Should assisted death/suicide be legal?

My mother took her own life when I was a teenager towards the end of a tough fight with cancer (it's likely she would have died eventually). I'm about to turn 42 so I have some distance from this. She did it with a handgun and because it wasn't legal for her to get help so she had to do it alone in secret. I came to learn later that my parents fought about this because my dad is a doctor and understood how to help her but would have gone to jail for it and lost his career. I also think he just couldn't bring himself to do it, so having legal medical help available might have changed things?

This obviously derailed my life and my sisters and my dad for many years. I have some skepticism about if/how assisted death would have been better but I suspect it would have been. I imagine (perhaps wrongly) we would have been able to say goodbye and give her a peaceful end. Maybe have counseling leading up to and through it?

I'll respectfully skip the 1-4 specifics. I just believe that people who want to die should be allowed to do so peacefully, and no one who objects should be obligated to help. With the hundreds of millions of guns in the US, violent suicide is widely available here, the debate is more about if a peaceful death is available and I think it should be within thoughtful constraints. Those that disagree with me are entitled to their opinions though.

1. yes. In general, society exists to serve a collection of individuals, not as an end in itself, so in my view, society cannot unduly infringe on the rights of individuals. Considering that a person may generally end their life without assistance, but not reliably, I'd place suicide in the 'inalienable rights' category on which society may not infringe. Also, this gives others some vague say on whether you "suffer enough". They don't have your experience, I don't think they get to say "you don't suffer enough" based on apparent lack of suffering from a serious illness. I can't conceive of anything that gives others the right to judge that.

2. Yes. Same as above.

3. Yes. Same as above.

4. I don't think I understand the question.

# 4 would be performing the treatment by oneself instead of being allowed for someone else to administer the treatment to the person requesting it.

For me, the problem is death is final, while our experience of life is always changing.

Reminds me of that documentary I watched about a police officer that was working on that bridge, not sure which, in CA I believe, who have seen a lot of people jump and die. The few that survived (and who were badly hurt result of the jump) explained that as soon as they threw themselves in the void they immediately regretted doing it, and later on, in the hospital, with broken bones everywhere they were happy to have survived it and were pretty much cured of their death wish.

Life is so full of unexpected turns.

The bridge you're trying to remember is probably the Golden Gate bridge. There's a documentary about suicides and attempts from the that bridge called "The Bridge", which for me was riveting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRs-DlYmws4

I don't think so. If I remember correctly, this documentary was more focused on the police unit that was in charge of this bridge (could be the Golden Gate, can't remember even if it was in CA now that I'm thinking), and so one of their task was to intervene in case someone seemed they could want to jump.

That particular police officer they were interviewing was a pretty old guy, who spent many decades working on that bridge and so have seen it all.

It was a good 5 years ago, maybe even more, so my memory is a bit hazy.

A documentary focused on the people trying to stop suicide is going to be very anti-suicide.

You think they’re going to show people who survived a suicide attempt saying, “dang, really upset I didn’t die.”?

Bridge jumpers are self selected group of mostly physically healthy people suffering from the mostly temporary/treatable mental health issue of depression. I think almost nobody would argue that depression should qualify you for assisted suicide. Also, jumping off a bridge is probably the most terrifying method of suicide available. It's practically suicide-by-torture, yup, you're gonna regret that. It's a very, very different scenario than people who are in unrelenting agony and almost certain to die in X weeks/months, saying goodby to their families, going to sleep, and not waking up again. Do you think if you gave them a placebo, let them wake up again and asked "are you _really_ sure about this?" that many of them would change their minds? Probably never been done, but my guess is you'd get very few changed minds.

> For me, the problem is death is final, while our experience of life is always changing.

You have no way to know that “our experience of life is always changing.”

It doesn’t always get better. Sometimes it keeps getting worse! Sometimes it stays equally awful!

What’s true for you and the people you’ve heard talk about it isn’t necessarily true for everyone. Maybe the people who died on the bridge would’ve hated surviving?

> You have no way to know that “our experience of life is always changing.”

The experience we have is always changing, even if our material condition stay the same. That's what I mean here.

> Maybe the people who died on the bridge would’ve hated surviving?

Sure, at that moment, but what about 3 days later, or 3 months, who can tell?

So, my argument here is in life, nothing is permanent, while death is.

> my argument here is in life, nothing is permanent

Your argument is based only on your own experience and what you’ve chosen to hear from others.

Can you acknowledge the possibility that for some people the miserable experience of their life is permanent?

But can you acknowledge that these people are probably reinforcing the miserable experience by their own? And that's why it looks like it is permanent?

No, I can’t.

I can acknowledge it might be true for some of those people. But there are a whole fucking lot of people.

But when it comes to this, I’m not going to be so arrogant and self-centered as to say something that I believe applies to all of them.

The experience is always changing. If you cross the same bridge twice, at the second time the experience is not the same, as you are not doing it for the first time.

So if the experience is changing and you are equally suffering, you are not learning with life, that's a mistake that lots of people do. Suicide is not a solution.

Are you kidding me?

You’re willing to say that to someone who lives with an incurable and life-altering disease that I fucking hate? I cross the same bridge every day. When I get up. When I go to bed. When I’m asleep and every moment in between.

My suffering is because I’m not learning with life? That’s my mistake? And that it’s not a byproduct of something 100% out of my control?

No offense, but that’s pretty fucking arrogant of you.

So go ahead, give me your tips for learning with life and overcoming my mistake.

I'm the grand-parent comment so I feel a bit responsible for where it went so maybe I can clear what I meant here.

My view on the question of impermanence has been shaped by buddhism. I'm not a buddhist, I just discovered buddhism at an age and in circumstances where it talked to me and helped me a lot going through some very bad stuff.

In a nutshell, but the subject is extremelly vast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impermanence

I hope it explains better than I did what I meant by "nothing is permanent", and maybe it'll be of interest to you like it has been for me. Feel free if you want more pointers.

Your bad stuff is not my bad stuff. Thanks for the pointers.

> Are you kidding me?

I'm not, I don't know you and I don't care about you. Desperation doesn't make your point right, the same way it doesn't make it right for a poor guy to rob another just because he is hungry. Life is tough to everybody, besides the 0.1% that are too lucky to born with everything they need and the 0.1% that have and will have nothing. I'll not modulate my opinion based on the 0.1% and wonder if you are part of this group. There is no arrogance on that. Life doesn't work for you? I feel sorry for you, nothing more.

Please don't post flamewar comments to HN regardless of how provocative some other comment was. It only makes the thread even worse.

I've replied to the other user elsewhere, who has been breaking the site guidelines even more in this thread than you did, but two wrongs don't make a right.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

1/2) What's to allow? Anyone who is reasonably mobile always this option and needs no assistance. If they want a doctor to read the google results for "What's the best way to kill yourself" or write them a script :shrug: but they should take the final action themselves if physically capable.

3) This is the most important case. If you can't rely on someone else to put you out of your misery when you're incapable, then you have to do it yourself before it's actually necessary, while you still have the ability. Otherwise you risk being trapped in agony for the remainder of your life. That's a cruel gamble, betting on the probability, duration, and pain of your own sow death, vs how much worthwhile life you're potentially giving up. It's also very unreliable as there are all sorts of things that can take you from fine to permanent agony in an instant. I don't see why appearance would matter.

4) If capable, you should do it yourself. If incapable, someone should be allowed to assist. Assistance should always be from a qualified professional who has no conflicts of interest to keep the line between assisted suicide an murder as clear as possible.

4. Qualified professional, or oneself. The former to ensure it is done correctly both morally and medically, the latter to prevent suicides being so negative. Though there should be a legal obligation to intervene where possible in a suicide and a legal protection from intervention when the professional is acting.

3. Yes; though only conditions that result in a loss of mental capability or communication should be part of an advance request. Reason: an advance will reduce the standard of investigation required by the professional to "do they meet the conditions of their advance directive", but at the time the directive is made it is unlikely that the person is a valid suicide candidate, so fewer checks and balances can be in place.

2. There should be no white or blacklist to assisted suicide. The person should only have to meet certain criteria along the lines of - they have tried to live with their reason, they have no realistic positive treatment options, etc.

1. As 2

The overarching reason is that your life is your own. But this is tempered by the fact that people are all limited in experience and knowledge, and as a society we should act to help each other make the most out of it.

This is why, despite being wildly in favour of assisted dying and suicide in my own country, I am a lot less keen to see my unrestricted flavour in other countries, countries who do not look after the other members of their society; countries who have debtors prisons and predatory medicine are places where open suicide laws will be used to escape the hell of their tormentors instead of overthrowing it.

I believe it should be legal. If a person is committed to it for an extended period they should be able to do it. It should not be a quick process obviously given that a lot of suicide attempts seem to be calls for help. If you are able bodied you can do it anyways so the current ban only really applies to a minority anyways which seems pretty unfair. Bad enough for them that they are going to have to follow some external process but that seems unavoidable we cannot have people killing others with a signed death wish note.

If death is medically certain and the person is only trying to escape a painful death this would be a hindrance. In this scenario it feels hard to have any due process unless you decide it beforehand. When my father in law died he didn’t want morphine because he was correctly assuming it would kill him. At one point though he was willing to make that trade off though. He would not have wanted this before he was really trying to hang on even through the pain until he wasn’t. In such cases I feel you should have a right to pain management even if it jeopardizes your life. But in this situation where you are deteriorating in the hospital a legal System style procedure would not help you at all.

1. Yes, of course. No government, religion, or society should have control over another's life or death. See below.

2. Yes. And yes mental illness like depression should qualify (See below). But mental illnesses where person is extremely disillusioned should not.

3. Yes. Appearance sure, it is their life.

4. Sure, see below.

However, I think person who is committing suicide still has responsibilities to society including not causing emotional harm to their loved ones, not leaving a mess behind for others to clean up etc. As a society, we should establish guidelines for suicide. I like Hindu practice of suicide called [Prayopavesa][1].

Prayopavesa is basically slow suicide by fasting to death. This may take days or weeks. This solves the big problem of people changing their mind after pulling the trigger or jumping off the ledge. If at any point suicidal person changes their mind, they can start eating.

Also if a person is disciplined enough to fast for days, we can trust that person has emotional maturity to make such a big decision. In other forms of assisted suicide like injecting drugs, an emotional person may sign up with a service, then they might even go through extensive paperwork. I personally end up doing things like sky diving just because I signed up to do them while drunk. I didn't want to do it later, but felt ashamed asking for refund. I imagine, emotionally unstable person may go through paperwork even when they are having second thoughts.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayopavesa

Starving to death is arguably torture depending on the culture you grow up in. I think I've read about Prayopavesa and I'm not sure if lighting yourself on fire is related but methods of that sort are not really acceptable for all types of people that would just want a drug making them fall asleep with eventually death following. Some people go their whole life without obtaining the discipline to put down the spoon. So I'm kind of wondering if some people just cannot do what you're suggesting.

1. Everyone (except maybe for murderers and insane people) is a master of their body, so other people have no right at all to decide whether a sane non-murderer should be able to end his or her own life. This has nothing to do with any illness.

2. See 1.

3. When cognitive function is damaged severely, the person cannot make decisions on their own, including decisions on whether they should live or die.

4. All voluntary interactions are fine.

1. Yes — it’s their choice just like any elective medical procedure. If there’s enough demand for a legal service, somebody will offer it.

2. No — I don’t need to have a chronic illness to know that I hate my life and would rather die painlessly. Mental illness is not always treatable. If someone wants to die that opportunity should be available to them.

3. Don’t understand your question here.

4. No. Killing yourself usually leaves somebody else a mess to clean up, both literally and mentally. Plus I’m not skilled at killing myself and there’s a good chance I would fuck it up. If it’s a legal service, somebody will take my money to do it and that option should be available.

1 / 2 / 3 - I think they should be terminal in some manner, myself I have told anyone who will listen, when I cannot do the basics on my own (like go to the toilet, have a conversation), or have a terminal (painful) condition, and there is no prospect of improvement, please let me die some how. Do not keep me drugged up.

Mental illness is a different kettle of fish. I supported taking Terry Shivo of the equipment that kept her alive.

4 - I expect when I would want to go, I would not have the physical capability to do it.

1. not sure. 2. not sure 3. not sure. 4. not sure.

In some cases it's not really a choice between life vs death. The choice is a speedy death or a slow torturous death where they let you die of dehydration. Generally I think it's good to be legal, edge cases and what-if's aside. There are already negative "what-ifs" under the status quo, such as people being left to die of dehydration. Even pet dogs get a more merciful death.

I'm guessing I would be interested in what makes you unsure if the rest of your comment doesn't cover it all. In all seriousness I think we all have a death we're destined to experience. So I sort of approach the topic as an evolution question for how we can experience death compared to if our exact genetic makeup to make us came earlier in time of a less evolved society. Maybe that makes sense?

My option is on its surface simple, anyone should have the right to self terminate. This isn't something anyone should have to justify to someone.

I think selecting a method and location that doesn't cause a burden on those left behind is important.

And I could see legal grey areas when it comes to those found to be mentally unsound, and those who might be late stage pregnant.

But in general when possible, we shouldn't tell others how to live or die.

Both my father and great grandmother died with the help of the docter. The first due to quality of life issues related to advanced parkinson and the latter due to advanced cancer with only a lot of pain too look forward too.

Assisted dying should be a function of healthcare. I like the way we have set it up in the Netherlands, there are strict guidelines, there is oversight and it's process to make an informed decision.

Just as it is ethical for lawyers to assist with bankruptcy, it is ethical for doctors to assist with suicide. Bankruptcy discharges financial obligations; suicide discharges moral objections. Discuss.

Unable/unwilling to help them live, help them die??

I can only do the guessing game with your comment because there are multiple interpretations depending on how a person thinks approaching what you wrote. I think it's untrue people ending their life while wanting to die are always in a situation that's possible to be helped. Maybe the only way of helping just prolongs a person wanting to die and while that person is upset from not having the option to die? I mean some people finding nothing special about what's observable or being experienced and wish to die. That's not a fallacy. Why we have suicides in society isn't a black or white answer and can be unique per person.

1. Of course not! The mental state of someone at a given moment should not be allowed to be used as an excuse to end his/her life forever

2. Also no, because multiple times chronic illness is related to lifestyle and can be fixed or at least improved a lot. Laziness and lack of willpower (even because of suffering) is not an excuse to be legally allowed and assisted in death

3. The same as above.

4. Also the same! Giving up of life doesn't need to be assisted, anyway. But definitely the state should not in ANY circumstance incentive suicide.