Criterias to evaluate rational suicide

[henikova]

What criterias would you include in the evaluation process for rational suicide. What key elements of life would you consider when deciding if you should stay or go.
I'm writing this for self-testing, not from the point of view of a medical, religious or legal panel that would come to a decision based on this.

Here is my list of criterias:
- age
- physical and mental health (ability to perform daily activities without significant physical or emotional pain or discomfort)
- financial situation and reasonable expectations
- security and environmental factors ( e.g. the safety level of one's environment, considering crime, war, natural disasters )
- scale of social connections
- intimate relationship ( and dependant people )

I think in case of some factors it is up to the individual to decide if their quality of life has diminished to an unbearable extent, while other factors are objective, so it's hard to weight them.
However if somebody meets multiple criterias, it's acceptable to talk about his/her choice as a rational decision.
What's your opinion?

 

[HerculePoirot]

An important additional criterion is the probability (near to zero) of improvement/recovery.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I'm not so sure we gatekeep' suicide from ourselves... So- for instance- if I'm below a certain age OR have a reasonable level of health OR have good financial security OR live in an affluent area OR have good relationships- I'm actually ok and should stop thinking like this? I don't think it always works like that... Some of us DO have reasonable lives- according to your criteria but we still want to end it.

I mean- I think it CAN 'help'. I think- if someone finds their ideation disturbing- they very well might analyse their situation like that in order to 'ground' themselves.

That's just never been my experience of ideation though. It only very initially was something I felt I needed to justify to myself. I did that pretty quickly too- and not using any of the criteria above. I was actually 10. I was grieving 3 close family members who had already died by then and I was having a hellish time with a (suspected) narcissistic family member. Obviously- I didn't do it then- I'm actually 43 now. Would it have been 'right' for me to go then? I don't know really. I hung on and have continued to hang on for other people. Plus- there was no internet back then. The only methods I knew about terrified me- and likely would have failed. I'm certainly not one of those people who are happy that they gave life a shot!

Can you really BLAME anyone for taking their own life? The situation felt serious enough to them. I'm not saying people SHOULDN'T be protected- or- given help. Still- we are mainly talking about 'vulnerable' people here I imagine- minors and those that are infirm. Do you suppose those people CAN even annalyse your criteria effectively? CAN any of us- come to that? We don't know our futures. Things COULD improve for some of us. Should we feel obliged to hang around to find out?

 

[henikova]

I'm not so sure we gatekeep' suicide from ourselves... So- for instance- if I'm below a certain age OR have a reasonable level of health OR have good financial security OR live in an affluent area OR have good relationships- I'm actually ok and should stop thinking like this? I don't think it always works like that... Some of us DO have reasonable lives- according to your criteria but we still want to end it.

I mean- I think it CAN 'help'. I think- if someone finds their ideation disturbing- they very well might analyse their situation like that in order to 'ground' themselves.

That's just never been my experience of ideation though. It only very initially was something I felt I needed to justify to myself. I did that pretty quickly too- and not using any of the criteria above. I was actually 10. I was grieving 3 close family members who had already died by then and I was having a hellish time with a (suspected) narcissistic family member. Obviously- I didn't do it then- I'm actually 43 now. Would it have been 'right' for me to go then? I don't know really. I hung on and have continued to hang on for other people. Plus- there was no internet back then. The only methods I knew about terrified me- and likely would have failed. I'm certainly not one of those people who are happy that they gave life a shot!

Can you really BLAME anyone for taking their own life? The situation felt serious enough to them. I'm not saying people SHOULDN'T be protected- or- given help. Still- we are mainly talking about 'vulnerable' people here I imagine- minors and those that are infirm. Do you suppose those people CAN even annalyse your criteria effectively? CAN any of us- come to that? We don't know our futures. Things COULD improve for some of us. Should we feel obliged to hang around to find out?

I accept your response. However I think grieving 3 close family members at 10 completely fullfil the criterias of:
- significant emotional pain and discomfort
- lost social connection
- likely lost safety

Although I would not be able to recommend suicide for a 10 year old in such circumstances, it'd probably be a rational decision by my list.
It's not easy to tell whether a 10 years old can judge these criterias.
"Can you really BLAME anyone for taking their own life?"
> Yes. I'm confident to say that an impulsive suicide due to a love affair that puts serious emotional pain on the relatives is a big mistake. I can blame such bad decisions.

"Do you suppose those people CAN even annalyse your criteria effectively?"
> I think it's useful to have a somewhat objective list of factors to consider. Anyway most people can't effectively analyse their lifestyle decisions either (see diet, fitness, medical checkups ).

 

[Forever Sleep]

I accept your response. However I think grieving 3 close family members at 10 completely fullfil the criterias of:
- significant emotional pain and discomfort
- lost social connection
- likely lost safety

Although I would not be able to recommend suicide for a 10 year old in such circumstances, it'd probably be a rational decision by my list.
It's not easy to tell whether a 10 years old can judge these criterias.

Yes, it's a VERY difficult subject- suicide amongst minors. Personally, I CAN understand what drives ANYONE to suicide- no matter their age. We STILL feel things intensely when we're children. Perhaps even more so- and I think maybe that's the problem. Perhaps we don't have enough perspective to realise that what we are feeling SO intensely at that moment may likely change in a few years. Also- that life can open up to us far more in the years ahead. I think there are more opportunities available to us in our youth. Trouble is- all of that is retrospective talk. It likely means nothing to a child that is suffering- for WHATEVER reason.

I do see the need to protect children- although- ideally- it ought to be love, support and help rather than just prohibition. Still- I also understand some more open views that insist people can make rational decisions about their life- even when they are young. I think personally, I still think 18 is a good age to aim to get to- if possible. Dependant on circumstances of course but- if the problems were home related- many people are able to leave home at that point. It may be that that change could really help them. (It did me.) Of course- it depends on the individual though.

 

[ksp]

for me it's difficult to define exact criteria but i'm thinking of impulsive vs rational response:
- am i in a hurry to decide? - definitely not!
- how do i feel about my life:
— what is the point - to me? (philosophy)
— i lived my life, and i've had enough of it (i'm not young - age)
— if i stopped to think about this meaning when i was younger, would i have continued to make the efforts?
—- were all my efforts and suffering worth it? (younger people don't have this 'luxury') - to me: no
—- i hate human condition, and i hate life's lottery - no control for individual, about major deciding factors
- if i would have everything that i would possibly want: would i want to be alive, or not?
— am i happy about what nature gave me?
—- do i tolerate my own gender?
—- am i appealing to the opposite sex? (do i care?)
—- do i consider myself smart enough for a comfortable / tolerable life in today's society?
— if i am a millionaire, with a dream home, and all the food i'd desire, and no need to work
—- would i find interesting projects for myself (sense of wonder or imagination, or any passion)?
—- in my case: i explored interesting projects and passions - now i don't find them appealing anymore
-— my old hobbies have became tedious; they're unable to distract me

your concerns:
- age: do you feel like you need to discover more of your life? is it worth your future efforts?
- physical health: you have a terminal or chronic illness? unknown ailments (can't be explained or cured)?
- do i trust doctors / psychologists? do i trust the medical system (reasonable expectations)?
- mental health: feeling down or up is normal
— do you have a persistent and severe problem?
— are you obsessed with death? (and if 'yes': why?)
— why not accept life with good and bad?
— do you have mental or emotional discomfort daily?
— can you change your environment to improve life?
- financial situation: this can be very temporary, both: favorable or unfavorable
— do you feel able to overcome financial adversities? do you want to make the effort?
— do you feel you have the mental capacity to make your life more comfortable? (intelligence or intellect level)
— do you accept yourself as you are - talent as well as imperfections? or
— are you miserable and disappointed in yourself? (no prospect of acceptable future - to you)

consider:
- crime: can you move if you don't like it there?
- war:
— this problem shouldn't exist: hitler and putin are abomination
— society should not permit this: ability to annihilate humanity shouldn't exist
— your autonomy doesn't exist because of them
— there is nothing you can do… is your life worth this constant anxiety?
- natural disasters - can you ignore the randomness, and choose to focus on the small joys?

my decisions are much easier because of the social aspects:
- scale of social connections (my response is probably not relevant to you)
— i feel much happier when i'm alone: i can easily tolerate my imperfections
— i love desolation and solitude: wall-e, I am legend, the quiet earth, passengers, etc
— i don't "thrive" in social settings, in fact i despise them
— i don't miss any social gatherings or events
- intimate relationship (dependent on people)
— i don't depend on anyone, and no one depends on me
— i don't miss people, and i avoid them as much as i can (except for daily necessities)
— i don't feel lonely, and i love being alone ('i want to be alone' -greata garbo:)

if i try to look at my life rationally (balanced view of positivity and negativity):
do i look forward to the rest if my future, or not? (without being overly emotional or depressed)

 

[Mr Myemna]

What criterias would you include in the evaluation process for rational suicide. What key elements of life would you consider when deciding if you should stay or go.
I'm writing this for self-testing, not from the point of view of a medical, religious or legal panel that would come to a decision based on this.

Here is my list of criterias:
- age
- physical and mental health (ability to perform daily activities without significant physical or emotional pain or discomfort)
- financial situation and reasonable expectations
- security and environmental factors ( e.g. the safety level of one's environment, considering crime, war, natural disasters )
- scale of social connections
- intimate relationship ( and dependant people )

I think in case of some factors it is up to the individual to decide if their quality of life has diminished to an unbearable extent, while other factors are objective, so it's hard to weight them.
However if somebody meets multiple criterias, it's acceptable to talk about his/her choice as a rational decision.
What's your opinion?

i don't really think suicide a very personal decision should be judged on a universal basis of values, it should be up for the person to judge whether it is worth it for them to continue their life based on how they value their experience.

a rational suicide is just when someone is aware of the possibilities and likely and unlikely outcomes that any certain choices might bring about, it is when they make an informed decision and be ready to handle the consequences, just like all other choices.

 

[LookingOverTheEdge]

There's no way you could make a system to define whether suicide is a rational act or not. At the end of the day, we are all different, and something silly or laughable to me, could be a personal hell to you.

I think of depression in its many forms as if you and I were both looking at a beautiful painting in a gallery. We're both looking at the same painting, but we're not seeing the same thing. What we see is unique to us. And your view is every bit as valid as mine is.

 

[Disaster]

Being rational, being able to make the decisions, should be the only aspect evaluated. If I can be held responsible for stuff for example financially, shouldn't I be able to "cancel my life subscription", especially because someone else has assigned me to such a shitty thing with shitty customer service?
Perfectly healthy and happy person should have right to end their live if they want to. Of course if they are happy and healthy, they wouldn't, but it's irrelevant. It's none of my business as long as the person actually is reasonable. I'm pro-choice. Just like with the abortion, being pro-choice means that no one should be forced either to carry on or to terminate.
I see many posts here that are likely cries for help, and people describing their attempts that couldn't succeed. I do understand that that's just how peoples brains works, but I find it cringy when people ask here "should I ctb", "how should I ctb" like you wouldn't trust strangers in the internet to make a choice about a flavor of instant ramen for you, why do you want them to decide for you if/how should you ctb? I hate it so much. But I don't think judging if someones life is shitty enough to make it rational to ctb would be good for anyone. It's basically telling old, ill people with who don't have friends and family, that their life is worth less that the lifes of the young, healthy and social people. That's not true, that's actually awful. Already in Canada someone has been suggested to apply for euthanasia because someone responsible for the building they lived in didn't want to do some reasonable accommodations. It's outrageous. There are people with plenty of reasons that could make ctb option "rational" in the OPs eyes, yet they want to live. Making those reasons as "objective" means that those people would be irrational for wanting to live. That's not okay to say at all. It's not our business if someones reasons are good enough, as long as the person is able to make rational decisions.

 

[Gustav Hartmann]

I made a list of the pros and cons of these two options: 1. Committing suicide in the near future. 2. Committing suicide later.

It did not help much to overcome my real problem, the survival instinct.

 

[HadItAll]

Chronic hereditary physical illness is enough of a reason for me at 30.

 

[outrider567]

What criterias would you include in the evaluation process for rational suicide. What key elements of life would you consider when deciding if you should stay or go.
I'm writing this for self-testing, not from the point of view of a medical, religious or legal panel that would come to a decision based on this.

Here is my list of criterias:
- age
- physical and mental health (ability to perform daily activities without significant physical or emotional pain or discomfort)
- financial situation and reasonable expectations
- security and environmental factors ( e.g. the safety level of one's environment, considering crime, war, natural disasters )
- scale of social connections
- intimate relationship ( and dependant people )

I think in case of some factors it is up to the individual to decide if their quality of life has diminished to an unbearable extent, while other factors are objective, so it's hard to weight them.
However if somebody meets multiple criterias, it's acceptable to talk about his/her choice as a rational decision.
What's your opinion?

Loss of lifetime partner girlfriend due to death

 

[Yuri Yurovich]

Philosopher David Benatar has written a lot about the rationality of suicide. He is also an antinatalist and pessimist.

I think the essence of rationality is willingness to give and accept reasons that all can appreciate as providing some justification, even if that reason is rejected in the end. This is especially difficult with suicide, since personal attachment makes it very difficult to accept any reason why the suicide of a loved one might be reasonable.

Should the feelings of others count as reasons for or against our actions? My inclination is to look around at instances where other's feelings potentially impinge on our acts. Consider leaving a relationship--like this situation, the choice often enough comes down to hurting someone else or hurting yourself, or even hurting both. But I have to stipulate that the nature of the harm makes a difference here--obviously, the severity of the harm determines its weightiness as a reason.

Sorry, not sure where I'm going with this---blah, blah, blah ...

 

[Sparx]

Loss of lifetime partner girlfriend due to death

Similar situation here - it was my mum but I feel I can't live without her.

 

[FuneralCry]

Suicide is a personal decision and nobody should be forced to exist here. It's cruel to want to keep people here against their wishes and nobody else should have any say as to when one should leave this world. After all, continuing to exist could never be an obligation. But anyway, I believe that the wish to exist is certainly what is irrational instead as such a thing is centred around delusions. One must be delusional in order to wish to endure something so harmful as existence as chance so cruelly determines everything with no limit as to how much we can be tortured.
As long as we exist we risk ending up in a situation of even worse suffering, so therefore to decide not to delay our inevitable fate will always seem like the most rational decision to me.

I would personally prefer to solve all problems as there are no disadvantages to being dead, and all I wish for is to return to the ideal state of non existence, free from the burden that is being trapped inside this flesh prison. To have the ability to suffer certainly is a curse, and such a thing as existing could never be acceptable or desirable to me, life in itself is enough to validate the wish to die, so therefore suicide could never need a reason. Death happens all the time, it's the most normal thing ever that doesn't need to be justified. Death is just the natural consequence of life being so unfairly forced into this world.
So to answer the question, only the individual can decide whether to delay their inevitable fate or not, as well as having the right to live, we have the right to die.

 

[Archness]

I believe the only way to determine if a suicide is justified would be if it wasn't started due to a recent event, and was considered for a prolonged amount of time. Though a necessary criteria would be reaching adulthood, the responsibility and freedom of determining if life's worth living, to live or die, for whatever reason or goal, with the permanence of death, must be completely on the individual.

Though mental illness does make things a bit messy, for the most part they shouldn't negate the will to die except in extreme circumstances, or if it's the main reason for suicidality with a possible cure. If said mental illness proves certainly incurable without exremely drastic measures like brain surgery, brainchips, or prescribing opioids/pleasure-drugs, I can let it slide.

Living, dying, the reasons, fundamentally have an aspect of "irrationality" to them, it's a personall choice. I don't think a criteria of "rationality" for suicides would work for this reason. If one needs a "rational reason" to want to die, why don't they need a rational reason to want to live? Because it's, at the very least partially, irrational, in instinct, or is a feeling.


So yeah. If you're an adult who've been considering it for a reasonable amount of time, not just because of one bad day, you can do it. Might be exceptions for mental illness, but if it's outright incurable it may be fine.

Allowing mentally ill to ctb is quite controversial. However, this is only if it's indirectly/not causing suicidality, or is incurable. Same goes for mentally handicaped; it's mostly for people like CTBdream who might on paper be unable to chose but damn they're in a horrible exsistance that alone would warrant them being allowed euthanasia despide brainndamage.

Some would say any mental illness at all that effects this discission in any meaningful way should invalidate it, even if untenable. I can understand that, especially as guidelines for an assisted suicide system, and would even agree with them for those guidelines. I do however have doubts that any mental illness at all no matter how mild should invalidate this, though some may (case-by-case judgement call).

These criteria would determine if a suicide would be justified, and/or as rational as such a personal decision could be. For the record I don't think an officially sanctioned assisted suicide system should be available except in certain, extreme, untennable circumstancess, due to possibilitys of abuse, corruption, misuse, regrettable suicides, and psychopaths telling veterans to kys over the phone, or any instance of a psychopath making people ctb so easly for that matter. These criteria would be adequate if an assisted suicide system HAD to be available to everyone, but having it so open would'nt be ideal.

[ Note : What constitutes a "Mental Illness" to have an effect on this is a bit up to interpretation. I'm not a doctor, okay? ]

 

[SamTam33]

What's the absolute worst-case scenario if everyone who wanted to die - was able to die?

No regards to mental status or age. Anyone who wants to commit suicide will be granted the means.

I'm curious what that looks like to everyone, because I can't think of any downside that isn't already reflected in society.

E.g., we'll have less people in the workforce, but according to certain politicians "No one wants to work anymore." So. What difference does it make if those non-workers are dead or just sitting on their sofas alive?

Little kids will die.

Yep, just like they do in the hundreds of mass shootings each year.

Your loved ones will be sad.

But they aren't happy now. Millions upon millions of people are already on prescription drugs due to their unhappiness. Alcoholics? Drug addicts? They have living relatives and they're still sad.

Just curious. Sorry for not following the guidelines, OP. I probably should've started a separate thread.

But it's hard for me to contemplate suicidal criteria when I can't think of a single reason why someone shouldn't be allowed to ctb.

 

[itsallpointless]

My criteria is simple. Is it logical? What is the utilitarian difference between survival and death. If your current existence is terrible and this has endured for a prolonged period, just based on your experience, disregarding whatever prospects for the future, life is not a good experience and this will not change. If this is the case that is enough of a reason for ctb

 

[Disaster]

What's the absolute worst-case scenario if everyone who wanted to die - was able to die?

No regards to mental status or age. Anyone who wants to commit suicide will be granted the means.

I'm curious what that looks like to everyone, because I can't think of any downside that isn't already reflected in society.

E.g., we'll have less people in the workforce, but according to certain politicians "No one wants to work anymore." So. What difference does it make if those non-workers are dead or just sitting on their sofas alive?

Little kids will die.

Yep, just like they do in the hundreds of mass shootings each year.

Your loved ones will be sad.

But they aren't happy now. Millions upon millions of people are already on prescription drugs due to their unhappiness. Alcoholics? Drug addicts? They have living relatives and they're still sad.

Just curious. Sorry for not following the guidelines, OP. I probably should've started a separate thread.

But it's hard for me to contemplate suicidal criteria when I can't think of a single reason why someone shouldn't be allowed to ctb.

I can see the risk of some people being actually pressured to do it. Either by family, or by gov/society. There was this case in Canada where a person was officially told to use Medical Aid in Dying because they didn't want to adjust the building to their mobility issues. I'm pro-choice, and being pro-choice means to me not telling others if their life is worth living. Of course offering ctb to everyone would have the drawback of not offering healthcare, accommodations etc. because the ill or disabled person has a "choice" to ctb. Old people could be coerced into dying because others want to inherit their stuff. As much as I am pro-choice, I see how this could be abused as hell. Of course torturing people who want to die by incarcerating them and keeping them alive is a sick dystopia too, just a different flavor of sick dystopia.
People here forget also that if lethal means like N were available to anyone who asks, they could be used to murder people too. I'm saying all of this as a person who wants to have a way out and believes that everyone should have a way out. I'm not sure how the issue of murder or coercion or not offering support to people who are just expensive to keep alive, because they have a "choice", should be solved.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

People here forget also that if lethal means like N were available to anyone who asks, they could be used to murder people too.

I mean knives and hammers are easily bought too and in America at least guns. Incidentally I don't think N would make for a suitable murder tool given its taste. SN could be used for that purpose and it was freely available until recently.

 

[Fwompje]

What criterias would you include in the evaluation process for rational suicide. What key elements of life would you consider when deciding if you should stay or go.
I'm writing this for self-testing, not from the point of view of a medical, religious or legal panel that would come to a decision based on this.

Here is my list of criterias:
- age
- physical and mental health (ability to perform daily activities without significant physical or emotional pain or discomfort)
- financial situation and reasonable expectations
- security and environmental factors ( e.g. the safety level of one's environment, considering crime, war, natural disasters )
- scale of social connections
- intimate relationship ( and dependant people )

I think in case of some factors it is up to the individual to decide if their quality of life has diminished to an unbearable extent, while other factors are objective, so it's hard to weight them.
However if somebody meets multiple criterias, it's acceptable to talk about his/her choice as a rational decision.
What's your opinion?

I disagree with the term criteria. You do not have to go through all of these things to commit a rational suicide. They are factors.

Some people are also just satisfied with their life. They might not meet any of these criteria and they should still be allowed to kill themselves if they've simply had enough.

Death is not a bad thing and pulling up the idea that "relatives would be sad" is degrading imo.

 

[Shadowlord900]

I have a very lenient criteria for suicide. As long as you don't have anyone else who is physically or financially dependent on you, I won't see your suicide as a bad thing. (Unless if you feel like said person is ungrateful for you helping them, but now we're getting into muddy waters there.) I personally hate the idea of someone being mentally dependent on you as a reason against suicide, it's just a very selfish way of keeping someone trapped. What makes their mental health more valid over yours?

But just because I love animals so much (yes bias I know), I do frown upon people who still have pets entertaining the idea of suicide (at least not without finding them a suitable home first that would treat them well), but that would come down under my physically dependent criteria.

Yes I don't even care if you want to take your life if you're still young, or just because your girl/boyfriend dumped you or your favourite game got shut down. Granted I think those are dumb reasons to want to take your own life, but you're the one who's living your life in your body, not me.

 

[borderline-feline]

I think that anyone who wants to die should be able to, regardless of age, status, or family. In my eyes, it would be wrong to try and gauge whether or not a person's suicide and reasons are rational, because I don't think that it matters whether or not it's rational. All that should matter is a genuine desire to die.

 

[Disaster]

I mean knives and hammers are easily bought too and in America at least guns. Incidentally I don't think N would make for a suitable murder tool given its taste. SN could be used for that purpose and it was freely available until recently.

It would be harder, I guess, to violently murder a family member with a knife, than to coerce them into taking N. If someone murders someone with a knife, they are likely to not inherit anything, and they are likely to be prosecuted. If N was legal to whoever wants it, and if it was assumed to be taken only voluntarily, people could be coerced into taking it so their family members could inherit their stuff.
I DO support the right to die in people who actually want it. I just don't feel like killing some old and/or expensive-to-keep-alive people who actually want want to live is morally acceptable because some people want to die voluntarily. I of course coercing people to stay alive when they don't want to, incarcerating them in hospitals for attempts or just for thinking about it is equally wrong. I don't have a good solution to that.