commit suicide as it has been in times before, but you are severely punished if you end up failing.
We're literally being told what we can or can't do, as did our parents do to us as children, since they in a sense owned us, even if these actions wouldn't have negative consequences for us, our parents simply did not want to see that kind of behavior. This creates the tolerance of a sort of nanny-state, where we accept that there are imposed limitations upon our personal freedom of choice.
It's also why I think criminalizing drugs is completely absurd. They simply don't want to deal with the implications of people having free access to any drugs of their choosing.

Yes, I know that a 6 month period is quite long (even though personally I wouldn't mind waiting that long (as long as it's not a lifespan, lifetime, or decades or perpetual, indefinite suffering until natural causes, and an endpoint at which suffering ceases). Yes it's a start and would be leaps and bounds better than what we have in present day. I agree with your other points, we shouldn't limit freedom of the individual unless that individual's actions starts to affect another's freedom (e.g. A quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. - "your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."). It's true that while it's not illegal for one to attempt CTB or think of CTB, the act of doing so or failing results in punishment and consequences (such as detainment at a psych ward, medical hold, having your freedoms (temporarily) stripped away, treated like a criminal or even an infant, medical bills for the ordeal (if in the US), possible losses in civil rights (firearms rights) and other consequences, permanent health record which shows up in a background check, etc.). It may as well be considered de facto a crime to attempt and/or fail to CTB given the consequences that result from it.

I agree that it's a compromise but I think compromises are just more realistic really. It's not just about an individual's autonomy- it's thinking about how a very open system could be abused- including by our governments!

On an individual level, I think a major factor would be that it would- hopefully make people realise that choosing to end your life isn't always an impulsive, fleeting thought. It's one that can be sustained over a period of time. Personally- I'd be happy to wait if I knew I'd be guaranteed a peaceful way out.

Personally- I'm not in favour of assisted suicide for all- no questions asked. That could include for instance- children, people in some sort of psychotic episode- how would you expect a person only paid to administer Nembutal to asses a person's mental capacity? It could also leave the system open to elderly or ill relatives being coerced into ending their lives. We don't live in a very nice world! If some people can get away with legally murdering their unwanted 'loved ones' by pushing them towards an early death- I'm sure they would!

Plus- as a society- the ideal is to provide people who are struggling with assistance. That probably doesn't happen well enough as it is. Imagine if assisted suicide for all with no wait time and no expectation to provide support is green lighted. What incentive is there for governments to provide any kind of assistance to its 'undesirable' members? Why bother providing homeless drug addicts with costly support? If their lives just get worse rather than better- chances are they'll off themselves and it will be their 'choice'... Or will it? Won't it be more that the 'system' failed them?

I'd argue that our governments care about money over everything else. I'm sure they're actually itching to bring in assisted suicide for the chronically ill and elderly. We must be reaching a tipping point- because so many people are living longer that they don't have the money to 'keep' all these elderly people. I imagine they'd actually like to bring in assisted suicide for all members of society who take more than they give.

In terms of drugs, my opinions are mixed really. I can see the positives in legalising drugs- making sure they aren't cut with crap. Reducing the amount of money policing it all. I wonder how many drug addicts would agree with you though. How many are grateful they got into drugs in the first place? Doesn't look that fun to me in the long term. I wonder if they think it would be great to just be able to pick them up anywhere...

With regards to the government and people providing assistance and support for those who wish to (voluntarily) continue living and would do so if appropriate support were offered, but also granting a peaceful, dignified exit in a reasonable timeframe for those who do not wish to burden themselves with existence or just perpetual suffering for possible years or decades on end.

At least now he is free from all suffering, existing here really can be so torturous. Nobody should be expected to stay here and suffer against their wishes even if other people see existence as being something so valuable, it would be inhumane expecting people to, I don't understand the view where suicide is supposedly worse than suffering as after all there are no disadvantages to not existing.

Yes, he is at peace since then. The fact that society refuses to accept his right to die is disgusting and even after his death when people are criticizing his decision.

 

[shantyizlit]

I agree that it's a compromise but I think compromises are just more realistic really. It's not just about an individual's autonomy- it's thinking about how a very open system could be abused- including by our governments!

On an individual level, I think a major factor would be that it would- hopefully make people realise that choosing to end your life isn't always an impulsive, fleeting thought. It's one that can be sustained over a period of time. Personally- I'd be happy to wait if I knew I'd be guaranteed a peaceful way out.

Personally- I'm not in favour of assisted suicide for all- no questions asked. That could include for instance- children, people in some sort of psychotic episode- how would you expect a person only paid to administer Nembutal to asses a person's mental capacity? It could also leave the system open to elderly or ill relatives being coerced into ending their lives. We don't live in a very nice world! If some people can get away with legally murdering their unwanted 'loved ones' by pushing them towards an early death- I'm sure they would!

Plus- as a society- the ideal is to provide people who are struggling with assistance. That probably doesn't happen well enough as it is. Imagine if assisted suicide for all with no wait time and no expectation to provide support is green lighted. What incentive is there for governments to provide any kind of assistance to its 'undesirable' members? Why bother providing homeless drug addicts with costly support? If their lives just get worse rather than better- chances are they'll off themselves and it will be their 'choice'... Or will it? Won't it be more that the 'system' failed them?

I'd argue that our governments care about money over everything else. I'm sure they're actually itching to bring in assisted suicide for the chronically ill and elderly. We must be reaching a tipping point- because so many people are living longer that they don't have the money to 'keep' all these elderly people. I imagine they'd actually like to bring in assisted suicide for all members of society who take more than they give.

In terms of drugs, my opinions are mixed really. I can see the positives in legalising drugs- making sure they aren't cut with crap. Reducing the amount of money policing it all. I wonder how many drug addicts would agree with you though. How many are grateful they got into drugs in the first place? Doesn't look that fun to me in the long term. I wonder if they think it would be great to just be able to pick them up anywhere...

Personally- I'd be happy to wait if I knew I'd be guaranteed a peaceful way out.

I wouldn't necessarily be happy, but considering it contrary to my current position I would also wait it out.

Personally- I'm not in favour of assisted suicide for all- no questions asked. That could include for instance- children, people in some sort of psychotic episode- how would you expect a person only paid to administer Nembutal to asses a person's mental capacity? It could also leave the system open to elderly or ill relatives being coerced into ending their lives. We don't live in a very nice world! If some people can get away with legally murdering their unwanted 'loved ones' by pushing them towards an early death- I'm sure they would!

Yeah the problem with this for me is I have so much experience with doctors, psychiatrists and to a lesser extent psychologists. I would be terrified if my life were in their hands to choose whether it should be over or not. These people already take decisions on the behalf of others, in cases of involuntary hospitalization and medication, and the consequences inflicted upon some people who are turned against their will is very cruel. If they have pro-life views there is no stopping them from projecting these values onto the patients asking for an assisted suicide, and the personal opinions of these professionals will many times shine through towards their treatment.
I've had my life ruined by, what I'd call, narcissistic doctors who just couldn't or wouldn't understand that the meds they'd want to force upon me would literally ruin my life. And now it's ruined it to the extent that I just want to ctb. This could all have been different if my personal opinion were more valued, whether I was psychotic or not.
I would say that the people that would die because it is something they'd want for themselves in a psychotic episode, is a price that needs to be paid for freedom. It's the lesser of the population that will be rendered psychotic rather than not, and we'd be taking away autonomy from the larger part of the population to save the lesser part of it.
Yes we don't live in a particularly nice world, contrary to common belief. (Or I assume that's what people believe since they do nothing about it.) And that is exactly the point, because ones life will be in the hands of another, in this case a professional's. But with the way that things are right now, these people would much rather push a lot of pills or arbitrary therapies on to you, rather than let you die, even if you're not psychotic at all. And if you do have a psychosis-disorder good luck getting anyone to choose to let you have the autonomy you deserve.
And again with the 'legal murder' of relatives being coerced into doing assisted suicide, or people that are just a bother on the whole system and their families being guilted into an assisted suicide. This would not be the general case for the majority of the population, I wouldn't necessarily say that it would be a niche, but it takes someone that is very sadistic to even let a thing like this happen, a person generally assumed to have a mental illness. And people with mental illness are in the minority of the population.
But even typing this I see the benefit to a drawn out vouching process for assisted suicides, it's just so problematic. Many people say that by opening up for assisted suicide there will be a slippery slope, and I think this is true if we use the ethical values that are already ingrained into society. I think the slippery slope lies in the fact that we ourselves are not the ones to make the ultimate decision to end our lives. It's always dependent on someone else's opinion. And if this person were alive, they'd probably see existence as a positive thing, and push that view point upon the one trying to apply for an assisted suicide. Only a pessimist would let literally everyone coming through just kill themselves all willy nilly, and they'd probably be considering ctb as themselves.
It's a fucking spectacle that the main disorder that gets people thinking about ctb, which I'd consider to be depression, is not thought of as a generally eligible reason for an assisted suicide, because it is thought of as something curable. It's only for people that have a long term, chronic and treatment resistant depression that cases of assisted suicide are even considered. So some people in this situation will have to endure a great amount of time with this complication, just because it is a professional's opinion that this might change. And it might change, but ultimately I think if it's what the person wants they should be allowed to get it. This is just a personal opinion, formed on the fact that I think death is inherently neutral not good nor bad, the positive is existence.. so it would always be better to be alive, but never a bad thing to have died.
Having an open chance for assisted suicide like this would also have more people actually talking to their friends and families about it because it wouldn't be as much of a taboo, instead of only having the available option of a professional that does not know you at all, and can not give you any real support during your day to day life.

Plus- as a society- the ideal is to provide people who are struggling with assistance. That probably doesn't happen well enough as it is. Imagine if assisted suicide for all with no wait time and no expectation to provide support is green lighted. What incentive is there for governments to provide any kind of assistance to its 'undesirable' members? Why bother providing homeless drug addicts with costly support? If their lives just get worse rather than better- chances are they'll off themselves and it will be their 'choice'... Or will it? Won't it be more that the 'system' failed them?

Yes, but how good of a job are the governments actually doing at helping these unfortunate souls? I'd say the incentive for governments to provide this assistance lies in virtue. Any government can decide to be a cruel and fascistic one, abusing its people for its own gain. But people would not be happy with a government like this, and there would be grounds for revolution and retaliation from the citizens and a reason for other countries who have dignity in their virtue to intervene. Just throwing your 'undesirables' to the curb like that, because it might be a gain in overall profit would not sit well with most people, as this is complete tyranny.
I just think that, ironically, the solution of an assisted suicide is a far better deal than most of the unfortunate members of society get, as mad as that sounds. The system is already failing shit tonnes of people. And this can give people who are completely sick of the system an out. It's like a band-aid solution for the problems in the system at large, if it can't help the people that it's failing at least they can choose to be rid of it all for good. I think it sounds quite macabre, but maybe it's just my point of view as someone who wants to ctb.

I'd argue that our governments care about money over everything else. I'm sure they're actually itching to bring in assisted suicide for the chronically ill and elderly. We must be reaching a tipping point- because so many people are living longer that they don't have the money to 'keep' all these elderly people. I imagine they'd actually like to bring in assisted suicide for all members of society who take more than they give.

Yeah now you're going somewhere, arguing that governments care more about money than the individual is a sort of conspiracy theory, because we're all trying to seem like these ultimately virtuous beings doing everything for the greater good, especially people in political power.
The problem in my opinion, is that there's already been set a list of unspoken rules upon members of society, and this for the sake of profit. Or maybe even for the gain of an elite caste of humans.
So if there are people that are able to bring in a net positive amount of profit, these money hungry vultures will just have this kind of person trapped in reality for as long as they're making profit. And that is the biggest issue.
Already with assisted suicide there is a magic age of 50 years old where people are started be considered more eligible for an assisted suicide. This is around the time when shit starts hitting the fan when it comes to physical health. So those that are under this age will not be considered before they have persisted through their average time of highest profitability for society as a whole.
Obviously all these criteria that the vultures will be setting on the ones asking for an assisted suicide will be white-washed within the schemes of psychology and psychiatry (which I also just think are in a general sense just there to increase profit).

If we were arguing from a standpoint of virtue, if there were such an inherent thing inside the system, as that system is supposedly there to guide and protect us, and that were in fact true.. this would be a whole different discussion. There is just so much proof of corruption in the world, and to whose benefit?

In terms of drugs, my opinions are mixed really. I can see the positives in legalising drugs- making sure they aren't cut with crap. Reducing the amount of money policing it all. I wonder how many drug addicts would agree with you though. How many are grateful they got into drugs in the first place? Doesn't look that fun to me in the long term. I wonder if they think it would be great to just be able to pick them up anywhere...

I think drug addicts would very much like to be able to just pick up drugs anywhere, prices would be lower and quality would be top, plus you don't have to be in a shady environment to begin with to actually get your gear.
I think a lot of addicts deeply regret getting into drugs in the first place.
I just think at the end of the day, it's not a sensible decision to just keep drugs 'hidden under the rug' like we are now. People get into drugs and then ask themselves what all the fear mongering and stigmatization was about when they first get in to a drug, and start to have a mistrust for the common narrative that is projected unto drugs and it's users. In the end if someone decides that they want to do drugs, it's generally not impossible to be able to find them, maybe if that were the case the whole war on drugs would've been a lot more successful. I just think in the end what makes the most sense is to let people decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives and how they want to live it. Sweeping drugs under the rug like this just makes vulnerable people even more vulnerable as the illegal drugs trade is a very exploitative market.
Also in a world where narcotics are completely legal, it will open up to a lot more discussion between colleagues, friends and family; which are the main support network for people who are addicted to drugs. Rather than being sat down with a group of people that are also suffering from addiction, or a counselor that hates the notions of drugs.
I think many people who do narcotics don't despite the notion of drugs, just the fact that they got hooked in the first place. They really appreciated what they got from the drugs until it started consuming their lives, not to talk about all the people that have a sensible relationship with drugs. This is why alcohol is legal in the first place, it's highly addictive but people are considered to have enough power over themselves to not give in to binge drinking.
I just think people would work less if they had something they'd actually want to do in their free time, and recreational drug usage is a very good hobby and past time, it's at the very least very rewarding. People would actually prefer to be home, rather than being completely lost without working all the time, which is the case for many people.


I think ultimately it is just a cruel world, that demands its population to be productive to the benefit of a select few, and that we've all been roped into a narrative that we must keep going with this life under any and all circumstances so that society does not collapse.
I for one would have a very hard time getting the green light for an assisted suicide with my psychiatric history, and I know for a fact that the professionals make very bad decisions on the behalf of others. Of course it would be better to have the chance at an assisted suicide at all, but if I need a green light from some fancy bozo to ctb via assisted suicide I wouldn't even bother, because if my greenlighting fails I will be put under suicide watch for having revealed all this personal information about wanting to ctb, and I would probably be held in a psychiatric hospital against my will.
If there is a criteria for waiting 6 months to get an assisted suicide, that means that there will be criteria for an assisted suicide. Just waiting 6 months would deter people from making a rash and hastened decision that isn't very thought through, as are many attempts to ctb. I just think it's dangerous to argue that there should be any criteria at all for an assisted suicide, because if we're debating about there being criteria where does it end?

Excellent response and yes, you really hit all the relevant points and it's important to note that not everyone is capable of (or even if they theoretically are) adapting, they shouldn't be compelled to do so. It's disgusting how the majority of society and government seem to be ok with violating and ignoring others' wishes if it doesn't align with their views on what they find acceptable (always choosing life or that life is sacred, a virtue, a gift, etc.). I agree with your last paragraph as it summarizes the situation up really well.


Yes, I know that a 6 month period is quite long (even though personally I wouldn't mind waiting that long (as long as it's not a lifespan, lifetime, or decades or perpetual, indefinite suffering until natural causes, and an endpoint at which suffering ceases). Yes it's a start and would be leaps and bounds better than what we have in present day. I agree with your other points, we shouldn't limit freedom of the individual unless that individual's actions starts to affect another's freedom (e.g. A quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. - "your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."). It's true that while it's not illegal for one to attempt CTB or think of CTB, the act of doing so or failing results in punishment and consequences (such as detainment at a psych ward, medical hold, having your freedoms (temporarily) stripped away, treated like a criminal or even an infant, medical bills for the ordeal (if in the US), possible losses in civil rights (firearms rights) and other consequences, permanent health record which shows up in a background check, etc.). It may as well be considered de facto a crime to attempt and/or fail to CTB given the consequences that result from it.

With regards to the government and people providing assistance and support for those who wish to (voluntarily) continue living and would do so if appropriate support were offered, but also granting a peaceful, dignified exit in a reasonable timeframe for those who do not wish to burden themselves with existence or just perpetual suffering for possible years or decades on end.


Yes, he is at peace since then. The fact that society refuses to accept his right to die is disgusting and even after his death when people are criticizing his decision.

I wouldn't mind waiting 6 months either, if I were guaranteed to get an assisted suicide.

It's disgusting how the majority of society and government seem to be ok with violating and ignoring others' wishes if it doesn't align with their views on what they find acceptable (always choosing life or that life is sacred, a virtue, a gift, etc.).

Yes it is really far out that someone in a position of power can determine how I should live my life, I've always had a problem with authority because they impose their own opinions of how a live should be lived upon others, when it is just never them that have to live under those conditions.

It may as well be considered de facto a crime to attempt and/or fail to CTB given the consequences that result from it.

I'd even argue in some cases it is worse to have failed a ctb than to have committed a crime. Some people, at least where I'm from, are allowed much more freedom with a criminal sentence, than someone detained in a ward.

Yes, he is at peace since then. The fact that society refuses to accept his right to die is disgusting and even after his death when people are criticizing his decision.

Some people just can't imagine that this place is hell, so they have to imagine going there after they've died instead, if they were not of absolutely sublime character.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I wouldn't necessarily be happy, but considering it contrary to my current position I would also wait it out.

Yeah the problem with this for me is I have so much experience with doctors, psychiatrists and to a lesser extent psychologists. I would be terrified if my life were in their hands to choose whether it should be over or not. These people already take decisions on the behalf of others, in cases of involuntary hospitalization and medication, and the consequences inflicted upon some people who are turned against their will is very cruel. If they have pro-life views there is no stopping them from projecting these values onto the patients asking for an assisted suicide, and the personal opinions of these professionals will many times shine through towards their treatment.
I've had my life ruined by, what I'd call, narcissistic doctors who just couldn't or wouldn't understand that the meds they'd want to force upon me would literally ruin my life. And now it's ruined it to the extent that I just want to ctb. This could all have been different if my personal opinion were more valued, whether I was psychotic or not.
I would say that the people that would die because it is something they'd want for themselves in a psychotic episode, is a price that needs to be paid for freedom. It's the lesser of the population that will be rendered psychotic rather than not, and we'd be taking away autonomy from the larger part of the population to save the lesser part of it.
Yes we don't live in a particularly nice world, contrary to common belief. (Or I assume that's what people believe since they do nothing about it.) And that is exactly the point, because ones life will be in the hands of another, in this case a professional's. But with the way that things are right now, these people would much rather push a lot of pills or arbitrary therapies on to you, rather than let you die, even if you're not psychotic at all. And if you do have a psychosis-disorder good luck getting anyone to choose to let you have the autonomy you deserve.
And again with the 'legal murder' of relatives being coerced into doing assisted suicide, or people that are just a bother on the whole system and their families being guilted into an assisted suicide. This would not be the general case for the majority of the population, I wouldn't necessarily say that it would be a niche, but it takes someone that is very sadistic to even let a thing like this happen, a person generally assumed to have a mental illness. And people with mental illness are in the minority of the population.
But even typing this I see the benefit to a drawn out vouching process for assisted suicides, it's just so problematic. Many people say that by opening up for assisted suicide there will be a slippery slope, and I think this is true if we use the ethical values that are already ingrained into society. I think the slippery slope lies in the fact that we ourselves are not the ones to make the ultimate decision to end our lives. It's always dependent on someone else's opinion. And if this person were alive, they'd probably see existence as a positive thing, and push that view point upon the one trying to apply for an assisted suicide. Only a pessimist would let literally everyone coming through just kill themselves all willy nilly, and they'd probably be considering ctb as themselves.
It's a fucking spectacle that the main disorder that gets people thinking about ctb, which I'd consider to be depression, is not thought of as a generally eligible reason for an assisted suicide, because it is thought of as something curable. It's only for people that have a long term, chronic and treatment resistant depression that cases of assisted suicide are even considered. So some people in this situation will have to endure a great amount of time with this complication, just because it is a professional's opinion that this might change. And it might change, but ultimately I think if it's what the person wants they should be allowed to get it. This is just a personal opinion, formed on the fact that I think death is inherently neutral not good nor bad, the positive is existence.. so it would always be better to be alive, but never a bad thing to have died.
Having an open chance for assisted suicide like this would also have more people actually talking to their friends and families about it because it wouldn't be as much of a taboo, instead of only having the available option of a professional that does not know you at all, and can not give you any real support during your day to day life.

Yes, but how good of a job are the governments actually doing at helping these unfortunate souls? I'd say the incentive for governments to provide this assistance lies in virtue. Any government can decide to be a cruel and fascistic one, abusing its people for its own gain. But people would not be happy with a government like this, and there would be grounds for revolution and retaliation from the citizens and a reason for other countries who have dignity in their virtue to intervene. Just throwing your 'undesirables' to the curb like that, because it might be a gain in overall profit would not sit well with most people, as this is complete tyranny.
I just think that, ironically, the solution of an assisted suicide is a far better deal than most of the unfortunate members of society get, as mad as that sounds. The system is already failing shit tonnes of people. And this can give people who are completely sick of the system an out. It's like a band-aid solution for the problems in the system at large, if it can't help the people that it's failing at least they can choose to be rid of it all for good. I think it sounds quite macabre, but maybe it's just my point of view as someone who wants to ctb.

Yeah now you're going somewhere, arguing that governments care more about money than the individual is a sort of conspiracy theory, because we're all trying to seem like these ultimately virtuous beings doing everything for the greater good, especially people in political power.
The problem in my opinion, is that there's already been set a list of unspoken rules upon members of society, and this for the sake of profit. Or maybe even for the gain of an elite caste of humans.
So if there are people that are able to bring in a net positive amount of profit, these money hungry vultures will just have this kind of person trapped in reality for as long as they're making profit. And that is the biggest issue.
Already with assisted suicide there is a magic age of 50 years old where people are started be considered more eligible for an assisted suicide. This is around the time when shit starts hitting the fan when it comes to physical health. So those that are under this age will not be considered before they have persisted through their average time of highest profitability for society as a whole.
Obviously all these criteria that the vultures will be setting on the ones asking for an assisted suicide will be white-washed within the schemes of psychology and psychiatry (which I also just think are in a general sense just there to increase profit).

If we were arguing from a standpoint of virtue, if there were such an inherent thing inside the system, as that system is supposedly there to guide and protect us, and that were in fact true.. this would be a whole different discussion. There is just so much proof of corruption in the world, and to whose benefit?

I think drug addicts would very much like to be able to just pick up drugs anywhere, prices would be lower and quality would be top, plus you don't have to be in a shady environment to begin with to actually get your gear.
I think a lot of addicts deeply regret getting into drugs in the first place.
I just think at the end of the day, it's not a sensible decision to just keep drugs 'hidden under the rug' like we are now. People get into drugs and then ask themselves what all the fear mongering and stigmatization was about when they first get in to a drug, and start to have a mistrust for the common narrative that is projected unto drugs and it's users. In the end if someone decides that they want to do drugs, it's generally not impossible to be able to find them, maybe if that were the case the whole war on drugs would've been a lot more successful. I just think in the end what makes the most sense is to let people decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives and how they want to live it. Sweeping drugs under the rug like this just makes vulnerable people even more vulnerable as the illegal drugs trade is a very exploitative market.
Also in a world where narcotics are completely legal, it will open up to a lot more discussion between colleagues, friends and family; which are the main support network for people who are addicted to drugs. Rather than being sat down with a group of people that are also suffering from addiction, or a counselor that hates the notions of drugs.
I think many people who do narcotics don't despite the notion of drugs, just the fact that they got hooked in the first place. They really appreciated what they got from the drugs until it started consuming their lives, not to talk about all the people that have a sensible relationship with drugs. This is why alcohol is legal in the first place, it's highly addictive but people are considered to have enough power over themselves to not give in to binge drinking.
I just think people would work less if they had something they'd actually want to do in their free time, and recreational drug usage is a very good hobby and past time, it's at the very least very rewarding. People would actually prefer to be home, rather than being completely lost without working all the time, which is the case for many people.


I think ultimately it is just a cruel world, that demands its population to be productive to the benefit of a select few, and that we've all been roped into a narrative that we must keep going with this life under any and all circumstances so that society does not collapse.
I for one would have a very hard time getting the green light for an assisted suicide with my psychiatric history, and I know for a fact that the professionals make very bad decisions on the behalf of others. Of course it would be better to have the chance at an assisted suicide at all, but if I need a green light from some fancy bozo to ctb via assisted suicide I wouldn't even bother, because if my greenlighting fails I will be put under suicide watch for having revealed all this personal information about wanting to ctb, and I would probably be held in a psychiatric hospital against my will.
If there is a criteria for waiting 6 months to get an assisted suicide, that means that there will be criteria for an assisted suicide. Just waiting 6 months would deter people from making a rash and hastened decision that isn't very thought through, as are many attempts to ctb. I just think it's dangerous to argue that there should be any criteria at all for an assisted suicide, because if we're debating about there being criteria where does it end?





I wouldn't mind waiting 6 months either, if I were guaranteed to get an assisted suicide.

Yes it is really far out that someone in a position of power can determine how I should live my life, I've always had a problem with authority because they impose their own opinions of how a live should be lived upon others, when it is just never them that have to live under those conditions.

I'd even argue in some cases it is worse to have failed a ctb than to have committed a crime. Some people, at least where I'm from, are allowed much more freedom with a criminal sentence, than someone detained in a ward.

Some people just can't imagine that this place is hell, so they have to imagine going there after they've died instead, if they were not of absolutely sublime character.

Some really brilliant points and I do actually agree with a lot of what you are saying.

I probably didn't really explain my 'vision' well enough! When I taked about assessment for suitability for assisted suicide- I didn't mean by a doctor or psychiatrist. I don't feel like they should even be involved in the assessment procedure. They have trained and committed their lives to saving life. It would be too much of a conflict of interests for them to be expected to keep referring people to die. What doctor wants a reputation for that? 'Dr Death' springs to mind in the tabloids. I ABSOLUTELY agree with you 100% that doctors already have too much control over our lives. Especially when it comes to mental health.

I feel like the assessors would be independant and work solely for the clinics. They would need to have some understanding of mental competancy but I personally believe that people with mental illness CAN demonstrate- and do have mental competancy a lot of the time. So long as a patient can demonstrate the ability to understand what death and suicide are. To understand its implications- I think they should be considered eligible. If they are mentally incompetant and unable to express themselves in any way but are obviously suffering- THEN it should be up to their families and doctors to make the decision.

I think- as a society- we SHOULD be OFFERING people help. Some people recover. Some people may want to at least try. That I suppose is where the six month waiting period comes in. They could then be given the OPTION to consult with doctors and therapists and see how it goes. It would STILL be up to THEM at the end of it- whether they still wanted assistance in dieing. It's not to say there wouldn't be extenuating circumstances where someone could be given an appointment earlier. It's more just a general time frame to my mind.

I ABSOLUTELY agree with you with regards to depression by the way. Plus- the general statement that people who are suicidal don't seem to be welcome at assisted suicide clinics. Like- who in the hell wouldn't be depressed and suicidal if they were in chronic pain all the time?!!

Anyhow- back to my assisted suicide version- I do actually think families should be involved in the decision too. I know autonomy reigns supreme but I just think- to get families on side would bring the concept of suicide out into the open. It would mean less people likely trying to sue. Plus- the whole family could be supported throughout the process and after. I think a longer time frame would allow everyone to acclimatize to the decision, get legal affairs in order and say goodbye.

So- I hope you can see maybe my ideas are more liberal than maybe you initially thought. It's just that I didn't express them well enough. Maybe you still think they're too restrictive? That's fair enough. We all have our own opinions. I'm still not entirely convinced on the legalisation of all drugs if I'm honest! I think maybe I think people have less control than you do. Still- I'm absolutely willing to admit to being a complete square when it comes to drugs. I haven't even been really drunk before! Each to their own really.

Truth be told- I don't care enough about the human race and where they're heading to get too passionate about laws and policies! It's only that assisted suicide is perhaps closer to my heart. I think it's utterly barbaric that as a sentient species- we allow people to suffer as we do.

 

[shantyizlit]

Some really brilliant points and I do actually agree with a lot of what you are saying.

I probably didn't really explain my 'vision' well enough! When I taked about assessment for suitability for assisted suicide- I didn't mean by a doctor or psychiatrist. I don't feel like they should even be involved in the assessment procedure. They have trained and committed their lives to saving life. It would be too much of a conflict of interests for them to be expected to keep referring people to die. What doctor wants a reputation for that? 'Dr Death' springs to mind in the tabloids. I ABSOLUTELY agree with you 100% that doctors already have too much control over our lives. Especially when it comes to mental health.

I feel like the assessors would be independant and work solely for the clinics. They would need to have some understanding of mental competancy but I personally believe that people with mental illness CAN demonstrate- and do have mental competancy a lot of the time. So long as a patient can demonstrate the ability to understand what death and suicide are. To understand its implications- I think they should be considered eligible. If they are mentally incompetant and unable to express themselves in any way but are obviously suffering- THEN it should be up to their families and doctors to make the decision.

I think- as a society- we SHOULD be OFFERING people help. Some people recover. Some people may want to at least try. That I suppose is where the six month waiting period comes in. They could then be given the OPTION to consult with doctors and therapists and see how it goes. It would STILL be up to THEM at the end of it- whether they still wanted assistance in dieing. It's not to say there wouldn't be extenuating circumstances where someone could be given an appointment earlier. It's more just a general time frame to my mind.

I ABSOLUTELY agree with you with regards to depression by the way. Plus- the general statement that people who are suicidal don't seem to be welcome at assisted suicide clinics. Like- who in the hell wouldn't be depressed and suicidal if they were in chronic pain all the time?!!

Anyhow- back to my assisted suicide version- I do actually think families should be involved in the decision too. I know autonomy reigns supreme but I just think- to get families on side would bring the concept of suicide out into the open. It would mean less people likely trying to sue. Plus- the whole family could be supported throughout the process and after. I think a longer time frame would allow everyone to acclimatize to the decision, get legal affairs in order and say goodbye.

So- I hope you can see maybe my ideas are more liberal than maybe you initially thought. It's just that I didn't express them well enough. Maybe you still think they're too restrictive? That's fair enough. We all have our own opinions. I'm still not entirely convinced on the legalisation of all drugs if I'm honest! I think maybe I think people have less control than you do. Still- I'm absolutely willing to admit to being a complete square when it comes to drugs. I haven't even been really drunk before! Each to their own really.

Truth be told- I don't care enough about the human race and where they're heading to get too passionate about laws and policies! It's only that assisted suicide is perhaps closer to my heart. I think it's utterly barbaric that as a sentient species- we allow people to suffer as we do.

Nah, I think it sounds fair tbh. It would be kinda weird if I could just go to a suicide clinic, tell them I want to die hand them 100 bucks and then get on with business in the matter of minutes, so many people would be gone that could've had a decent future. I just think it's the less ethically complicated thing to do, but there will be many lost to momentary lapses of judgement. There are many that just haphazardly try to ctb. It's just that if you already understand the implications of what you're about to do, who's to say you shouldn't do it. You're still completely free to jump off a bridge or hang yourself, there's just the deal with SI that makes this completely impossible for people, that would otherwise have done it without a second thought. And this SI is not of any real logical conclusion it's a biological mechanism deeply engrained in our nature from before we could even think logically.
I think it would be ideal to talk to the people that are deciding to get assisted suicide about their reasonings for ctb, as long as we're not actively trying to prevent them from doing so. Maybe there would be a handbook one had to read and reply to in an essay of sorts, a handbook that goes through a lot of the complications and nuances of ctb, so that the clinics could at least ensure themselves that the ones that they were going to help with an assisted suicide had actually thought through their decisions. I'm just afraid of these trained professionals becoming just as obnoxious pro-lifers, as are the pill-pushers in psychiatry, that just don't see the reasoning for suicide, or in the psychiatrists case the disdain of psychiatric medicine.

I just think in the case of not having the required 'competence' for choosing an assisted suicide is where it gets really messy, because death and especially ctb is such a personal issue. But we also put down animals, to whom we can't communicate, who are in prolonged suffering out of their misery, and I don't think it should be any different. I just think we should have the general attitude we have towards the death of animals, towards ourselves as well. We put our lives on a pedestal compared to other species which we continually seem to exploit for our own gain. I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to base your own conditions of living on the suffering of others even if those are just animals.

And on the note about including family, that would be an absolute shitshow for me. My family would be strictly against it and it would just get me into trouble. But I would obviously like to discuss my departure with them, if they wouldn't just call the cops on me for being a hazard to myself. I just don't think stained family relations should get in the way of an assisted suicide, so that could end up becoming problematic in my opinion.

All in all I think I would trust you with laying down the new policies for assisted suicide rather than some of the people that have the rule over it now. It doesn't sound completely mad, unlike the way it is at the moment.

I think it's utterly barbaric that as a sentient species- we allow people to suffer as we do.

Well I just don't think most people think about the immediate suffering of others outside their own social circle really.. and that is very problematic.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Nah, I think it sounds fair tbh. It would be kinda weird if I could just go to a suicide clinic, tell them I want to die hand them 100 bucks and then get on with business in the matter of minutes, so many people would be gone that could've had a decent future. I just think it's the less ethically complicated thing to do, but there will be many lost to momentary lapses of judgement. There are many that just haphazardly try to ctb. It's just that if you already understand the implications of what you're about to do, who's to say you shouldn't do it. You're still completely free to jump off a bridge or hang yourself, there's just the deal with SI that makes this completely impossible for people, that would otherwise have done it without a second thought. And this SI is not of any real logical conclusion it's a biological mechanism deeply engrained in our nature from before we could even think logically.
I think it would be ideal to talk to the people that are deciding to get assisted suicide about their reasonings for ctb, as long as we're not actively trying to prevent them from doing so. Maybe there would be a handbook one had to read and reply to in an essay of sorts, a handbook that goes through a lot of the complications and nuances of ctb, so that the clinics could at least ensure themselves that the ones that they were going to help with an assisted suicide had actually thought through their decisions. I'm just afraid of these trained professionals becoming just as obnoxious pro-lifers, as are the pill-pushers in psychiatry, that just don't see the reasoning for suicide, or in the psychiatrists case the disdain of psychiatric medicine.

I just think in the case of not having the required 'competence' for choosing an assisted suicide is where it gets really messy, because death and especially ctb is such a personal issue. But we also put down animals, to whom we can't communicate, who are in prolonged suffering out of their misery, and I don't think it should be any different. I just think we should have the general attitude we have towards the death of animals, towards ourselves as well. We put our lives on a pedestal compared to other species which we continually seem to exploit for our own gain. I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to base your own conditions of living on the suffering of others even if those are just animals.

And on the note about including family, that would be an absolute shitshow for me. My family would be strictly against it and it would just get me into trouble. But I would obviously like to discuss my departure with them, if they wouldn't just call the cops on me for being a hazard to myself. I just don't think stained family relations should get in the way of an assisted suicide, so that could end up becoming problematic in my opinion.

All in all I think I would trust you with laying down the new policies for assisted suicide rather than some of the people that have the rule over it now. It doesn't sound completely mad, unlike the way it is at the moment.

Well I just don't think most people think about the immediate suffering of others outside their own social circle really.. and that is very problematic.

I agree- there needs to be SOME kind of assessment. Not just free Nembutal for all! I'm not even sure myself on what it should be to allow enough freedom while protecting people who are TRULY 'vulnerable'. I think that's a problematic word because some people would class EVERYONE here as vulnerable and I would argue just about everyone here isn't! They can articulate themselves. They clearly understand what suicide is! I'm talking about someone absolutely non compos mentis and/ or unable to communicate in any way as being 'vulnerable'. Even then though- doctors and families should be able to come to the decision between them. Like you say- we do it for animals without their consent.

I actually think there could be the tendancy for these assesors to 'green light' people for assisted suicide more than reject them- if I'm honest- especially if a fee is involved! Businesses like to make money!

Yeah- it's especially difficult with families. I think that's the major stumbling block really though. It's them that will sue, or lobby their politicians if things aren't done properly- and, even if they are! But yeah- I do see your point of view.

It's not like any of our ideas will be realised though- as I see it anyway! I reckon they will certainly bring in assisted suicide for the terminally/ chronically ill- and probably soon I would think. Maybe we'll SLOWLY see it rolled out to the most severe cases of mentally ill patients. Beyond that though- people who just want to choose to go- I reckon we'll be stuck with DIY methods for the foreseeable future- unless things change radically of course- climate change, AI or something and the way our economies work changes. Interesting stuff though. Thanks for the debate!

 

[Death is my goal]

who?

 

[shantyizlit]

I agree- there needs to be SOME kind of assessment. Not just free Nembutal for all! I'm not even sure myself on what it should be to allow enough freedom while protecting people who are TRULY 'vulnerable'. I think that's a problematic word because some people would class EVERYONE here as vulnerable and I would argue just about everyone here isn't! They can articulate themselves. They clearly understand what suicide is! I'm talking about someone absolutely non compos mentis and/ or unable to communicate in any way as being 'vulnerable'. Even then though- doctors and families should be able to come to the decision between them. Like you say- we do it for animals without their consent.

I actually think there could be the tendancy for these assesors to 'green light' people for assisted suicide more than reject them- if I'm honest- especially if a fee is involved! Businesses like to make money!

Yeah- it's especially difficult with families. I think that's the major stumbling block really though. It's them that will sue, or lobby their politicians if things aren't done properly- and, even if they are! But yeah- I do see your point of view.

It's not like any of our ideas will be realised though- as I see it anyway! I reckon they will certainly bring in assisted suicide for the terminally/ chronically ill- and probably soon I would think. Maybe we'll SLOWLY see it rolled out to the most severe cases of mentally ill patients. Beyond that though- people who just want to choose to go- I reckon we'll be stuck with DIY methods for the foreseeable future- unless things change radically of course- climate change, AI or something and the way our economies work changes. Interesting stuff though. Thanks for the debate!

I don't know, it would be an idyllic situation if everyone could just get N like that. And I mean in the case that there weren't people taking rash decisions or being coerced into doing it, but that's quite far-fetched from the situation of today. I can only imagine some schizophrenic person, or someone who's been abusing drugs and is on the verge of psychosis being gaslit into taking their own life, people really do shit like this for 'fun'.
Yeah obviously to many, anyone that would even consider to ctb are going to be labelled as 'vulnerable', that's especially why I'm so against psychiatry being part of this process.
Yeah, and in the case of these truly vulnerable people you speak about, I would like for there to be a true professional with an expertise in this specific area to take the decision, as many parents are willing to just throw a severely autistic child under the bus, because it wasn't what they were expecting by having a child and is getting in the way of their quality of life. I just don't really know any doctors that I've met that I would like to take decisions on my behalf if I were to become one of these vulnerable people, and wouldn't want my family to have too much say in the case either.
In cases where it is obvious that these people suffer it would be easy to make a decision for them, but in the cases where there is a lot of doubt, I think what it boils down to is, whether it is best to keep someone alive or to euthanize them, what is the most ethical decision? Of course the family would know the individual best, and could speak on it's behalf whether it is thriving or not, but people are not always genuine. I just think it is a huge can of worms, and I just don't know in detail how it should be for these kinds of people. But we can agree that for the people where it is obvious are compos mentis(lol learned some new words) there shouldn't be much in the way of their own decision to ctb.
I'm just afraid that psychiatry would deem me not sane enough, just because my papers say I have a schizoaffective disorder..

I don't know, I think as it is now most people would probably rather not give the green light, just because they think of life as precious and every struggle worth fighting. I mean c'mon how many people can you have a sane discussion about suicide with in the real world, while arguing for doing it?
I just don't think anyone should pay any amount extra to the clinic to help with ctb, than for the medication used, as opposed to if they weren't green lit. What you pay for is the processing of your case whether it is declined or not.

Yeah, sadly I think it's only in the most severe and obvious cases of complete and utter misery, that there will be assisted suicide for in the foreseeable future. But I totally hope that anyone can choose to opt out of life at some point. Actually that's kind of how the law is surrounding this topic in Switzerland, but some things have apparently changed and made it harder for just anyone to get assisted suicide.
I just hate the fact that it's not just DIY (Do It Yourself) but also DIA (Do It Alone).