A DNR is not a good parallel, it's entirely different. In essence, a DNR informs others you do not consent to treatment even if you are unresponsive. In other words, it lets others know that if they attempt treatment when you are unresponsive, they are committing a battery.
Why should the writer of a letter stating a sincere desire to die - a will or note if going solo, or a contract where an accomplice or assistance is involved - then be considered of unsound mind? It is a fine parallel. One is passively accepting a death that could technically be considered natural whilst the other actively seeks it out by means of artificial hastening.
Sectioning someone against their will because they are 'a danger to themselves' is fundamentally the same concept and violates basic bodily integrity and autonomy.
IMO, many suicidal people can express themselves properly. The subject is mainly about them.
5150 hold should disappear, period. After reading your response, I think assisted suicide won't work if the assistant betrays the suicidal person and calls for 5150 hold. It would be a nightmare.
It would be much easier to legalize assisted suicide if suicide itself is not considered a stigma. Making suicide a stigma is forcing people to stay alive against their will :(
I didn't say they're incapable of being coherent or lucid - in fact, some posts here, which I assume were composed by suicidal people, have been of the sanest content I've ever read online or offline - I meant they lack an environment in which it would be welcoming or not-taboo for them to do so. As in, if you're entirely honest about your thoughts and plans, you will inevitably get locked up. Thus you cannot be honest unless you are willing to undergo a patronising imprisonment.
We are in agreement here. And yes, your last two sentences were what I was trying to convey earlier. The two perspectives or policies or however you wish to call them cannot coexist because of the cognitive dissonance and ensuing practical difficulty. So even if assisted suicide was somehow legalised whilst the stigma remained, many people would still feel isolated and be unable to benefit from having a companion there as they die, because society tends to follow politically correct trends. The law may not always be PC and vice versa. The end result would be most people would be uncomfortable or straight up unwilling to assist. It's like sharing method sources and explicit information - beyond a general guide, I've observed people tend to shy away from advising any further due to their own discomfort rather than any legal prohibition. Information is free and available on the internet, after all.
General method information guides differ here because it contributes to the crowdsource feel. It's not a direct conversation instructing someone on how to take their own life. The specific action of connecting a person with that knowledge that will definitely kill them unsettles people. Or in this case, being an assistant, or even holding hands as one takes their last breaths - it's still too close to that moral quagmire where acceptance slides into condoning which slides into promoting. And even if they aren't slapped with at least third degree murder charge from that (given the current legislation), the guilt they will likely feel from the idea that they may have wanted or encouraged their friend to die will be sufficient damper on the idea of acting as assistant.
Just thoughts. I'm attempting to explain a simple and intuitive link but I feel in trying to expand on the nuances I am only thoroughly overcomplicating the matter. You summed it up well.
