Discussion Ever heard a good counter argument about the right to death?

[Bianka]

A discussion is about putting two different opinions "to the test". It starts by the approach that I don't know the truth but this is the conclusion I got. So at the end both parties leave with more knowledge and closer to the truth. But people are generally not even willing to engage in a debate about the topic. And even if they do all I got was how bad it would make other people feel. That's not an argument. That's called being selfish, forcing your views on someone. Just as I can't jusitfy killing someone even if I think everyone is better off dead, the sooner the better. How can I change my views, be more mindful and knowledgeable if no one is willing to even talk about it? Why is this a taboo topic? Because of the fear that they might "lose" the argument and have to change their views about life that brought them so much comfort? I can't do anything about it if my thoughts are written down as "wrong" but no one is willing to tell me what epistemological base supports why I'm wrong

 

[Forever Sleep]

I don't think you can just refute the argument that suicides impact other people's lives negatively. That's not to say the person shouldn't have the right to do it. But it's something most people will consider at the very least.

Most of us don't live as an island. Our deaths will affect others. As to who is around us and what steps we take to protect them influences things. Again, it's not exactly to say that people shouldn't have the 'right' to do it but, as an example- are both these suicides the same in terms of impact?

-A middle aged, single person with very few friends or family chooses to kill themselves in their flat. They alert the authorities via delayed email.

- A single mother or father with 3 infant children decides to kill themselves in their house. They don't bother to alert anyone. No one checks up on them for a few days. 2 of the chidren die of dehydration. The third one survives.

I think we should at least consider what affect our deaths will have on others.

If you're talking 'rights' though- I assume you are meaning the legalisation of assisted suicide- for all presumably? In which case, in the most liberal sense, assuming they will allow even relatively healthy people to go. I guess it will come down to competency. Someone slurring who can't walk in a straight line. Can't answer simple questions. Should they be given assisted suicide because they stumbled into a clinic? No.

The question is- is it possible for a person to be in a state- either temporary or prolonged, where they are suffering from impaired decision making? I'd say that is possible. In which case- they need people who can assertain that. That's not to say someone with a mental illness can't rationalise. But I'd say debilitated mental competency is valid an argument. That's why I'd say assisted suicide should be for adults- over 18 (unless there are debilitating health issues.) Plus, they do need to ascertain competency. Other than that- personally, I think we should all have the 'right'.

Of course, an actual assisted suicide programme would/should be able to provide support to the friends and family of the individual which would surely at least help in the major argument against it. Plus- you'd hope it would make suicide as a subject more easy to talk about.

In my personal view, I think a person going for assisted dying should be encouraged to tell their families their wishes. Some people disagree strongly with that- probably because they know their families would never approve. But- if we want this as a society, that means the greater majority need to start accepting it. Which means talking about it- rather than sneaking behind their backs and then, them most likely trying to sue. Most especially if the person was young.

 

[Bianka]

@Forever Sleep
Oh yeah sorry I wasn't very clear. I am talking about assisted suicide.
Capability to rational thinking and decision making is definitely something to consider but it's often simplified for example as if you have a mental ilness you can't make responsible decisions. Even if we say that's true that does not mean you are not suffering and not aware of it. So it's hard to define a criterium for it.
I think one way to eliminate "accidents" like the one you described or impulsive acts and decisions is to have to wait a mandatory time limit where you can think and reflect on it to be sure that's really what you want.
And I think it would be beneficial to everyone if death would have more part in our day to day lives and not something we fear to even think or talk about. It would surely be hearthbreaking and miserable to the relatives of the "patient" but would be easier to understand and accept it.
It's also worth mentioning that we try to make this system perfect without any flaws. Which is of course the right thing to do, this is a serious thing but at some point we have to understand that it won't be perfect. Definitely not at first. But we'll never get anywhere, we won't make the first step because there is always some small example that contradicts the whatever criterium we established. Nothing is perfect in the world and every system failes sometimes. I'm saying that for the greater good it's something to work on instead of killing the idea from the start because it's not 100% perfect. If there is one wrongful, unjustified suicide in every thousand or ten thousand I think it's still a start and we can keep working on it.

 

[Forever Sleep]

@Forever Sleep
Oh yeah sorry I wasn't very clear. I am talking about assisted suicide.
Capability to rational thinking and decision making is definitely something to consider but it's often simplified for example as if you have a mental ilness you can't make responsible decisions. Even if we say that's true that does not mean you are not suffering and not aware of it. So it's hard to define a criterium for it.
I think one way to eliminate "accidents" like the one you described or impulsive acts and decisions is to have to wait a mandatory time limit where you can think and reflect on it to be sure that's really what you want.
And I think it would be beneficial to everyone if death would have more part in our day to day lives and not something we fear to even think or talk about. It would surely be hearthbreaking and miserable to the relatives of the "patient" but would be easier to understand and accept it.
It's also worth mentioning that we try to make this system perfect without any flaws. Which is of course the right thing to do, this is a serious thing but at some point we have to understand that it won't be perfect. Definitely not at first. But we'll never get anywhere, we won't make the first step because there is always some small example that contradicts the whatever criterium we established. Nothing is perfect in the world and every system failes sometimes. I'm saying that for the greater good it's something to work on instead of killing the idea from the start because it's not 100% perfect. If there is one wrongful, unjustified suicide in every thousand or ten thousand I think it's still a start and we can keep working on it.

Yes, I completely agree with you. I'd say that mental illness doesn't always equate with incompetency. In fact, it's ridiculous to suggest it does in every case. How many people with depression say are working? Not just working though... they're doing jobs where they are responsible for other people's lives! Train drivers, police officers, doctors, surgeons. Very high suicide rates amongst cops... people walking round with guns...

I don't think these pro-lifers should be able to have it both ways. If they insist that being suicidal makes someone mentally incompetent and a danger to themselves and others- then, we should all be on benefits to my view. I'll carry on living if they are prepared to pay me to do so. The fact is though- I'm capable of work. If I had the skills, I could probably even get a highly responsible job.

I think it needs to be assessed on a case by case basis. It's not to say some illnesses can't impair our decision making. I've been around people in a nursing home with dementia and that is very hard to see. That said, many of the residents had DNR (do not resuscitate) orders in place, which I assume you do need to show competency for. But I 100% agree with you. A waiting period where the person would have to express the wish to die throughout would be a way to ascertain consistency.

I'm also not against the idea that some people can be helped and can recover. I think there have been cases where, people have gone through the assessment processes in these clinics only to decide they actually want to give life another shot. I think I've read that- just simply being able to talk about their honest feelings with someone helped them.

That's great and that's why I really think they need to legalise it in order to regulate it. That way- everyone who went that route would be given the chance to be helped. I think people should be offered help in the waiting period. (Although, not forced to take it.) But- compare that to what we have at the moment. Some poor sod that decides they might try reaching out for help via a hotline or therapist. If they are that honest about their suicidal feelings, there's a good chance they'll be sectioned which can lead to involuntary administering of drugs and plenty of people have unpleasant experiences in psyche wards.

Ironically, I actually believe that setting up a regulated process could actually save some lives. Plus, it would hopefully mean less bodged attempts where people cripple themselves and create enormous amounts of trauma for any witnesses and their loved ones. I completely agree with you. I think most people here will.

 

[Bianka]

@Forever Sleep
Couldn't have said it better myself. Completely agree. You shed light on some things I didn't even consider. This thread I started was covering multiple things but one is.... Isn't it important to talk about these things? My opinion got strengthened by new perspectives and got "closer to the truth" just by this brief conversation. Made me rethink and adapt by it. I really wish someone who's really against it would express their beliefs and what are those beliefs based on. I don't know the truth I don't believe I know the truth but if no one speaks against this, I WILL feel that it is the objective truth.

 

[Forever Sleep]

@Forever Sleep
Couldn't have said it better myself. Completely agree. You shed light on some things I didn't even consider. This thread I started was covering multiple things but one is.... Isn't it important to talk about these things? My opinion got strengthened by new perspectives and got "closer to the truth" just by this brief conversation. Made me rethink and adapt by it. I really wish someone who's really against it would express their beliefs and what are those beliefs based on. I don't know the truth I don't believe I know the truth but if no one speaks against this, I WILL feel that it is the objective truth.

Most people are pro-choice here so, most will agree with you/us. The only thing we tend to disagree on amongst ourselves is the level of 'gatekeeping' around assisted suicide. In that case- it tends to range from people who would really rather only people suffering from incurable illness be allowed it, to people more like us who think all sound minded adults should have access, to the other extreme: people who would be happy to see nembutal in vending machines, accessible to all, no questions asked. And yes- they do mean children too.

The forum is made up I'd say mostly of pro-choice, some pro-death and the very occasional pro-lifer who usually doesn't stay for long! So, not sure you'll get the debate you'd like. Some here may have 'crossed swords' with pro-lifers though, so they may come up with the more common arguments and likely also, what they argued back with.

I did have a very interesting converstaion once with a very intelligent and open minded lady. She, I would say was pro-choice ultimately although, she could see the potential problems with assisted suicide. She felt that especially older people- whether coerced or not will almost feel an obligation to go in order to not become a burden. I think that's a fair point actually. Someone may not actually want to die but they may feel obliged to because they know they are a financial burden on their families. Such a person can likely simply lie to an assesor to be approved.

In which case, it does become morally problematic. Do people need to have financial worth to feel worthy in this world? What if they can't achieve that? Will our governments step up to support them? Can their families support them? What if they know they can't? Will they simply choose to die in order to not become a nuisance? Is that right?

There are already stories with MAID in Canada about people wanting VAD to avoid homelessness. One guy we were talking about the other day here cited povety as his main motive. He made it clear that under different circumstances, he would live. Ultimately, they turned him down I believe but- it raises concerns. As a society, do we cut someone's benefits and nudge them towards VAD? What if the reverse starts to happen? People start to threaten to use VAD unless they are given benefits?

 

[mortuarymary]

All for assisted suicide but it will be used against those that can't fight back.
The world can't be arsed to care for the elderly and disabled, so let's help them along. That's the argument you will get. Hence, why you have to be of sound mind to MAID.

 

[Bianka]

@Forever Sleep
I'm not really looking for the discussion here. If you only discuss things with similar mindsets you'll be locked a bubble that's hard to escape. The basic premiss is that we don't talk about it even if I'm looking for a discussion.
The other thing you brought up I can't really understand. Yes with different circustances a lot of things and someones thinking can change, but that's irrelevant. If someone's going to be homeless can't they decide that this is not worth it? Even when they are well aware things can turn around. It's their right to say "I don't want this". Who are you to say that there is a possibility for you to change your mind in the unpredictable future so you lost your right?
Same thing if you feel like a burden. There is a million things you can do. Don't accept help, dissapear from their lives... you can't use the argument that in this situation some would chose death, against assisted suicide. They have other options they are not forced to do anything. If they chose death that's a hard decision and I believe there are more to it than the surface we just discussed.

 

[Forever Sleep]

@Forever Sleep
I'm not really looking for the discussion here. If you only discuss things with similar mindsets you'll be locked a bubble that's hard to escape. The basic premiss is that we don't talk about it even if I'm looking for a discussion.
The other thing you brought up I can't really understand. Yes with different circustances a lot of things and someones thinking can change, but that's irrelevant. If someone's going to be homeless can't they decide that this is not worth it? Even when they are well aware things can turn around. It's their right to say "I don't want this". Who are you to say that there is a possibility for you to change your mind in the unpredictable future so you lost your right?
Same thing if you feel like a burden. There is a million things you can do. Don't accept help, dissapear from their lives... you can't use the argument that in this situation some would chose death, against assisted suicide. They have other options they are not forced to do anything. If they chose death that's a hard decision and I believe there are more to it than the surface we just discussed.

I'm not refering to an individual person who is either homeless or about to be choosing to die. The problem is the wider social implications. Depends what you think of our governments. Do you think they like paying out welfare? Providing housing? Rehabilitating criminals and drug users? Paying for council run nursing homes? None of these people pay in to society. They provide jobs for the people that care for them certainly but... knowing our governments, if assisted suicide is cheaper for them, what's to stop them (further) cutting financing to the services that support people who are struggling in society? People who may have gotten better- given enough support?

Does that matter? It was still ultimately their 'choice' afterall. After their life became that shit, they decided they wanted out- no surprises really. The truth is- I don't know the impact it would have. Obviously, there doesn't exactly need to be a correlation between them bringing in assisted suicide and cutting services- although- the money for it needs to come from somewhere... That's partly why I think these clinics shouldn't be publicly funded. Otherwise, if they do cut say welfare for disabled people and lots of people on welfare then choose to die because they can't afford to live, it could be argued that they were pushed into it.

If someone is in a position where they have become a burden then no- they don't have infinite options available to them. Presumably they are too old or too ill to work now. They don't have money coming in. They may be eligible for benefits or a pension but, they may not. It may not be enough to survive on though. So- what do they do? They want to live remember but- they don't want to be a burden on their families or friends and they don't fancy living on the streets.

I don't know. I've had ideation for decades. I can't imagine not wanting to die to be honest but, I found this argument compelling because it was from an intelligent older lady who loved life. I reckon some grandparents would in fact almost sacrifice themselves to give their families more money, or to feel like they weren't draining their finances. I don't think that's impossible. I also absolutely think that some families will put pressure on their older relatives to use it. That is definitely something they would need to look out for.

 

[Bianka]

@Forever Sleep
I think we're demonizing the goverment here. Of course who knows, yes. But cutting money from the ill and elderly JUST because assisted suicide is a bit unrealistic. Idk about other countries but for mine for example they already do that. Is it good is it bad is irrelevant in this discussion, it's happening. People adapt to it. They save their own money while they're working knowing damn well they can't rely on the government.
I still think feeling like a burden and willing to sacrifice yourself does not mean death. There are always other options, and it's not an easy decision to die. And that's an understatement.
Of course there will be negative consequences, there are evil in every people to various degrees. There will be cases where they get pushed into it etc. But I don't think that's the majority. I think that's a really small percent.
While there are a lot of things that are bad and evil and can be critized but I don't think the government is the devil itself, I don't think the majority of people are driven by malice, they can be horrible with the now available options. I don't think this is a realistic outcome. Every system can be abused. And while we can improve assisted suicide to be less exploitable it's not a good excuse to not even take the first step. Because the good heavily outweights the bad in this case. In my opinion anyways.

 

[Forever Sleep]

@Forever Sleep
I think we're demonizing the goverment here. Of course who knows, yes. But cutting money from the ill and elderly JUST because assisted suicide is a bit unrealistic. Idk about other countries but for mine for example they already do that. Is it good is it bad is irrelevant in this discussion, it's happening. People adapt to it. They save their own money while they're working knowing damn well they can't rely on the government.
I still think feeling like a burden and willing to sacrifice yourself does not mean death. There are always other options, and it's not an easy decision to die. And that's an understatement.
Of course there will be negative consequences, there are evil in every people to various degrees. There will be cases where they get pushed into it etc. But I don't think that's the majority. I think that's a really small percent.
While there are a lot of things that are bad and evil and can be critized but I don't think the government is the devil itself, I don't think the majority of people are driven by malice, they can be horrible with the now available options. I don't think this is a realistic outcome. Every system can be abused. And while we can improve assisted suicide to be less exploitable it's not a good excuse to not even take the first step. Because the good heavily outweights the bad in this case. In my opinion anyways.

I completely agree with you. I'm just putting that out there as things other people have said to me. It's important- I think to think of how a system could be abused too- in order that we do what we can to show we've actually thought about it from different sides and even better- if we have ideas in place to protect people who are say being coerced or, are genuinely in some sort of psychotic state. I agree though- none of these reasons are enough (in my opinion) to prevent it being brought in- rationally speaking.

Realistically though- I don't think it will be. Not for everyone anyway. Likely only for the physically chronically/terminally ill first. Then, they'll likely talk amongst themselves as to whether mental illness should qualify and, how to assess that. Ultimately though, our governments want people alive in order to pay taxes and our families likely aren't too thrilled with the idea either. We're (I imagine) a smaller fraction of the population that supports the right to die for all sound of mind adults. But like you say- I think bringing it out in the open is the way to try to change that. But- I don't think our governments want that either. Sorry- you can tell- I am pretty anti-government because ultimately- they do hold power over our lives and deaths. But, our governments seem more keen on censoring all talk about it.

 

[Bianka]

@Forever Sleep
Oh yeah absolutely.
I'm not delusional enough to think things will change. I just gain a weird sense of satisfaction in my will to at least try to understand the world even tho I know it doesn't matter. I mean all the big philosophers lifes from Plato to Nietzsche didn't matter and they sacrificed their lifes in the hopes that people can change for the better. What can I do? What do I know? Nothing. Change only happens when it's fueled by selfishness greed and thirst for power. We're all rotten to the core. We're all guilty of being human. Some more than others. Even tho it's spitting in the face of human potencial...
Anyways yeah, this discussion didn't matter. I still enjoyed it tho and feel like I became more knowledgeable so it did to me at least

 

[sserafim]

A discussion is about putting two different opinions "to the test". It starts by the approach that I don't know the truth but this is the conclusion I got. So at the end both parties leave with more knowledge and closer to the truth. But people are generally not even willing to engage in a debate about the topic. And even if they do all I got was how bad it would make other people feel. That's not an argument. That's called being selfish, forcing your views on someone. Just as I can't jusitfy killing someone even if I think everyone is better off dead, the sooner the better. How can I change my views, be more mindful and knowledgeable if no one is willing to even talk about it? Why is this a taboo topic? Because of the fear that they might "lose" the argument and have to change their views about life that brought them so much comfort? I can't do anything about it if my thoughts are written down as "wrong" but no one is willing to tell me what epistemological base supports why I'm wrong

I've heard a slippery slope argument which was basically that euthanasia would be abused by governments to kill off "undesirables" (for example, disabled people like me).

 

[Proteus]

I don't think you can just refute the argument that suicides impact other people's lives negatively. That's not to say the person shouldn't have the right to do it. But it's something most people will consider at the very least.

I don't think it's fair to compare two different types of pain. No to undermine it at all, but the lost of a loved one is one of the oldest types of trauma and as result one of the most manageable. It's also worth considering mopst people can live with it or not feel suicidal. On the other hand wanting to end oneself is almost not manageable and a point you almost always reach at the lowest and when all coping fails. I think that's much worse.

- A single mother or father with 3 infant children decides to kill themselves in their house. They don't bother to alert anyone. No one checks up on them for a few days. 2 of the chidren die of dehydration. The third one survives.

This is a completely different beast though. Suicide is about autonomy but it affects others without any and it's usually choice to be there in first place. I don't know how could you argue about choice when you will ignore some of them (the choice to take responsibility for who you deliberately chose to).

Another thing about it is the infant mind is nothing like an adult. Adults are more prepared to cope with loss and it's part of life itself, but children are absolutely not ready. Paternal figures are extremely important for them and their psychology is extremely weak, anything here will cause strong trauma on the future and I know orphans have the worst of it. Here the right to die and the child right to a better future are in direct opposition. Plus there are a ton of problems with lack of adoption on top of it. To be fair, being suicidal is rarely a choice, not that one can do much about feeling that way or even control themselves, not like words could just stop them, but still.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I don't think it's fair to compare two different types of pain. No to undermine it at all, but the lost of a loved one is one of the oldest types of trauma and as result one of the most manageable. It's also worth considering mopst people can live with it or not feel suicidal. On the other hand wanting to end oneself is almost not manageable and a point you almost always reach at the lowest and when all coping fails. I think that's much worse.


This is a completely different beast though. Suicide is about autonomy but it affects others without any and it's usually choice to be there in first place. I don't know how could you argue about choice when you will ignore some of them (the choice to take responsibility for who you deliberately chose to).

Another thing about it is the infant mind is nothing like an adult. Adults are more prepared to cope with loss and it's part of life itself, but children are absolutely not ready. Paternal figures are extremely important for them and their psychology is extremely weak, anything here will cause strong trauma on the future and I know orphans have the worst of it. Here the right to die and the child right to a better future are in direct opposition. Plus there are a ton of problems with lack of adoption on top of it. To be fair, being suicidal is rarely a choice, not that one can do much about feeling that way or even control themselves, not like words could just stop them, but still.

It's impossible to compare pain. True. It's also impossible to predict who will get over a death- especially a suicide and who won't. I don't think people react to suicide the same way they do to natural death. An adult losing their 90 year old mother from cancer is going to react differently to a mother or father losing their 15 year old to suicide.

Out of interest, have you lost many people who were close to you? Either via suicide or, natural death? Maybe it didn't bother you but death has been one of the most traumatising things in my life. None of those were suicides either. Just because death naturally happens, it doesn't mean we're hard wired to cope with it.

It's not to say the person who took their own life wasn't suffering. It's not to say their suffering hadn't become unbearable for them. Obviously- it had- otherwise, they wouldn't have ended it. But- the same as I don't think it's possible to compare pain levels with regards to someone contemplating suicide and someone grieving after someone following it, I also think it's pretty insensitive to say- it's all death- people will get over it. We don't know that for sure either. Some people are on this site in fact- suicidal themselves now because they can't 'get over' their partners death. Either from natural causes but also, suicide. Suicides can lead to more suicides.

Again- no- we're not ultimately responsible for what other people end up deciding to do but it's naive to think everyone will be just fine- you don't know that.

Of course- there is an irony to it. The very people that may have told us we need to just 'suck it up' and get on with life rather than give in to whatever it was that was bothering us may be the exact same people that insist they wouldn't be able to cope or eventually- can't cope with the idea we killed ourselves. But, there we go. People are hypocritical.

I'm not saying it to say people shouldn't have the right to do it. I'm not actually saying people are selfish for doing it. I'm simply saying- it's an unfortunate consequence of it that the majority of people at least consider deeply. Also, as I tried to describe, some suicides impact more lives than others. Which is something I think most people with dependents consider.

Sorry- I couldn't quite follow the rest of your reply.

 

[Proteus]

It's impossible to compare pain. True. It's also impossible to predict who will get over a death- especially a suicide and who won't. I don't think people react to suicide the same way they do to natural death. An adult losing their 90 year old mother from cancer is going to react differently to a mother or father losing their 15 year old to suicide.

First of all, I'm really sorry my reply made you feel this way. I promise I didn't intend it at all. I struggle being careful quite a bit and I'm not feeling well after writing this.

I actually tried to be careful with words and not imply death is guaranteed or easy to overcome. I was looking for a way to say it more possible to cope with it than suicidality, while still being very traumatic. I didn't mean it was any easy.

Out of interest, have you lost many people who were close to you? Either via suicide or, natural death? Maybe it didn't bother you but death has been one of the most traumatising things in my life. None of those were suicides either. Just because death naturally happens, it doesn't mean we're hard wired to cope with it.

I lost my best friend to suicide years ago. That person was the most important to me and no one impacted me even remotely as much. At first it was horrible, it's one of the worst emotional pains I've went through. However deep down I knew no matter how bad it was they went through even worse pain, but still a terrible experience.

I also think it's pretty insensitive to say- it's all death- people will get over it. We don't know that for sure either. Some people are on this site in fact- suicidal themselves now because they can't 'get over' their partners death. Either from natural causes but also, suicide. Suicides can lead to more suicides.

If it reads like this it's probably my fault, but I swear I didn't mean that. Again I'm super sorry if I made it look like that.

I want to make sure my post didn't affect you too much and if it did I want to fix it.

 

[VampQueen]

I think both are hard to define as selfish. On one side, suicide could be defined as selfish because you aren't thinking of the consequences and impact it has on other. On the other side of that same coin, it's selfish to keep someone alive just because you don't want to feel the pain of loosing someone and forcing that someone to live and suffer.

Everyone has right to their own body, no matter how much you dislike it.

I don't think there will ever be a right or wrong, its all grey.

 

[Bianka]

@VampQueen
I think the main difference between the two "selfishness" is that everyone is responsible for themselfs and for their own feelings. You can't hold someone else accountable for your own emotions and discomfort.
It's horrible and cause misery and suffering to everyone involved I don't doubt or say that.
I'm arguing with the fact that even if we define both of these things as "selfish" it's definitely not equal

 

[VampQueen]

@VampQueen
I think the main difference between the two "selfishness" is that everyone is responsible for themselfs and for their own feelings. You can't hold someone else accountable for your own emotions and discomfort.
It's horrible and cause misery and suffering to everyone involved I don't doubt or say that.
I'm arguing with the fact that even if we define both of these things as "selfish" it's definitely not equal

I agree with that actually. Your entire paragraph makes a lot of sense.

 

[sammiechzxv]

Many good counter arguments, they're just not broad enough usually for me to agree

 

[Forever Sleep]

First of all, I'm really sorry my reply made you feel this way. I promise I didn't intend it at all. I struggle being careful quite a bit and I'm not feeling well after writing this.

I actually tried to be careful with words and not imply death is guaranteed or easy to overcome. I was looking for a way to say it more possible to cope with it than suicidality, while still being very traumatic. I didn't mean it was any easy.


I lost my best friend to suicide years ago. That person was the most important to me and no one impacted me even remotely as much. At first it was horrible, it's one of the worst emotional pains I've went through. However deep down I knew no matter how bad it was they went through even worse pain, but still a terrible experience.


If it reads like this it's probably my fault, but I swear I didn't mean that. Again I'm super sorry if I made it look like that.

I want to make sure my post didn't affect you too much and if it did I want to fix it.

No need to apologise at all. We're discussing very difficult subjects here with a lot of intense emotions. I may well have misunderstood your post too, so I apologise also if I came off too defensive.

I'm so sorry that you lost your best friend. I can't imagine how hard that must have been. I think it's very compassionate that you realised their pain was worse. I suppose in a way- I would hope that all people would realise this deep down. That, the person who took their own life didn't mean to hurt those around them. They simply couldn't cope with their own pain anymore. I think I maybe misunderstood your post- I'm sorry.

I suppose, I was just trying to put forward the argument that it is reasonable to consider the impact it has on others as a kind of counter argument against suicide. It's a difficult one to entirely dismiss because- really, we have no way of guaging what impact our deaths will have on others. Again, it's not to say the person shouldn't have the right to do it though.

This isn't really meant to be focused on you but I suppose it plays upon a theme that really triggers me: The same way that it isn't fair for people to point at us and say- 'Things aren't that bad for you- Why are you in such a state? You can't be considering killing yourself over this.' I think it's also pretty unreasonable to say- 'No one will notice if I kill myself. It won't really bother anyone or- it shouldn't because- death is natural- right?' Both statements claim to know what other people are thinking and feeling and- none of us know. Worse- they try to dictate what a person should feel. We can't do that fairly to others if we won't accept it being done to us. (In my view.)

So again, it's not meant to guilt trip people or anything. I was merely saying- personally, I don't think you can write it off as a counter argument by saying- other people won't be affected. They have to accept death, so, they'll be just fine with suicide. The truth is- we don't know.

But no, you didn't cause me offence. I hope I didn't offend you either.

 

[Pluto]

Assisted suicide seems to imply a drawn-out, formal procedure which rules out impulsivity and coercion. If the community is informed and consulted, that also reduces misunderstandings and shock. It's hard to argue against this particular scenario assuming the process is handled well by the authorities.

More generally, the hardest problem with suicide comes from survivors themselves. Many look back at their suicidal phase as a time of being dominated by irrational thoughts of despair and are full of gratitude to whomever 'saved' them. In the past, I've referenced a 1975 Elton John song entitled Someone Saved My Life Tonight, which is based on a true story involving a difficult relationship, a half-hearted suicide attempt and a fellow musician who helped him initiate the mother of all recoveries.

Yet taking this too far would imply banning all suicide to (in theory) 100% eliminate the worst case scenario of a deceased person who would regret their suicide if they were here to do so. Indeed, this is the mainstream stance of society, and we all know how great that works for those of us in advanced stages of suicidal ideation. It always boils down to the need for nuance in debate, despite the emotionally-charged nature of the subject matter.

 

[Bianka]

@Pluto
I think the biggest contradiction comes from the fact that generally everyone is considered a responsible adult liable for their own actions. From mild discomfort to ruined lifes people constanty make decisions they regret. And no one is holding their hands in the process. Of course any example is miniscule compared to suicide because what's a more serious thing anyone can decide on than life and death. But it's still something that goes against that without even questioning it. We should make everything in our power to reduce the possibility for regret but ultimately people should be considered responsible, capable of critical thinking and decision making. Just as they are. Except in this question for some reason.