The reasoning behind the choice of suicide should be investigated before any 'actions' are taken. Now, this isn't some "oh well he had a lot of debts to pay"/"in trouble with the law" kinda mumbojumbo. I'm talking about CHOICE vs chemical imbalance causing depression and depression related thoughts and tendencies. One may not truly want it, but simply be temporarily (and reversibly) compelled to.

Everyone's choice should be respected and upheld within reason. However when 'reason' is being altered by a force that is the primer for the choice, then it should be investigated further.

You know, that's a really good point about chemical imbalances, even if it may be somewhat beyond the scope of this debate. It's interesting enough to get into, however.

I'm a bit dismayed by the attitude that depression, aggression, mental disorders, etc are problems with some kind of imbalance that needs to be cured. Abraham Lincoln was, by some accounts, severely depressed during his presidency. How would have history unfolded if he had been treated?

Where is the line drawn between depression that pushes us toward improvement and depression that cripples us? Between eccentricity and insanity?

The line is ever shifting. If we try to control all physical pain is all mental anguish far behind? And what happens if we don't feel it at all? Without the contrast of low points in our lives, will our high points be less meaningful?

To the point, is a depressed person in the right state of mind to make a decision regarding suicide when he's depressed or drugged up? For him, what is normal?

I'm deeply terrified about personality-changing drugs. I fear they could prove to be a dire threat to our species.

1. the value of life is a perspective and therefore cant be devalued i will not care for life any less because a sick person decided to kill themselves its a bit harsh but i wont.
2.life already has a value or we wouldnt be chooseing between helping libya colonys and going to war with Iraq.
3. it should be an indivuals choice and therefore not be forced. The person themselve will be the deciding factor and only when they are deemed sober enough to make rational thinking decisions.
4. sometimes there are phisical disabilitys that wont allow that person to do it themselves thus needing the help of a doctor to assist them in commiting suicide.
PS
i agree about the chemical imbalence.

If a person's life is so pathetic he/she wants to off himself, I say let him remove himself from the gene-pool. But he needs to do it himself. When doctors/state/etc. get involved it will get too easy to justify euthenizing the homeless, mentally handicapped, basically anyone who can't or won't make meaningful contribution to society. And that just starts smelling like justified execution, since at that point, why not eliminate the entire prison system and execute everyone that messes up?

Whatya think?
Im strangely comfortable with it.

This is exactly my point, I think. I really despise "slippery slope" arguments, though. Unfortunately in this case it's all I have =/

Darth--by devaluing life I don't mean your devaluing of life. I mean collective society.

Once we're comfortable with killing off the sick want it, why not the terminally ill without family who don't? And where will it go from there?

The problem is sanctioning it as a medically-accepted practice. With doctors actually prescribing the drugs. How do you remove the risk of a doctor pushing people toward suicide who don't want it?

What about setting up something like a "Suicide Center?" Go there to test for chemical imbalances, get therapy and such. Then if you still want to check out, they hand you a bullet and say "Just step into the back room, and we'll clean up the mess later."

I just found this hilarious. He uses the i for physical and the y for disabilities when it should be reversed. It cracked me up.

(This is in no way trying to insult you druka, I just couldn't help but laugh).

Consistency is good, no? :)

So.. is assisted suicide a debated topic in the world? I mean, the only time ive ever heard of 'assisted suicide' was when a person was physically incapable of doing it themselves, which would in a bunch of cases probably leave that person wanting to do it. Crippling car accidents and such. Depending on what exactly we are arguing, ive tried to include both sides in my thoughts.

It sounds like the current topic is a person walks into the doctors office and goes "I hate my life, help me kill myself." which seems fairly stupid, since 9 times out of ten they will throw you into a psych ward for the weekend for being 'a danger to yourself or others.'

I have a particular dislike of personality changing drugs, in fact im fairly opposed to taking any sort of drug/pill/medicine, but the former in particular. How far do ya go before you are no longer you anymore. Friends have taken various prescription drugs in the past and its changed them pretty drastically, and even to their own admissions sometimes..not for the better.

I spoke on the topic awhile back. I think that anyone who wants a doctor's assistance should need to be evaluated and need to go through a system of paperwork and possible therapy, possibly also including institutionalization, briefly, to remove them from their former life to determine if they can become happier in a different place.

It is somewhat funny that committing suicide, and failing, is a crime in most (or all?) states. You can be arrested and criminally charged for doing so, though often times the courts will not elect to press said charges, but when they dont, you still end up in jail, and in psychological care for a couple-month period of time afterwords, as well as probation. My step brother has over 28 assessed attempts, and has spent literally years bouncing between jail and psych wards.

Personally i am of the opinion that there should be a highly monitored organization out there, of professionals in the fields of psychotherapy and medicine, as well as other consultants and advisors, who will assist anyone who is wishing to end their own lives, do so on their own terms, for whatever reason they may have.

There are a few reasons why someone would want to go through the assisted suicide method: It could be easier on your family to see you go peacefully, rather than many of the messy alternatives. Less painful for you, or to end your pain. And then for those currently physically incapable of doing it themselves.

Any other reason could be handled by the councilors who you would need to see before proceeding. If someone just needs some help in their life because they are overwhelmed and dont know what else to do, its possible they could be talked out of it and even saved. Many of these people are going to end up doing it anyway, having an alternative, a place to go, could potentially save their life, versus them carrying it out on their own (if they were capable.)

tldr

I believe the closest you are going to get to 'sure you can kill yourself..... if you're sane' has already been implemented by the majority of life insurance companies and their policies. While this is often seen as a way to 'discourage suicide', it's more likely economical than anything. If you 'off yourself' within 2 years of the contract it's deemed void; however if you kept the same commitment to end your life for the two years then you are welcome to deliver your money to beneficiaries.

If you bring the human brain, 'sad', and open ended arguments built off of perception to state or federal court nothing will be resolved, or at least nothing soon. I believe the closest people will come to accepting suicide as a rational action would be to have a 'waiting period'; a deviation of the life insurance company's approach to suicide; where you sign the papers and wait X amount of time.

Now I know I'm going to be confronted with medical issues, urgencies, and ect but they already have 'technical suicide' papers for such issues in the form of DNR documents. Now it's not on par, but realistically you won't get much closer unless you break down thought processes into mathematical scores and set requirements and situational regulations.

Should assisted suicide be legal? Probably. But I believe 'when' will eventually become the final question to an endlessly open-ended debate.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...001021,00.html

I would like to have my life ended if i looked like that.

Investigating the terms of the whole process states:




And here is the kit itself:



The legal 'fine-print' within it all is... staggering and the gray areas are even more overwhelming. I'm sure the cost of such a procedure is rather immense and I severely doubt it's covered by most practical medical insurances; however I can't claim to know of Belgium's med programs.

Is a waiting period really such a good idea? Think about it -- if it's there so someone can reflect and possibly choose not to kill themselves, can't it work the other way?

Say someone is a 68-year-old whose kid is pushing her toward the option since her illness is a financial burden to him. She's against it, but he persuades her with, "Don't worry; you'll have a year waiting period to decide." During that year he applies increasing pressure until he convinces her it's really what she wants.

Should there be easy, painless, effective ways readily available to off oneself? Maybe.

Should a medical or governmental institution be involved? I'm not so sure.

It's significantly less fun to debate when the person one would be debating against is just pretending to be on the other side. :)

That being said, I'm going to put in my two cents anyways! (Aren't you so excited?!)
I had a completely different idea in mind when 'doctor assisted suicide' was brought up. I do not believe that people should be able to walk into a clinic and say, "I want to die. Help please." What I do support is assisted suicide when a patient is in an incurable medical state that severely decreases enjoyment of life. This wouldn't be an exact measure unfortunately, but based on the patient and the illness/disability the patient is currently afflicted with the patient could either opt to live out their life or cut the cord.
If someone who is mentally stable (kudos to the chemical imbalance point) but severely disabled, or in an extreme amount of pain, wants to die, by all means help them!

My father had a coworker who came down with a rare disease(?) that made ALL of her nerves hypersensitive. She is in constant pain, clothes feel like they're eating away at her skin, a gentle breeze is like being hit by a truck. She has a constant supply of morphine injected into her and she carries around morphine lollipops for when the pain gets worse. Something like 90% of people who have this disease off themselves in the first year. The last time I saw her was 5-6 years ago and she is still toughing it out. Her husband also cheated on her and left her for someone 10-15 years younger and she's still truckin'. She wouldn't want to die (crazy lady) but the people who had to off themselves in order to end the pain should have had the option of a doctor 'putting them to sleep.'

Isn't there a fine point between a patient deciding "my life is too painful" and choosing to end his life and his doctor telling him "your life is too painful" and persuading him?

So what's the option? Put so many checks and safeties in place that it's easier to just commit suicide on your own? Why not be absolutely safe and say no?

I agree people should have the right to do to themselves what they will. But how do you ensure that it's not abused by family, doctors, etc?

People are easily persuaded. I'm sure you could persuade many people who are in pain that it'd be better to die.

Not me, though. And maybe that's why I'm a bit biased. As long as I could still think to some degree I don't think I'd ever want to die.

Note that this is noggin that we are talking about, so it does not really apply to him, but posts saying 'tldr' seem to crop up quite often. Why bother posting if you arnt going to bother to read? It does not add anything useful to the conversation, and generally speaking, we dont care if you didnt read it, only whether or not you have anything of interest to say about it.

-

Responding to the issue of peer pressure, pressuring someone into ending their lives, due to age, or sickness, finances or whatnot. We already have that kind of pressure going on, of that i have no doubt. However if the person is not yet ready, and is still capable of making their own decisions, it should be a non-issue in regard to making the suicide-by-doctor or by 'kit' choice. If a relative or family member forces it on them, then it could be considered murder or conspiracy to commit murder.

The option of suicide does not need to be made to work for everyone, it could very easily and clearly be made out as an option to terminally ill and suffering patients, prescribed by a medical doctor on the patients choice, with their direct consent. Failing that, if they were unable to make that decision for themselves (someone in a long-term coma, braindead, physically mangled beyond repair after an accident, or that sort of thing) then their legal guardian would possibly have the option to make that decision. If we can do it for our pets, i dont see why we couldnt do it for our family too.

Because "tldr" is shorter than, "More matter, with less art."

You are onto something here!

By breaking this logic down mathematically I can use a basic formula to prove anything false. I call it the 'The Theory of craftingtheperfectsituationthatmakesasituationless thanideal'. I am also accepting alternative names for the theory.

Funny how a single exception disproves an entire theory, ne? Pity it's the basis of knowledge. :)

In science or law?

LISTEN MAN, I'LL EAT YOUR GODDAMN SPINE.

Both, I should think. It's why mandatory sentencing is retarded.

I think that slippery slope arguements are bullshit. They are for people to fall back on when they have no other valid arguements, just like name-calling. I believe that doctor-assisted suicide is a good thing to do, because those who are terminally ill (this being the key word; your request would not even be considered if this was not the case) should have the option to not have to endure the pain. They should make the decision based on their own opinions, and if their family is pressuring them into a decision one way or another, that is their problem and they should be able to deal with it their own way.

Doctors should have no opinion of it either way, and should not get involved. They should simply provide objective information, and that's it; IE how the procedure will work, how much pain / suffering you may or may not endure if you choose to stay alive, etc. Basically, the only influence they should have is their own values / opinions, and, if they choose, their family's.

Go go Oregon and legalized doctor assisted suicide.

Oh and one last thing. The doctor should only provide the means for suicide; the person should have to push a button which would activate an automated syringe to pump themselves with morphine; that way they could realize the enormity of what they are about to do, possibly realize what they are doing, and the doctor would not have to live with the fact (or at least it would be as bad) that they killed a person.