Suicide: Should A Person Have The Right To Kill Themselves?

Absolutely! And there is nothing you can do to stop a determined person who wants to end their life by their own hand. Remember, we all have to die someday anyhow.

 

Like Hillary Clinton said, "At This Point What Difference Does It Make?"

 

Depends on your position on individual freedom. The bigger issue occurs when suicide requires help to complete.

 

Right?
The question for a lay state is not accurate. No state law can punish someone killing oneself. How could a state punish a dead person?

More accurate is to wonder about the right and try to kill oneself.
Well, if you work for a society and you leave your job without previous agreement you could cause damages to that society and face a legal action. Trying and killing oneself a person does something which potentially could generate a social damage, so there are some legal consequences in Italy, but not that much.

 

The biggest problem with assisted suicide is not the event itself but what it says to society. The right to die can easily become the obligation to die. There are many people who would say they wouldn't want to live with a particular disorder, from blindness to ALS. But if people can easily get a doctor to kill them for such reasons then what happens when dad gets ALS, will there be pressure for him to just kill himself instead of having his entire life be modified to allow for life with the disorder? There is where it becomes a problem. What happens to those that want to live? Will doctors push killing over helping "for the sake of the family".

This is not a thought experiment. It is happening. It happens in some places with children with downs syndrome even after birth. We need to be careful. I am all for letting people go. I think there are times medical technology has gone beyond what is good for some. Keeping the body alive in a state with no cognitive function is deplorable in many cases. But there needs to be a serious set of guidelines.

I don't think we talk enough about it. I don't think we want to. I don't think our society is mature enough yet but we are getting there.

 

That may be true. I can't see where the pressure would come to push the patient into opting to die rather than to live...except in the case of, perhaps, the doctors seeing more value in the persons organs than they due in sustaining his life- assuming he opted to become a donor at death, or has a choice to at that time.

But you are right, there could be unforseen consequences and it does require caution and consideration.

 

I don't think that there's a 'right' or a 'wrong'. There's legal and illegal, moral and immoral, but neither of these restrictions address 'right or wrong'. If you're done, you're done. It's your life, do what you will with it..just don't include others in your decision.

 

That may be the fairest account of it.

Though...my concept of fair is biased, lol.

 

John Stuart Mill had things to say on that subject, but I disagree with the now dead MP of Scottish blood.

I believe he argued it was wrong as it left a trail of misery for close friends and family, but didn't consider the implications of continued life for the potential suicidal person.
Personally, I believe in setting up a suicide industry that would guarantee a painless death in return for a reasonable fee.

 

That's funny...biased fairness.

 

Dissecting this a little. Not as simple as you say.

1. Is it wrong or right?

Life has value, so in a broad stroke it is wrong. But the value is ultimately subjective. Each person creates the value of life, including their own.

2. Should a person have the right to kill themselves? I had to think about that one a little. I assume you mean "Should we as a society consider suicide a crime?"

That question is most applicable to healthcare issues. Not simple at all. Its such a huge issue that the individual legal problems involved in it for healthcare providers, insurance companies, law enforcement and so forth is overwhelming. Because if we say it is a right we validate the will to die, which is going to completely change the game for everyone.

 

It's pretty simple, if you feel you're entering a dark place and are having unhinged moments, do WHATEVER you have to do to stay alive. When you enter relationships with other human beings, you forfeit the 'right' to be a (*)(*)(*)(*) up. If you don't accept that, don't have lovers, friends, or children. All of whom depend on you to do the bare minimum (stay alive), even if you can't do very much more than that.

My opinion only

 

Because they're human. And because that's what suicide does to people.

One day I might find myself the King of Spain, too, but it's very (*)(*)(*)(*)ing unlikely
If you mean someone I know might suicide, that ship sailed ... a couple of times.

 

I'm a capitalist a freemarket cheer leader. That said, I don't want to see a profit motive anywhere near the taking of a human life. Could you imagine the marketing campaigns, commission structures and the incessant push to raise productivity and utilize economies of scale?

For near the same reason I don't want government involved either.

No good can come of this.

Cheers
JM

 

Assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, Montana, Washington and Vermont but one must be an established resident of those states.

 

Which goes along with the "for medical reasons" issue.

In that isolated case (objective quality of life) I think there is a good argument for it being a right. Its actually not too far from the "insufficient brain activity" allowance. As one poster may have alluded to battlefield euthanasia, once survival without unbearable pain is ruled out, painless death is a reasonable alternative.

Objectors usually use the slippery slope argument. Quality of life they claim is always subjective and making one allowance simply leads to others. Try telling that to a blind quadriplegic with 4th degree burns over 90% of their body.... In my opinion there are limits to the "subjective" nature of quality of life.

 

Right/wrong are meaningless when it comes to life and death. If one can't tolerate his actual situation anymore because of the pain or the inability to live decently, he should be able to do what he wants with his life. Death to some people could mean a liberation and we shouldn't see death as something necessary evil, as it comes inevitably for everyone, sooner or later. It is surely an important decision and should be respected, even though it'd be a shame to commit suicide for futile motives or a momentary state of rage/confusion. It should be a rational decision and not derive from a sudden struggle.

 

Since the government has the right to kill people and It is a government of the people it follows that people should also have the right to kill themselves.

 

What he said seems to fit well with what Dr. George Ritchie was shown during his near death experience back in 1943.


http://www.near-death.com/ritchie.html#a05b

 

Fair point

I'm not concerned with the legality of it- which is basically an opinion backed up by force. I just wanted to know peoples personal opinion on the matter. I understand it bothers people, and I understand people don't want people to kill themselves or endorse it as a choice, but assuming someone did want to do it, I guess I am saying would you or would you not condemn that person as if they did something wrong?

What if the person has been trying to do that- stay alive by whatever means? People who commit suicide have likely been fighting the urge for a long time. It's not a decision you suddenly act on. Perhaps finding a woman and raising a family was part of that attempt to be optimistic and to find meaning in life. They try to have stronger connections with people, but what if they fail at that as well, even though they tried their hardest?

It's not so simple because you have to take into account the fact that suicide is not the first response suicides take when confronted with their problems. They will often try to find meaning.

 

These were my thoughts, also. To blame the victim merely for the act without considering why is a great injustice. There are truly dark situations in the world that people can find themselves in and for people with relatively normal lives, or high-nosed criticism might have been one of the reasons such a person could not reach out to those around him.

I disagree with this, though. It's one thing to seek help. It's another thing to turn it into a business. A business would need suicides to thrive. They might do things like tell people who were just suffering from depression related to an incicdent that is, otherwise, usually a passing episode that they are suicidal or pre-suicidal. Bull-crap diagnosis just to get them in a chair and paying for therapy, medications, and whatever.

 

If a person is 'brain dead'. It stands to reason to me that their 'subjectivity' is no longer an issue. If however there is active brain activity, even thought the body is completely incapacitated, who's to say what that brain/mind is actually experiencing. They may be crying out to be 'unplugged', euthanized. Or. they may have transcended the physical plane and be alive and well and experiencing pleasure and a virtual life. This is an interesting read, fiction and not directly related to the OP's subject, But it has an interesting spin dealing with 'astral projection'. Sort of what I refer to by 'transcending the physical plane'. Here's a link to a downloadable pdf:
http://www.fulltextarchive.com/page/The-Jacket-Star-Rover-/ Jack London would you believe. Who knows what the mind can do?

 

I do understand all that. But, a question .... what's the first thing 99% of people do when first diagnosed with a serious disease? They affirm "I will beat this thing". If they don't beat it, it won't be because they gave up, it will be the odds playing out with these 'acts of god'. Why then, if clinical depression is just another disease (as so many believe), would it be any different? In fact it should see more commitment to victory, because it has 100% survivability. Is the reason we don't see this kind of galvanized response to depression the fact (or rather, possibility) it ISN'T just another disease?

 

Every person should have the right to end their own life if they so choose, but whether it is right depends on the reasons. Far to many people take the easy way out without thinking about the people they leave behind that have to deal with their actions.

 

It would depend on the case. I have known people who committed suicide successfully, I don't harbor any ill will towards their memories. On the other hand I knew a kid growing up whose father killed himself, and the scars that he left on that family seem unforgivable.

The motive and the consequences of the act matter. Selfishness rather than suicide itself is the sin to me.