Minimum age for ctb?

[Wisdom3_1-9]

This topic has been running through my head for the past few weeks and I'm not quite sure how to address it properly. Even now, I fear my description won't do it justice, but I want to try. I've been combing through threads to see how it's been discussed in the past. It usually seems to be as part of a specific situation and not really framed as a philosophical discussion, which is my goal here. The question is simple enough. What's the youngest you believe someone should be able to make the decision to commit suicide?

This is somewhat a test of our pro-choice philosophy. It certainly tests mine. I've been a teacher and my students have ranged from third grade to grad school. I am generally of the opinion that younger people should, for lack of a better phrase, "give life a chance." But if I believe that people really have the choice to make that decision for themselves, does that mean I support a high school senior deciding to ctb? I believe in my heart that life has failed them, but at such a young age, there are paths to successful and happy lives for them. Regardless of my philosophy, it is a sad scenario. But does that necessarily mean it was "wrong" for them to do that? Could I say they didn't have that right to decide for themselves, even if they were 18?

And now to complicate things further — what about the high school sophomore, who's 16? Or the 14-year old middle schooler? In some countries they would be considered adults. Even so, do they have any rights regarding their own existence? We all know they never chose to exist. Must our entire existence before we reach whatever arbitrary "adult" age as determined by our geographic location be determined by external forces?

See, this is where it gets really tricky for me. Society has the right to institutionalize a 14-year old for expressing a desire to commit suicide, and that child has no control over their situation. There's an unfairness there. Perhaps even a violation of rights. I don't even know how to argue this. I'm not sure what I believe. It's a conflict between my beliefs on human autonomy and human development. Is it fair to believe that humans can only make the choice to end their lives when they have reached a certain developmental point? And if so, how is that point determined? Is there an objective measure that could possibly exist?

This is one of the internal philosophical debates running through my mind at the moment. I'd be curious as to what others have thought about this subject.

 

[Amumu]

What is the age of responsibility? Honestly I wouldn't say 16 or 18, but more 21 or even 24.
Our mind evolves a lot between 16 and 24.

Of course I don't blame at all people who decide to ctb very young (I'm 21 myself)
But someone who is suicidal at 16 can be stable at 24, in my opinion, even if it's not always the case.

 

[deleted]

Good to know that someone created this topic I was thinking about it for some time and for me there is no minimum age. A lot of people on this site think that 30-40 years is acceptable. I do not believe that a person needs to suffer to the maximum, only then to take courage to take his life, I for example wish to kill myself since I was 11 years old

 

[Mr2005]

85

 

[Dead beat dad]

Good thread brother, I'm not sure I have any useful opinion on this, but it did get me to check some stuff which might lend itself to the discussion (or it may be utter twaddle!) and that is:
In the UK (where I am from) suicide was illegal until 1961 and the age of criminal responsibility is 10 in England and Wales, so while not giving any sort of answer maybe provides some sort of frame work to the discussion - so maybe this implies age 10 under these suggestions... (before 1961 anyway)
Not my opinion, just a way of looking at it (this type of law is not my thing so principle of application may also be rubbish too).
Love and respect
DBD

 

[death137]

If any age decided to suicide then they should be allowed. Life is bad. I once read a quote by an ancient man saying if you are born its best to leave as quickly as possible.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

For some, perhaps for the majority (?), suicide is a form of escape -- from pain, torture, illness, situations, emotions, something undesirable.


If a child is being beaten by a parent, do they not have the mental capacity to determine whether or not they actually want to escape?

If a teenager in Thailand has been sold into sexual slavery and is raped multiple times every day, do they not have the mental capacity to determine whether or not they actually want to escape?

If a child is kidnapped and forced to become a soldier, do they not have the mental capacity to determine whether or not they actually want to escape?

If a teenager experiences deep anxiety and depression and no interventions are helping, do they not have the mental capacity to determine whether or not they actually want to escape?

For some, the only means they can see may be death, or the most expedient to achieve.

Then there is the issue of not knowing how to manage strong emotions or life challenges, and seeking to escape from those things as well. It could be due to a lack of skills, ability, or desire. With experience and age, one can build skills and ability, but not necessarily desire.

As a child who was abused, I tried various ways to escape. But the desire to have autonomy, skills and ability was always strong for me. I couldn't wait to grow up and be on my own. I sought healing. I sought to learn. I sought safety. I sought to improve.

Not everyone is a fighter, or seeks to improve, or wants to rise up to a challenge or overcome or to find some kind of personal success in an always challenging world. Do they not have the capacity to determine that for themselves? Yes, things could change, but do they not have the capacity to determine for themselves whether or not they want to wait for that possibility, and more importantly, whether they can bear that wait? Sure, something could later change their minds or give them a new perspective, and yes, perspectives shift with age and experience, but if someone doesn't want to hope and doesn't want to hold on, is it not enslavement to force them to?


Is it perhaps that the capabilities and rights and potential are not the issue, but that the human animal instinct seeks to rescue the young because they carry the hope for the species to keep going? If it is the latter, do we then unwittingly commodify the young as a means for perpetuation of the species, and without noticing, let alone rationally thinking, put incredible burdens on them? By considering this possibility, doesn't it become clear that we have a tendency to romanticize how we view youths when life is fucking hard at every age, and for many, even harder when young?



Edit: I left one important consideration out of all of this: opportunity. Not everyone has opportunities, and not everyone has the desire and/or ability to create them in spite of their lack. Some potential simply cannot be met without opportunities. How many slaves could have become Michaelangelos or Beethovens or Einsteins, etc.?

Edit: One more thing. To escape is to actively pursue freedom, another romanticized concept, yet something all life seeks attain -- to be unbounded and unlimited. There are always limits, to everything.

 

[Wisdom3_1-9]

Is it perhaps that the capabilities and rights and potential are not the issue, but that the human animal instinct seeks to rescue the young because they carry the hope for the species to keep going? If it is the latter, do we then unwittingly commodify the young as a means for perpetuation of the species, and without noticing, let alone rationally thinking, put incredible burdens on them?

You so succinctly and eloquently addressed everything I was thinking about. This last paragraph was especially revealing. I assumed my internal conflict was rooted in my experiences as a teacher and the belief that we can equip young people with tools, strategies, and ideas on how to improve their lives and shape the world for the better. Perhaps it is more basic than that — an idealistic and protectionist view of childhood. I'm not positive that's true as it relates to me, but it's something I hadn't considered and it's worth thinking about.

My initial response to all the scenarios you cited was that there a societal systems in place to help children in those situations. Those systems are sometimes ineffective and often fail, but I see those as failures of the adult world. Children don't yet have the capacity to overcome those challenges on their own. And if they ever do, with help or without, their future lives are often impacted in hugely negative ways. We obviously can never predict the outcome, nor can we expect any child to.

So I guess the question is, if their pain is so severe, should they not have the right to end it on their terms? I guess I suppose that do have that right. The deeper question then is what is our responsibility? Here in SS, we believe in people's right to take their own lives. If a child expressed to us (not here, but in the outside world) that they had considered all their options and came to the decision that suicide was the best path, would we wish them peace or would we try to convince them otherwise? Would we do everything we could to try to convince them otherwise? My sense is that most of us (even those who consider ourselves pro-choice) would. We'd likely initiate a pathway for that child to receive the help they need, wouldn't we? If that's the case, then are we really supporting their choice?

Again, please bear with me. I'm typing these thoughts as they come to me. There's been no editorial process involved at all! Just trying to flush things out...

 

[GrumpyFrog]

From the moral standpoint, I wouldn't say there is any arbitrary amount of suffering or attempts to improve ones life that allows someone's suicide to be "justifiable" and that means that there is "you should be this tall" rule for how old one should be for it not to be "wrong" for them to commit suicide.

But if we create a hypothetical situation when, with all other laws remaining intact as they are now, there would be laws regarding a right to end your life without intervention if one desires so and the means are readily available, I wouldn't say we should make them readily available to really young people. The issue I have with this isn't that a person under a certain age can't suffer enough, but rather that they often don't have means to alleviate their suffering or aren't informed about things they can do to alleviate it, so the easily available suicide will become the only option for underage people in pain. Underage people are extremely dependent on their parents or legal guardians, and I believe majority of underage suicide cases are at least partially a consequence of the parent or guardian effing up. So before giving an underage person means for suicide, I'd advocate for trying to remove them from their family first. Of course, the cases when the cause for suicide is an incurable or life-changing disease or disability, be it physical or mental health issue, are an exception to this rule as long as the parents are providing adequate care for their child - this is an issue that is age-independent. And if the child's mental state doesn't improve after spending some time in a setting when they are being adequately cared for, be it a foster family or some other system, then they should be allowed to end their life if they still want to.

I know I might not be considered pro-choice enough by some, and I respect different opinions. But I believe that a very important part of respecting someone's right to make important choice is to make sure that the choice is informed and made in a clear state of mind (I don't mean an absence of mental illness, just not a temporary severely impaired state, such as psychosis). A child that is fully dependent on their family, that might be abusive or neglectful, might have very limited access to information about what options they have beyond suicide, and that wouldn't be a free and fair choice for them.

 

[Sinkinshyp]

Here I go again trying to write out and hope I can put it out as well as I'm thinking it. I apologize should it come out wrong.
Hormones for teenagers are a battlefield in the body. Some are well equipped to handle some not so. Some have been given the support of a wonderful family and life skills and some have an abusive family they want to run from. Some are born with .. strong nerves? ( this is my german shepherd dog experience) that can fly through those dreaded hormonal years with ease and some are born with weak nerves (I've got birth defects I'm sure contribute) and it's a chore to see the next day. I think every situation is different. As GPE mentioned above some children are just in a place where there only way out is the end. Ideally every teenager would be provided with support to grow through those years their hormones are wreaking havoc and their minds are still growing. Sadly that is not the case nor is it an option open to all of those who need. Children are impulsive. They don't think through or realize their actions have a consequence. My nephew for example- wanted a new tablet. He took his old one and squished it in the recliner and said Mom Dad My tablets broke with water works. They were going the next day to get new cell phones and told him you broke it unpurpose thinking when we were getting phones you'd get a new tablet. After a while he admitted to what he did. The consequence is he is stuck with a cracked screen on his tablet. When he really thought he would get a new tablet. There are ages that do not have that ability to realize 1 impulsive act can be the true end. Mom said I have to do my homework I'll show her, out onto the tire swing choke themselves out and it's the end when they were just trying to teach mom a lesson that if you make me do homework I'll do something- Impulsiveness.

Having been through all I have I can't honestly say what age is ok. I know there are those going through much worse than I ever had nightmares about. I wish there was a way to allow younger people to be open and honest- like they are here. Without judgement or fear of lock ups or 24/7 monitoring. Where they can have access to someone trained to listen and provide meds or an outlet with some suggestions. If this younger person is in an abusive home get them out- see if it doesn't change their course. The brain is developing until about 21 or so.


I remember being 12 thinking if I swallow this bottle of vitamins I will die and be away from my abusive dad. Not a very mature decision and well it shows how the mind of a child works-vitamins haha. At 17 I was cutting my wrists and swallowing codeine pills. Back in my day it wasn't so common for young folks to go through those things. It's more common in this day and age. I think society needs to look at WHY is it more common than ever that younger folks are CTBing or trying. In the end it is about what brings that person peace. I can't say an age and all circumstances are different. My heart does hurt though as a mom knowing so many younger folks are going through so much. I want to hug them all.

 

[Chupacabra 44]

The pendulum for my personnel view point on this is slowly swinging towards being more and more flexible, as younger members (relative to my middle aged self) epress themselves so eloquently. Not sure exactly where my view falls, yet, as it is still evolving.

 

[Sinkinshyp]

The pendulum for my personnel view point on this is slowly swinging towards being more and more flexible, as younger members (relative to my middle aged self) epress themselves so eloquently. Not sure exactly where my view falls, yet, as it is still evolving.

I can relate with you. So many much younger than myself are here. Such intelligent individuals. I find I have to look up words often because it is beyond my basic knowledge. I like you am evolving. I did not expect to find so many younger people here. I do accept their decisions regardless of what they decide. Majority seem to be planning everything out to a T and not acting on impulse here.

 

[Chupacabra 44]

I can relate with you. So many much younger than myself are here. Such intelligent individuals. I find I have to look up words often because it is beyond my basic knowledge. I like you am evolving. I did not expect to find so many younger people here. I do accept their decisions regardless of what they decide. Majority seem to be planning everything out to a T and not acting on impulse here.

None of this stuff is black and white, I am learning.

 

[dec132013]

Unless its a situation where they'd be in physical pain forever/slowly die from something then probably 25 so your brains fully developed.

Should also be a last measure thing, if no other treatment is working and the patient wants to die rather than sticking through it longer

Kinda hypocritical cause Im 19 and would give anything to be able to peacefully ctb

 

[Mr2005]

Unless its a situation where they'd be in physical pain forever/slowly die from something then probably 25 so your brains fully developed.

Should also be a last measure thing, if no other treatment is working and the patient wants to die rather than sticking through it longer

Kinda hypocritical cause Im 19 and would give anything to be able to peacefully ctb

I'd give anything to be 19. Life really isn't fair

 

[nitroautnz]

Its a very good question, im looking forward to read all the answer people going to write or not. On a personal point of view its more a situation than a specific age. I understand the reason behind the fact that the forum ban underage people. But if its a situation that is desperate i don't see why it should be different than for an adult. If its an impulsive act i shouldn't be done no matter the age, but if its after a long reflection, or because of huge pain physical or mental. i wont judge the age of the person.
I still think that you have a limit but where to put it? not every kid have the same maturity. At 13/14 I was already reflecting on life after my first ''attempt'', why going through suffer and pain, and I decide to stick around for finding love and playing video-game. I did both. Now I don't want to carry my burden and the one i pick up through life anymore. So i don't regret sticking around, but my childhood wasn't that miserable, but does that mean its the case for everyone?

Though question, thanks for asking it!

 

[JSRF]

Is it fair to believe that humans can only make the choice to end their lives when they have reached a certain developmental point? And if so, how is that point determined? Is there an objective measure that could possibly exist?

Biologically speaking, brain development finishes around age 25. Interestingly in the country I live in 25 is the minimum age required to get sterilized, probably for that very reason. The last part of the brain that developes is the prefrontal cortex which among other things is responsible for rational thinking. If you look at car accident statistics from age 18 to 25, you see a decline in accidents with older age, after age 25 it remains stable till old age

Based on this you could argue that people under 25 simply lack the mental capability to decide rationally. Although at the end of the day its the individual case that matters.

 

[DoNotLet2]

That's why I dislike strict borderlines. Some people might be 40 and still not mature enough to ctb. Some people might be 16 and be mature enough. This problem has no good solution. To determine the solution we need a perfect system in which we can differentiate between "temporarily suicidal" and "permanently suicidal".

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

That's why I dislike strict borderlines. Some people might be 40 and still not mature enough to ctb. Some people might be 16 and be mature enough. This problem has no good solution. To determine the solution we need a perfect system in which we can differentiate between "temporarily suicidal" and "permanently suicidal".

And if temporary, a way to determine for how long, as well as how to ease the intensity and/or provide genuine safety until it passes.

 

[Ghost2211]

There is no minimum to me. Pain, suffering, illness, and mental illness impacts all ages.

 

[DoNotLet2]

And if temporary, a way to determine for how long, as well as how to ease the intensity and/or provide genuine safety until it passes.

Yeah you're right and that's where our system is failing. We can't even determine if someone is temporarily suicidal we have a fuckin sack that is called "mentally sick" for everybody suicidal. We can't provide safe space :( That sucks. So the solution to the problem shouldn't in my personal opinion start from "who is suicidal" but "how to fix this piece of crap that we call mental healthcare system".

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

So the solution to the problem shouldn't in my personal opinion start from "who is suicidal" but "how to fix this piece of crap that we call mental healthcare system".

And at the same time the child "protective" services system that does far, far more harm to children than good. It's meant to rescue them but most often devastates them.

 

[DoNotLet2]

I mean I'm not American so idk but here it's probably bad also. Well it is. In Poland we have a book about one specific orphanage in which nuns tortured children. But I know nothing. Can be wrong.

 

[Sinkinshyp]

I mean I'm not American so idk but here it's probably bad also. Well it is. In Poland we have a book about one specific orphanage in which nuns tortured children. But I know nothing. Can be wrong.

not angry with you angry with those nuns. So wanted to explain that angry emoji on your post. Again, let me in a room with anyone who abuses kids- they wont walk out and I will be sure they have some mental issues before I choke the life out of them.. I just want my son...

 

[DoNotLet2]

not angry with you angry with those nuns. So wanted to explain that angry emoji on your post. Again, let me in a room with anyone who abuses kids- they wont walk out and I will be sure they have some mental issues before I choke the life out of them.. I just want my son...

No, angry emojis are ok especially in such threads you know. Maybe it's a good idea to come back to suicide before we all get too angry... Well that was a weird sentence to say...

 

[checkouttime]

totally depends on the circumstances i think. like someone who has been abused as a child, raped, mentally tortured. i have noway of knowing what t hat feels like, so how can i decide what they should/shouldn't do. I can't say i'm comfortable with it, but i certainly wouldn't want to make the call on what they do.

 

[voidman]

I think it has more to do with your ability and readiness to cope (or not) with negative, painful, situations and emotions. Becoming completely overwhelmed by life to the point of collapse and mental fatigue can happen at any age. Although some people argue that suicide is always irrational, I personally believe it is the individual's inherent right to make that choice for themselves.

 

[Emily_Numb]

25. I believe you are an adult by that point.

 

[LetzteAusfahrt]

I just can't get used to fixed limits that are set on the basis of irrelevant information. E.g. the stage of development of the brain at a certain age. These are average values of a skill that is difficult to measure.

In my opinion, no lower age limit can be set.

I am now ignoring ethical, moral, phylosophical and legal considerations and approaching the subject pragmatically.

If someone is mature enough and has understood what ctb means, if he can explain the effects ctb has on his life, then he should be allowed to make the decision for himself. Even if he is only 5 years old.

What, 5 years? This is way too young! This is a small child who does not yet know anything about life!

Not correct !

This is a child who ONLY knows life as it was intended for humans.

This is a person who has not yet been trained for life as society believes it should be.

This is a person who is not yet fixated on material things.

This is a person who is not yet controlled by hormones and instincts.

Who just knows life.

A 5 year old child is a very theoretical case. More realistic is probably around 12 years.

I claim that the desire for ctb is mostly caused by suffering.

Suffering takes no account of age and can begin in early childhood.

Why should someone with 25 years of age who has been suffering for 4 years be allowed to attend the ctb, while someone with 14 years of age should not, although he has suffered for 7 years?

It is not age that is the criterion, it is suffering that has to be endured.

Anyone who now says that there is still so much time at the age of 14 in which everything can get better has never really experienced such suffering themselves.

And if it does, then he should repeat his statement to a 14 year old boy in a third world country slum area.

It is extremely dependent on the external circumstances whether there is any chance of improvement.

Should the boy in the slum district now be allowed to ctb, but not the boy in London?

It is not possible to set an age limit for ctb taking all factors into account.

At least that's my personal opinion

 

[BitterlyAlive]

What, 5 years? This is way too young! This is a small child who does not yet know anything about life!

That is the ideal, but a lot of kids go through such horrible things. Their innocence is stripped at such an early age, and they unfortunately are forced to see the world for the awful place it is.