> “I instantly realized that everything in my life that I’d thought was unfixable was totally fixable—except for having just jumped.”
The reality might be much different if there were some accounting at the end. "It appears that this person continued to suffer another twenty-three years and then died joylessly. As such, you must spend the next twenty-three years in a miserable and unpleasant box. Oh, and you have to also endure people telling you that it is only temporary. Ta."
The unpleasant reality is that there are many situations which are untractable and the denial of their existence -- and the suffering inflicted -- largely serves to soothe those looking for a just world. We regularly call upon people to continue to be (and worse, be "up" about it) in circumstances where, were they occurring in some fuzzy animal, we would be moved to a grueling euthanasia with whatever rock came to hand.
However, had you read the article, you would have noticed this short snippet:
> Dr. Seiden’s study, “Where Are They Now?,” published in 1978, followed up on five hundred and fifteen people who were prevented from attempting suicide at the bridge between 1937 and 1971. After, on average, more than twenty-six years, ninety-four per cent of the would-be suicides were either still alive or had died of natural causes. “The findings confirm previous observations that suicidal behavior is crisis-oriented and acute in nature,” Seiden concluded; if you can get a suicidal person through his crisis—Seiden put the high-risk period at ninety days—chances are extremely good that he won’t kill himself later.
The question then becomes "What about those remaining 6%?"
Well, I don't know. Did they go through another, different crisis? Where they appropriately helped and supported following their first attempt?
And if nothing could actually be done for them, then we end up with the traditional trolley cart dilemma. 94% lives worth living saved vs 6% miserables lives.
It ignores things like, "What number of those ninety-four just continued to be miserable?" They didn't kill themselves, but it doesn't mean that they were not still suffering. It might well mean that they were bludgeoned with the "just think of how devastating it will be for your family" bit until they submitted to a life of quiet desperation. It's not a measure of life being worth living at all.
How do we figure it out? What data do you have? If none, or if it isn't statistically significant, where or how do we find it?
The entire concept is surrounded by an interlocking complex of memes that very neatly steer us away from grappling with a thorny subject: the true suffering of others. That must be dismantled before we can begin to start gathering data.
And unlike those fuzzy animals, you have the ability to meaningful adapt to them. You're equipped with a piece of hardware that makes an F35 look like a calculator. Even soldiers in the bleakest trenches of WWI had adaptation and survival mechanisms.
No doubt they will experience some sort of hardwired survival instict which kicks in as they are about to go, but that's about it.
Now, I still don't know if I'm out of it. I don't' know that I ever will be. It's terrifying. I see patterns I wish were long gone creeping back all the time.
But I finally have lasting and enduring hope. And I've come to realize that all these times I wanted it all to end... I just wanted to stop suffering. At the time, death seemed to be the only way.
Terminal illness and severe chronic illnesses are not "totally fixable" though.
If somebody's problems are totally fixable... they're not the people needing to be saved by legal dignified euthanasia.
I don't understand why this is so hard for some people to understand.
Litterature however seems to show most people who want to die actually just want to stop suffering. They simply don't see, or believe in, any other way than ending their lives.
Case in point, someone I know briefly worked at a palliative care facility, in Paris. The professor in charge there once told her something he had noticed, over the years.
Many people came in wanting to die. Probably most. We're talking people who had to literally carry their cancer tumor while taking a shower. Others weren't able to get up and walk at all.
However, once the whole medical goal switched from curing them to actually and honestly alleviating their pain as much as possible and making them comfortable, not a single one of them was in any hurry to end up their lives anymore.
Keeping in mind that these people still had their minds, or at least enough of it to appreciate being alive, I honestly think death, if it indeed shows to be the only solution for some, really isn't what most people in these situations actually want.
There are many more things that can be done, that most people not in the field cannot begin to imagine, to stop the pain and make whatever remains of their lives worth living, for them.
Euthanasia is cheaper. It's society's easy and inexpensive choice.
I am not qualified to say wether it should be allowed or not. But as a political choice, I really hope we do our best for these people before resorting to it.
The reason I am (slightly) against euthanasia despite this, is because I expect easy availability — to be clear, a culture where it is not even controversial rather than merely available lawfully — to also be world where it is easy for people who don’t fit that category being pressured into talking that path.
The reason I’m only slightly against is that I don’t feel confident in weighing the quantifiable decrease in suffering with the probability distribution of possible increases in needless death.
That, plus I recognise my argument is “that looks like a slippery slope”, where the real problem may well be that human behaviour isn’t what my imagination is telling me it is.
OP seemed to argue for the latter, and who you are replying to argued against the latter. Now you seem to say that they should not argue against the former, which they were not arguing against.
I don't see why it should be illegal. it's like being against addiction control centres.
I think the problem is we've built a society though where it's so easy to end up sad and that needs fixed.
Also, wether it's psychological issues or terminal physical illness, most people don't know what else can be done. For example, palliative care, properly done, can be incredible.
Do you tell others to think about how happy you could be in a few years when they are sad? No, you don't.
Do you encourage systematically poor people to suck it up because things will get better?
Same mentality is used to justify racial injustices and inequality. Things will get better in future so suck it up for the movement. These people are in pain and should be able to stop it if they see it not worth it. Obviously there can be some time period such as a year or two before you can access euthanasia. Otherwise, it's cruel to let people suffer for years in false hopes.
Over here, we have a universal social security. While imperfect, incredibly bureaucratic, and hard to navigate at times, it ensures everyone can get access to most if not all medical care, for free for those who are in extremely precarious financial situations.
But that is a political and social choice that was made in this country decades ago, and it is true it is not the same in many other places.
Now, I want to believe this isn't what you meant, but another way to read your response could be "It'll take too long and it's too hard, too expensive, to help poor people out of their pain. We should instead let them put themselves out of their misery"
No. We should never stop trying to help people but if the help is causing suffering to others. It should not be done beyond a reasonable duration. What that reasonable duration is - I don't know. 2 years? 5 years? A decade? All are valid answers. It is highly contextual.
Regardless of that, having legal euthansia is better than not having it at all.
Funny you referenced this comment. I actually wrote it :-)
I believe in planned euthanasia. If I am getting crunky and old, there is a point where I would consider a peaceful death and celebrate it myself. I will have chance to say goodbye. Similarly, a depressed person after trying reasonable number of methods and spending enough effort, should be able to consider it as an option. Not everyone will end up hopeful and that's fine. We shouldn't try to pressure or shame that. Currently, too many people end up ruining their life through failed attempts. Many end up dying who could have been saved if they had legal system and society that gave them an alternative option. Many are currently suffering with terminal illness or mental health problems that won't be fixed any time soon. All three categories will benefit from a legal euthanasia system.
There are people who live through the day thinking that they could end it all if things go too wrong. It can stem from unhealthy environment but it might not always be that way. These people are ready to get help if they have a choice in the matter.
What's "humane" about that? It's the easy cop out, and hiding the problem under the carpet.
Unlike terminal disease or something "suffering psychologically" is not unsurmountable...
Not to mention tons of people tried to suicide because they suffered, failed, and then found out they're OK after all, and lived their lives just fine afterwards...
>It confirms to me that people are monsters that force their will on others by forcing them to continue suffering or commit suicide in a manner that can fail
Or, you know, people are angels, and don't just give poison to the first idiot that decided to kill themselves just because they temporarily suffer and think in their bad judgement that it can't be fixed...
By the way, even the part of "something "suffering psychologically" is not unsurmountable" is quite often unjustifiable, such as when psychological suffering is caused by the environment and there is no way to escape the environment.
For one, that "beings with feelings" make decisions against their better judgement all the time. Others who can see more clearly, like e.g. lawmakers and society at large, could help guide them towards better decisions.
Second, that "suffering" is the ultimate thing to avoid. Death can be worse.
Third, there's the justification that some degree of suffering is inevitable, and people should just accept it.
Fourth, the idea that people should "not let people to suffer" is a moral one - not some law of physics or inescapable logical proof. In the same sense, the idea that you should not just let "people kill themselves" is also a moral one (that is, belonging to a moral system). The decision which of those ideas should prevail, is thus, also a moral one - there's no ultimate answer. And this society chose that just willy nilly allowing people to kill themselves and giving them the means is not OK.
Fifth, "when psychological suffering is caused by the environment and there is no way to escape the environment" -- well there are people in the same environment (or even worse ones) who are still happy and fine with themselves, so it's never just the environment. It's how people see it, and that can change.
That alone should be enough to acknowledge that sometimes, people who want to die should not kill themselves.
Besides that, the fact that quite often, a person killing themselves will inflict a lot of suffering on their surroundings. If you argue we don't get to force someone to suffer, why does a suicidal person get to force others to suffer?
Neither the position "No one should ever get to end their own life" nor the position "Everyone should be able to end their own life at any instant of their choosing always and immediately" seem tenable to me. With a decent solution lying somewhere in between these to positions.
I will have to disentangle myself from this discussion to remain polite. This is veering too much into the 'being bullied will make you stronger' territory.
I feel that it is good that those people did not end their life. Not because they suffered back then, but because they got to be, and are, happy right now.
To that, I would add that if legal euthanasia were very very low threshold, there is a decent change that some of the above people would have ended their life. And that would be a shame.
My proposed solution is not 'ban euthanasia' that is mis-interpreting my stance. Instead I think the solution is 'make euthanasia possible under certain conditions'.
I do not know exactly what those conditions are. I do expect any conditions chose will be wrong in certain edge cases. I also expect people will probably try and block euthanasia by strengthening those conditions (as is being done with abortions). That still doesn't mean we should drop all conditions for euthanasia.
The solution does not lie at the extremes but somewhere in the uncomfortable middle. To my mind, euthanasia should be easier than it currently is in the parts of the world I know about. (Mostly this is the Netherlands, and from what little I know about the US probably there as well).
edit: to clarify when I say "forcing someone to live through that can later lead to a fulfilling and happy life" I do not mean that having lived through suffering makes life better. I mean that, having lived at all, sometimes life gets better. Either because of treatment, because conditions around you change, or just dumb luck. Note the 'sometimes' there. Because there are plenty of cases where this is not the case. Similarly, there are probably cases where things do eventually get better, but not enough to be worth going through what someone is currently going through.
Well, being bullied will indeed make you stronger. That's how most people learn to adapt to social dynamics, fight back, stand for themselves and so on.
In actual life suffering often tells us what to avoid, leads us to know ourselves better, teach us lessons (like e.g. suffering caused by bad decisions), and even punishes us when we deserve it (e.g. suffering caused by doing something illegal and going to prison etc) so on. Is there's suffering with no greater message? Yes there is (e.g. a car hitting us while we cross the road just fine, or a sudden disease we did nothing to get). But that's part of life too.
Sorry, life is not a road paved with roses for ultimate hapiness 100% 24/7. In that magical land suffering would serve no purpose.
Here, a short period of distress while in therapy is preferable to years of distress while being untreated, followed by death.
This is such an irrational line of thought. Absolutely irrational.
The suicidal person is in no way accountable for others feelings. Zero questions to be had about that. It's akin to as if a debt collector could come after you for your deceased parents debts. In the U.S. at least, that's illegal, because it's obviously bullshit.
I wish I could experience your own ideas of what empathy is, because from what you're saying, mine seem to greatly differ.
As for:
> The suicidal person is in no way accountable for others feelings.
I disagree very much, and the few things I have seen from people who are suicidal suggests they would disagree as well. Suicidal people really hate the effect they have on others. And just in general, people are accountable for how they make others feel.
As for the broader point. I do not think that "killing yourself will hurt others" plays a big role in cases where people should not kill themselves, but I do think it plays some role. And moreover, I think it is inconsistent to say we can't force people to suffer by staying alive if we can force other to suffer by ending our own life.
> It's akin to as if a debt collector could come after you for your deceased parents debts. In the U.S. at least, that's illegal, because it's obviously bullshit.
I don't see the analogy at all.
Some people are hurt by women's right to abortion. Are you against abortion?
Some people are hurt by taxes or debt. Are you against society or debt?
Actually, in some cases you can make the same argument against abortion as already made in this thread against euthanasia for depressed people:
since the pregnant woman is most affected by the unwanted pregnancy, and maybe feeling like her whole life is falling apart because of it, then maybe that woman in her mental state shouldn't be making decision about abortion on her own.
The sad thing is, some western countries try to penalize putting any "pressure" on her, even if the attempt to influence her decision is coming from the child's father, or woman's family members.
As for your questions. I actually think that sometimes doing things that hurt people is to be accepted. For example, sometimes (SOMETIMES, NOT ALWAYS, POSSIBLY EVEN RARELY) it is better to not allow someone to end their life. Similarly, sometimes it is better for someone to end their life even if that would hurt others.
Actually there are. Zero questions to be had about that.
People have connections, have relationships, have responsibilities (e.g. little kids), have spouses and loved ones, and so on. We're not carefree individual snowflakes only concerned with and accountable to ourselves.
>It's akin to as if a debt collector could come after you for your deceased parents debts.
In the case of suicide, you are the "deceased" and the debts are yours. So a better example would be suicide forcing your debts on others (the lender in this case).
That said, strong feelings about suicide and how unsurmountable some pain is point to some deep depression rather than clear thinking. I used to have some thoughts like that back at some point. Maybe talk to someone about it? Doesn't have to be a specialist, but friends etc would help.