Hacker News Reader

Comment by Bostonian | Hacker News Reader

Some depressed people will commit suicide, but the government should not facilitate this.

The government (and society in general) should stay out of other people's business w.r.t. their autonomy in this matter. People should be free to decide if they want to end their lives with dignity.

Your neighbor is planning on investing money saved for retirement in a scheme you know will lose all the money. Do you stand by and do nothing?

I'd say no, of course not. You tell them it's a bad move. You don't give them a lift to the bank so they can withdraw the money.

I wouldn't advocate breaking their arms so they're unable to sign the paper work but there has to be things you can do short of watching them ruin their lives (or actively helping them), right?

I think gov. should have the least power possible in any matter related to health.

Euthanasia laws take that power from governments.

Most places have a blanket prohibition on assisted death, which seems more authoritarian to me.

Why/how is dignity a factor here?

Anybody anywhere can commit suicide with varying success and aftermath. Having a clean, sure to work, painless death if you wish it so is a huge improvement over those self made options.

By improvement you mean lower cost and easier availability?

I wouldn't call suicide an improvement over proper treatment or social help. And we're not talking a terminal case here.

Because in many countries you can’t commit suicide with your family sitting by your bed. They will be charged for that.

A dignified assisted death means you end your life on your terms.

> Some depressed people will commit suicide, but the government should not facilitate this.

Would you be okay with privately run Futurama-style street kiosks, though? https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Suicide_Booth

Assuming an implied 'but private businesses should' is not charitable, not responding to the strongest plausible interpretation of what somebody is saying.

It seems like a fair response to me. In the US you can walk into a store and buy a handgun and ammunition and walk out to kill yourself in your car if you'd like - it happens fairly regularly. Often it's described as an unavoidable consequence of freedom.

If somebody said "the government shouldn't flashbang babies in their cribs", it's not charitable or reasonable to assume they're implying 'that should be done by corporations'.

I suppose the question is really whether you have the right to kill yourself, no? And if the answer is yes, then who is allowed to sell you such a service?

If somebody wants to buy a gun telling you he is going to use it on himself, you shouldn't sell it to him.

I assume someone buying a handgun above .22 caliber has intentions of harming someone with it. Obviously the context of their use matters, but they're inherently dangerous objects that Americans have the right to own. It doesn't seem feasible to stop someone who wants to use it as they would like.

That’s a pretty blanket assumption given the growing number of high caliber revolver hunters. Or the yearly amount of people that buy a handgun for bear protection for an Alaskan fishing trip.

Going down that feasibility line of thought just leads to Minority Report.

What you are describing is the new fear gun culture gripping America and it passes the buck in the wrong direction.

I've been warned about snarky or trolly responses, so I'll just say that you are correct that my comment did not consider handgun hunters.

> I assume someone buying a handgun above .22 caliber has intentions of harming someone with it.

The word "intention" is completely inappropriate here.

I don't buy a fire extinguisher with the intention of having a fire. Nor do I buy insurance with the intention of having a fire, getting in a car accident, or getting sick.

Most guns in America are never used to harm anybody, legally or illegally. Most are bought for sport or simply to possess them (collection.) Many of them are bought with self-defense in mind (see sibling comment about fire extinguishers) and most of those are never actually used for that purpose.

A 9mm Glock handgun has no purpose that I know of beyond killing someone. And I would imagine that almost every person killed is killed in self defense - even if that self defense is an attempt defend oneself from complicity in a crime. You're most likely right that any given gun will never harm anyone, but what someone does with it after their purchase is up to them.

> A 9mm Glock handgun has no purpose that I know of beyond killing someone.

Target shooting, whether in competition or simply for fun.

Fishermen often shoot large fish (e.g., halibut, which can weigh hundreds of pounds) before boating them, to reduce the likelihood of injury.

Defense against aggressive wildlife.

Defense against aggressive humans that doesn't involve killing them, or even injuring them (very often merely displaying the weapon is enough to deter an attacker).

There are other uses that come to mind.

Perhaps your inability to think of these routine and completely justifiable uses indicates that you have serious deficiencies in your knowledge of firearms, and that you should perhaps make an effort to rectify those gaps before commenting on the subject again. Maybe?

I mean, even your use of "9mm Glock" indicates that most of what you think you know comes from TV shows and movies.

"Glock" is just a brand, yo... the brand name doesn't actually make the weapon more lethal.

In point of fact, 9mm ACP is a rather small and underpowered round. It's become popular with law enforcement agencies because it reduces the weight of the weapon they have to carry all the time, not because it is some fearsome Round of Doom.

I say 9mm Glock handgun as an example of a small semi-auto handgun (and also because I own a Glock 19, which I think of as the gold standard of semi-auto handguns). It is a purpose built machine for killing humans while being easily carried.

I actually have guns for most of the activities you mentioned (except shooting fish - that seems unnecessary, and I've been on quite a few boats), and the Glock isn't ideal for any of them.

I was under the impression that most LEO's used .40, not 9mm because yes, it isn't a particularly powerful round.

> It is a purpose built machine for killing humans while being easily carried.

Nonsense.

If that is the case, then one can only conclude that 99.995% of Glock pistols are defective, since they are never used to kill anyone.

> except shooting fish - that seems unnecessary, and I've been on quite a few boats

"Unnecessary" until the thrashing fish breaks your leg.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4100/4867089228_0c182849be_b.j...

Glocks are popular in this application as the polymer frame is more resistant to sea water.

What percentage of Glocks are capable of killing someone?

What percentage of kitchen meat cleavers and claw hammers are capable of killing someone?

Contradicts with freedom, free will, and bodily autonomy. People who want out should be allowed out under some circumstances. Two psychiatrists signed off in this case. How many would you need before stamping approval on someone’s wish to leave this plane of existence? Not a rhetorical question.

I don't know but for the other end of it, where I am, stamping approval to detain someone and prevent them from completing suicide takes one person for 48 hours and two for longer.

> Contradicts with freedom, free will, and bodily autonomy.

Those are socially constructed concepts and society decides their metes and bounds.

Is your issue with Belgium (where this is legal, among other developed countries)? Or legal/government sanctioned euthanasia in general? Follow up question: thoughts on jurisdiction shopping for this when citizens can travel there from a country that doesn’t respect their rights domestically (a tale as old as time)?

Belgians can do what they want, I guess. But we can judge empirically whether their social beliefs are pro-adaptive or mal-adaptive. Belgians are being supplanted by Muslim immigrants who definitely do not think suicide is okay. It’s unsurprising that a culture that doesn’t value life for its own sake is being out-competed by one that does.

Depression can lead to irrational and rational suicide attempts. It's all fine when your depression can get treated. But when you have severe depression where all treatment fails, how is that different from other diseases that cause suffering that cannot be relieved?

The thing about certain mental health issues is that they can get better with actual long term therapy.

I do not believe this happened here, the girl was treated at most 6 years. Describing it as 6 years of anguish is uncharitable to people who survived mental health problems for decades, and even manage to live with them.

It can take years to find out that a certain therapy even works... And here we have people hastily resorting to big red button, even after messing up previous suicide attempts.

I would not call it euthanasia, it's suicide by doctor. (In parallel with suicide by cop.)

It's all good and whatever until you are the one to scrub brains from the rails.

Do you mean that only people sufficiently able bodied should have that option?

And that they should traumatise their friends and / or family in the process because that is traditional?

So I cannot manage my own life in a sensible way?

If I want to end it, does it have to be messy (as in jumping in front of a train)? Or not well working (as in jumping from a window and ending up paralyzed - which indeed will stop me from further silly attempts)?

The government has a duty to facilitate it.

Why?

I am on the fence on this. At 23 with mental Illness and the drugs she was taking, I think a full review of her treatment is needed.

This has a bit more detail and somekind of review was done.

https://nypost.com/2022/10/08/brussels-bombing-survivor-shan...

But I think all Doctors that treated her should be looked at in more detail.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com