What do we realistically think the laws should be regarding assisted death?

[myownpetvirus]

I made a post the other day urging some of the younger people (18-25) who feel uncertain or have what seems like some hope or solid paths forward to give it ample time before they make the ultimate decision. I'll tell you I got REEMED. But I also got messages from young people that said I helped them hold on a little bit longer. It seems that there are some hardcore people that believe anyone who doesn't support home delivered free Nembutal on demand for anyone over the age of 3 years old are pro life and that any sort of restrictions on suicide or encouraging people to try to exhaust all options and hopefully get better are just cruel pro lifers. And honestly I think people like this are destroying the right to die movement. Our ultimate goal or at least mine would be to make everyone better and ultimately the best case is to prevent circumstances that cause suicide altogether. If I could snap my fingers and make everyone better I would. Basically I think there is a spectrum of Suicidality. Some that are irrational and impulsive and some that are well thought out and have made a mature decision. I personally think there should be some kind of safeguards legally but I'm not sure what (just like with gun laws). I ultimately think people should be 25 at least to make the decision as that's when the brain becomes fully capable of long term decision making, but I also think we need to somehow prevent suicides for cases where the pain will likely pass or the person may recover. I still consider myself pro choice though many will say I'm not. I want to hear your thoughts and what you think the laws should be.

 

[Doctors HATE them]

I strongly disagree with you and have a couple questions.
1. How soon is "likely to pass" and who decides that?
2. Does being irrational and impulsive mean that the pain experienced isn't valid? If it isn't valid, why? If it is valid, then why limit assisted suicides to only people who are completely logical?
3. 25 is the average age for brains being developed, so would you be ok with someone above 25 who's brain wasn't developed being assisted with suicide? What if they're disabled and their brain would never get to that point?

As for your question: I would say that anything less than complete access for everyone isn't acceptable.

 

[WorthlessTrash]

Anyone above the age of 21 should have access to it provided they can prove it isn't on impulse and they have greatly considered it. Also, no one should be forced to try treatments if they do not want it.

 

[FuneralCry]

You are so obviously a pro lifer, it's embarrassing to try and deny it, your views of wanting to force people to suffer until they are 25 are beyond disgusting. You clearly have no idea what pro choice even means, you don't sound very respectful of people's decisions which is what pro choice stands for, instead you just sound so arrogant and judgemental. And 'making people better' what are you even on about, being suicidal is not the illness, in fact thoughts of suicide are the most rational response to existing in this world and simply just having awareness of the cruel reality of existing.

If you value life and see it as being such a wonderful gift then that is your view but you have no right to force it onto others, I know that it makes people like you feel better about themselves going on about 'preventing' suicide, but seriously like why. We are all going to die anyway and I don't see what is so valuable about existing to justify trying to prolong the suffering of others as much as possible. The wish to exist is irrational and is centred around delusions anyway.

My view is that it's preferable to exit this world as soon as possible and the more unnecessary suffering prevented the better. Life is just an unfortunate consequence of evolution in the first place, so therefore existence is something completely worthless and insignificant and to die solves all problems anyway after all so under no circumstances could suicide ever be wrong. It's nonsense to want to gatekeep suicide. I wish that I left this world when I was much younger, 22 years of existing is way too long for me. Everyone should be able to access a peaceful exit at a time of their own choosing, as after all none of us asked for any of this and the truth is that existing isn't an obligation. Nobody should have to stay in this world any longer than they wish to. It's seriously wrong to invalidate and dismiss the suffering that others go through.

 

[myownpetvirus]

Anyone above the age of 21 should have access to it provided they can prove it isn't on impulse and they have greatly considered it. Also, no one should be forced to try treatments if they do not want it.

I agree with both but how do you prevent impulse?

You are so obviously a pro lifer, it's embarrassing to try and deny it, your views of wanting to force people to suffer until they are 25 are beyond disgusting. You clearly have no idea what pro choice even means, you don't sound very respectful of people's decisions which is what pro choice stands for, instead you just sound so arrogant and judgemental. And 'making people better' what are you even on about, being suicidal is not the illness, in fact thoughts of suicide are the most rational response to existing in this world and simply just having awareness of the cruel reality of existing.

If you value life and see it as being such a wonderful gift then that is your view but you have no right to force it onto others, I know that it makes people like you feel better about themselves going on about 'preventing' suicide, but seriously like why. We are all going to die anyway and I don't see what is so valuable about existing to justify trying to prolong the suffering of others as much as possible. The wish to exist is irrational and is centred around delusions anyway.

My view is that it's preferable to exit this world as soon as possible and the more unnecessary suffering prevented the better. Life is just an unfortunate consequence of evolution in the first place, so therefore existence is something completely worthless and insignificant and to die solves all problems anyway after all so under no circumstances could suicide ever be wrong. It's nonsense to want to gatekeep suicide. I wish that I left this world when I was much younger, 22 years of existing is way too long for me. Everyone should be able to access a peaceful exit at a time of their own choosing, as after all none of us asked for any of this and the truth is that existing isn't an obligation. Nobody should have to stay in this world any longer than they wish to. It's seriously wrong to invalidate and dismiss the suffering that others go through.

Do you honestly think every single person with a suicidal thought should go through with it and that no suicides can be prevented? People like you will be the reason this forum goes away

 

[LifeCanBeCruel]

In an ideal world, a compassionate and understanding committee would decide euthanasia for those who are unable to make the decision for themselves. I'm thinking of minors, the intellectually disabled and those who are just so mentally ill that they're never not delusional. All of those groups are not immune from severe suffering and deserve to be treated with respect and compassion. Society has a moral obligation to act on those group's behalf and do what is in their best interest. I don't have all the answers or solutions on this issue but I think there must be a way to at least help some of them. It's not always clear cut on what the right decision should be, but at other times it's painfully obvious. None of this will happen any time soon anyway, because society today is so corrupt that nobody would be trusted to make a life-or-death decision for others.

 

[myownpetvirus]

I strongly disagree with you and have a couple questions.
1. How soon is "likely to pass" and who decides that?
2. Does being irrational and impulsive mean that the pain experienced isn't valid? If it isn't valid, why? If it is valid, then why limit assisted suicides to only people who are completely logical?
3. 25 is the average age for brains being developed, so would you be ok with someone above 25 who's brain wasn't developed being assisted with suicide? What if they're disabled and their brain would never get to that point?

As for your question: I would say that anything less than complete access for everyone isn't acceptable.

1. By this I mean some people have suicidal thoughts at a period of time and they eventually pass. Suicides like this can sometimes be prevented. I think if you think ever suicide is justified and can't be prevented than you are just failing to understand people that enjoy life.
2. The pain is valid however some people in the spur of the moment like after a breakup may ctb impulsively which I think we all agree is a bad thing. If you think suicide is just completely ok and everyone should do it and it doesn't cause harm you are delusional.
3. My views are that people with conditions should be able to ctb even as a minor. If they have clear developmental disabilities then they should be given access. However people who just got in a a breakup or are getting bullied should be given a window of time to see if it may get better as like I said before suicide can devastate people, and many are happy they survived

 

[Blondi]

I ultimately think people should be 25

Would you also want to raise minimum age(to 25) to to vote, drink & smoke, go to the army, marry, work in a bar, et cetera?

 

[myownpetvirus]

Would you also want to raise minimum age(to 25) to to vote, drink & smoke, go to the army, marry, work in a bar, et cetera?

No because the consequences are much less deadly for those activities

 

[WorthlessTrash]

I agree with both but how do you prevent impulse?

I would have a clinical person interview the person and their loved ones as a measure. Sure some do fall through the cracks, BUT people who do make the informed decision shouldn't be penalized and denied acceptance because some other people fell through the cracks.

 

[theboy]

REEMED?

 

[Blondi]

No because the consequences are much less deadly for those activities

Do you think an 18 year old should be able to enter an army when there is a war?

 

[myownpetvirus]

Do you think an 18 year old should be able to enter an army when there is a war?

Well any entering of the Army is potential war, and again the death rate of this activity is much smaller than 100% and honestly no I don't think they should be able to enter the army but there would be more of an argument for that rather than

 

[Blondi]

rather than

Do you think it is preferable to be alive? Would you support a person who lives a comfortable life being able to buy nembutal(this person is 25+)?

 

[myownpetvirus]

Do you think it is preferable to be alive? Would you support a person who lives a comfortable life being able to buy nembutal(this person is 25+)?

I think it can be preferable to be alive for most people. As for the access to Nembutal I think there should be some safeguards for 25+ however I am not sure what I wanted to get other folks opinions on this.
We also can't pretend there isn't serious consequences to suicide within a community or family and that it is obviously a scary unpleasant event that sometimes can be prevented.
I think the disconnect I have with people on here is that I had an amazing life once and lost it all but went through suicidal periods before where I'm glad it wasn't an option

 

[home]

I disagree with you on many points. Unfortunately most of said points are similar to the troubles faced when dealing with other issues, like the example you gave, gun control. The problem with laws being open to interpretation, is that they are dependent on interpretation. What designates someone as mentally fit, mature, rational, justified? The line is drawn by the individual.

Like you said, Suicidality is on a spectrum. Along with suffering, worth, pain, and joy. Each person experiences these differently. Should one person be forced to live through a situation they feel is unbearable, just because someone else could? It's the same as how even on this site, many of us find ourselves envious of others.

"If I was healthy like you I would live."
"If I was pretty like you I would live."
"If I had money like you I would live."
"If I only dealt with that much I would live"

The problem with depending on someone else to decide whether you are suffering enough to die is that they must have a high enough empathy to understand you and your situation. For example, you believe that people should be over 25, unless they have a developmental disability. You've already failed to consider the countless situations that could lead to someone under 25 to becoming suicidal and remain that way. Trauma, abuse, chronic illness, hardship. Even without these, what makes you or anyone really so qualified, such an expert on someone else's life that you get to decide whether or not they can end it. Their own life.

I understand your intention was to dissuade people that are uncertain or those that had hope left, but like one of the others replying said, there are many worse and equally important things that can be accomplished once you hit 18 and sometimes even under. Plus, like I said before, how could you or anyone know someone else's life so intricately that you can say that they still have hope, that their pain will pass, or that they will recover.

And even if maybe one day their pain does grow numb, or one day they do get back up, or one day their tunnel begins to brighten. Will it have been worth it? Sometimes it's best to sink further than to claw your way out.

 

[LookingOverTheEdge]

Op, I agree with you on most points and I think we see this from a very similar viewpoint. Always a last resort, never a first choice.

That said, I am pro choice and do think it should be a human right to end their own life with peace and dignity. I did post my idea of how this would look in another thread but I'll go again here.

I would envision it as being available to anybody over 18 or possibly 21. Not too sure on that bit. There would be a six month period from the application to the actual event, with perhaps monthly check ins along the way. To prevent a rash or impulse decision, and to ensure that this is the persons wishes and not being coerced. I would also have no requirements such as illness or life expectancy. Open to all, so to speak.

 

[yyytry]

Always a last resort, never a first choice.

This^^^

I see both sides of it. And there is validity in both sides.
However, trying to wrap it all up into a neat package of guidelines…I'm starting to see how impossible that is.
There is always going to be someone who feels like there is too much or too little freedoms.
Someone is always gonna get hurt or upset…I think that's part of the package.

 

[LookingOverTheEdge]

Slightly off topic, but I really think that we could do with showing each-other a bit more respect. It's clear that we have people with completely opposite views, but that doesn't justify us turning on eachother.

I don't think op was being disrespectful, or trying to 'gatekeep' suicide. Yet some of the replies towards them are quite harsh. 'Pro lifer' for example. I'm not sure how that's even an insult to be honest, unless you're so entrenched in suicide that you can't understand that it's not the ideal first choice for everybody. Some of OP's points may have been a little clumsy in the wording, but their intentions seem reasonable enough.

My first suicide attempt was at 14. My first damn near successful attempt was at 25.l (put myself in a coma). I'm now 35. In all those years, I've had moments I treasure. Things I wouldn't have experienced if younger me had finished the job. Now obviously I'm here now, and I do think I'm fighting a losing battle this time. But the point I'm making is that things can improve, even if they eventually fall down again. Suicide ends the pain, but it also ends the potential for better things.

Anyway I'm rambling. But even if we disagree with each-other, can't we all find it to be a little more respectful between ourselves? If we can't speak our minds openly here without judgement then where can we? Whatever our differences, we're all here for the same reason at the end of it all.

 

[Lost in a Dream]

The way I think it should be, is that assisted suicide, if legal, should only ever be withheld if someone's being pressured into it by another person but they still want another shot at making their life better. In cases where someone does want to die, but is either being impulsive or still has a chance to get better without dying, then they should at most be required to go through a temporary waiting period to make sure they're certain that this is what they want, without forcing other possible solutions on them. Offering alternatives is more likely to help than simply telling someone, "Your reasons for wanting to die aren't good enough, so we won't allow it.", which is the reason I don't think trying other things should be forced.

Even if it's possible for someone to get better, forcing them to stay alive against their will is likely to cause more harm than good, and you'll still end up creating a scenario where they just BS their way through a temporary stay in a psychiatric institution until they get the opportunity to end their life on their own. Then some version of SaSu would continue to be necessary and we'll be back at square one.

I think your intentions are good (at least I hope they are), just because there can't be any harm in checking to make sure that someone who wants to die is certain that it's the best thing for them. If they have any doubts about it at all, then it's obvious they're not ready to make a decision as huge as this.

I made a post the other day urging some of the younger people (18-25) who feel uncertain or have what seems like some hope or solid paths forward to give it ample time before they make the ultimate decision. I'll tell you I got REEMED. But I also got messages from young people that said I helped them hold on a little bit longer.

The fact that anything you had to say was beneficial to someone shows that you're probably on the right track. Someone who's already at the "last resort" stage is clearly going to be ready and certain, but someone who just recently experienced hard times after living a mostly comfortable and happy life won't be. Voluntary euthanasia should still be available to them, but if other beneficial options are presented, the odds are good that they will try one of those and maybe it will actually help.

Either way, I totally understand why some other members on here might be suspicious because I'm not a fan of being told my reasons for wanting to die aren't good enough either. Just because someone else's reasons for wanting to die aren't good enough of reasons for me to do it, doesn't mean I should have the right to stop them or tell them they can't. It's probably much better to suggest other things they can try and hope for the best in that case.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Just my thoughts:

I think the age should be 18 to apply. (Although- case by case evaluation for those under 18- with severe physical/mental illness. In which case- agreement by patient, parents and 2-3 doctors.)

I don't actually think 18 is too young. If it's considered we can make other responsible decisions by that age- have sex (consensentually,) drink alcohol, smoke, drive, leave home for university- then I think we are old enough to make decisions on ending our lives.

I think- realistically- assisted suicide will be rolled out globally to terminally ill patients first- and those in chronic pain. Then, I expect we will start to see more severe mental illness conditions accepted- likey with a long history of (failed) treatment.

If I'm brutally honest- I would hope that one day- ALL people- regardless of their health will be given the option. Under the condition that they can clearly communicate why they want to end their lives. Also- as many people suggest- that this assessment should be made initially and then- after six months to ensure that the thoughts aren't impulsive.

Within this time- the patient should be OFFERED every kind of support available- therapy, medication etc. However- I don't think assisted suicide should be withdrawn if they don't want to go through the 'help' available.

To be extremely selfish and take me as an example: I'm 43. I've had suicidal ideation for 33 years to varying degrees. I'm physically ok in health. I've had a few therapy sessions way back in uni and I've been on one course of Fluoexetine (Prozac.) I imagine I might be diagnosed with mild to moderate depression if I saw a doctor now.

I KNOW someone like me would never be accepted (likely.) Main reason I imagine (cynically) is that I'm well enough to work. They would rather give me a mind numbing antidepressant so I can get some shit job and pay my taxes. I'm creative though. That (I believe) is the only thing that would make me 'better'- or- at least- willing enough to wait it out a while longer. It's SO hard to get creative jobs now though. I don't want to be a wage slave. I don't see why anyone should feel the obligation to do that- if they don't want to.

I think liability is actually the biggest worry these places and governments face though. I imagine- to circumvent that- companies will want to have the consent of parents and relatives (as well as doctors and therapists)- especially where young people are concerned and especially where the motives are harder to qualify- mental illness and just a general wish to die. No company wants to get sued... I doubt many (relatively) well young people's parents would support them.

I doubt many doctors will want a reputation for sending people to their deaths either. I think that's another big hurdle: if permission always needs to come from doctors and therapists- I doubt things will change much. They are trained to save lives after all. They likely have a lot of faith in themselves and their profession- that a cure is on the horizon. Plus- I expect many are in the pockets of big pharmaceutical companies that want to push out their latest drugs and make billions in the process.

I wonder if one day- there will be specialist people from medical backgrounds still who are more sympathetic towards assisted dying. Not that they will seek to admit everyone but that they are better equipt to see if the person is likely treatment resistant. If there is in fact ANY hope of recovery in them. (In which case- they would be fully aware of what was available and support the person in connecting with these services.) I would see these people solely working for assisted suicide clinics- so there wouldn't be the stigma of a health practitioner sending someone to their death. They would still communicate with the patients doctors/therapists of course.

I suppose my major issue is still: Can you be suicidal and not have a mental illness? In the cases where these people are not physically ill as well- do they have the right to assisted suicide? In which case- there won't be medical records- they weren't 'ill'. So- another method of assessing them would need to be implemented. (The sixth month evaluation.) Just my thoughts... I'm sure not all will agree...

 

[PrisonBreak]

but I also think we need to somehow prevent suicides for cases where the pain will likely pass or the person may recover.

I wouldn't necessarily "prevent" anyone from suicide but I would provide them more options. It's their choice to make.

But I understand some of the points you make, especially with regards to age.

 

[RainAndSadness]

People like you will be the reason this forum goes away

Just to make one thing clear. The opposition to this forum started 3 years ago and people have attempted to take down this forum simply because we provide a pro-choice safe space for suicidal people to talk about deeply personal issues without a forced narrative and censorship. That's the problem. I would appreciate if we didn't water down the reasons why people want to take down this forum. And that's not because we have posters with a controversial opinion, it's because we tolerate the discussion of topics in this forum that society doesn't want to exist.

Regarding assisted suicide, I think as soon as you hit the age of majority, you have a legal right to self-determination and bodily autonomy, that includes suicide. In Europe that's 18. That means you're also allowed to end your life. So it doesn't make sense to gatekeep assisted suicide unless we agree to increase the age of majority to 26 as you propose. But that's absurd. Again, this argument about the brain not being "fully developed" until 30 is also used against individual autonomy of trans people as we can see here. It's just a dogwhistle to enforce a social-conservative agenda, and that means removing autonomy from adults and conservatives love to do that. We should oppose such regressive ideas infringing on the freedom of adults on principle.

The problem is, most people who oppose assisted suicide don't know how assisted suicide works. It doesn't mean you go to an assisted suicide organisation like Exit and they give you a prescription for pentobarbital without asking any questions and that's it. No, that's not the case. If you approach an organisation to exercise your right to die in Switzerland, they'll talk to you about your reasons and your background, they want to know why you want to die. You could say it's a vetting process. They want to make sure you're of sound mind and you understand the implications of your actions. And that alone works as a suicide prevention mechanism because talking with people about your suicidality in a setting where suicide is okay, which ususally isn't the case when you talk with a therapist or a psychiatrist, might make you open up and talk about your issues. And that allows these people to openly talk about your problems without any prejudice and find solutions you didn't exhaust yet, which you wouldn't have done if you've talked to a therapist instead due to the stigma around suicide and risk of involuntary hospitalisation. We had the same discussions here in Switzerland about the "dangers of assisted suicide" and the concern aren't justified. So assisted suicide indeed can save lives and that's what so many people don't understand. It has a suicide prevention purpose but it doesn't rely on coercion and human rights violations unlike therapists and psychiatrists when they think you're gonna end your own life.

As I said, assisted suicide has a gate keeping function. There is process of psychiatric evaluation involved. They want to know your medical history, if you suffer from mental health conditions and how that correlates with your wish to end your life. You basically need to prove you're capable to consent to your own end-of-life decision and once that's done, you're allowed to exercise your right to die. But they make sure, every step of the way, that you understand the implications of suicide. They will literally ask you right before you take N, if you understand that you once you drink that substance, you'll never wake up on this planet again. Here is a great example of that, sadly it's in German but maybe I'll upload this video later with translated subtiles.
I personally think we should get rid of some of those gate keeping functions because even in Switzerland, exercising your right to die (peacefully) isn't very easy when you suffer from mental health conditions alone. It's a complicated process. But some people seem to have an almost utopian or dystopian (depending on your view point) understanding of assisted suicide and it's not that simple you might think.

As I said, I think assisted suicide for everyone who has reached the age of majority is a good thing. You should be allowed to exercise your right to die once you're an adult who has the mental capacity to understand the implications of suicide.