Why we need to lift the stigma around suicide and legalize it instead.

[SuicidallyCurious]

I suspect CTB will never be legalized for casual use in most countries. Probably 70-80% of the countries in the world have a strong religious influence on the government which makes it a non starter. That leaves the more secular ones like parts of Europe, China, Japan. All of these countries have gov'ts that are freaking out about declining labor force. They want you on the plantation until the end.

But notice many mainstream government entities support euthanasia for elderly - they don't want you collecting that pension check :)

 

[Symbiote]

In a progressive country, this would be feasible and understandable, whereas a country founded on religious beliefs will take a hard-stance against assisted suicide. When countries take a hard-stance against assisted suicide, they follow it up with the same language in policy making, regulations, and statutes. Media will decode the legal language to society that "Suicide = Sinful", and replay the mantra over and over. Therapists are bound by those policies and legal rules and must put aside their personal opinions. Otherwise they're held liable and could lose their license. Doctors are bound by it too despite personal opinions. There is no room for discourse or further inquiry for assisted suicide because non-progressive countries do not allow it.

I wish that assisted suicide can be understood and available to those suffering in the US, but that's a pipe dream that won't be realized anytime in the near future. If you're living in certain countries in Europe where they're making great strides in being relevant to modern-day society, then you're lucky until someone elects a person that could shut it all down in an instant.

 

[SuicidallyCurious]

In a progressive country, this would be feasible and understandable, whereas a country founded on religious beliefs will take a hard-stance against assisted suicide. When countries take a hard-stance against assisted suicide, they follow it up with the same language in policy making, regulations, and statutes. Media will decode the legal language to society that "Suicide = Sinful", and replay the mantra over and over. Therapists are bound by those policies and legal rules and must put aside their personal opinions. Otherwise they're held liable and could lose their license. Doctors are bound by it too despite personal opinions. There is no room for discourse or further inquiry for assisted suicide because non-progressive countries do not allow it.

I wish that assisted suicide can be understood and available to those suffering in the US, but that's a pipe dream that won't be realized anytime in the near future. If you're living in certain countries in Europe where they're making great strides in being relevant to modern-day society, then you're lucky until someone elects a person that could shut it all down in an instant.

I am not bullish on the prospects for it in the US either. The US is still very religious and also business interests do not want a smaller labor force. US is a very pro life culture whether it comes to CTB or abortion etc.

 

[torimandy]

I so agree with the logic and the post. Dignity. Here is what I think should happen to help end the stigma. You should be able to go tell the reason for your request to a medical professional. That medical professional should ask the question," Is there anything that could be done that would make living life and attractive option and end the need to end your life?" Then that list needs to be distrubuted to all the prolifers to see if any or all are able to make that list a reality in an attempt to end suicide. If pro lifers are unwilling to render aid they need to be quiet and abandon their lobby.

 

[Gnip]

My analogy in support of what @RainAndSadness wrote specifically regards the United States, and what happened in legalizing same sex
marriage. California voters rejected it twice in ballot referendums. Then, North Carolina became the 30th state to approve an amendment banning gay marriage in May 2012. The nation was closing in on the 38 states needed to ratify a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage outright. Just five years later, the situation was completely reversed as judicial activism legalized gay marriage nationwide.

With respect to assisted suicide and psychiatrist administered euthanasia, the United States is far, far closer to legalizing it than the nation was to green lighting same sex unions in May 2012.

Strong religious influences and voter wishes against gay marriage (which had never been approved by voters in any state until after May 2012) did not prevent gay marriage from becoming the law of the land only five years later. In the case of physician assisted suicide, this time the voters would approve it in many states, and it's an aging population today. California seems to be in a race with Oregon to see who can liberalize their policies the most with the greatest speed. Once euthanasia, including psychiatrist administered euthanasia, is legalized in a single state, the rest will fall in line like dominos.

Russia is far more religious than the United States, so they banned same sex unions, and appear adverse to euthanasia.

 

[Endeavour]

Maybe it will be allowed one day, when the numbers of people taking their lives in horrendous ways (the only ways open to them) increases dramatically, which I am sure is going to happen because I think 2021 is going to be worse than 2020 - hard to believe it's possible but I think were in for a really rough time.

SANE say that the numbers of calls they receive has increased by 200% this year, and I've noticed the mood change - things like comments on news websites - people have gone from generally believing covid would be done within a few months and supporting lockdowns, etc, to now probably 95% hating being locked down and saying how miserable and depressed they are, plus lots saying they've lost their jobs and sense of purpose, and on the brink of losing their homes, through to now every single day is someone saying "what's the point of carrying on" - actually talking about ending things.

I've never seen that before, but am seeing it pretty much every day now. If we are locked down until April - which is looking likely - then I think it will push a lot of people over the edge.

Even so I think it'll be years before it is discussed in most western countries.

 

[greyhound]

I think it would be difficult to legalize suicide completely.

In certain respects it's similar to the issues surrounding legalizing hard drugs. It would be extremely difficult to have a functioning society if people could buy heroin or cocaine at the corner store inexpensively and legally. It would just be way too tempting for many people, suffering momentarily and needing a boost to indulge. These drugs short circuit the normal reward mechanisms of earning money, finding mates etc and are very addictive.

I think it would be the same situation if people could buy nembutal at the konbini and off themselves easily and painlessly. I think many many people would impulsively end their lives due minor temporary problems that seemed insurmountable at the time. Even on these forums I see too many kids that are like "I'm 18 and I've lived long enough" or wanting to kill themselves because someone dumped them. Society would break down if people killed themselves due to minor circumstances.

I think there is some benefit to having some barriers around suicide. However I do think the barriers are too high currently. Too much stigma, too little access to peaceful methods. I just don't know how to move the needle in the other direction realistically. I just can't imagine mental health counsellors giving people approval to kill themselves.

I think we'd need a complete reevaluation of what death is before that happens. If society came to see death as just a gateway to another form of existence then maybe they'd start seeing suicide as a rational choice. But right now religions and atheism as the main ideologies running the show and they both have reasons for being anti-suicide (against God's will / complete cessation of existence which would only be desirable in extreme circumstances).

 

[Endeavour]

I think it would be difficult to legalize suicide completely.

In certain respects it's similar to the issues surrounding legalizing hard drugs. It would be extremely difficult to have a functioning society if people could buy heroin or cocaine at the corner store inexpensively and legally. It would just be way too tempting for many people, suffering momentarily and needing a boost to indulge. These drugs short circuit the normal reward mechanisms of earning money, finding mates etc and are very addictive.

I think it would be the same situation if people could buy nembutal at the konbini and off themselves easily and painlessly. I think many many people would impulsively end their lives due minor temporary problems that seemed insurmountable at the time. Even on these forums I see too many kids that are like "I'm 18 and I've lived long enough" or wanting to kill themselves because someone dumped them. Society would break down if people killed themselves due to minor circumstances.

I think there is some benefit to having some barriers around suicide. However I do think the barriers are too high currently. Too much stigma, too little access to peaceful methods. I just don't know how to move the needle in the other direction realistically. I just can't imagine mental health counsellors giving people approval to kill themselves.

I think we'd need a complete reevaluation of what death is before that happens. If society came to see death as just a gateway to another form of existence then maybe they'd start seeing suicide as a rational choice. But right now religions and atheism as the main ideologies running the show and they both have reasons for being anti-suicide (against God's will / complete cessation of existence which would only be desirable in extreme circumstances).

Agree partly but there are definitely too many Humans on Earth. We all know biodiversity is important, but when you realise that of all mammals humans account for 36%, livestock accounts for 60%, and wild animals (the biodiverse part on earth) only 4% you can see what a problem we are.

We're a big enough problem, the livestock are only there for us to eat, and the amount of food they need mean we're destroying the habitat, food sources, and water supplies of the other 4%.

Our population needs to drop dramatically, and livestock too, so I think eventually it's going to be less about ethics and human views on what ethics are and simply be down to mathematics and a need to do something if we're going to survive.

I know that sounds dramatic but it's where we're at. 3 Billion Humans in 1960, heading to 8 Billion 60 years later. It's exponential so time is rapidly running out.

 

[AutoTap]

Progress is being made but it's slow. Spain is currently passing a bill for euthanasia/assisted suicide possibly. Look it up and maybe will give you some hope. Idk tho :/

I think it would be difficult to legalize suicide completely.

In certain respects it's similar to the issues surrounding legalizing hard drugs. It would be extremely difficult to have a functioning society if people could buy heroin or cocaine at the corner store inexpensively and legally. It would just be way too tempting for many people, suffering momentarily and needing a boost to indulge. These drugs short circuit the normal reward mechanisms of earning money, finding mates etc and are very addictive.

I think it would be the same situation if people could buy nembutal at the konbini and off themselves easily and painlessly. I think many many people would impulsively end their lives due minor temporary problems that seemed insurmountable at the time. Even on these forums I see too many kids that are like "I'm 18 and I've lived long enough" or wanting to kill themselves because someone dumped them. Society would break down if people killed themselves due to minor circumstances.

I think there is some benefit to having some barriers around suicide. However I do think the barriers are too high currently. Too much stigma, too little access to peaceful methods. I just don't know how to move the needle in the other direction realistically. I just can't imagine mental health counsellors giving people approval to kill themselves.

I think we'd need a complete reevaluation of what death is before that happens. If society came to see death as just a gateway to another form of existence then maybe they'd start seeing suicide as a rational choice. But right now religions and atheism as the main ideologies running the show and they both have reasons for being anti-suicide (against God's will / complete cessation of existence which would only be desirable in extreme circumstances).

Typically from what I understand you have to go through a one month waiting period to make sure you still want to do it and that's after you get everything setup. So people would have to seriously want to ctb for over a month and have a mental health or physical health issue.

 

[Superdeterminist]

I think it would be difficult to legalize suicide completely.

In certain respects it's similar to the issues surrounding legalizing hard drugs. It would be extremely difficult to have a functioning society if people could buy heroin or cocaine at the corner store inexpensively and legally. It would just be way too tempting for many people, suffering momentarily and needing a boost to indulge. These drugs short circuit the normal reward mechanisms of earning money, finding mates etc and are very addictive.

I don't know if that's actually true. For example, alcohol is already cheap and readily available, but society isn't struggling with a massive alcoholism problem. Yes there are alcoholics, but they comprise a small fraction of the population - it hasn't destroyed society. I think that addiction has more to do with individual brains, and less to do with the nature of the specific substance.​

I think it would be the same situation if people could buy nembutal at the konbini and off themselves easily and painlessly. I think many many people would impulsively end their lives due minor temporary problems that seemed insurmountable at the time. Even on these forums I see too many kids that are like "I'm 18 and I've lived long enough" or wanting to kill themselves because someone dumped them. Society would break down if people killed themselves due to minor circumstances.

Is it wrong if people want to ctb because of temporary problems? Who gets to define when a problem is big enough to warrant ctb? It seems you're implying there's an objective threshold. Also: I don't know, but I suspect that like how alcoholics constitute a small fraction of any population, so too do ctb-prone individuals. But even if most people were given to suicidality, it wouldn't follow that we shouldn't allow them to indulge in their desire. I think you're suggesting that society as an entity is more important than individuals. And that's fine, it's not 'wrong', but neither is it 'right' - it's your subjective value judgement. Personally, I think the individual is more important. The problem with placing society above individuals, in my opinion, is that there's an implication that individuals are beholden to serve society in some way, and I would say that's a kind of slavery, which I think is immoral.​

I think there is some benefit to having some barriers around suicide. However I do think the barriers are too high currently. Too much stigma, too little access to peaceful methods. I just don't know how to move the needle in the other direction realistically. I just can't imagine mental health counsellors giving people approval to kill themselves.

I don't think anyone needs to or should necessarily give approval for ctb, it just needs to be such that people don't get involuntarily committed to any program or institution because they've expressed an urge to ctb. And many would like drugs such as N to become available, because it would make it immeasurably easier for them to achieve the death they want. Why should suicide be difficult, what are the reasons that there should be any barriers to suicide? I think that very few accidentally fall into suicide against their will. If N was readily available then there definitely could be some accidental suicides due to mistaken ingestion - but this risk is far outweighed by the benefits it would bring to those wanting to die, in my opinion. We don't ban cars even though they can and do lead to accidental casualties. It's about intention and dignity, I think. If it is indeed the case that such drugs as N are deemed too dangerous to be publicly available, then we should work to offer a service that allows access to these substances in a safe environment, I would argue.​

I think we'd need a complete reevaluation of what death is before that happens. If society came to see death as just a gateway to another form of existence then maybe they'd start seeing suicide as a rational choice. But right now religions and atheism as the main ideologies running the show and they both have reasons for being anti-suicide (against God's will / complete cessation of existence which would only be desirable in extreme circumstances).

I agree that religions are almost universally anti-suicide, but I'm not sure if the atheistic consensus is anti-suicide.

 

[Gnip]

Agree partly but there are definitely too many Humans on Earth. We all know biodiversity is important, but when you realize that of all mammals humans account for 36%, livestock accounts for 60%, and wild animals (the biodiverse part on earth) only 4% you can see what a problem we are.

We're a big enough problem, the livestock are only there for us to eat, and the amount of food they need mean we're destroying the habitat, food sources, and water supplies of the other 4%.

Our population needs to drop dramatically, and livestock too, so I think eventually it's going to be less about ethics and human views on what ethics are and simply be down to mathematics and a need to do something if we're going to survive.

I know that sounds dramatic but it's where we're at. 3 Billion Humans in 1960, heading to 8 Billion 60 years later. It's exponential so time is rapidly running out.

The key part of what allowed the human population explosion is the advent of agriculture. Reverse the human race to a hunter-gatherer dynamic, then a limited population of humans would be living within the ecological framework. Unfortunately, veganism and less stringent vegetarianism is being promoted, which would explode human population even more in size.

Agriculture and farming are what is destroying the Amazon rain forest.

Dropping the human population dramatically will require another Black Death, Justinian Plague, smallpox outbreak or 1918 Spanish flu. We are about due for another pandemic like 1918 which targets the young and healthy of childbearing age, kills quickly, spreads rapidly (thanks to modern international jet transportation), and kills billions rather than millions of lives. That occurrence is only a matter of time.

 

[greyhound]

I don't know if that's actually true. For example, alcohol is already cheap and readily available, but society isn't struggling with a massive alcoholism problem. Yes there are alcoholics, but they comprise a small fraction of the population - it hasn't destroyed society. I think that addiction has more to do with individual brains, and less to do with the nature of the specific substance.​

There is a pretty big gap between the effects/addictiveness of alcohol and hard drugs. That being said some societies still outlaw alcohol and others without a history of alcohol consumption (Native Americans) seem to almost be unable to function with it being readily available.

Is it wrong if people want to ctb because of temporary problems? Who gets to define when a problem is big enough to warrant ctb? It seems you're implying there's an objective threshold. Also: I don't know, but I suspect that like how alcoholics constitute a small fraction of any population, so too do ctb-prone individuals. But even if most people were given to suicidality, it wouldn't follow that we shouldn't allow them to indulge in their desire. I think you're suggesting that society as an entity is more important than individuals. And that's fine, it's not 'wrong', but neither is it 'right' - it's your subjective value judgement. Personally, I think the individual is more important. The problem with placing society above individuals, in my opinion, is that there's an implication that individuals are beholden to serve society in some way, and I would say that's a kind of slavery, which I think is immoral.​

That's what I'm saying is the difficult thing to know and regulate. The point is that society is what is agreeing to pass laws for/against suicide. We certainly don't have complete freedom in many respects we all are compelled to adhere to the social contract.

I don't think anyone needs to or should necessarily give approval for ctb, it just needs to be such that people don't get involuntarily committed to any program or institution because they've expressed an urge to ctb. And many would like drugs such as N to become available, because it would make it immeasurably easier for them to achieve the death they want. Why should suicide be difficult, what are the reasons that there should be any barriers to suicide? I think that very few accidentally fall into suicide against their will. If N was readily available then there definitely could be some accidental suicides due to mistaken ingestion - but this risk is far outweighed by the benefits it would bring to those wanting to die, in my opinion. We don't ban cars even though they can and do lead to accidental casualties. It's about intention and dignity, I think. If it is indeed the case that such drugs as N are deemed too dangerous to be publicly available, then we should work to offer a service that allows access to these substances in a safe environment, I would argue.​

I agree that religions are almost universally anti-suicide, but I'm not sure if the atheistic consensus is anti-suicide.

I guess as a thought experiment imagine everyone was born with a button on their wrist where if they pressed it, they immediately died. Do you think the rate of suicide would be the same as today?

 

[Superdeterminist]

There is a pretty big gap between the effects/addictiveness of alcohol and hard drugs. That being said some societies still outlaw alcohol and others without a history of alcohol consumption (Native Americans) seem to almost be unable to function with it being readily available.



That's what I'm saying is the difficult thing to know and regulate. The point is that society is what is agreeing to pass laws for/against suicide. We certainly don't have complete freedom in many respects we all are compelled to adhere to the social contract.



I guess as a thought experiment imagine everyone was born with a button on their wrist where if they pressed it, they immediately died. Do you think the rate of suicide would be the same as today?

Although I strongly doubt it, you may be right that legalising certain substances would lead to certain or all societies breaking down. But even if true, I still believe that personal choice is the most important thing. I think that everyone's life is their own, not anyone else's, and people shouldn't be chained to life. If so many people truly were ready to take their life such that society came to a standstill, I think that would just speak to the inadequacy of that society to satisfy the individuals.

The scenario you describe with everyone having their own 'off switch' is the ideal world if you ask me. I can't know, but I do think that the rate of suicide would be higher in that case. But I don't think that would be a 'bad' thing - if someone wants to ctb it's their prerogative. Imo, death by suicide is better than any disease or accident-related death anyway. At least in suicide, it's one's one choice to die.

 

[greyhound]

Although I strongly doubt it, you may be right that legalising certain substances would lead to certain or all societies breaking down. But even if true, I still believe that personal choice is the most important thing. I think that everyone's life is their own, not anyone else's, and people shouldn't be chained to life. If so many people truly were ready to take their life such that society came to a standstill, I think that would just speak to the inadequacy of that society to satisfy the individuals.

The scenario you describe with everyone having their own 'off switch' is the ideal world if you ask me. I can't know, but I do think that the rate of suicide would be higher in that case. But I don't think that would be a 'bad' thing - if someone wants to ctb it's their prerogative. Imo, death by suicide is better than any disease or accident-related death anyway. At least in suicide, it's one's one choice to die.

I agree that people shouldn't be chained to life as they are now. But I guess I generally am skeptical that people will really choose wisely for themselves if given complete freedom. If given access to hard drugs many will just succumb to temptation. If junk food is the norm a lot of people will just overeat until it their health deteriorates. If this suicide button existed, how many toddlers would kill themselves during a temper tantrum?

The problem for me is that we are all suffer from extreme tunnel vision. In a lot of cases we don't know if our problems are temporary or permanent. We don't even know what will happen during / after suicide. Will we suffer during the process? Will there be complete annihilation of our being? Will there be some form of an afterlife, and if so, will it be more agreeable than our current situation?

The ideal world for me would be one where some kind of enlightened guide could advise us as to whether our problems are surmountable or if we might be better off throwing in the towel. They could be given the keys to grant legal suicide or not.

 

[RainAndSadness]

Belgium and Netherlands allow assisted suicide for people that struggle from mental pain. I've seen some documentaries about rather young people that were allowed to die in those countries and it's very impressive. They seem to understand that mental pain is a valid reason to die if it becomes too much to handle. And they also understand that mental pain isn't always curable. That's a solid example of legalized euthanasia.

Of course there would be a process in place, maybe a talk with some professionals, just to make sure that people understand the ramifications of their actions, as suicide is permanent.

In regards to the drug and suicide comparison: Portugal actually decriminalized hard drugs and it had a positive effect on drug related issues so far.

Portugal’s radical drugs policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

The long read: Since it decriminalised all drugs in 2001, Portugal has seen dramatic drops in overdoses, HIV infection and drug-related crime

www.theguardian.com

The same way decriminalization of drugs removed the stigma around drug use and therefore encouraged people to seek therapy, the same effect could happen if you remove the stigma around suicide. It's also known that having access to a peaceful method can actually prolong life, exit just recently wrote an article making the case that people who know have a peaceful way out live longer because it gives them peace and comfort and even enough motivation to give life another try. Popular example: Marieke Vervoort. She was suicidal and could live many more years thanks to her green light for assisted suicide. Read here:

Rio 2016: Paralympian Opens Up On Euthanasia Plans

Marieke Vervoort has a degenerative spinal condition.

www.newsweek.com

Reports in Belgium claimed Vervoort, who said she had euthanasia papers signed in 2008, may take her own life after Rio due to her disease, but she has insisted it is not time yet.

"If I didn't have the papers, I think I would have already committed suicide," Vervoort said but stressed it was "totally out of the question" that her euthanasia was imminent.

"You have to live day-by-day and enjoy the little moments. When the day comes—when I have more bad days than good days—I have my euthanasia papers. But the time is not there yet."

She died in 2019 with the help of assisted suicide, 10 years after signing her euthanasia papers. She also said the following:

Rio, Vervoort says, will be her last Paralympics as "it's too hard on my body." But she has a lasting message, as she calls on further countries to legalize euthanasia like her homeland has.

"I think there will be fewer suicides when every country has the law of euthanasia," she added. "I hope everybody sees that this is not murder, but it makes people live longer.

And she is right, legalized euthanasia would - no doubt - make people live longer. As contradictory as this sounds.

 

[Manford]

There are too many legal issues unless the person seeking euthanasia is terminally ill and / or suffering. People would be declared mentally unfit to choose suicide and law suits would abound if it was carried out assisted. Physicians take an oath to do no harm and many would consider that harm.

I think assisted suicide should be an option for the suffering and terminally ill. I also feel that if a person is otherwise healthy but wants to ctb that it is on them to accomplish it with minimal burden on others. Nobody owes me an easy, dignified suicide.

I do, however, think all drugs should be decriminalized if not legalized. That would make procurement of things like N or F easy.

 

[itachi of death]

Ill vote for this if they can legalize suicide because,why do I have to suffer through this shit because I was born?if I dont want live I shouldn't be forced to ,this is bullshit that it illegal and selfish people try to stop u,in my case im a coward and pray for the strength to end it

 

[Nymph]

I wish, would be a dream

 

[Amumu]

I think it would be the same situation if people could buy nembutal at the konbini and off themselves easily and painlessly. I think many many people would impulsively end their lives due minor temporary problems that seemed insurmountable at the time. Even on these forums I see too many kids that are like "I'm 18 and I've lived long enough" or wanting to kill themselves because someone dumped them. Society would break down if people killed themselves due to minor circumstances.

As long as the person is rational and over a certain age, there is no invalid reason to ctb in my opinion. A breakup is a valid reason.
Now if you consider people aren't rational at 18, then put another age limit, it's up to you.

It's the meaning of the word pro-choice after all.

Belgium and Netherlands allow assisted suicide for people that struggle from mental pain.

Don't forget that euthanasia isn't a right in Belgium and the Netherlands.
It's a possibility, the decision is taken by the doctor.
I'd add that in Belgium, only 30% of demands are accepted.
I don't remember if it's 30% accepted for physical + mental pain or 30% accepted for mental pain.
Probably the first one.
If I find the source again, I'll give it to you.

 

[Jean Améry]

i agree but what about the ones that do have something to live for. that will get better. people that it really is an irrational thought. youre giving them this advantage as well.

That is fairly easily solvable: simply institute a waiting period, make them speak with someone at least a couple of sessions (allowing the opportunity to point out illogical reasoning based on false premises), test for alcohol and drugs and formulate a legal requirement that the person must be able to coherently explain their reasoning. That will likely solve the problem by any reasonable person's standards although the psychiatric dogma still holds that suicide is by definition irrational which is in itself a highly irrational, hopelessly generalizing statement. It is the ideological foundation of the 'pro life'/anti choice stance.

My guess would be that irrational suicide will still happen as it is by definition something that isn't thought through. The difference being that those of us who are capable of rational thought will be able to have a dignified, peaceful exit and we'd be able to say goodbye to loved ones if so desired.

It would also restore my faith in society as it would be an acknowledgement of personal autonomy and individual liberty as the highest social and political values: the seemingly highly controversial notion that an individual isn't born to merely serve others and it is a fundamental human right to be able to choose to put an end to pointless suffering.

Ultimately only the person in question can reasonably ascertain whether he/she actually has something to live for: leaving the possibility of having kids aside (in which case it would be a moral duty to live as long as possible to help and suppor them) that question is highly subjective and cannot be answered using an objective standard.

 

[Superdeterminist]

i think people should have to try therapy or something before being given this option, however i dont think a lot of people are openminded to this option. if they believe they wont get better then they wont. so its a really difficult road to call

The problem is that "something to live for" is completely subjective. One individual could think that being paraplegic makes life not worth it, while another individual could think that such a life is still completely worth living. This extends to all possible circumstances, disability is just an easy example. Let's say I wanted to die because I lost £50 on a bet, would I be 'wrong' to want death? If it's 'wrong', how do you explain why it's wrong? "Because most other people wouldn't" doesn't seem valid to me. Who has the authority to decide what constitutes "rational reasoning" for a suicide, and what distinguishes rational reasons from irrational ones?

 

[Jean Améry]

The problem is that "something to live for" is completely subjective. One individual could think that being paraplegic makes life not worth it, while another individual could think that such a life is still completely worth living. This extends to all possible circumstances, disability is just an easy example. Let's say I wanted to die because I lost £50 on a bet, would I be 'wrong' to want death? If it's 'wrong', how do you explain why it's wrong? "Because most other people wouldn't" doesn't seem valid to me. Who has the authority to decide what constitutes "rational reasoning" for a suicide, and what distinguishes rational reasons from irrational ones?

There's a major difference between the morality of suicide (what if anything is wrong with it) and the rationality of suicide. Something can be morally wrong (e.g. cheating on one's tax returns) yet rational (if the chances of getting caught committing tax fraud are slim and the fines not very steep rationally speaking it makes sense to cheat as it will offer financial reward). An act can also be irrational yet morally neutral (e.g. throwing one's money away by gambling) and everything in between.

As to the morality of suicide: that is a vast topic but the major arguments against suicide usually boil down to it being a transgression against god, against society/others and/or against oneself. Obviously I can't go into that here but imo it's all nonsense provided one accepts we are not others' property with the one valid exception (in my mind) of being a parent and abandoning one's children by suicide.

As to the rationality of the act: surely you can agree that if someone is in the thick of a psychotic episode, extremely emotional and/or heavily intoxicated destroying oneself can hardly be called rational since the mind is in no condition to make a weighted decision based on evaluation the pros and cons and any alternative. Rationality can be defined in a number of ways but it usually implies that one is clear-headed, not coerced, able to think somewhat logically, able to foresee the consequences of one's actions, able to consider alternatives and not being impulsive.

In my view most if not the overwhelming majority of suicides are moral but probably in a lot of case quite irrational. Which is why so many attempts fail: if you're not able to plan clearly this will negatively affect the chances of actually succeeding.

As to your hypothetical example: I hardly think anyone has actually killed themselves solely over losing a small bet.

 

[TAW122]

Rain, this is a very informative thread and I agree with you. We do need to destigmatize suicide and the right to die and you made a lot of excellent points as well as what I would have in my right to die manifesto. I am in the process of writing a right to die manifesto and there will lots of points that overlap while mine would focus more on the more niche counterarguments and tackling them from a philosophical angle.

 

[Superdeterminist]

There's a major difference between the morality of suicide (what if anything is wrong with it) and the rationality of suicide. Something can be morally wrong (e.g. cheating on one's tax returns) yet rational (if the chances of getting caught committing tax fraud are slim and the fines not very steep rationally speaking it makes sense to cheat as it will offer financial reward). An act can also be irrational yet morally neutral (e.g. throwing one's money away by gambling) and everything in between.

As to the morality of suicide: that is a vast topic but the major arguments against suicide usually boil down to it being a transgression against god, against society/others and/or against oneself. Obviously I can't go into that here but imo it's all nonsense provided one accepts we are not others' property with the one valid exception (in my mind) of being a parent and abandoning one's children by suicide.

As to the rationality of the act: surely you can agree that if someone is in the thick of a psychotic episode, extremely emotional and/or heavily intoxicated destroying oneself can hardly be called rational since the mind is in no condition to make a weighted decision based on evaluation the pros and cons and any alternative. Rationality can be defined in a number of ways but it usually implies that one is clear-headed, not coerced, able to think somewhat logically, able to foresee the consequences of one's actions, able to consider alternatives and not being impulsive.

In my view most if not the overwhelming majority of suicides are moral but probably in a lot of case quite irrational. Which is why so many attempts fail: if you're not able to plan clearly this will negatively affect the chances of actually succeeding.

As to your hypothetical example: I hardly think anyone has actually killed themselves solely over losing a small bet.

I can agree that there may be ways of determining how rational a suicide is, but only hesitantly because to my knowledge, the science of what constitutes 'rational' is either non-existent or very poorly established - it's an imprecise term. Moreover as you point out there's a difference between rationality and morality, which is exactly why I think that rationality is irrelevant when thinking about the permissibility of suicide.

I agree that probably very few have killed themselves in a lost bet scenario as described, but should it be disallowed just because it's a rare scenario? I personally don't think so. I also think that small misfortunes like that can be triggers at the end of long line of stressors causing ctb, for some people. For example, David Katz committed murder-suicide after losing an NFL videogame match in Baltimore, 2018. Should a suicide be disallowed because others regard the given reason(s) to be trivial? I personally don't think so, because triviality is subjective.​

 

[Amumu]

I think we have to make a distinction between the rationality of the suicidal and the rationality of suicide.
I agree with you @Hidden Base , the rationality of suicide is subjective.
But @Jean Améry is more talking about the rationality of the suicidal, which can be clearly established.

And I'm not discriminating against people suffering from SZ, since they are also rational most of the time.

 

[Jean Améry]

I can agree that there may be ways of determining how rational a suicide is, but only hesitantly because to my knowledge, the science of what constitutes 'rational' is either non-existent or very poorly established - it's an imprecise term. Moreover as you point out there's a difference between rationality and morality, which is exactly why I think that rationality is irrelevant when thinking about the permissibility of suicide.

I agree that probably very few have killed themselves in a lost bet scenario as described, but should it be disallowed just because it's a rare scenario? I personally don't think so. I also think that small misfortunes like that can be triggers at the end of long line of stressors causing ctb, for some people. For example, David Katz committed murder-suicide after losing an NFL videogame match in Baltimore, 2018. Should a suicide be disallowed because others regard the given reason(s) to be trivial? I personally don't think so, because triviality is subjective.​

The topic of the rationality of suicide is essentially a philosophical one since the subject is normative, not empirical. It's true there is no single, all-encompassing definition of the concept of rationality that is universally accepted yet most philosophers writing on the topic usually agree on some core principles.

There simply is no way to establish the value and meaning of life as this cannot be ascertained in an objective manner: it exists solely in the mind of the individual holding the particular opinion. One person's heaven is another's hell and vice versa. Which is why I will never pronounce judgement on others' CTB-decision: how can I know what's best for them? Or anyone else?

As to the connection between the rationality and morality of suicide: imo that connection is hardly practically relevant aslong as the anti-choice stance remains merely moral and not political/legal. One may dissaprove of another's actions in the moral sense but to that individual it'll make little actual difference provided he/she is left alone (behaviour that is generally deemed to be immoral is not necessarily illegal) while a legal prohibition (following a political decision) however subtly and deceivingly formulated will have a very real impact since it'll likely lead to meddling by the authorities and others and even incarceration of the suicidal.

Obviously such weighty topics would require a lot of time, effort and space to discuss properly but to me it would seem that in order to effect real chance in the legal status of suicide lobbying for the legalisation of rational suicide would be far more acceptable to the general public than the libertarian stance that all suicides should be allowed.

I'm sure there are people who in a fit of despair kill themselves while their situation didn't seem to warrant it and the urge would probably have passed given time (for the record I do not consider CTB in the case of long lasting mental problems to be irrational). I have been in that situation myself (wanting to die and even attempting once though objectively the situation wasn't hopeless) so this isn't a mere academic position. I consider myself to be a fairly rational individual but it would be folly to disregard the well-established fact humans can think and act quite irrationally and a wise man once said no man can be wise at all times.

It seems in that type of situation such individuals are usually glad to be rescued (not to mention their family and friends) so I'm not sure whether allowing such suicides would be a good idea. Even if I'm generally in favour of legalizing suicide. Which is why I would advocate for a waiting period and other measures (such as mandatory talks and being offered assistance in dealing with one's problems) to ensure only those who really want to die and who have thought it through would be granted their wish.

I've been on this forum for quite some time now and my general impression (a mere impression which I cannot really substantiate is that usually members who seriously contemplate suicide do not fall into the category of impulsive/irrational decision making. If one has suffered for years on end and nothing helped I honestly don't see why it would be irrational to want that suffering to end. This is not an endorsment to do anything (it's really not up to me to advise anything nor will I) but I cannot help feeling a great deal of sympathy for people's plight (apart from the occasional attention-seeker people who end up here have usually suffered immensely) and a certain admiration for those who rationally decided to call it quits. Admiration which is absent in the case of those who seem to foolishly throw their life away. This isn't based on a pseudo-objective evaluation of their circumstances (imagining how I'd feel in those circumstances is hardly relevant and I'm sure some people suffer greatly from causes that wouldn't even register for others) but on my impression of their state of mind in combination with the generally accepted criteria for rational suicide.

As to the hypothetical example of the lost bet: obviously by itself it would hardly if ever be enough as a motive for suicide which is why I wrote "I hardly think anyone has actually killed themselves solely over losing a small bet" (italics added).

I think it would be intellectually dishonest to focus on the last nuisance and disregard all that suffering that preceded it.

Obviously murder and suicide are completely different things and I hold anyone in contempt who first murders another and then kills himself to escape justice. Wanting to escape misery that one didn't create is quite understandable but murderers are vile human-beings and while I wouldn't call their suicide immoral simply because they also committed suicide I do feel them evading justice is somewhat unsavoury. Interestingly enough David Hume took the opposite view: he claimed that for a criminal facing the death penalty it would be both beneficial to the individual and to society it they would cause their own demise.

As to your question: I don't think it's up to me to decide that. I've provided my view on the matter but I'm not narcissistic enough to claim I'm the ultimate authority and my opinion should become law.

 

[Lorraine]

i agree but what about the ones that do have something to live for. that will get better. people that it really is an irrational thought. youre giving them this advantage as well

It is my personal belief that merely being able to speak openly on this topic, including methods, will save lives. It sounds backwards, but autonomy and freedom are powerful. There should be far more research on this.
Respectfully,
Lorraine

 

[TAW122]

Obviously such weighty topics would require a lot of time, effort and space to discuss properly but to me it would seem that in order to effect real chance in the legal status of suicide lobbying for the legalisation of rational suicide would be far more acceptable to the general public than the libertarian stance that all suicides should be allowed.

Indeed, this is what I am thinking of as well. The full libertarian stance while lofty and ideal just would not be realistic in the near future as most of society (especially in the US) is still very prohibitionist when it comes to personal right of self determination and the right to die. However, with starting off from the right to die from a rational standpoint, including those who are otherwise healthy, but rational, then that could slowly work it's way to having the right to die to become a universally accepted right, similar to other civil rights that we have today.

It seems in that type of situation such individuals are usually glad to be rescued (not to mention their family and friends) so I'm not sure whether allowing such suicides would be a good idea. Even if I'm generally in favour of legalizing suicide. Which is why I would advocate for a waiting period and other measures (such as mandatory talks and being offered assistance in dealing with one's problems) to ensure only those who really want to die and who have thought it through would be granted their wish.

I agree with you having a waiting period and a mandatory talk to ensure that the patient is choosing the option by his/her own volition, not under pressure or outside influences, and also giving the patient an option to reconsider (if they change their mind - which can happen) and to explore other options first as death is very final. Ultimately, it comes to giving the patient the freedom to choice, between life or death and doing so in such a manner that isn't compulsive or predatory (which is why involuntary treatment, force, detainment is considered inhumane and a gross violation of human rights - though that is another topic altogether).

Once euthanasia, including psychiatrist administered euthanasia, is legalized in a single state, the rest will fall in line like dominos.

I would hope that that is true. I was happy when I heard the news that several states legalized death with dignity in 2019, namely the state of Maine and New Jersey. I do hope in the next decade (2021-2030) that there will be many more states that follow suit with allowing terminally ill patients the right to die. While death with dignity is still far from having voluntary euthanasia and right to die for all individuals, it serves as a starting point to getting people introduced to the right to die and that someday in the late future, the right to die would be extended to all legal adults.

If you're living in certain countries in Europe where they're making great strides in being relevant to modern-day society, then you're lucky until someone elects a person that could shut it all down in an instant.

I am hoping that it never happens, as that would ruin decades of progress and be a major infringement on human rights. For even the countries with the most open laws about the right to die (Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland to name a few), it has only been around for a few decades, and less than two decades in Netherlands and Belgium.

 

[Buffy5120]

They dont legalize because of their selfish egos in their minds they are terrified to accept the fact that life can easily get so gruesome to the point where its not worth it, but they just dont want to accept that even though its right infront of their eyes which is "denial" to protect themselves. So thats why they label us as sick and wont let us die easily, so it can kind of temporarily hide the truth that life is not worth it from society, which is kind of like a "coping mechanism" to keep living. That is, until they get sick, and the cycle just keeps repeating. But yeah im not wording this right there was a member a long time ago that made a quote that im kind of trying to explain now, but when ill find it ill post later

 

[TAW122]

They dont legalize because of their selfish egos in their minds they are terrified to accept the fact that life can get to the point where its not worth it, but they just dont want to accept that even though its right infront of their eyes kind of like "denial", to protect themselves kind of like a "coping mechanism". So thats why they label us as sick and wont let us die easily, so it can kind of temporarily hide the truth that life is not worth it from society. That is until they get sick and the cycle repeats. But yeah im not wording this right there was a member a long time ago that made a quote that im kind of trying to explain now, but when ill find it ill post later

This is a good point too and I have seen people who do this. IRL, there was an acquaintance in one of my circles and two years ago, she once talked about an ailing family member (who isn't terminally ill but severely ill physically) and she mentioned that she understood how low quality of life that said family member had. However, she then followed up with claiming that life is still worth it and that life is still beautiful. It offended me when I heard those words come out of her mouth, but out of respect, I did not press nor raise the issue as I did not want to raise suspicion to myself.