Discussion Why suicide resource provider should be allowed to exist. Unless...

[tooafraidtodiez]

This is just my opinion, feel free to write if you disagree or have suggestions
-----
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that everyone should give out instructions on how to CTB or where to get the materials, especially to underage people on the net. But I believe selling or providing resources for a non-painless suicide shouldn't be criminalized (with the exception that it's only spread in a small community and not all over the net). Why?

1. There are people with debilitating disabilities or in constant chronic pain who can't have access to VAD. These people's quality of life is drastically compromised, and it's borderline inhumane to keep them in these conditions for unknown periods of time.
2. There are people in deep financial despair who may be homeless and, in addition to that, may develop diseases due to lack of healthcare. When you see your pet has a fungal infection with no way to treat it, isn't it better to let them rest? (Assume that you don't have money to treat them for an unknown period, and euthanasia is free.)
3. People should have the autonomy to decide whether their life is worth living compared to the pain they will experience during CTB.

Now, with that being said, I don't support completely painless methods like N or legal euthanasia being available freely. This is due to the fact that without the pain/suffering factor, people will commit CTB impulsively without giving life a try first. I believe suicide should be a last resort option for anyone who's struggling, and it shouldn't be too easy, but it shouldn't be too hard either.
The accessible method should involve some pain, while the non-painful one should remain limited to people with certain conditions. I believe with this kind of system, fewer people would suffer, but not many will commit due to minor depression or simple life problems.

It's understandable to be sad when your loved one is gone, but ultimately, the fact that they chose to endure pain instead of clinging on to life means that their troubles are severe enough for them to choose pain over life.
Why is a SN seller guilty, but not a rope seller or gun seller? Is it because hanging is a harder method to execute? What is the logic behind all this? Once again, there should be a good middle ground where the methods to acquire a "peaceful" CTB are available, but not common knowledge all over the net. It should be exclusive to the people who have extensively done their research on CTB, and it shouldn't be criminalized—unless the website of the seller includes words that encourage CTB. Last note: I have seen people change their mind and chose not to CTB despite having the resources. Meaning that as long as a method is non painless, most people aren't going to do it based on impulse and that alone should be enough without having to keep taking down sources for people who are in need.

 

[Forever Sleep]

If you disagree with nembutal for all, would you expect the sellers of lethal poisons to try to find out about their customer's situations? Do you think they are qualified to judge whether a person's situation is severe enough to warrant their help in suiciding?

What makes you think people will be honest? If it circulates on the web that a seller turns down certain people for certain reasons but accepts say- chronic pain, long term mental illness- without somehow checking though- wouldn't people just change the narrative to get what they want?

I do support pro choice when it comes to suicide. However, I still think it's a big decision to take. I think a person should have at least seriously considered all their options before doing it. Can a seller of poisons be expected to go through that with them?

And- they won't of course- because assisting a suicide is illegal in many countries. So- they won't want to acknowledge that they are even selling products for that use.

It's one of those very grey areas for me. While I'm personally glad there are people that take the risk in selling suicide aides, as an overall 'service'- I don't think it's good.

For assisted suicide to be 'good', I think it would need to be regulated. Still open to more people than it is now but- far more out in the open. I think people do need to be assessed and advised. That's not to say they should be forced into treatment or to have to accept it as a condition of receiving assisted suicide but, I think they should be made fully aware of the support that is available to them.

I also think their families need to be made aware. How can we expect general attitudes towards the right to die to change if the whole issue remains taboo and underground?

 

[itsgone2]

Now, with that being said, I don't support completely painless methods like N or legal euthanasia being available freely. This is due to the fact that without the pain/suffering factor, people will commit CTB impulsively without giving life a try first

Sorry but I disagree.
This is basically where we already are.
It takes a lot to come to this decision.
I'm already facing the pain factor with hanging. It's awful.
It my life it should be my choice. And my choice should allow me to leave peacefully.

 

[Captive_Mind515]

It's practically impossible to disseminate knowledge about peaceful methods, to the people you deem qualified to possess it, without it also ending up in the hands of those you have decided shouldn't have it… (possibly for rather arbitrary subjective reasons too)

It's actually a really dumb idea to think you can create this type of exclusive club with qualified members, and think everyone else left outside the club is just going to play ball and accept it.

All it takes is one person on the inside to be sympathetic to the plight of those left out/excluded, and now your exclusive club with protected information is no longer a viable enterprise.

And this scenario always happens eventually, given enough time and motivation.

 

[name2come]

A lot of activists for people with disabilities have noted that limiting assisted suicide to persons with disabilities or terminal illnesses would codify a social order that says those lives are less worthy of being lived. Honestly, I find their perspective compelling and we've already seen some MAID paradigms align towards making certain patients feel like burdens because we don't value their lives or quality of life. I think it's really troubling to make societal decisions about whose lives aren't worth living.

Ultimately, tho, I think the reasonable solution is to make such resources and aid available to anyone who doesn't desire to live. We absolutely need more resources for people with both physical and mental disabilities, but we also need empathy for the lived reality these people are in NOW. It doesn't strike me as reasonable to make people wait for resources that will take decades to build support for. In my ideal world, medical aid in dying would be available to all comers. I'd respect the value of a healthy waiting period to dissuade impulsive decisions, perhaps with waivers with a doctor's approval. But ultimately, I don't trust society to decide who deserves to end their own life. That approach is too vulnerable to exploitation.