Discussion How would normalization of suicide (as a means to end suffering) impact society?

[VisionsOfHell]

Surely we cannot deny that it would greatly reduce the average individual suffering but how would it affect society as a whole?

For example, I think that it could greatly accelerate the research progress into many non-lethal illnesses. The reason being, that people only empathize with you if you have a physical illness that is lethal, especially over a short period of time. If its anything else you are somehow expected to just accept your situation and "make the most of it". Only when death comes into play, do people take it serious, otherwise our suffering is ignored and belittled.

Maybe its a stretch butcould we apply that reasoning to the rest of society? Would people take each others problems and feelings more serious if suicide is seen as a potential outcome?

 

[StuFin]

If it was legalised and controlled by the state and painless then I think the over population problem would be solved by New Years Day.

In the current climate I think a lot of people would go for it.

I'm surprised they haven't done it, think of all the money they'd save in unemployment benefits.

 

[Symbiote]

At one time people were afraid that the normalization of suicide would lead to eugenics coming back. Doctors could easily order your death if you so wish or forcibly euthanized you out of convenience. I think the normalization of suicide can be both bad and good. Bad because you have shitty human beings with massive egos playing God with your life, good in the way that terminal people or mentally ill people can relieve their suffering. The world is too complex and difficult to navigate the normalization of suicide in a healthy manner.

In Feudal Japan, the act of committing seppuku was to honor the family and not bring shame. It was used in a philosophical aspect of life that ending will not tarnish your family history. Family was very important in Japan. It was practiced all the way into WW2 when the Japanese refused to be captured by the Americans.

Suicide in antiquity has been done over and over with many cultures accepting it. It wasn't until Christianity was involved when suicide was forbidden and start changing attitudes around it. Christianity favored self-preservation before God because God made you in his image, therefore killing yourself meant that you hate his image. The belief that you would suffer eternal damnation for killing yourself made everyone fear death. The fact that suicide was so prevalent in the old days, that suicide was considered a greater sin than adultery or murder. You could murder someone, but get placed in a lower circle of hell than you would if you killed yourself. Killing yourself placed you in the 9th circle. No wonder if spooked people into suffering endlessly because the belief that Jesus suffered more than you would ever have to endure.

Lost my train of thought.....rambling done.

 

[DeathBySuicide]

At one time people were afraid that the normalization of suicide would lead to eugenics coming back. Doctors could easily order your death if you so wish or forcibly euthanized you out of convenience. I think the normalization of suicide can be both bad and good. Bad because you have shitty human beings with massive egos playing God with your life, good in the way that terminal people or mentally ill people can relieve their suffering. The world is too complex and difficult to navigate the normalization of suicide in a healthy manner.

In Feudal Japan, the act of committing seppuku was to honor the family and not bring shame. It was used in a philosophical aspect of life that ending will not tarnish your family history. Family was very important in Japan. It was practiced all the way into WW2 when the Japanese refused to be captured by the Americans.

Suicide in antiquity has been done over and over with many cultures accepting it. It wasn't until Christianity was involved when suicide was forbidden and start changing attitudes around it. Christianity favored self-preservation before God because God made you in his image, therefore killing yourself meant that you hate his image. The belief that you would suffer eternal damnation for killing yourself made everyone fear death. The fact that suicide was so prevalent in the old days, that suicide was considered a greater sin than adultery or murder. You could murder someone, but get placed in a lower circle of hell than you would if you killed yourself. Killing yourself placed you in the 9th circle. No wonder if spooked people into suffering endlessly because the belief that Jesus suffered more than you would ever have to endure.

Lost my train of thought.....rambling done.

I completely agree, and you definitely worded by thoughts better than I could've worded it myself.

As I'm a Christian, I believe in self-preservation. However, I believe that the Bible never said that you would suffer "eternal damnation" for killing yourself. As long as you accept Jesus as your savior, you will go to heaven. All of your sins, past, present and future, will be forgiven, even if you kill yourself. The only unpardonable sin is associating God's work with those of Satan's.

Despite me believing in self-preservation, I do understand that some terminally ill people would want euthanasia. If I were to have an illness that would cause me massive suffering and pain and would lead to a 100% chance of death, then I would want euthanasia, too. So in a way, the normalization of suicide could be a good thing for people who want euthanasia.

On the other hand, there's been many people saying that they're glad they survived their suicide attempts. If suicide were normalized, it would probably be a lot easier for one to get their hands on poison, firearms, and other methods to cause death. That means people would be less likely to think hard about the choice to end their lives, and their choice to suicide would be a lot more impulsive than not. If suicide methods were harder to come across and suicide were not normalized, then many people would decide to continue to live (because of the lack of methods), and in the future, they may look back on their life and be glad that they survived. And like I said before, I'm a Christian, so I do not believe that one should attempt suicide. You should embrace yourself as you were created in the image of God, and God loves you just the way you are.

 

[Coffeandamug]

As @Symbiote pointed out this is a complex matter. The interactions of power in society could bring this to a scenario where autonomy could not be exerted by some. As morality is not written in cold stone, it could lead to eugenics, but also to other scenarios. It's difficult to predict. But if the values of autonomy could be kept in the culture, that everyone has a sheer right to choose the destiny of their minds and bodys, I think this could lead to an interesting world. Sure the rates of suicide would sky rocket, but I don't think that's a bad thing, it's just that more people would be aware of their choices. If the normalization of suicide happens in this century, I can see more "positive" results then "negative" ones, given the emphasis that our culture puts in the rights of every individual, which could be far, far worst. But this is, of course, according to my view of how these scenerios would play out and what could be considered positive or negative results.

 

[Nymph]

The rich don't wanna normalize suicide cause then there would be no working people and the government would actually have to start doing something. We will never be free to die whenever we want. They will try to block all the substances we have which is already little

 

[Amisorih]

The change would be so huge that I could only guess the impact.

First I think, a lot of impulsive teenagers would commit suicide. Many of them could have had a very happy life to come. Sudden suicides would significantly damage mental health of their relatives. In the short term that would be disastrous. In the long term there would be significant eugenic effects, when more impulsive and weak genes would be removed from the gene pool.

Easier access of suicide would encourage people to take more risks, because they would believe to have an easy escape in the case of failure in life. Some of the taken risks would lead to good innovations and genuine improvement of the society. However I am afraid, there would be much more impact on crime and chaos. People would commit much more immoral behavior and society would become much more dangerous. I believe, that would not lead to political revolution, but chaos would be big.

Some people would become lazy, because they would not appreciate life anymore. They would have such a tempting alternative for life. Depressed people would not take those important small steps to improve their lives little by little. On the other hand some people would feel themselves much more free. Nobody else could control their life anymore. High achieving people would achieve even more.

Some miserable people would be willing to sell their body for scientific purposes before committing suicide. Some immoral businessmen would start to sell suicides for those people. On the other hand increased amount of human volunteers would lead to huge improvement in medical science.

 

[Buffy5120]

The rich don't wanna normalize suicide cause then there would be no working people and the government would actually have to start doing something. We will never be free to die whenever we want. They will try to block all the substances we have which is already little

Exactly they need us around because of money

 

[nothungryanymore]

I don't think normalizing suicide necessarily means medications to ctb would be easily available, as a few have mentioned, though it could be a part of it. Personally, what I would want it to mean is that if someone admits to being suicidal, or is admitted to a hospital on a suicide attempt, they wouldn't automatically be locked in a hospital or pumped with pills. I would like to see suicide normalized mostly so providers could legally and adequately help people who may be at a low & impulsive place in their life, or give the proper care to those who have made their final decision.

I also think normalizing suicide would inherently make a lot of people behave better - not worse - especially if a person thought their actions could cause someone they love to ctb. I don't believe many people think their bad behavior will be the downfall of another. I think people would think harder about what they say & do. Generally, most people who behave like shit do so because they're selfish, not sadistic.

The shock of a suicide of a loved one often wakes people up to a world they didn't know existed. Just the idea that a loved one could really go through with it is difficult enough to process. If suicide were normalized, I think it would be make people consider their actions more, and that it'd be harder for family and friends to turn their head away from loved ones who are deeply suffering.

 

[Buffy5120]

The change would be so huge that I could only guess the impact.


First I think, a lot of impulsive teenagers would commit suicide. Many of them could have had a very happy life to come. Sudden suicides would significantly damage mental health of their relatives. In the short term that would be disastrous. In the long term there would be significant eugenic effects, when more impulsive and weak genes would be removed from the gene pool.



Easier access of suicide would encourage people to take more risks, because they would believe to have an easy escape in the case of failure in life. Some of the taken risks would lead to good innovations and genuine improvement of the society. However I am afraid, there would be much more impact on crime and chaos. People would commit much more immoral behavior and society would become much more dangerous. I believe, that would not lead to political revolution, but chaos would be big.



Some people would become lazy, because they would not appreciate life anymore. They would have such a tempting alternative for life. Depressed people would not take those important small steps to improve their lives little by little. On the other hand some people would feel themselves much more free. Nobody else could control their life anymore. High achieving people would achieve even more.



Some miserable people would be willing to sell their body for scientific purposes before committing suicide. Some immoral bisnesmen would start to sell suicides for those people. On the other hand increased amount of human volunteers would lead to huge improvement in medical science.

This is why I think people should get it if they at least tried 1 year to get better and had no relief in doing so. Other wise the human race wouldn't exist because everyone has temporary rough spots and sometimes do things on impulse. When your suffering outweighs your motivation to live then it might be time to consider suicide as an option. Unless the source of suffering can be eradicated If that rough situation doesnt get better in a year then of course, they should definitely qualify 100%. But what about the people who have tried for years and years with no relief, they should automatically get it with no doubt whatsoever and wont have to wait a year doing vitamins or medications because they have clearly done that already. If there were more doctors and clinics that actually what to help us get better, than that could balance the ratio of assisted deaths to make sure everyone wont ctb by impulse, but yeah this would only be if it ever were to become legal. But definitely people have to at least try minimum 6 months to see if things change there still should be a rule to get euthanasia, you shouldn't just get it because your having a bad day....this is the reason why its illegal now because if they legalize it, many people will ctb simply because they having a "bad day" or in temporary and minor bad point in there lives, not knowing it probably will get better because they probably haven't even tried versus those who tried and tried for years leaving those who really desparetly need or deserve it, to not have it accessible for them, and then getting worse where they cant even apply because they cant make decisions for them selves (senile). In reality it should be for those who have serious mental and physical illnesses or have at least tried to get better for a year...thats the only way it would probably work without losing a majority of the human race....

 

[Onomotopoeia]

I'm surprised in unexpected ways reading this.

The thought that people would change their behaviors, or otherwise non suicidal people would be rushing to their death never crossed my mind. People do not change and accessible methods to suicide would have little to no impact on that save a few who actually care about their loved ones. Even then the behaviors wouldn't change until/unless said loved on expresses an interest.

Their is a reason suicide never gains a traction as a legal go to, those who think as we do are in fact the minority.

To the topic though i'm surprised also nobody seems to mention some of the logical changes. Not accounting for the tragic loss (to someone surely) a suicide costs nearly 1.3 million dollars (accounting for lost "production" whatever that means. Actual expenses in the 300k range for a single suicide.

Above I spoke about lost production, but typically speaking those who are suicidal are less productive in general, and frankly those jobs are not lost but redistributed, if jobs become hard to fill wages actually go up leading to a net positive for real people.

I've written about this before and used to have data handy but I can't seem to find it. Truth is we cannot really know the overall effect but outside of the fact a loss of life is likely to be a tragedy for someone (even if that person is not the deceased) I honestly to struggle to see it actually being negative for society as a whole.

Just having a peaceful option out often gives people enough relief to keep going. Just think how many posts we see of people who have their SN and are just waiting. It would be a net positive for everyone but those strapped into a moral high horse that puts their artificial morality above the wellbeing of an individual.

 

[suicidal257]

If it was legalised and controlled by the state and painless then I think the over population problem would be solved by New Years Day.

In the current climate I think a lot of people would go for it.

I'm surprised they haven't done it, think of all the money they'd save in unemployment benefits.

I don't wish to be a party pooper, but there is no overpopulation problem in Europe.

My country has insane amount of immigration and even then (pop would decrease earlier if no immigration), the population will still start to decrease in 15 years (projection). That is another reason (from their persperctive) why euthanasia on demand is not legal yet.

In same vein, ofc state loves that terminally ill ppl get euthanasia. They don't want them to consume taxpayer resources.

 

[StuFin]

I don't wish to be a party pooper, but there is no overpopulation problem in Europe.

My country has insane amount of immigration and even then (pop would decrease earlier if no immigration), the population will still start to decrease in 15 years (projection). That is another reason (from their persperctive) why euthanasia on demand is not legal yet.

In same vein, ofc state loves that terminally ill ppl get euthanasia. They don't want them to consume taxpayer resources.

I mean world population, and it's not just now it's the future.

In 1955 the world population was 2.5 billion. 65 years later it's 7.5 billion. It's exponential growth. If we carry on at just 1.5% per year growth the population will double in just 46 years.

People aren't just going to suddenly stop having kids by choice.

 

[SorrySandy]

As @Symbiote pointed out this is a complex matter. The interactions of power in society could bring this to a scenario where autonomy could not be exerted by some. As morality is not written in cold stone, it could lead to eugenics, but also to other scenarios. It's difficult to predict. But if the values of autonomy could be kept in the culture, that everyone has a sheer right to choose the destiny of their minds and bodys, I think this could lead to an interesting world. Sure the rates of suicide would sky rocket, but I don't think that's a bad thing, it's just that more people would be aware of their choices. If the normalization of suicide happens in this century, I can see more "positive" results then "negative" ones, given the emphasis that our culture puts in the rights of every individual, which could be far, far worst. But this is, of course, according to my view of how these scenerios would play out and what could be considered positive or negative results.

I think it's similar to the argument about legalising drugs. Where that's been done, recently-ish in Portugal, apparently rates of use haven't skyrocketed and drug abuse is dealt with as a public health matter rather than criminal.
I personally don't think suicide rates would skyrocket, I think they'd stay more or less the same. In the same way with drugs it would lessen some of the risks involved and yes, give us the autonomous decision of what we choose to do with our bodies and our lives.
Agreed about the eugenics and other ethical reasons why this has always been an eternal debate..
I've never understood why animals are afforded the dignity at end of lives and us humans are not. Hypocratic oath at play - 'do no harm'. Well in terms of MH medical care I think lots of us would question that one.

Medical model always takes precedence - diagnose, treat then Bob's ya Uncle all is solved. Or not...

 

[suicidal257]

I mean world population, and it's not just now it's the future.

In 1955 the world population was 2.5 billion. 65 years later it's 7.5 billion. It's exponential growth. If we carry on at just 1.5% per year growth the population will double in just 46 years.

People aren't just going to suddenly stop having kids by choice.

I mean they just have. World population is increasing only because of growth in certain regions. Check it if you don't believe.

The bottom line is: governments don't want to let go of people they have.

 

[StuFin]

I mean they just have. World population is increasing only because of growth in certain regions. Check it if you don't believe.

The bottom line is: governments don't want to let go of people they have.

I know it's Asia and Africa mainly, the rest has remained steady. But population growth overall is not going to suddenly stop and go backwards, it never has in all of history.

Unless it's forced to happen, and since we are the biggest consumer of resources, it makes sense that's where you'd want the drop to happen.

 

[LunarPyotr]

I think that it would cause so many unnecessary stuff like filling up some paperwork or committing suicide in controlled environment and there will be some type of activists or politically oriented people who would fight agains this "normalization" of suicide.

Nah. In my opinion everything could stay as it is.

In some countries, where the police is very corrupt, this would be like a gift for them and they would use it to kill innocent people.

 

[Coffeandamug]

I think it's similar to the argument about legalising drugs. Where that's been done, recently-ish in Portugal, apparently rates of use haven't skyrocketed and drug abuse is dealt with as a public health matter rather than criminal.
I personally don't think suicide rates would skyrocket, I think they'd stay more or less the same. In the same way with drugs it would lessen some of the risks involved and yes, give us the autonomous decision of what we choose to do with our bodies and our lives.
Agreed about the eugenics and other ethical reasons why this has always been an eternal debate..
I've never understood why animals are afforded the dignity at end of lives and us humans are not. Hypocratic oath at play - 'do no harm'. Well in terms of MH medical care I think lots of us would question that one.

Medical model always takes precedence - diagnose, treat then Bob's ya Uncle all is solved. Or not...

I would agree with you if the word OP used was "legalized" but instead he used "normalized". As I see it, the meaning of the word "normalize" means a positive cultural shift towards something that was previously seen as negative. Gay marriage is legalized in the USA (for exemple), but we can assume that a major part of the country still finds it quite alian, bad or even unthinkable. So is not entirely normalized. That said I think I agree with you, if suicide is legalized, the rates won't skyrocket. And thanks for pointing that out, it was a mistake to put it that way. What I mean is that, in a world where suicide is completely normalized (not only legalized) the rates of suicide will be higher than today's rates of suicide. And I think that the same would go for the rates of drug usage, once the values regarding this matter are completely normalized, the rates of use will be higher than they were compared to today's rates. (but I don't know if this applies to Portugal, I don't know how normalized (or not) the drug's matter is to them, but probably they are not completely normalized). So once suicide was normalized the rates of suicide would settle from a rising curve, but this would be a slow rise in rates given the time society would take from today to complete cultural normalization (they will not skyrocket in any given moment actually, they will rise slowly). I think that many people don't commit suicide because the methods are painful, because their loved ones will deem them to be cowards or egoists, because society will ask these loved ones why they did nothing to help them, because they will "go to hell", because they will have to be alone and they can't tell anybody, because almost everyone hits them with that generic positive speech that everything will get better (which the probability for mosts cases is that things will not get better, as I see it.), because suicide is viewed as dirty or bad... and the list goes on. But in a scenario where suicide is normalized, I think that this is all out of the way. And again, I don't see this future possible scenerio where the suicide rates are higher due to complete normalization as a bad one.

 

[Breadbfra]

It wouldn't change anything.

I mean: if we're talking about euthanasia for suicides then it would drastically reduce visive impact for survivors (which can lead to lifelong trauma, plus they can actually say goodbye without waking up and seeing their s/o hanging), funerary workers etc. It would be more peaceful for suicidals to go away without suffering, too.
If we're talking about normalizing suicide as a population...that's what is happening in Japan and Milan (Italy). People are so invested in their life they barely notice about people jumping into trains. It's distopian. I don't want that.

I truly believe in normalizing suicide as a natural death. People die of cancer, stroke...why can't they of suicide? I may be a little cynical but that's my thought.

 

[MindFog]

If I were an optimist, society will have to improve the standard of living just to make people stay, so more better paying job, insurance and so.

But since iI'm a pessimist, top management would just find a loop hole to replace dying workers.

• Make it another agenda to shift the blame to the suicidal workers to increase workload to remaining ones
• Stigmatize euthanisia even further by making a law that will financially affect the relatives of the euthanized patient.
• Making a law that make euthanasia hard to do even if its legal, like giving it a high fee.
• More lower class people would ctb, so there would be a harder restriction for contraceptives to bring up the population up.

We would still me treated as cattle as per usual. Numbers in a graph.

 

[Captive of Mind]

Surely we cannot deny that it would greatly reduce the average individual suffering but how would it affect society as a whole?

For example, I think that it could greatly accelerate the research progress into many non-lethal illnesses. The reason being, that people only empathize with you if you have a physical illness that is lethal, especially over a short period of time. If its anything else you are somehow expected to just accept your situation and "make the most of it". Only when death comes into play, do people take it serious, otherwise our suffering is ignored and belittled.

Maybe its a stretch butcould we apply that reasoning to the rest of society? Would people take each others problems and feelings more serious if suicide is seen as a potential outcome?

You have a good point, I didn't think about this before. If suicide was a more obvious / accessible choice that we could take, then people might be more willing to acknowledge how serious mental illness is. It would make the stakes much more real instead of hidden and more people would probably seek help if it wasn't so taboo to talk about.

Death is what has happened to billions of humans before us, and a larger number of animals in general. Often times those deaths weren't very peaceful and have tons of pain and suffering leading up to it. I think that people should be able to make a choice for a legal peaceful exit after going through an extensive waiting period where they undergo treatment (unless they are in an emergency situation).

 

[it's_all_a_game]

I think if suicide was normalised, people would be nicer and kinder, so people wouldn't casually end their lives due to mistreatment by others.

 

[Wrennie]

I think it would make humane exits more readily accessible to the average joe. There would no longer be a need to navigate the dark web in order to obtain N, and you wouldn't have to travel to the Netherlands to be sent off via Sarco. Rebreather technology would likely be perfected as well. An ideal scenario for those of us who were deadset on leaving, but distressing to our loved ones and dangerous for the impulsive.

 

[nothungryanymore]

Another perspective: if suicide were normalized, people could die with their loved ones. This could make death a more peaceful transition, and would also immensely help people still alive, who may have otherwise lost someone to a sudden/unexpected loss. Family being able to say their goodbyes would lessen their grief, which could also take some strain off the mental health care system.

 

[FTL.Wanderer]

I wish we could all have this conversation in person... If suicide were acceptable societally, I bet a LOOOOOOOT of poor, vulnerable people (you know, like "essential workers" threatened with homelessness if they don't <crack of the whip> get back to work and jeopardize their own and their families' health) would opt out. The statistics internationally of escaping poverty when you're born into it are grim. Education, what we've all been told is the path out, turns out, on rigorous analysis, NOT to be the path out for "the wrong people." Society's "losers," I bet, once it's clear enough to them they aren't going to be among the "winners" would opt out of the shame and horror and indignations of chronic, extreme poverty and deprivation. Add in the hell of aging alone (record numbers of us live alone, have no family or real friends) and aging while laboring painfully just to have a box to live in and another box to drive to work in to die alone just ain't worth it. Not by a long shot. I know I can't be the only one to feel that.

They keep it functionally illegal because otherwise we'd have far too much power by voting to leave.

 

[Buffy5120]

I wish we could all have this conversation in person... If suicide were acceptable societally, I bet a LOOOOOOOT of poor, vulnerable people (you know, like "essential workers" threatened with homelessness if they don't <crack of the whip> get back to work and jeopardize their own and their families' health) would opt out. The statistics internationally of escaping poverty when you're born into it are grim. Education, what we've all been told is the path out, turns out, on rigorous analysis, NOT to be the path out for "the wrong people." Society's "losers," I bet, once it's clear enough to them they aren't going to be among the "winners" would opt out of the shame and horror and indignations of chronic, extreme poverty and deprivation. Add in the hell of aging alone (record numbers of us live alone, have no family or real friends) and aging while laboring painfully just to have a box to live in and another box to drive to work in to die alone just ain't worth it. Not by a long shot. I know I can't be the only one to feel that.

They keep it functionally illegal because otherwise we'd have far too much power by voting to leave.

Well this is why the only people that should have access to it are for people who have a legitimate mental or physical illness which can be diagnosed accurately by a brain scan. If you look up Amen Clinics they do this, but unfortunately you have to have money to have the scan, which should change so that everyone can be covered by insurance to get one. This will prove and show pro lifers that were not just accepting anyone, aka kids, because yes if thats the case then the human population would be 0% because everyone in life goes through temporary hard times, but this should only be legal for people who have legimate illnesses and have been trying for years to get better. It will make sure people wont just ctb because "they broke up with their bf/gf" or "they are broke & are actually just having a temporary rough time" And I'm not saying these things dont actually affect people mentally down the line because a break up with your gf/bf or being broke and homeless can definitely affect people's mental health. But im saying these people have to at least try to get better. Also as I said before 6 months should be the minimum amount of time these people who just got diagnosed with a new physical or mentall illness should have, to try and get better with therapy, supplements, meds. So if they haven't tried, then no they shouldn't get accepted, until they try. And if they tried and still havent got better they should be granted it no question. For people that have already exhausted and tried all options for years and years including therapy and medication, they would be granted euthanasia asap.

 

[wishicouldgoback]

These need to be everywhere

 

[esoterispeec]

Surely we cannot deny that it would greatly reduce the average individual suffering but how would it affect society as a whole?

For example, I think that it could greatly accelerate the research progress into many non-lethal illnesses. The reason being, that people only empathize with you if you have a physical illness that is lethal, especially over a short period of time. If its anything else you are somehow expected to just accept your situation and "make the most of it". Only when death comes into play, do people take it serious, otherwise our suffering is ignored and belittled.

Maybe its a stretch butcould we apply that reasoning to the rest of society? Would people take each others problems and feelings more serious if suicide is seen as a potential outcome?

Nobody really care unless suffering directly impacts them. That's why rich people set up cancer charities when their parents die of cancer. If their parents die of dementia then they donate to dementia charities. Everyone is on their own in shit shit world.

 

[Buffy5120]

These need to be everywhere

Omfg yes I would cry in relief to go in one

 

[it's_all_a_game]

Well this is why the only people that should have access to it are for people who have a legitimate mental or physical illness which can be diagnosed accurately by a brain scan. If you look up Amen Clinics they do this, but unfortunately you have to have money to have the scan, which should change so that everyone can be covered by insurance to get one. This will prove and show pro lifers that were not just accepting anyone, aka kids, because yes if thats the case then the human population would be 0% because everyone in life goes through temporary hard times, but this should only be legal for people who have legimate illnesses and have been trying for years to get better. It will make sure people wont just ctb because "they broke up with their bf/gf" or "they are broke & are actually just having a temporary rough time" And I'm not saying these things dont actually affect people mentally down the line because a break up with your gf/bf or being broke and homeless can definitely affect people's mental health. But im saying these people have to at least try to get better. Also as I said before 6 months should be the minimum amount of time these people who just got diagnosed with a new physical or mentall illness should have, to try and get better with therapy, supplements, meds. So if they haven't tried, then no they shouldn't get accepted, until they try. And if they tried and still havent got better they should be granted it no question. For people that have already exhausted and tried all options for years and years including therapy and medication, they would be granted euthanasia asap.

So you want to gatekeep suicide? I think everyone 21 or order should have the right to die no matter what. I don't believe the population would go down; only a select few people have the willpower to end their existences in the first place.