suicide is a human right

[iamjustapebble]

or at least the very least it should be. the universal declaration of human rights mentions the right to medical care and I consider suicide medical care, therefore - suicide should be a human right.
feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding something

 

[Rihan]

If we are put onto this Earth against our will, we should be free to choose when we leave.

I think that (assisted) suicide should be available for anyone who desperately needs it, and not just the terminally ill. However, I feel like a big portion of the population would be dead if assisted suicide were more accessible lol. A lot of people don't want to live anymore but don't have the guts to kill themselves or simply can't get the needed materials.

 

[thehorizons]

And suffering shouldn't be a requirement or at least there should be a wiggle room. Let's say that someone has melanoma on their nose and they don't have overt pain from the symptom, but they require a total rhinectomy. They wouldn't qualify for assisted suicide. Why not though? The cure is almost as bad as the problem, you're literally removing their nose and subjecting them to a lifetime of challenges. If they want assisted suicide for it, then it should be their right. It doesn't make sense that they don't qualify because they're not suffering yet, but if they're suffering from the supposed 'cure' then maybe they're eligible? WTF. Everyone knows it's a BS requirement, it's just that laws never looking at the context.

 

[Topaz111]

And suffering shouldn't be a requirement or at least there should be a wiggle room. Let's say that someone has melanoma on their nose and they don't have overt pain from the symptom, but they require a total rhinectomy. They wouldn't qualify for assisted suicide. Why not though? The cure is almost as bad as the problem, you're literally removing their nose and subjecting them to a lifetime of challenges. If they want assisted suicide for it, then it should be their right. It doesn't make sense that they don't qualify because they're not suffering yet, but if they're suffering from the supposed 'cure' then maybe they're eligible? WTF. Everyone knows it's a BS requirement, it's just that laws never looking at the context.

Exactly
Nobody knows your experience or your suffering better than you do, you're the one who is living it 24/7
The doctors may have gone to medical school, but they have never lived your life, all they get is a brief description and at most an hour of conversation.
What do they know about your experience?
Why should they decide whether you've "suffered enough" to die?
Why do we appoint these people to decide such things? They aren't the god of you!
Everyone has the right to live and so they should have the right to die, regardless of whether others see your reasons as "valid" or not!

 

[NihilDoll]

Wholeheartedly agreed.
We recently had a similar thread about the hypocrisy of "forced-lifers" that also hit close to home.
People virtue signal day in day out about how important consent is, of how critical human rights are, how everything needs to be a choice... and when someone wants to make a choice that feels "morally uncomfortable" for these people, all hell breaks loose, and all of that goes overboard.

I do, however, think that this approach does need guardrails. The urge to CTB can often be driven by emotions that can cloud your mind.
A little resistance to find out if the desire to CTB is truly genuine or driven by an episode and would be regretted seems only reasonable to me.
But there are plenty cases where CTB simply is the better choice for some. Chronic illness for instance.
Why force someone to experience the rapid deterioration of themselves when a hopeless situation could be ended in dignity and peace?

So yes, i do absolutely agree. It should very much be a human right.
It shouldn't go entirely unquestioned, but no one should be forced to live.

 

[bakenohana]

i wish more people in the world agreed with this stance, its a shame they dont. it's genuinely so cruel that all of the peaceful suicide methods are so restricted and inaccessible, its like they WANT people to suffer, just because they chose to end their life. my stance on this is that if you can euthanize animals when they're suffering too much humans should absolutely have access to euthanasia aswell. personally i dont believe humans are inherently worth more than animals. But i know its just wishful thinking since majority of the world doesn't even accept euthanasia for people with terminal illness and chronic pain (which if you think about it is kinda insane, those pro lifers reek of selfishness). even the few countries that have a bit of access to euthanasia are hardly accessible unless you have a chronic illness or you have a mental illness where you've already been through all forms of meds and therapy to ever exist. medically assisted suicide could also prevent so many violent suicides (jumping infront of a train, jumping off of a building in public) that traumatize literally everyone who witnesses it, but no pro lifers ever seem to even consider that. The world is so brainwashed by the idea that suicidality is just an impulsive phase that needs to be "fixed" that they refuse to see anything outside of their own brainwashed perspective.

 

[Aflame5926]

Listen this may sound conversetieel but i would disagree for 50%

should be some kind of right yes.

but the problem its being to accessable then.

people going to be like "oh i didnt get a ps5 from my parents now my life is trash so lets end it"
or "today is a bad day so lets end it".

we do need some kind of agreement what can be valid and what can be invalid.

with basicly saying its a right then even this people can. and im against that

 

[Rihan]

Listen this may sound conversetieel but i would disagree for 50%

should be some kind of right yes.

but the problem its being to accessable then.

people going to be like "oh i didnt get a ps5 from my parents now my life is trash so lets end it"
or "today is a bad day so lets end it".

we do need some kind of agreement what can be valid and what can be invalid.

with basicly saying its a right then even this people can. and im against that

I do think that anyone who wants assisted suicide should first exhaust all other options available to them (e.g. therapy). I believe that suicidal feelings caused by a short-term event (e.g. a failed relationship) would not be eligible for assisted suicide. It would instead be for people who have reflected on the entirety of their life and have rationally concluded that have zero desire to live in this world, nor any hope for the future.

 

[Aflame5926]

I do think that anyone who wants assisted suicide should first exhaust all other options available to them (e.g. therapy). I believe that suicidal feelings caused by a short-term event (e.g. a failed relationship) would not be eligible for assisted suicide. It would instead be for people who have reflected on the entirety of their life and have rationally concluded that have zero desire to live in this world, nor any hope for the future.

i wouldnt say even that. so for physical is quite obvious. 101 how to survive without a leg for example should egeible.

but because how mental health works endlessly i would say not exhausting all methods but give it 2 years.
why? mental health shit can be extremely long. heck you probally not even be start the beginning after 2 years.

but mental health queue's are growing and growing. its only if you had 2 years help in your life. not for each incident. mental health workers would not be able to manipulate the request then.

 

[SoLowHollow48]

or at least the very least it should be. the universal declaration of human rights mentions the right to medical care and I consider suicide medical care, therefore - suicide should be a human right.
feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding something

Euthanasia exists in the Netherlands but the requirements are quite a doozy I'd say--and maybe for good reasons. Imagine if a person kills for inheritance and uses the loopholes in the evaluation.

 

[Rihan]

i wouldnt say even that. so for physical is quite obvious. 101 how to survive without a leg for example should egeible.

but because how mental health works endlessly i would say not exhausting all methods but give it 2 years.
why? mental health shit can be extremely long. heck you probally not even be start the beginning after 2 years.

but mental health queue's are growing and growing. its only if you had 2 years help in your life. not for each incident. mental health workers would not be able to manipulate the request then.

You make a good point. It's true that mental health services can be practically inaccessible due to long wait lists.

 

[Aflame5926]

Euthanasia exists in the Netherlands but the requirements are quite a doozy I'd say--and maybe for good reasons. Imagine if a person kills for inheritance and uses the loopholes in the evaluation.

very true for terminal ill people its gucchi. for the rest not so much. for psygoloical its you have to tried everything + 4 year (waiting queue)

don't think its very human

 

[thehorizons]

Listen this may sound conversetieel but i would disagree for 50%

should be some kind of right yes.

but the problem its being to accessable then.

people going to be like "oh i didnt get a ps5 from my parents now my life is trash so lets end it"
or "today is a bad day so lets end it".

we do need some kind of agreement what can be valid and what can be invalid.

with basicly saying its a right then even this people can. and im against that

I don't think most kids think like that to be honest (like they're just going to off themselves from not getting a console) or if someone has a bad day (not like a suicidal bad day), but I get your point. The eligibility should be "reasonable suffering or if the means of relieving that suffering would be reasonably unacceptable to the patient." By "reasonable suffering" I'm referring to "medically definable suffering" or something like that, but you need to have that "or if the means of relieving that suffering would be reasonably unacceptable..." component as well. For example, someone has eye cancer and needs to have their eye removed to contain the spread. Some might want to choose to live despite not having an eye and thats perfectly valid, while another person might not want to. Laws haven't really entertained the latter part cause legal frameworks don't really like to deal with nuances until they arise. There needs to be advancement to a compromise.