Euthanasia, on the other hand, is a conscious choice, often by the terminally ill and the suffering with no chance of recovery. Chronic physical pain and such, often to a point where the person is no longer able to commit suicide.
You know what's not a terminal illness that is bad enough that many with it would welcome death? Schizophrenia. For some the medicine works, the side effects are acceptable, they can lead a normal life. But there are plenty who can't. You know what else isn't a terminal illness that would make you long for oblivion? Surviving when the rest of your family didn't, surviving when the accident was your fault.
And you know what, if you think your life isn't worth living and you want out, you are suffering.
I've been depressed, I've been very depressed indeed and I'm glad to have seen the back of it but there are plenty who spend years and decades there and if they want out they should be let go, not locked up "for their own safety"
You assume 100% self ownership of one's life, which I find silly. Society makes large investments in individuals and typically they have long term duties that cannot rightfully be abandoned.
We don't have a choice in being born, and we don't have a choice in dying either. This very thought alone can make quite a lot of people want to kill themselves.
The fact that society loses money and investment when a person dies is not the responsibility of the person. Society works the way it does without asking us for a say in it. Its been this way since ages, and will continue for ages. I as an individual cannot do anything to make society see me as non-existent. Or if I do, then this should be laid out as a series of steps. In this article, its mentioned the medical area loses $1 million per suicide, as if when I am in a state to kill myself I should feel guilty that I am 'owned' by society and by killing myself i will be 'stealing' from it. Pathetic.
Also consider the chances that someone who wants to kill himself isn't too pleased with what "society" did for/to him.
The failures of modern industrial capitalism and social programs don't change the the underlying reality of suicide, however. It is a form of desertion, or dereliction of duty. This is more apparent in smaller scale societies.
The grandparent was saying it should be easier for people to kill themselves, and I think the parent was trying to point out that this isn't a perfect solution since there are so many who think that suicide is their only option but there are really other options.
As someone has pointed out in another comment, a huge number of suicides come not from people who are terminally ill but from people who are just depressed. In those cases nothing you say in your comment actually applies. Those people are not "critically injured" they are just depressed, frequently they go on to live full and meaningful lives if they seek help.
I think most women have thought about abortion to some degree and formed an opinion on whether it's the right choice for them, or under what conditions they would entertain the idea of an abortion versus keeping the child in an unexpected pregnancy. In these cases, you're right: discouraging women who have thought about the process would be seen as in bad taste.
But what if the woman was being pressured to abort (or to keep) the child by outside pressure? Then intervention would be seen as supporting the woman, not as interfering, and it'd be in good taste.
IMO, suicide is very similar. A large proportion of suicide attempts are people who go on to regret it and successfully seek treatment. I don't think it's too much of a leap from that to the idea that a large proportion of suicides themselves are being done for the wrong reasons, i.e. the "outside pressure" of a brain that is suffering a mental illness.
[citation needed]
Most seems unlikely to me, at least for first attempts.
A different conclusion you could draw from this are that the failed attempts failed because they weren't really trying to kill themselves, a sort of regretting-in-advance, if you will. I feel pretty safe in saying that successful suicide attempts don't go on to regret it, and it's not at all obvious that the failures and the successes are examples of the same phenomenon.
fwiw I'm pro choice on both issues.
"Just go to therapy it will be better" vs "Give the baby a chance you might grow to love it". How is it any different?
Your initial comment that I responded to implied that discouraging suicide is or should be in bad taste. I don't agree with this statement.
My position is predicated on the assumption that life is better than death.
Its a curious notion that folks dwell on about what its like after death. How about - you won't be there? The question is nonsense.
The only question worth considering is: how do I get from negative to positive? And the answer is: if the problem is external, then change your situation (move to Mexico; change your name; go plant potatoes in Idaho; whatever). If its internal, harder. You have to change yourself.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsan...
You're asserting that not only a right decision exists, but that you are more aware of the right decision than the person actually involved.
After short-term medication, long-term therapy, and some lifestyle changes, we live mostly normal lives and have two happy children.
So you're damn right I'm asserting that there's a right decision and that I knew better than her in her chemically imbalanced state.
Now, this is one scenario that has a happy ending. I don't know what I would think about someone chronically and incurably suffering. But the idea of absolutely unfettered access to assisted suicide scares me.
I have been depressed before.
While it's true that some people can take medication and receive platitudes and coping methods on how to deal with the facts of a sad and sorry life, this won't "cure" everybody.
What about those people that suffer for 10+ years?
---
In regards to the typical statements that depressed people have to hear day-upon-day:
When I was depressed (and I was very depressed for around 5 years) I knew that based on what I saw around me, I could probably expect to stop becoming depressed at some point of my life. However, it greatly annoyed me when people said "suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem" because when you've felt particularly bad for years and years, you're not dealing with something which is so easy to change, and it's in fact far more permanent than many things in your life. Time stretches without pleasure. Days are long but years are unimaginably scary.
Another statement which I would hear a lot was the idea that you shouldn't kill yourself because your family, friends and community need you. It doesn't necessarily sounds nice to a depressed person. Here's how I used to rationalise it: I was committing a selfless act of martyrdom by continuing to exist without pleasure - every day I would be nailed to a cross and for their pleasure would hang there on a side of a hill they didn't care to visit. "What did they get out of my suffering?!"
- The word "platitudes" and the scare quotes around "cure" indicate that blanket skepticism towards depression therapy of the kind I see from conspiracy nuts. You disqualify yourself from serious discussion that way.
- "coping methods on how to deal with the facts of a sad and sorry life" indicates that you believe depression is caused by external rather than internal factors. This runs very much against well established knowledge. If you suffer from external factors, those should be improved, and it's primarily up to you to do that.
- In cases of depression where therapy is ineffective for some reason, should this be considered morally equivalent to someone wishing to die to end their suffering from cancer, MS, etc.? This is absolutely worth discussing. The main problem I see is that we know that depression generaly is curable - so at what point do you decide that a given case is not?
My point was that I find the standard approach towards depression alienating because it completely discounts my own experiences. And as you neatly clarified, I disqualified myself from serious discussion of my own depression.
I don't think I have a better solution than what already exists, but I'm trying to get people to understand that human experience can't be completely generalised. When your framework disparages the remarks of people that have been depressed and have left depression surely there might be a problem there?
I will reiterate:
1. I had depression caused by long-term external factors.
It's popular to think this doesn't happen but it can happen.
2. When I went to see a therapist I received platitudes and
coping strategies however as I had an external factor this
felt like treating the effect and not the cause.
3. It was really bad. I feel like I'm arguing with a bunch of
people that have no way of empathising.
It's not that I don't believe people can be cured but a combination of internal and external factors can make this difficult, and in the few case I know of people that have been depressed they have been "cared for" but not "cured" by the system.A therapist who completely discounts external factors in treating depression seems to me rather incompetent. But then, external factors can and should be changed by direct actions. But a depressed patient may not have the will or energy to change them - in which case the problem really is the depression. Of course, if change to the external factor is truly not possible, then coping strategies is really all that can be done.
The vast majority of the anti-suicide efforts were just—insulting in her case, in a lot of ways. There were a lot of people and organizations telling her very loudly not to kill herself, and that it would get better if she just stuck it out a little more and saw a therapist. There was a legal and medical system willing to lock her up, for a fee, and keep her from actually physically harming herself. (This terrified her. She said her stay in a mental institution had been horrific and entirely unhelpful—they basically put her in solitary and kept her from doing anything at all, for hours. They wouldn't even let her have a pen and paper to write with because they were concerned that she would use it for self-harm.)
But there was nobody actually providing a way to make her life less painful. She came from a wealthy background and had good health insurance, so could afford weekly therapy sessions and psych meds. Some of the pills would work, for a few months or weeks at a time, but none of them were permanently helpful—and most of them took weeks to titrate up to an effective dose, so with each switch there would be a huge gap of time where she was as bad off as ever and nobody knew if the next pill would even work.
The anti-suicide efforts were like—it was like she was burning alive, and there were all these organizations and people in place determined to keep her from shooting herself to end the pain. But there was nobody who could actually stop her from burning.
I don't know. It's an awful situation all around. There are definitely a lot of people who are just temporarily upset or suffering from mild and easily treatable depression who do benefit from things like fences on bridges and national help hotlines. But more research is definitely needed. Someone else said in this thread that what we should really be doing is trying to keep people off the ledge entirely, not just trying to keep them from jumping, and I definitely agree there. What we really need is ways to keep people from wanting to die, not just ways to keep them from committing the act.
Certain bad things which had been hanging around lifted, certain good things came into play. At that point I still had quite a depressed mindset but I had wanted to improve my life for so long and I had a lot of inner strength so I was able to grow a very positive, healthy mindset.
I really agree about trying to point yourself outwards and to help others around you. That's so important to me. In fact I have taken some off work recently just to create something which I believe might help people.
This argument proves a little too much.
I don't think so - especially when a lot of times, due to their illness, they cannot make their own choice.
Of course not everybody who thinks they want to die is being rational at the time, and I'm all for making treatment, counseling, etc. available... but speaking for myself, I know that if/when I ever decide that I want out, I don't want anybody presuming some authorization to interfere with me.
So yeah, put me in the "right to die" camp.
But us humans, we have to suffer to the very end. Why?
Because it's a cultural meme that "human life is sacrosanct and must be preserved at all cost" or whatever. It's really pretty silly when you think about it.
If you already made your choice to commit suicide, you wouldn't seek counseling. But if you do, they won't do anything against your will unless you announce your suicide.
There are cases where it is but, honestly, they are so few that legislating for them would be dishonest.