Judge dismissed Amazon "suicide kits" lawsuit (and more discussions)

[RainAndSadness]

The Amazon "suicide kits" lawsuit, which has been discussed here and here previously, has been dismissed by a judge.

Judge dismisses lawsuit claiming Amazon sold 'suicide kits' to teenagers

A U.S. judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Amazon.com Inc brought by the parents of two teenagers who committed suicide by consuming sodium nitrite they bought on the online retailer's platform. U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle on Tuesday rejected claims by the parents of Ethan...

ca.sports.yahoo.com

So what's this about? Two people committed suicide with SN, which they bought from Amazon. The parents of these people and some lawyers thought Amazon is responsible for these deaths. That's basically it. I'd like to quote from the most important part of the article, which is about the conclusion of that judge.



As tragic as this is, I agree with that statement. I think the judge made the right decision. There isn't really much else do say about that case. Here you can read the entire court ruling, in case you're interested in all the details of this case.

McCarthy et al v. Amazon.com Inc et al, No. 2:2023cv00263 - Document 60 (W.D. Wash. 2023)

McCarthy et al v. Amazon.com Inc et al, No. 2:2023cv00263 - Document 60 (W.D. Wash. 2023) case opinion from the Western District of Washington US Federal District Court

law.justia.com

What's interesting, in that court ruling you can also find a brief definition of suicide on page 15, which reinforces what I've said about the nature of suicide in the past, mainly it being a voluntary act.



And I want to use this to briefly talk about suicide in general. I think this gives us an important insight into how the judicary views suicide in a legal context. And generally speaking and especially when it comes to adults, we need to stop brushing aside agency [1][2] aside when autonomous individuals exercise their right to die. Suicide is an expression of individual autonomy,( that's also the stance of the ECHR, which reinforces my position that this is an universally held legal and ethical interpretation of suicide), it's always a voluntary decision and it's ususally the result of very difficult circumstances in life, which in some cases make the continuation of life while taking one's dignity into account impossible and as you can read every day in this forum, it's also the result of a intense contemplation weighting pro's and con's carefully and not just the result of being active in an an online forum, as it's portrayed in the media all the time. Such sentiments simplify the issue of suicide, they lack any empathy for the victims and they prove a severe misunderstanding on how suicidality works in the first place. It's not that simple. People don't just randomly commit suicide because they spend time on an online forum but I might touch the inability of society to grasp suicide and properly process that as part of human nature in another thread. There is a lot to say about that topic. And you know, I don't understand why pro-lifers keep implying suicide couldn't be a voluntary (and sometimes even an emanzipating) act. That's exactly what is is, by definition and that's how it's treated under the law, as I've just laid out.

I think this is an important reminder for anyone who is unable to understand that suicide is not murder, even when a thirdparty - knowingly and unknowingly - was somehow included in that process, that also includes method talk by the way. And there are a lot of people who have huge issue with this forum and the right to die in general, who do not understand that very important detail. And that makes the questionable rambling of one laywer that's behind that lawsuit even more unhinged, especially these Tweets where she called Amazon a "serial killer" which committed "corporate-assisted suicide".




These Tweets are part of a thread with over 30 Tweets where she complains that Amazon sold SN to adults by the way...

So, let's address these claims. I mean, she can't be that ignorant, right? A lawyer should know the legal basics around 'assisted suicide' and intent(!) is a very important factor to find out whetever someone assisted suicide or not. I think it's safe to assume that Amazon didn't intentionally sell SN for the purpose of suicide, the customers in this specific example didn't inform Amazon what they were gonna do with that substance so there is absolutely no legal basis to accuse Amazon of a crime, let alone assisted suicide. And customers rarely ever inform a business what they're going to do with a certain product anyway and they don't need to justify their action to anyone in the first place, why? Because people are free to do whatever they want, even more so when they buy something with their own money, it's called freedom, something you want to regulate as it seems. Apparently a very confusing concept for a lawyer. The same lawyer is currently trying to ban the sale of SN in Californa... tells you all you need to know about that person and their relationship to your individual autonomy.
I also never saw a lawyer use the term "corporate-assisted suicide" before and I think it's a bit cringy for a lawyer to just throw around accusations like that on Twitter. Again, 'assisted suicide' as a crime implies intend. And shouldn't a lawyer be very specific and considerate with the words they use? Like isn't that what their job is all about? All jokes aside though, I think we all know that the Tweets above are nothing but PR to virtue signal to their own crowd or maybe potential new customers how righteous and just they are. That's not exactly a new thing for this person.
She also claims Amazon is a serial killer and that's probably even more absurd than the previous claim. This just proves once again, just because someone claims something online, doesn't make it true. And you know, I'm probably not the only one who experienced a little déjà-vu when reading these Tweets.

They tried to slander and smear this forum in the exact same way as they tried to go after Amazon in these Tweets and they're are a very good example of their strategy. Pro-lifers lie constantly, they're dishonest, they create narratives and frame everything in the worst light possible just to cause public outrage against whatever they perceive to be their enemy in an attempt to win their fight. In our case they tried to get us deplatformed regularly in the last few years with the help of the media, which didn't work given you can read this post right now because we're still online despite all the attempts to make us disappear - including the DDOS attacks that happened recently. But the media played a very important tool to create enough social outrage to make us disappear because a forum like ours that challenges the status quo on conversations around suicide, can't exist, it's not supposed to exist and it's not allowed to exist. That's the only reason why they go after us. But that's what happens when you give grief that turned into blind hatred and rage a platform with no questions asked, no investigative research done, nothing. The journalists responsible for these articles that were published in the last 4 years did a horrible job covering this forum as I've explained in this thread. And in this thread. They didn't give us fair coverage but this isn't the first time I've debunked absurd claims about this forum.

So yeah. That's pretty much it. I had to re-write this thread repeatedly and it's been sitting around on my to-do list for a few weeks now. I just wanted to give you all an update given this topic was discussed in the forum previously and I wanted to give my opinion on this subject because I think this serves as great proof that the pro-lifers don't always speak the truth, even when they're lawyers. In fact, they rarely ever do. Most of the things they say are lies, especially when it's about this forum, as I've explained in countless threads in the last few years.

 

[Holu]

Your telling me I can buy reliable SN from Amazon! This is the only good thing Amazon has done since Amazon Prime. Well that and giving me the hope that Bezos dumbass would die going to space(unfortunately did not happen).

Jokes aside, thank you for being so strong. You seem like a kind and incredibly empathetic person, so it can't be easy to be slandered and labeled as a monster by lifers. Thank you for keeping this site up despite the attacks to your character and literal DDOS attacks, your unironically a hero for the many suffering members of this community.

Ultimately, I find it funny how idiots and articles make the claim about "harming or luring vulnerable people", as if they actually gave a flying fuck about vulnerable people in general. Furthermore, it's not like this website is the cause of suicide, and bringing it down would stop a climbing suicide rate. Despite what people like Tanta make this site out to be like, I don't think I have ever seen someone tell someone to ctb, instead it's almost always either sympathy, relating to the person, or advice on a more humane and painless method. Moreover, in this specific case, it seems absurd, since by the same merit I could simply purchase a box cutter from amazon and slit my throat. The only difference is SN done right is painless and mutilating my epiglottis would probably be the most intense suffering I could experience.

Whatever the case, whatever comes, thank you for being here for us rain. We love you!

 

[saddestbunny]

good to see, this is the logical conclusion. i feel for the families but they made their choice

 

[imlookingforward]

i wish SN was still available on amazon…

 

[ApparentlyNot]

never in my life did I expect to be happy about Amazon winning a lawsuit, but here we are

 

[Praestat_Mori]

That's a really clear and objective decision! Thanks for posting it!

 

[Forever Sleep]

Largely- I do agree with your points and sentiments. As usual though- I think the fact that these two were minors comes in to play- Ethan McCarthy was 17, Kristine Jónsson was 16.

In terms of the law and Amazon- I imagine they still couldn't be in trouble. If they weren't told the product was age restricted- which- maybe it isn't... they can't have done anything illegal.

Overall though, It's a difficult topic. It depends on your views on 'gatekeeping' suicide. Most 'harmful' substances are regulated to 18+. Including chemicals I imagine. Even though I was suicidal as a minor myself, I'm not sure if it is good to sell these products to just anyone- no matter their age.

You could argue that they could just buy something else- rope etc. Why do we restrict the sale of alcohol to 18 though? It's not like I REALLY think something magical happens at 18 and you become an adult! Still- the line has to be drawn somewhere.

If a teen illegally buys alcohol, gets blindingly drunk and crashes their car/ slips into a coma- the parents and the law likely WILL go after the shop that sold it. It actually CAN go after the individual shop assistant- I worked in retail for a while. Is that right? That individual was the one to chose to buy alcohol and consume it? I'm guessing the argument might still be 'yes'- that person MAYBE would be classed as unable to fully choose because they are a minor. Same goes with the age of consent in sexual relationships. Is it really ok for a 25 year old to have sex with a 13/14 year old?

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the idea of 'gatekeeping' suicidal methods. My feelings are mixed really. It's maybe more as a question though- should the relatively peaceful methods be restricted to 18+?

It's not actually to say the parents wouldn't have tried to prosecute if they were 18 or 19 and ID had been checked. But... still- what if they had been 12 or 13? Again- nothing to do with Amazon. More to do with how substances are regulated. As it is- I expect SN will become harder to obtain for anyone now.

 

[lethargic]

Whoa hey, does this mean SN is gonna get reintroduced to Amazon listings?

 

[Gena]

Whoa hey, does this mean SN is gonna get reintroduced to Amazon listings?

I sure do hope so!

 

[Superdeterminist]

for once, something goes the way of the pro-choice. that's all too rare. fuck carrie and her ilk, bunch of morons.

 

[jar-baby]

Glad to hear this. Those claims were ridiculous anyway. Would parents sue a store for selling razor blades that a kid used to cut their wrists, or a rope that they used to hang themselves? SN's primary usage was never, afaik, to cause death— as opposed to, say, N.

 

[figure8]

It depends on your views on 'gatekeeping' suicide.

This is the funniest sentence I read today, though it's weirdly accurate. Never though of using the term 'gatekeep' in this context.

Again- nothing to do with Amazon. More to do with how substances are regulated.

They'd reduce access to water if that meant they'd prevent people from dying on their own accord (and water poisoning is a real thing). That being said, everything is hazardous if you try hard enough.

There's no problem with selling ropes or razors, as mentioned above, but there is with a substance that lets its users die in a considerably more peaceful manner? I love it when the higher-ups go as far as to indirectly telling people what method they should use to die. Everything to show their authority.

 

[ThisIsLife]

As awful it was to lose their son, don't tell me they didn't think about settlement money when they knew it was ordered on Amazon...

The judge did a good thing by dismissing this case to not encourage this kind of behaviour because parents will start to sue rope and knives manufacturers if you let them.

Plenty of hazardous chemicals can be legally bought on the internet no questions asked and the same parents that go after Amazon for SN won't fight those companies with a "won't somebody think of the children?" argument because they know there's not enough money involved.

SN is freaking salt and you don't ingest it by accident. Amazon is a multi-billion dollar company so they thought a few millions were garanteed because of teenagers involved and hammering on SS like they did gave them exposure to provoke enough drama susceptible to influence courts.

The judge didn't fall for it and that's a good thing. So many dangerous things are sold otc everyday everywhere and we can't ban everything just because parents screw up, blame everybody else and try to make money out of it.

A very important part of teenagers who commit suicide do so because of their parents, and when i see how said parents behave, trying to take down the only place where they get the emotionnal support and help they needed, trying to sue the hell of every company that sold their children the means to end their life peacefully, i can't help but facepalm and tell myself "gee i wonder why their kid couldn't take it anymore". Not surprising when you can witness how every single one of these parents "good intentions" end up making everybody else's life so much worse, but they just don't care.

 

[Deathisbetter]

The Amazon "suicide kits" lawsuit, which has been discussed here and here previously, has been dismissed by a judge.

Judge dismisses lawsuit claiming Amazon sold 'suicide kits' to teenagers

A U.S. judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Amazon.com Inc brought by the parents of two teenagers who committed suicide by consuming sodium nitrite they bought on the online retailer's platform. U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle on Tuesday rejected claims by the parents of Ethan...

ca.sports.yahoo.com

So what's this about? Two people committed suicide with SN, which they bought from Amazon. The parents of these people and some lawyers thought Amazon is responsible for these deaths. That's basically it. I'd like to quote from the most important part of the article, which is about the conclusion of that judge.

View attachment 116418

As tragic as this is, I agree with that statement. I think the judge made the right decision. There isn't really much else do say about that case. Here you can read the entire court ruling, in case you're interested in all the details of this case.

McCarthy et al v. Amazon.com Inc et al, No. 2:2023cv00263 - Document 60 (W.D. Wash. 2023)

McCarthy et al v. Amazon.com Inc et al, No. 2:2023cv00263 - Document 60 (W.D. Wash. 2023) case opinion from the Western District of Washington US Federal District Court

law.justia.com

What's interesting, in that court ruling you can also find a brief definition of suicide on page 15, which reinforces what I've said about the nature of suicide in the past, mainly it being a voluntary act.

View attachment 116419

And I want to use this to briefly talk about suicide in general. I think this gives us an important insight into how the judicary views suicide in a legal context. And generally speaking and especially when it comes to adults, we need to stop brushing aside agency [1][2] aside when autonomous individuals exercise their right to die. Suicide is an expression of individual autonomy,( that's also the stance of the ECHR, which reinforces my position that this is an universally held legal and ethical interpretation of suicide), it's always a voluntary decision and it's ususally the result of very difficult circumstances in life, which in some cases make the continuation of life while taking one's dignity into account impossible and as you can read every day in this forum, it's also the result of a intense contemplation weighting pro's and con's carefully and not just the result of being active in an an online forum, as it's portrayed in the media all the time. Such sentiments simplify the issue of suicide, they lack any empathy for the victims and they prove a severe misunderstanding on how suicidality works in the first place. It's not that simple. People don't just randomly commit suicide because they spend time on an online forum but I might touch the inability of society to grasp suicide and properly process that as part of human nature in another thread. There is a lot to say about that topic. And you know, I don't understand why pro-lifers keep implying suicide couldn't be a voluntary (and sometimes even an emanzipating) act. That's exactly what is is, by definition and that's how it's treated under the law, as I've just laid out.

I think this is an important reminder for anyone who is unable to understand that suicide is not murder, even when a thirdparty - knowingly and unknowingly - was somehow included in that process, that also includes method talk by the way. And there are a lot of people who have huge issue with this forum and the right to die in general, who do not understand that very important detail. And that makes the questionable rambling of one laywer that's behind that lawsuit even more unhinged, especially these Tweets where she called Amazon a "serial killer" which committed "corporate-assisted suicide".

View attachment 116420

View attachment 116421
These Tweets are part of a thread with over 30 Tweets where she complains that Amazon sold SN to adults by the way...

So, let's address these claims. I mean, she can't be that ignorant, right? A lawyer should know the legal basics around 'assisted suicide' and intent(!) is a very important factor to find out whetever someone assisted suicide or not. I think it's safe to assume that Amazon didn't intentionally sell SN for the purpose of suicide, the customers in this specific example didn't inform Amazon what they were gonna do with that substance so there is absolutely no legal basis to accuse Amazon of a crime, let alone assisted suicide. And customers rarely ever inform a business what they're going to do with a certain product anyway and they don't need to justify their action to anyone in the first place, why? Because people are free to do whatever they want, even more so when they buy something with their own money, it's called freedom, something you want to regulate as it seems. Apparently a very confusing concept for a lawyer. The same lawyer is currently trying to ban the sale of SN in Californa... tells you all you need to know about that person and their relationship to your individual autonomy.
I also never saw a lawyer use the term "corporate-assisted suicide" before and I think it's a bit cringy for a lawyer to just throw around accusations like that on Twitter. Again, 'assisted suicide' as a crime implies intend. And shouldn't a lawyer be very specific and considerate with the words they use? Like isn't that what their job is all about? All jokes aside though, I think we all know that the Tweets above are nothing but PR to virtue signal to their own crowd or maybe potential new customers how righteous and just they are. That's not exactly a new thing for this person.
She also claims Amazon is a serial killer and that's probably even more absurd than the previous claim. This just proves once again, just because someone claims something online, doesn't make it true. And you know, I'm probably not the only one who experienced a little déjà-vu when reading these Tweets.

They tried to slander and smear this forum in the exact same way as they tried to go after Amazon in these Tweets and they're are a very good example of their strategy. Pro-lifers lie constantly, they're dishonest, they create narratives and frame everything in the worst light possible just to cause public outrage against whatever they perceive to be their enemy in an attempt to win their fight. In our case they tried to get us deplatformed regularly in the last few years with the help of the media, which didn't work given you can read this post right now because we're still online despite all the attempts to make us disappear - including the DDOS attacks that happened recently. But the media played a very important tool to create enough social outrage to make us disappear because a forum like ours that challenges the status quo on conversations around suicide, can't exist, it's not supposed to exist and it's not allowed to exist. That's the only reason why they go after us. But that's what happens when you give grief that turned into blind hatred and rage a platform with no questions asked, no investigative research done, nothing. The journalists responsible for these articles that were published in the last 4 years did a horrible job covering this forum as I've explained in this thread. And in this thread. They didn't give us fair coverage but this isn't the first time I've debunked absurd claims about this forum.

So yeah. That's pretty much it. I had to re-write this thread repeatedly and it's been sitting around on my to-do list for a few weeks now. I just wanted to give you all an update given this topic was discussed in the forum previously and I wanted to give my opinion on this subject because I think this serves as great proof that the pro-lifers don't always speak the truth, even when they're lawyers. In fact, they rarely ever do. Most of the things they say are lies, especially when it's about this forum, as I've explained in countless threads in the last few years.

Hi RainandSadness when you have some time can you respond to my pm to you about a visa donation to help keep the site running
This news made me happy big win bless that judge

 

[TAW122]

This is good to hear that there are sensible judges and people in the legal system. While the judge may still be a pro-lifer, at least the judge knows how to apply the law and apply it appropriately. This may be a step in the right direction in terms of judicial decisions and liability. It is not the vendor

I think this serves as great proof that the pro-lifers don't always speak the truth, even when they're lawyers. In fact, they rarely ever do. Most of the things they say are lies, especially when it's about this forum, as I've explained in countless threads in the last few years.

As for this, it is true and I recall an old thread highlighting the lies that pro-lifers spew, especially when it comes to CTB prevention and holds.



I know it isn't directly related, but it shows how disingenuous and sadistic pro-lifers are, they are full of shit and they lie about the process. I can relate to that guy's anger and frustration.

 

[Sweet Tart]

Whoa hey, does this mean SN is gonna get reintroduced to Amazon listings?

my first thought, lol

 

[Pluto]

As tragic as the situation of a parent losing their child is, it comes across like an attempt at a cash grab at the expense of a big corporation rather than a legitimate grievance warranting punitive measures. That said, I don't expect SN availability to improve for as long as people are being sent to jail for providing it. The cat is out of the bag.

 

[UKscotty]

Do they want ropes banning too? What about barbecues? What about sulfur for H2S? What about tall buildings, shall we knock them all down?

Some people are beyond insane.

 

[Techef]

I mean, she can't be that ignorant, right? A lawyer should know the legal basics around 'assisted suicide'

True. But there's also the environment of the legal system of the US to consider. It's the most litigious country in the world, the legal system (including education/training) is very aggressive, the profession itself is mostly self-governing with little outside regulation, and lawyers are duty-bound to be as zealous as possible in arguing for their client's case/interests. It's definitely possible this lawyer is "pro-life," but I can't conclude that for a certainty based on tweets meant to try and influence the case.

 

[outrider567]

True. But there's also the environment of the legal system of the US to consider. It's the most litigious country in the world, the legal system (including education/training) is very aggressive, the profession itself is mostly self-governing with little outside regulation, and lawyers are duty-bound to be as zealous as possible in arguing for their client's case/interests. It's definitely possible this lawyer is "pro-life," but I can't conclude that for a certainty based on tweets meant to try and influence the case.

Yet, it was Canada who destroyed EscMode, thanks Canada

 

[Kera]

Whoa hey, does this mean SN is gonna get reintroduced to Amazon listings?

Probably not. @lethargic I could read your message. When I was about to reply, everything was gone, like deleted. But I can tell you that the online doctor is not active in your country. I am sorry.

 

[RainAndSadness]

Largely- I do agree with your points and sentiments. As usual though- I think the fact that these two were minors comes in to play- Ethan McCarthy was 17, Kristine Jónsson was 16.

In terms of the law and Amazon- I imagine they still couldn't be in trouble. If they weren't told the product was age restricted- which- maybe it isn't... they can't have done anything illegal.

Overall though, It's a difficult topic. It depends on your views on 'gatekeeping' suicide. Most 'harmful' substances are regulated to 18+. Including chemicals I imagine. Even though I was suicidal as a minor myself, I'm not sure if it is good to sell these products to just anyone- no matter their age.

You could argue that they could just buy something else- rope etc. Why do we restrict the sale of alcohol to 18 though? It's not like I REALLY think something magical happens at 18 and you become an adult! Still- the line has to be drawn somewhere.

If a teen illegally buys alcohol, gets blindingly drunk and crashes their car/ slips into a coma- the parents and the law likely WILL go after the shop that sold it. It actually CAN go after the individual shop assistant- I worked in retail for a while. Is that right? That individual was the one to chose to buy alcohol and consume it? I'm guessing the argument might still be 'yes'- that person MAYBE would be classed as unable to fully choose because they are a minor. Same goes with the age of consent in sexual relationships. Is it really ok for a 25 year old to have sex with a 13/14 year old?

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the idea of 'gatekeeping' suicidal methods. My feelings are mixed really. It's maybe more as a question though- should the relatively peaceful methods be restricted to 18+?

It's not actually to say the parents wouldn't have tried to prosecute if they were 18 or 19 and ID had been checked. But... still- what if they had been 12 or 13? Again- nothing to do with Amazon. More to do with how substances are regulated. As it is- I expect SN will become harder to obtain for anyone now.

I don't mind if they ban the sale of SN to minors. It doesn't really affect me and I think it's a good thing to protect minors from harm. The problem is they are trying to ban the sale of SN (with a purity higher than 10%) to adults as well with this particular bill. This isn't simply about "protecting children" as it's advertised, it's an crackdown on the individual autonomy of adults and that's been the goal all along if you read the statements of that lawyer regarding SN on social media. I don't see why the state should have a right to step in and regulate what legal products you're allowed to obtain and what you're allowed to do with your own life and body but that's the fundamental purpose of that bill, making these decisions for you. I mean isn't that literally the concept of freedom, to make a choice without a thirdparty (like the state) stepping in and interfering, especially when you're not harming anyone else but yourself? That's literally the concept of individual and bodily autonomy.

We should also keep in mind taking away the means to commit suicide doesn't reduce suffering, it's once again misguided suicide prevention, putting a bandaid on the symptoms while ignoring the systemic causes of suicidality. I mean, honestly - does anyone here think not being able to buy SN improves their life? I think we all agree, as people that are affected by suicidal thoughts constantly, that this kind of "suicide prevention" is meaningless because the aim isn't to reduce suffering by improving the living conditions in our society, it simply prolongs suffering by taking away means to exit life and therefore find relief from pain. But it doesn't take away the struggles for any of us. And I personally find this kind of suicide prevention deeply insulting and infantilizing because it implies I'm unable to make my own decisions rationally and that means being in physical or mental pain takes away my right to individual autonomy, per default. It's a deeply regressive interpretation of own's mental capacity and freedom and it just proves once again, people making these laws don't understand suicidal people at all, let alone what makes us suicidal in the first place.

I agree with you though, the deaths of the people mentioned in that legal case are tragic but they're using minors as a gateway to crack down on the freedom of all of us and that's why I've pointed out the legal interpretation of suicide and the actual goals of that lawyer and that's straight up outlawing high-purity SN to interfere with our right to die - and that's a deeply personal matter and certainly none of their business if you ask me.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I don't mind if they ban the sale of SN to minors. It doesn't really affect me and I think it's a good thing to protect minors from harm. The problem is they are trying to ban the sale of SN (with a purity higher than 10%) to adults as well with this particular bill. This isn't simply about "protecting children" as it's advertised, it's an crackdown on the individual autonomy of adults and that's been the goal all along if you read the statements of that lawyer regarding SN on social media. I don't see why the state should have a right to step in and regulate what legal products you're allowed to obtain and what you're allowed to do with your own life and body but that's the fundamental purpose of that bill, making these decisions for you. I mean isn't that literally the concept of freedom, to make a choice without a thirdparty (like the state) stepping in and interfering, especially when you're not harming anyone else but yourself? That's literally the concept of individual and bodily autonomy.

We should also keep in mind taking away the means to commit suicide doesn't reduce suffering, it's once again misguided suicide prevention, putting a bandaid on the symptoms while ignoring the systemic causes of suicidality. I mean, honestly - does anyone here think not being able to buy SN improves their life? I think we all agree, as people that are affected by suicidal thoughts constantly, that this kind of "suicide prevention" is meaningless because the aim isn't to reduce suffering by improving the living conditions in our society, it simply prolongs suffering by taking away means to exit life and therefore find relief from pain. But it doesn't take away the struggles for any of us. And I personally find this kind of suicide prevention deeply insulting and infantilizing because it implies I'm unable to make my own decisions rationally and that means being in physical or mental pain takes away my right to individual autonomy, per default. It's a deeply regressive interpretation of own's mental capacity and freedom and it just proves once again, people making these laws don't understand suicidal people at all, let alone what makes us suicidal in the first place.

I agree with you though, the deaths of the people mentioned in that legal case are tragic but they're using minors as a gateway to crack down on the freedom of all of us and that's why I've pointed out the legal interpretation of suicide and the actual goals of that lawyer and that's straight up outlawing high-purity SN to interfere with our right to die - and that's a deeply personal matter and certainly none of their business if you ask me.

I do agree with you but it really isn't unexpected that it indeed would be adults as well that they want to restrict from getting their hands on SN- or- anything else that may provide a relatively peaceful exit. If they REALLY cared about suffering- nevermind resorting to makeshift chemicals- something like Nembutal would be more readily available!

I think we know the REAL reasons they don't want people killing themselves- money (taxes, consummerism) and the backlash from grieving families- 'Why didn't you do more to 'save' my relative? How were they even able to get their hands on something like this?' I honestly think you're being unrealistic if you think it's ONLY lawyers and politicians that want to restrict SN- even to adults. I imagine the majority of 'normies' would rather their struggling loved ones didn't get their hands on it. Whether we like it or not- I expect these people are in the VAST majority AND- they vote and kick up a fuss if someone they know kills themselves. THEY themselves don't seem to care or acknowldge always that it was their loved ones decision.

They choose to focus on minors I expect because they know it's where they will create the most impact. I expect a lot of parents would fear their child committing suicide. I very much doubt they would be pleased their child was openly allowed to express its 'autonomy'!

Of course- the 'solution' to all this would be to legalise assisted suicide by registered clinics globally and to allow it for all consenting adults- with safeguards in place of course.

As it is- the majority of people are stuck with DIY methods. That's where it becomes so problematic though. I DO agree with you in principle. People SHOULD have the right to autonomy. I'd also argue that SN doesn't really lend itself to being a very impulsive method. It likely takes at least a week to perhaps get everything together. Plus- it surely takes a lot of resourcefulness to research everything and obtain it. I guess it's debatable on whether that contributes to someone being mentally competent.

The 'problem' as I see it though is- do adults EVER commit suicide when they are in an unstable frame of mind? I'm not saying we're all crazy. I don't believe that. I'm saying- is it possible? I imagine it is. AGAIN- I want to emphasize that I personally don't believe someone is mentally unstable just because they want to commit suicide. It's only that- some people DO experience their ideation as intrusive. SOME as temporary (I believe.) Some do indeed get over their ideation.

I think it comes down to the same argument over any type of 'gatekeeping' with regards to assisted suicide. Some people seem to think there ought to be nothing whatsoever- just, make an appointment and that's it. I personally think there need to be more safeguards than that. I think mental competency does need to be assessed. Not like the current system we have- as in- things like depression and ideation itself may well disqualify you. But- some sort of competancy assessment and a waiting period to make sure people aren't acting impulsively. I think people should be OFFERED help in this time- although, not forced to take it.

The 'problem' with sellers of SN is- how can they assess all this? They can't- clearly. Some likely don't even realise they are selling to someone who is going to kill themselves. Really ANY CTB method can't be expected to be regulated by a retailer. They're not qualified to deal with whether or not they should 'assist' in a suicide.

Of course- there are indeed 'legitimate' uses but- I'm sure the powers that be feel like the risk factor of it being used to CTB outweighs it's usefulness maybe. Complete guess here but I'd imagine on an INDIVIDUAL basis- something like say rope is bought more frequently for non CTB purposes. So- some things they simply can't restrict.

It DOES come down to trust at the end of the day AND things like mental competency- which is a difficult issue. I guess I am a bit curious to be honest. If you would be in the position to do it- let's assume it's legal for this. Would you sell a substance like SN to any adult that asked for it? Personally- I'd struggle. It's one thing being pro-choice. It's one thing standing back from someone who has decided that this is what they want. It's another to personally hand them the knife. I honestly don't know what your answer is but- if there is some hesitency- then it surely IS touching on this idea of- CAN every adult 100% know that CTB is their best and only option? Can you be sure they are in a rational enough state of mind to make that decision? If you can't- neither can a retailer!

AGAIN- it's why assisted suicide needs to be legalised but regulated to some degree. Seeing as it isn't though- it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that they try and reduce 'risk' at every turn- suicide nets under bridges, patrols near jumping sites. Even if we lived in a pro-choice world- does that mean EVERY adult should be trusted at EVERY stage to know and do what's best for them? Then- EVERYTHING should be legal then surely? If we can all be trusted to always act in our own interests. No drugs should be restricted and no limits on alcohol either. It's up to the individual to self regulate. I know there are people who endorse that. I'm not so sure personally. I do DEFINITELY think our current system is too harsh on how it deals with people who are struggling. I'm not sure it's the right thing to do to just step back entirely though.

Anyhow- After the Kenneth Law case, I was so curious about the moral quandary of an individual selling SN in fact that I ran a poll about it a while back. Not too many votes to be fair but- the results are in no way clear cut... Plenty of people are struggling on whether they themselves would sell SN to anyone (any adult.) Which shows it IS problematic I would say... if even a group of pro-choice people are struggling on whether THEY themselves want that responsibility:

Even if it was legal- Could you sell products to CTB on the open market?

The whole recent business with Kenneth Law and IC has left me with a perplexing question... I believe all capable adults have the right to autonomy. I also admire what KL was doing- IF his motives were purely to help people who are suffering. That said- I don't think I could do it myself. It's...

sanctioned-suicide.net