Why is assisted suicide illegal but suicide isn't?

[gnomeboy17]

I'd assume part of it is because then someone might murder someone and say "he wanted me to" but surely if there's a way to prove that they wanted to be killed (eg video of stating their wishes) then that's only the same level of suicide? Or is it illegal because people may inflict trauma on themselves by being responsible for someone else's death?

 

[SpottedPanda]

I think it'd be hard to enforce for one thing

 

[Jean Améry]

I'd venture it's because in the case of succesful suicide there is no-one to prosecute. Suicide used to be a criminal offense for a very long time even in the west: corpses of suicides were mutilated and defamed and those who survived a suicide attempt were prosecuted and imprisoned or in some cases even killed (ironically).

As I've argued at length on this forum suicide is in fact illegal: you won't face criminal charges but a failed attempt will very likely lead to incarceration in a prison called 'mental hospital' so in my view that makes it clearly illegal even if won't be put so straightforwardly in a statute.

As to assisted suicide being illegal (in the criminal law sense): I'd say it's probably due to the notion that no-one has the right to take their own life therefore it would be equally wrong to help someone do it. Of course there are countries in which assisted suicide (as in physician assisted suicide) is legal.

Philosophically speaking I think suicide and assisted suicide are illegal because individual freedom and fundamental rights aren't fully recognised. Claiming one doesn't have a right to dispose of one's own life is basically saying they don't own themselves which implies society is deemed entitled to decide fundamental moral issues for them. Which I find abhorrent.

 

[rhiino]

In most countries you face consequences when you survive a suicide attempt, too. It might not be jail, but you are imprisoned nevertheless.

 

[Winston]

Suicides damage the tax base, as well as the "make 'em live as long as they can" medical industry.

 

[CalmStrikeofMercy]

There are pro and con websitea you can look up online that explain the rationale.

If memory serves right, it is meant to protect vulnerable populations from being coaxed and pressured into ending their lives. Opens up the flood gates for abuse.
Also has to do with the fact that people might attempt or want to but deep down inside they do not really want to die and would like a way out. Doea not mean 100% but a good chunk do not want to truely die.

Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments - Euthanasia - ProCon.org

Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? Legalization Legalization: Medical Perspectives Legalization: Lawmakers’ Views Vulnerable Groups Hippocratic Oath Legal Right Slippery Slope Palliative Care Physician Obligation Financial Motivations 1. Legalization “The right to die...

euthanasia.procon.org

 

[Jean Améry]

There are pro and con websitea you can look up online that explain the rationale.

If memory serves right, it is meant to protect vulnerable populations from being coaxed and pressured into ending their lives. Opens up the flood gates for abuse.
Also has to do with the fact that people might attempt or want to but deep down inside they do not really want to die and would like a way out. Doea not mean 100% but a good chunk do not want to truely die.

Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments - Euthanasia - ProCon.org

Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? Legalization Legalization: Medical Perspectives Legalization: Lawmakers’ Views Vulnerable Groups Hippocratic Oath Legal Right Slippery Slope Palliative Care Physician Obligation Financial Motivations 1. Legalization “The right to die...

euthanasia.procon.org

An interesting website and reply. The argument of opening the floodgates is bogus as euthanasia is legal in a number of countries and the number of actual deaths isn't very high not to mention there are many safeguards in places including consultation of a second physician, a waiting period etcetera.

If doctors want to kill someone they can very easily do so, especially someone who's in a hospital under their care. Euthanasia also happens in countries where it's illegal but obviously it's kept a secret for fear of prosecution. You'd have to be a stone-cold individual to refuse to help someone in agony to a humane death. Many so-called 'natural deaths' in hospitals are actually due to physicians shortening their patients' suffering.

I'd say the great majority of suicides don't reject life as such but only their particular circumstances. If circumstances were different they likely would want to live. To me that is not an argument against allowing suicide (some circumstances simply cannot be changed and it's a matter of personal autonomy to decide whether to continue living or not) but it would be good to present alternatives to death (which may or may not help).

The problem now is that people are forced underground and can't really talk about their problems, their death wish and possible alternatives for fear of being locked-up. Which is a very rational concern in my opinion.

 

[Amnesty]

Technically suicide is illegal yet only to allow the cops to break into your house and take you into the Psychward without being sued.

Assisted suicide is illegal due to both the fact it could blur the lines between a cold blooded murder and pratically ending a person's life is viewed as wrong if it is seen as both treatable and preventable.

 

[CalmStrikeofMercy]

There are pro and con websitea you can look up online that explain the rationale.

If memory serves right, it is meant to protect vulnerable populations from being coaxed and pressured into ending their lives. Opens up the flood gates for abuse.
Also has to do with the fact that people might attempt or want to but deep down inside they do not really want to die and would like a way out. Doea not mean 100% but a good chunk do not want to truely die.

An interesting website and reply. The argument of opening the floodgates is bogus as euthanasia is legal in a number of countries and the number of actual deaths isn't very high not to mention there are many safeguards in places including consultation of a second physician, a waiting period etcetera.

If doctors want to kill someone they can very easily do so, especially someone who's in a hospital under their care. Euthanasia also happens in countries where it's illegal but obviously it's kept a secret for fear of prosecution. You'd have to be a stone-cold individual to refuse to help someone in agony to a humane death. Many so-called 'natural deaths' in hospitals are actually due to physicians shortening their patients' suffering.

I'd say the great majority of suicides don't reject life as such but only their particular circumstances. If circumstances were different they likely would want to live. To me that is not an argument against allowing suicide (some circumstances simply cannot be changed and it's a matter of personal autonomy to decide whether to continue living or not) but it would be good to present alternatives to death (which may or may not help).

The problem now is that people are forced underground and can't really talk about their problems, their death wish and possible alternatives for fear of being locked-up. Which is a very rational concern in my opinion.

I have tried looking into countries where it is legal but there are hoops and the cost to enter is too damn high.


I agree that there are circumstances that ahould be allowed. Was a poor girl in Australia with Chrons disease and said she will end her lofe puking up his bowels.

Sometimes it really does seem religiously motivated.

There are plenty of people who openly talk about suicide. Their desire to die....it is known. It is the people who make a plan...like there is a scale. If they are like a 7 and they are on their way to start a method, then they are in trouble. Expressing a desire and talking about it if its like a 5 will not do that. Not a crime to think about it unless they are in an ultra othodoxy environment. At least to my knowledge.

 

[HelensNepenthe]

Last year in the state of Florida a man had been arrested plus charged with the following. Cause? Attempted suicide with a firearm. It's very rare to be charged while under the 'Baker Act'.



There are two states that still practice English common law, respectively these states are Maryland and Virgina, in which you can be prosecuted if you attempt suicide. These are only the two states where you can still be held in court with an attempt of suicide, without the legal system taking a whirl. It's quite rare that someone ends up being arrested for an attempt. It's lesser than one percent.

At a federal level you cannot be convicted of attempting suicide.

 

[Jean Améry]

There are plenty of people who openly talk about suicide. Their desire to die....it is known. It is the people who make a plan...like there is a scale. If they are like a 7 and they are on their way to start a method, then they are in trouble. Expressing a desire and talking about it if its like a 5 will not do that. Not a crime to think about it unless they are in an ultra othodoxy environment. At least to my knowledge.

What's the use of being able to mention you'd like to do something if you can't talk about how to do it? That's like saying mentioning crossing the border is legal but actually planning it let alone doing it isn't.

The truth is that it depends on the subjective appreciation of a so called 'mental health professional' whether or not the condition 'danger to self' applies and thus whether one will be involuntarily committed. Who in his/her right mind would dare broach the topic with someone when there aren't clear boundaries (what is grounds for incarceration?) and the professional in question has a legal duty to 'protect' the suicidal by having him/her locked up in order to 'prevent' suicide?

Of course there are plenty of people who talk about wanting to die without having any real desire to actually bring it about (this is a mere factual statement, not judgement). Imo they are not really suicidal as this implies a willingness to cause one's own death.

If they had to lock up everyone who's ever thought about suicide the state would go bankrupt. Still I maintain that voicing you intend to kill yourself is in effect a thought-crime in this society. Oftentimes it's not even necessary to detail a plan: 'I'm going to kill myself' (intention) has a whole different meaning than 'I'm thinking about killing myself' (possibility).

 

[BridgeJumper]

Assisted suicide is illegal because when you die the government looses one more person they could drain like a leech.
Also because of their unempathethic nature and holier than thou attitude.

 

[CalmStrikeofMercy]

What's the use of being able to mention you'd like to do something if you can't talk about how to do it? That's like saying mentioning crossing the border is legal but actually planning it let alone doing it isn't.

The truth is that it depends on the subjective appreciation of a so called 'mental health professional' whether or not the condition 'danger to self' applies and thus whether one will be involuntarily committed. Who in his/her right mind would dare broach the topic with someone when there aren't clear boundaries (what is grounds for incarceration?) and the professional in question has a legal duty to 'protect' the suicidal by having him/her locked up in order to 'prevent' suicide?

Of course there are plenty of people who talk about wanting to die without having any real desire to actually bring it about (this is a mere factual statement, not judgement). Imo they are not really suicidal as this implies a willingness to cause one's own death.

If they had to lock up everyone who's ever thought about suicide the state would go bankrupt. Still I maintain that voicing you intend to kill yourself is in effect a thought-crime in this society. Oftentimes it's not even necessary to detail a plan: 'I'm going to kill myself' (intention) has a whole different meaning than 'I'm thinking about killing myself' (possibility).

Ah, I see what you mean. Nicely put.

I think ot comes down to covering one's own ass. Just an opinion. So much liability, fines, fees, jail time, loss of credibility and what not.

That and the stigma and fear around the suicidal because sometimes they go out in a firery rage.

 

[Jean Améry]

I think ot comes down to covering one's own ass. Just an opinion. So much liability, fines, fees, jail time, loss of credibility and what not.

No doubt. Since psychiatrists and the like have a legal duty to prevent suicide they'll likely be held liable when it does happen on their watch (which is ridiculous: how can one be reasonably held accountable for someone-else's decision and action?). They could face losing their license or even be held criminally liable in extreme cases (not rendering aid to someone in distress).

Clearly that is not very conductive to a fair and objective assesment of suicidality in clients (if that's even possible and not just pure guesswork): if I were in their place I'd look out for number 1 too and rather have people admitted prematurely rather than risk being too late and it coming back to bite you in the backside.

For all these reasons discussing suicide with a 'mental health professional' is not conductive to ensuring one's freedom. Of course people should do whatever they think is right for them: if they think their choice is not free by all means they should seek help. I do think this system rewards attention-seeking behaviour while punishing those who have real problems and are serious about ending their lives.

I'm not opposed to people seeking psychiatric assistence (they should know best what's good for them and at least for some people it does seem to help) but I do object to the pernicious consequences it can have. Imo no-one should be allowed to deprive others of their freedom except a judge or jury in accordance with the criminal law. 'Danger to self' to me seems entirely arbitrary and not a sufficient reason to lock someone up.

 

[CalmStrikeofMercy]

No doubt. Since psychiatrists and the like have a legal duty to prevent suicide they'll likely be held liable when it does happen on their watch (which is ridiculous: how can one be reasonably held accountable for someone-else's decision and action?). They could face losing their license or even be held criminally liable in extreme cases (not rendering aid to someone in distress).

Clearly that is not very conductive to a fair and objective assesment of suicidality in clients (if that's even possible and not just pure guesswork): if I were in their place I'd look out for number 1 too and rather have people admitted prematurely rather than risk being too late and it coming back to bite you in the backside.

For all these reasons discussing suicide with a 'mental health professional' is not conductive to ensuring one's freedom. Of course people should do whatever they think is right for them: if they think their choice is not free by all means they should seek help. I do think this system rewards attention-seeking behaviour while punishing those who have real problems and are serious about ending their lives.

I'm not opposed to people seeking psychiatric assistence (they should know best what's good for them and at least for some people it does seem to help) but I do object to the pernicious consequences it can have. Imo no-one should be allowed to deprive others of their freedom except a judge or jury in accordance with the criminal law. 'Danger to self' to me seems entirely arbitrary and not a sufficient reason to lock someone up.

People have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit to happiness. It does not seem natural to kill oneself. I could understand if there was a deadly, painful illness. But if that isn't there...just seems like they are stuck and might need help navigating somewhere else. I think in a natural world, people wouldn't do that. Seems like a symptom of society and worth investigating. There is nasty behavior from people that can drive people to die. In an enclosed environment there could be investigation.

I can understand why but their practices are abusive.

Plenty of students have infiltrated the institutions who were healthy and were diagnosed with an illness they did not have. Something there is sketchy.

Nevermind mkultra and the involvement of hospitals. Was highly illegal.

Just untrustworthy institutions imo.

 

[TAW122]

For the first question, I believe it is because prosecutors and actual murderers could argue that "the victim told me, the victim consented" and it would be a huge gray issue and gets complicated very quickly when it comes to consent and agreement. Furthermore, it is possible for the victim to change his/her mind, which could then be argued that he/she didn't really consent, etc. That's just one of the reasons why people are just outright against assisted suicide (in addition to all the other reasons listed). Another possibility is that if the person is drunk, under the influence of a drug, or coerced, and of course, many masses like to use the line of he/she is being irrational, not thinking straight, temporary feelings, etc. which I mean that could be true but again, it's the grayness of each situation that brings such moral dilemmas in people's eyes.

I personally would be in full support of voluntary euthanasia with systems and measures put into place to prevent abuse or any grayness. The problem is that most of society is still pro-life and anti-choice when it comes to anything related to 'death', especially suicide.

For your second question, yes I think there is some innate feeling in almost all humans who feel 'responsible' for another's death, even if the consenting person wants to go through with it. Perhaps it is just a part of being a human being, instinctual empathy and selfishness mixed in one. Very few people in this world are ever logical and rational and most people tend to lump in emotion and some passive investment into even a stranger, especially if a stranger is no longer around. This is partly why there are just doctors and medical professionals who are staunchly opposed to anything related to reliving suffering, death with dignity, peaceful exit, etc., because they don't want to deal with the fallout or have to face the reality that they took part in ending one's suffering.

I believe they are selfish, but sadly, that's what a lot of medical professionals think in the field.

 

[DeathIsTheWayOut99]

I think about this a lot

I feel with suicide, we feel we can "cure" the individual. That if we give them support, love, and reassurance, they will heal and feel better. But most importantly, they dont want the person to die because then it'll hurt them/they will feel guilty. In a way, its a defense mechanism (I dont want you to die because it'll hurt me). This isn't necessarily a bad thing, however I think its important to step into the shoes of the suicidal persona and really emphasize.

A person who wants to die doesn't just decide out of nowhere. Suicide is a desire to escape pain. And many people have been through repeated pain and traumas, some even starting in childhood. It can create lasting effects that therapy or meds cant seem to heal. And so, you look at your life and decide you don't want to do this anymore. And I feel that if one chooses to leave, then they should have the option to do so

Assisted suicide should be legal, I feel.

 

[IrRegularjoe]

Depends on the country and their laws.

 

[CTB-London]

In most countries suicide (on ones self) has been decriminalised but helping somebody else to commit suicide is still illegal. That is certainly the case in Britain. In some countries doctor assisted suicide has been legalised in some cases.

 

[Jean Améry]

People have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit to happiness. It does not seem natural to kill oneself. I could understand if there was a deadly, painful illness. But if that isn't there...just seems like they are stuck and might need help navigating somewhere else. I think in a natural world, people wouldn't do that. Seems like a symptom of society and worth investigating. There is nasty behavior from people that can drive people to die. In an enclosed environment there could be investigation.

I can understand why but their practices are abusive.

Plenty of students have infiltrated the institutions who were healthy and were diagnosed with an illness they did not have. Something there is sketchy.

Nevermind mkultra and the involvement of hospitals. Was highly illegal.

Just untrustworthy institutions imo.

We do all sorts of things that aren't 'natural': flying, curing diseases, artificial insemination., living in higly complex societies.. If we were to live according to nature we'd pretty miserable and have very short, nasty, brutish lives. I fail to see how that could be considered an argument against suicide although it has been in the past (natural law theory)

 

[NormaJeane]

Suicides damage the tax base, as well as the "make 'em live as long as they can" medical industry.

I do not agree. There are poor and homeless people in rich countries, sick people without money and income - why should someone without money live as long as possible? Christianity made suicide a sin and the laws are based on christianity - laws made up by stupid politicians.

 

[Jean Améry]

I do not agree. There are poor and homeless people in rich countries, sick people without money and income - why should someone without money live as long as possible? Christianity made suicide a sin and the laws are based on christianity - laws made up by stupid politicians.

You have a point but imo only partially. Suicide among the young does cause economic damage given that many potentially productive years are lost.

I doubt much is actually done to help the poor and homeless suicidal. You'd think that if poverty and homelessness are the main motives for suicide among those people helping them out of poverty and putting a roof over their head would be much more effective than involuntary commitment only to release them to the same miserable situation that made them that way in the first place.

I fully agree with what you wrote about the origin of the suicide prohibition but it can't be only reason that given that we are living in secularr societies (at least in the west) and suicidal behaviour is still illegal/punished by means of incarceration even in countries with low numbers of professed believers.