[Article] The first step in the right direction would be the rollback of the paternalistic intervention towards CTB

[TAW122]

As it stands now, certain parts of the world are becoming evermore paternalistic and totalitarian, especially when it comes to the matter of CTB prevention, right to die, and similar negative liberty rights. This article will focus on the more immediate, present day issues and what the short-term solution would be, in hopes of then going for a longer term goal towards expanding the right to die as a normalized and accepted (no longer taboo thing in society).

While I acknowledge that it is most ideal to have a world that recognizes the right to die as an inalienable civil right for each human being, such a reality is very unlikely to happen (at least within most of our lifetimes, if ever), however, I would be willing to entertain and tolerate at least having some progression towards a more tolerable world. What do I mean by this? I am referring to the present day and the more interim future (within the coming years or at least decade), where instead of the heavy-handed, authoritarian CTB prevention measure and efforts being taken against suicidal people, perhaps the government and the masses take a more laissez-faire approach towards it; not necessarily aiding and supporting, but also not intervening/interfering against one who is going to/attempting to CTB.

In other words, in our current present reality, not only is the topic and discussion of CTB taboo, peaceful and reliable methods are hard to come by for many people, and of course, the consequences of even planning, let alone attempting to CTB (never mind failing due to being intervened against, things not working out the way it is, or through one's survival instinct), is reprehensible, which leads to more suffering (not limited to permanent injuries and possibly severe debility from failure). So what I'm proposing is (inspired from existentialgoof's suggestion in his numerous posts and replies on reddit in response to pro-lifers) the curtailing of government and State's forceful intervention (the use of detainment and physical violence) against people who are NOT an imminent threat to others, but only themselves. Just by that, would be a major improvement from our current, present day paternalistic government as well as the social attitudes and views with respect towards CTB.

Why is this a major game changer and the first step? Well, over the years and throughout history, governments and people in power have been trying to interfere with people's negative liberty rights, and in the past CTB was legally considered a 'crime' until the late 20th​ century (though not withstanding some countries and jurisdictions with still antiquated laws on their books), but de facto it is still treated as though it is a crime (not going to go too deep into semantics here!) due to the consequences of planning, attempting, and worst, failing said attempt, resulting in being temporarily relegated to the status of an child, someone who is unable to make decisions, and being forced treatment against one's will. So if there was such a curtailment and/or rollback of government authority to (temporarily and even perpetually) detain, intervene, or otherwise frustrate and prevent pro-choicers from being able to exercise their bodily autonomy, that would already relieve a lot of stress already. Even if the government isn't merciful to provide reliable and legal means to CTB.

So just imagine if one lives in a jurisdiction or in such a world where, sure, the government doesn't provide the necessary reliable and peaceful methods to check out with dignity, but at least they didn't actively interfere nor did any moral busybody try to do so (making it illegal for bystanders to interfere and/or at least de facto decriminalized, meaning that even if a busybody tried to get the authorities to act, they authorities just say it's de facto legal and have no right nor power to do so). This would at least help those who may otherwise leave STILL be able to eventually leave, even if their method isn't the most peaceful nor reliable. Perhaps (and this may be a stretch of presumption on my part, but) there are even some people who may feel slightly more at peace knowing that they are guaranteed to be able to carry out their plans or attempts without ANY risk of intervention by the government and/or other busybodies (presuming that there are restrictions to good Samaritan laws). This is just the short term and first step towards a compassionate and mature society. The longer term solution would be to expand programs like MAID in Canada and other similar countries with the right to die laws, not just to those with terminal illnesses or severe physical ailments and disabilities, but also to those who are suffering for long periods of time (years or so) with little improvement. A compromise could even be made by including a waiting period, checks for consent (eliminating any reasonable possibility of coercion or duress), and having a codified right to die.

 

[アホペンギン]

While I completely agree that the first step to a more tolerable society, in regards to the right to die and such would be them being more accepting towards the fact that we have self autonomy, meaning, we can decide for ourselves and we can definitely decide what we want to do with our lives, I doubt such a thing will ever become a reality, considering the current society and their outlook on certain issues concerning the right to die. Let alone a reality in which we have MAiD or VAD widely available for the majority of people who are in dire need of it, I doubt we would ever have a society that is more acceptant of our views and our desires. I predict that we will continue to be treated as if we cannot decide for ourselves for who knows how much longer, to my disappointment.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I agree. This would be a good step. It's a tricky issue though. It comes down to competency at it's core. To allow this- they would have to agree that some people are mentally competent enough to make this decision. Does that mean that all are? If bystanders see a figure on a bridge preparing to jump- do they make any attempt to interact with them? If they do- are the general public or police qualified to assess their mental capacity? Probably not. They probably need to be assessed. They may not want to go willingly for that.

Take the whole IC SN business recently though. I received a welfare check. I told them I had purchased it for future use- if I come down with a debhilitating illness. I don't want to end up old, ill and alone in a nursing home. They (eventually) left me and they didn't confiscate my SN. I didn't display signs of being in imminent danger and I (hopefully) could show that I had the capacity to understand my decisions. I'm grateful they treated me as they did. Really- that whole business seemed more about trying to nail Kenneth Law. Of course- I wasn't thrilled to get the welfare check but- it went as well as it could have really. My experience actually ran according to your model. I suppose, ideally, I wouldn't have received the check to begin with.

Still- again- it's tricky. Your model would need regulation unless you believe that everyone is mentally competent to be able to make the decision to CTB. It means that someone like Kenneth Law- selling a product that can be used to CTB needs to be confident that their customers are adults and of sound mind. As far as I'm aware- he didn't request ID from the start and there's no way he can assess someone's mental health over the internet. I'd argue that- yes- in an ideal world, we would have unrestricted access to methods but practicality wise- it needs regulation.

Assisted suicide would also need to be legalised to stop retailers from being prosecuted. I can't imagine the general public containing mainly pro-lifers would support this though. I imagine they'd actually prefer an assisted suicide programme to be set up- with strict restrictions. If anyone can buy lethal substances without restriction- I imagine a whole lot more minors would be CTB without their parents even realising.

 

[FuneralCry]

It's so disgusting and harmful how people think they even have the right to interfere in suicide attempts in the first place, sadly I cannot ever imagine these pro-life attitudes changing. It really would prevent so much suffering if people never interfered in suicide attempts, it's horrible how many people have suffered so much more all because other people were incapable of minding their own business.

 

[TAW122]

Just recently, I found this article on the site, MadInAmerica, which talks about how forcible or carceral intervention against people who are in crisis or risk of CTB'ing is more harmful than non-carceral intervention and it is a good read. I consider it similar to the war on drugs in several aspects, such that instead of punishing people who have CTB ideation or presumed to carry out CTB, if intervention was non-forceful, then it would make people more receptive towards getting help. With regards to the war on drugs, the similarity lies in the fact that increasing penalties and banning of certain illicit substances only sweeps the issue under the rug and further fuels a black market. To @Forever Sleep 's point with regards to
forced intervention, this article talks about the harms of it in detail.

The War on Suicide Is Making Things Worse

While intended to help, institutionalizing people against their will does more harm than good. Psychiatric coercion is dehumanizing.

www.madinamerica.com

While I completely agree that the first step to a more tolerable society, in regards to the right to die and such would be them being more accepting towards the fact that we have self autonomy, meaning, we can decide for ourselves and we can definitely decide what we want to do with our lives, I doubt such a thing will ever become a reality, considering the current society and their outlook on certain issues concerning the right to die. Let alone a reality in which we have MAiD or VAD widely available for the majority of people who are in dire need of it, I doubt we would ever have a society that is more acceptant of our views and our desires. I predict that we will continue to be treated as if we cannot decide for ourselves for who knows how much longer, to my disappointment.

I think it would depend on the country and jurisdiction, for parts of the US, assuming it is still a state-level issue rather than a federal one, certain states may slowly and over time, become more lax, perhaps expand eligibility to not just terminally ill, but also to the permanently disabled, and more. Some states, especially ones that are very conservative will likely tighten control and even go backwards. I do think it may take a different social issue to push for more bodily autonomy (women's rights, LGBTQ, and minority civil rights come to mind) before it can be incorporated and even segue into the right to die.

I agree. This would be a good step. It's a tricky issue though. It comes down to competency at it's core. To allow this- they would have to agree that some people are mentally competent enough to make this decision. Does that mean that all are? If bystanders see a figure on a bridge preparing to jump- do they make any attempt to interact with them? If they do- are the general public or police qualified to assess their mental capacity? Probably not. They probably need to be assessed. They may not want to go willingly for that.

Take the whole IC SN business recently though. I received a welfare check. I told them I had purchased it for future use- if I come down with a debhilitating illness. I don't want to end up old, ill and alone in a nursing home. They (eventually) left me and they didn't confiscate my SN. I didn't display signs of being in imminent danger and I (hopefully) could show that I had the capacity to understand my decisions. I'm grateful they treated me as they did. Really- that whole business seemed more about trying to nail Kenneth Law. Of course- I wasn't thrilled to get the welfare check but- it went as well as it could have really. My experience actually ran according to your model. I suppose, ideally, I wouldn't have received the check to begin with.

Still- again- it's tricky. Your model would need regulation unless you believe that everyone is mentally competent to be able to make the decision to CTB. It means that someone like Kenneth Law- selling a product that can be used to CTB needs to be confident that their customers are adults and of sound mind. As far as I'm aware- he didn't request ID from the start and there's no way he can assess someone's mental health over the internet. I'd argue that- yes- in an ideal world, we would have unrestricted access to methods but practicality wise- it needs regulation.

Assisted suicide would also need to be legalised to stop retailers from being prosecuted. I can't imagine the general public containing mainly pro-lifers would support this though. I imagine they'd actually prefer an assisted suicide programme to be set up- with strict restrictions. If anyone can buy lethal substances without restriction- I imagine a whole lot more minors would be CTB without their parents even realising.

In your example, I could see (hypothetically) it plays out like this: In the society that I described with severely curtailed paternalistic intervention, sure first responders may be called to the scene (since they would have to act if there is a report - duty to respond), but then after realizing someone is going to CTB, and since it is a public area, perhaps they would take the individual away from the public area in order to not disturb the peace (again since it's public). Assuming the person did not commit any crimes, then said person who was on the bridge would not go through the criminal justice system. If the person was homeless, maybe the person is taken to a homeless shelter (again, provided the person did not commit crimes). So in short, instead of being taken to the hospital and subsequently detained/locked up in a psych ward, the last part just doesn't happen.

Now suppose it was in a private area, like one's own flat/apartment or even house. The person would be checked on, determined no crime has been committed, and the person refuses "help" and then left alone. Also, I do want to mention that in a hypothetically less paternalistic society, there would be no liability for first responders as well (given the law change of course), meaning they cannot be sued (civil immunity from not locking someone up against their will - provided that said person committed no crimes).

Finally with your last point about assisted suicide being legalized but also with strict protocol and safeguards, yes that would be much better than our current ever growing paternalistic prohibitive society when it comes to coercive, forceful CTB intervention and lack of peaceful effective methods. Even with a reasonable waiting period as a compromise in such a program would be much better than outright prohibition and forceful intervention.

Hope this addresses your example and points thoroughly.

It's so disgusting and harmful how people think they even have the right to interfere in suicide attempts in the first place, sadly I cannot ever imagine these pro-life attitudes changing. It really would prevent so much suffering if people never interfered in suicide attempts, it's horrible how many people have suffered so much more all because other people were incapable of minding their own business.

Yes, I hate pro-life busybodies as well. They make me want to actually CTB even more especially with their paternalistic actions. They believe they are super heroes, but really all they are are super sadists!