Should The State Actively Let You Suicide?

[Rival]

I'm talking about chronically depressed people, abuse victims who suffer trauma burdens etc. Not just those who are terminally ill.

 

[Callisto]

I see people generally as a part of a group not as an individual. It makes my view on state sponsored suicide a bit contradictory, but each member of society feeds into the happiness and wellbeing of others. We are social creatures who depends on other people for support, purpose, happiness.

So in your view, you're personally responsible for someone you've never met, don't know anything about? You're the reason they want to take their life? Suicide is a mental state which is prompted by either real or imagined reasons. That's vastly different from addressing poverty or public education or ensuring low-income mothers can afford formula for their babies or training opportunities so people can become gainfully employed. Most people with hardships don't either contemplate or commit suicide.

 

[Rival]

So in your view, you're personally responsible for someone you've never met, don't know anything about? You're the reason they want to take their life? Suicide is a mental state which is prompted by either real or imagined reasons. That's vastly different from addressing poverty or public education or ensuring low-income mothers can afford formula for their babies or training opportunities so people can become gainfully employed. Most people with hardships don't either contemplate or commit suicide.

I'm not saying directly responsible. But take someone who has been jobless for years, can't find any work; he has no family to help him and he was abused as a kid, which has left him scarred. His depression and lack of work is society's fault for not being able to provide him with a job and for not protecting him as a child.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm talking about chronically depressed people, abuse victims who suffer trauma burdens etc. Not just those who are terminally ill.

Their life is their own, & so is the right to end it.
However, I do favor mental health services (for complex libertarian reasons),
& giving assistance which might dissuade them is fine with me.

 

[Callisto]

No, I mean, suicide is legal but that's not enough. People should not be forced to jump off a bridge. They should be provided a sure, safe means with which to suicide. People shouldn't have to jump off a bridge.

Who's forcing whom to jump off a bridge? Of the people I personally know who either attempted or committed suicide, none did so by jumping off a bridge or in front of a moving vehicle. They took the matter into their own hands, as most suicides do. The most common option is by firearms, followed by hanging/suffocation and overdose/poisoning. 2% of cases are from jumping.

 

[Rival]

Their life is their own, & so is the right to end it.
However, I do favor mental health services (for complex libertarian reasons),
& giving assistance which might dissuade them is fine with me.

So you disagree that the State should provide the person a means to suicide?

 

[Rival]

Who's forcing whom to jump off a bridge? Of the people I personally know who either attempted or committed suicide, none did so by jumping off a bridge or in front of a moving vehicle. They took the matter into their own hands, as most suicides do. The most common option is by firearms, followed by hanging/suffocation and overdose/poisoning. 2% of cases are from jumping.

Yes but I live in the UK. Firearms are notoriously hard to come by, hanging often fails , ending up being slow strangulation and poison is slow and agonising. By asking the State to provide a simple, painfree, fast acting injection, all those things that can create suffering prior to death can be avoided.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you disagree that the State should provide the person a means to suicide?

At the moment, yes.
But there is the public safety aspect of not assisting them...
I've read that many traffic deaths are actually suicides.
this is so, then it would be good to prevent this danger posed to others.

 

[Callisto]

I'm not saying directly responsible. But take someone who has been jobless for years, can't find any work; he has no family to help him and he was abused as a kid, which has left him scarred. His depression and lack of work is society's fault for not being able to provide him with a job and for not protecting him as a child.

Is it though? There are several government funded assistance programs, everything from disability to vocational training to funded housing, energy assistance, food stamps, etc. Isn't part of the on-going political debate the fact that some think there are far too many government "handouts" and want to cut back on the aforementioned?

There comes a point when people need to take responsibility for how they choose to handle their life situations. Most people do not simply have things handed to them, evidenced by the troubles middle-class face (the majority of society). And most low-income and disadvantaged individuals do not contemplate suicide, nor is suicide that exclusively happens among the lowest income.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

It is a cruel belief. We all need each other to help and to prosper. Individualism taken to stupid measures is undoable. It is a decidedly American capitalistic belief that we can all do well on our own. Other people do owe us. They owe us a nice environment, hospitals, libraries, schools and homes. If I see a person dying in the street, it's my duty to help him. It's human compassion.

Why do you feel entitled to things you did not do for yourself?

I think too many people thinking that way is why society is broken.

And it's not as hard as you might think; people can only care about..wait for it...the ones they truly care about. Pretending to care about EVERYONE only devalues the whole process. If everyone took care of the ones they cared for, voluntarily, pretty much everyone would have support..and if it pleases you to give to charities or relief efforts, by all means..nobody is stopping you.

Here is a little thought experiment - imagine the last time you heard about a plane crash on the news. Are you still devastated by it? Losing sleep? Tear ducts sore from incessant crying?

Did you even think about it for a minute before enjoying your morning coffee and getting on with your day?

Now imagine your mom, brother, husband or someone of that nature was on that plane. Just one life among 200…Yet suddenly that event impacts you in a very real way.

 

[Rival]

Is it though? There are several government funded assistance programs, everything from disability to vocational training to funded housing, energy assistance, food stamps, etc. Isn't part of the on-going political debate the fact that some think there are far too many government "handouts" and want to cut back on the aforementioned?

There comes a point when people need to take responsibility for how they choose to handle their life situations. Most people do not simply have things handed to them, evidenced by the troubles middle-class face (the majority of society). And most low-income and disadvantaged individuals do not contemplate suicide, nor is suicide that exclusively happens among the lowest income.

Yes but people don't like living day to day on welfare. It's depressing. He wants to be responsible, but if the economy is bad, there are no jobs, what can he do? Other people look down on him and sneer 'Oh, he's on welfare...' and this makes him feel even worse. I am all for the welfare state, but not at the expense of creating jobs for those recieving welfare.

Of course people don't have things handed to them, but poverty breeds poverty. In the U.K. this is especially the case. The poverty trap is real and yes people do suicide because of it. Rejected job application after rejection job application can be very demoralising.

 

[Callisto]

Yes but I live in the UK. Firearms are notoriously hard to come by, hanging often fails , ending up being slow strangulation and poison is slow and agonising. By asking the State to provide a simple, painfree, fast acting injection, all those things that can create suffering prior to death can be avoided.

You're speaking in a lot of absolutes and that's not really the case. Not all poisons are "slow and agonizing" nor do all hangings botched. Not everyone is guzzling rat poison, there are an array of drugs over the counter and Rx one can OD on. And if they're really determined, they'll combined methods (e.g., OD on sedatives or sleep meds and place a bag over their head). More often than not, those truly suicidal will ensure the deed is done. Gender also plays a part in the preferred method, handguns are generally more common among male suicides (in the US) while women prefer OD and suffocation. The latter is generally the predominant method in the UK rather than handguns.

There should not be walk-in clinics for anyone who wants to off themselves. There need to be some means of helping individuals which include psychiatric and medical evaluations to determine whether the person is simply having a problem coping or is truly in an unrecoverable situation. And much of that is already provided through various forms of public medical assistance programs and insurance. The issue is widening the legality of PAS.

 

[Callisto]

Yes but people don't like living day to day on welfare. It's depressing. He wants to be responsible, but if the economy is bad, there are no jobs, what can he do? Other people look down on him and sneer 'Oh, he's on welfare...' and this makes him feel even worse. I am all for the welfare state, but not at the expense of creating jobs for those recieving welfare.

Of course people don't have things handed to them, but poverty breeds poverty. In the U.K. this is especially the case. The poverty trap is real and yes people do suicide because of it. Rejected job application after rejection job application can be very demoralising.

Sorry, but you seem to have a very unrealistic view. You're still talking about a small percentage of impoverished and unemployed individuals. Yet you make it sound like every person who has hard times is thinking about killing themselves. They're on welfare which means there is already government assistance but now you want that extended to handing out life-ending means on a grand scale? Shouldn't you be advocating for additional funding and programs to help people retain or restore those persons' sense of self-worth, not "here's a little something to off yourself with"?

 

[Rival]

Sorry, but you seem to have a very unrealistic view. You're still talking about a small percentage of impoverished and unemployed individuals. Yet you make it sound like every person who has hard times is thinking about killing themselves. They're on welfare which means there is already government assistance but now you want that extended to handing out life-ending means on a grand scale? Shouldn't you be advocating for additional funding to retain or restore those persons' sense of self-worth, not "here's a little something to off yourself with"?

There are millions. Millions of people living in poverty. This isn't just some small issue.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I mean rather than having to run in front of a truck or jump from a bridge, should the State provide a person who wishes to kill himself a safe and painless method of doing so? Assume this would apply to those 18+.

Yes. People should be given the freedom to chose how they will die, if they decide to do so.

 

[Brickjectivity]

On a practical note there is danger in letting the state officially acknowledge the concept of a life not worth living. You might legalize suicide, but it is really lighting the bomb to teach the state to recognize suicide as a service.

 

[Callisto]

There are millions. Millions of people living in poverty. This isn't just some small issue.

I didn't say it was a small issue. I DID say that the number of individuals who contemplate suicide is a small percentage of that greater whole. There's a difference. The overwhelming majority of those millions of people are not trying to off themselves. Period.

 

[Rival]

On a practical note there is danger in letting the state officially acknowledge the concept of a life not worth living. You might legalize suicide, but it is really lighting the bomb to teach the state to recognize suicide as a service.

It already is legal and has been for over half a century in the U.K. Nothing's changed.

 

[Callisto]

On a practical note there is danger in letting the state officially acknowledge the concept of a life not worth living. You might legalize suicide, but it is really lighting the bomb to teach the state to recognize suicide as a service.

And I can see the potential for arguing it could become a "slippery slope" towards eugenics.

 

[Rival]

I didn't say it was a small issue. I DID say that the number of individuals who contemplate suicide is a small percentage of that greater whole. There's a difference. The overwhelming majority of those millions of people are not trying to off themselves. Period.

And it's just my opinion that for those who do want to, they should be able to do so in a graceful, painless way.