Suicide: Yes or No.

[Lacquer Head]

Now, this will be a mighty controversial topic, so if some one starts dropping insults, ad hominems or what have you, please lock the thread. I don't want that pooping up my threads. Anyway...

The topic is about suicide. Not the legality of it or anything, but your own opinion. Mainly, is it ok to try to force some one to get help or whatever and prevent their decision or should it be completely up to them whether they wish to live or die.

Personally, I have multiple standings on the issue. When it comes to a person saying how bad their life is and begging for pity while threatening to kill themselves, I loathe nothing more in this world than that. There are so many people worse off and these well off 1st world ****s want to off themselves because nobody loves them. In these instances, I will tell some one to get over it and if they did kill themselves, it's horribly selfish. Mainly the people that stew in their own self pity, I can't possible feel sorry for some one that wont help themselves. We all know the people. But on the other hand, if some one is truly suffering, mainly from physical pain, I can't possibly tell them not to.

Now, I understand it will hurt other people emotionally or even financially, but there is no way I can understand what another person is going through. If their life is pain and they have thought long and hard about it, I really feel they deserve it, if it is what they wish. It's a very difficult decision, but would suicide prevention in such cases be ripping away a persons rights?

[Alpha]

If someone is contemplating suicide, then they're not in an OK headspace, and I would suggest that there is an obligation to do something about it if you are aware of it.

Someone suggesting suicide as a way out is not making a rational, calculated decision. Your freedom to choose really only exists as far as your ability to make such decisions. I'd suggest that forcibly restraining someone, or harming them (like, knocking them unconscious, so that they don't off themself) is totally ethical and indeed a moral imperative, if they're thinking about suicide seriously.

[Lacquer Head]

It really depends. Of course some one who has lost it should be helped (with force if necessary) but not everyone IS in a bad mental space. Cancer patients, people with MS, etc etc. As things are at the moment, I don't wanna die (ever, gonna live forever yo) but I can't say I would feel the same way if I were say, paralyzed from the neck down. Can we really force people into a living hell for our own moral well being? Cases like THAT. Some people CAN make a well thought out decision in a normal state of mind about it.

[Heartless Angel]

It depends on whether the individual is currently capable of rational thought. Those who can accurately calculate that the pain of continuing to live is greater than its benefits, I'd call that a rational basis for deciding to die. When somebody is just depressed, that indicates an extremely abnormal mental state ****ed up enough to override a basic survival instinct all humans normally posses. That or they're so far out in la-la land, that they no longer understand the reality of death in a way that triggers that basic survival instinct. THESE people should be stopped and offered help.

Most people in this state aren't the pansy emo shits whining all over the internet about how their life sucks and telling everyone they want to die. That's usually just a pathetic attempt at getting attention and getting people to validate your existence out of the guilt they might feel if you actually went through with it.

The ones that are actually likely to go through with a suicide are the ones that act severely depressed, but try not to bring it up in conversation if they engage in conversation at all. A telltale sign that somebody may actually be planning suicide, is an apparent personality shift from that of depression and desperation, to one of calm, going with the flow, everything's gonna be OK, kinda mood. If they're in a seriously ****ed up mental state, they're not going to pull that 180 because everything got better overnight, they're probably acting relived because they plan for it to be over soon.

I was suicidal once, many moons ago. I actually ended up making an attempt, and began regretting it moments after, but fortunately someone found me and got me to a hospital and I made it. After that I pulled a 180, because the sudden feeling regret at the attempt snapped me back into reality, making me realize that I didn't want to die. A reality in which my survival instinct kicked back in. Did a lot of changing after that, and haven't had any issues with depression since. I'm honestly ashamed of that phase in my life, in retrospect I can't believe I was ever in such an irrational state of mind. Nothing I've ever experience even comes close to warranting a desire to die. I'm just glad that momentary lapse in logic wasn't the end for me.

[Lacquer Head]

Well yeah, if some one is mentally ill, they need help regardless of whether or not they are suicidal or not, but the lack of proper methods for help in this country is pathetic. Doping people up with anti depressants is NOT a viable solution what so ever.

[Imposter]

My opinion on the matter is probably pretty common with most. I'm against it..on all fronts. I can't justify supporting an end to a life, no matter the quality of it. Can it really be said that terminating a life, or letting someone do it themselves because of their perception of how awful it is be better than nothing?

You give examples of tremendous physical aliments but can we really be the ones to say that makes it alright? Other than that, what about metal aliments? Like car crash victims that suffer brain damage that affect them for the rest of their lives. Is it really the pain physically or mentally or just escapism because the new challenge and life is hard?

I guess I'd want to know the standard of comparison in determining what is low enough quality to justify it. The sickly in third world countries, what degree of mental disability? Would it be straight across the board or only those you are emotional attached to?

[Heartless Angel]

My opinion on the matter is probably pretty common with most. I'm against it..on all fronts. I can't justify supporting an end to a life, no matter the quality of it. Can it really be said that terminating a life, or letting someone do it themselves because of their perception of how awful it is be better than nothing?

I dislike any moral stances that are absolute like that. Morality is far from objective, and farther still from a binary concept. It's always best to consider each situation independently than to enforce one general rule and hoping it suits every possible scenario. As for determining quality of life, I see it as a relatively simple concept. A normal quality of life is a positive number, death is a 0, because there is zero quality to a life that does not exist. When a life gets so bad that it could be considered a negative value, an overall unpleasant experience, the 0 of death is greater than living in a negative.

You give examples of tremendous physical aliments but can we really be the ones to say that makes it alright?

Who WOULD be the one to decide what is universally right? I don't believe anyone has that sort of moral authority to impose a rule on all. The one whom decides whether it's right in a given situation should be the one the decision will ultimately affect, assuming of course that person is capable of reaching that conclusion logically.

Other than that, what about metal aliments? Like car crash victims that suffer brain damage that affect them for the rest of their lives.

An abnormal mental state impairs ones ability to reach a conclusion of life or death rationally, those who are no longer able to make a decision rationally should no longer be able to make the decision at all.

Is it really the pain physically or mentally or just escapism because the new challenge and life is hard?

It isn't a matter of difficulty, it's a matter of value. If the overall quality of life is ultimately negative, what reason is there to try to rise to the challenge and adapt to it? When the only doors left open in your life all lead to fates worse than death, the logical choice is death. A 0 is always greater than a negative.

I guess I'd want to know the standard of comparison in determining what is low enough quality to justify it. The sickly in third world countries, what degree of mental disability?

One can't apply an absolute standard to the whims of man. To me, many ways of life that other people would consider good, I'd consider Hell. If those are my only options left, I'd gladly choose death. When all other options are negative, zero is the logical choice. The sickly in third world countries are among the least likely to commit suicide, because their brains are operating on a lower tier of psychological needs, primarily the survival level. When survival is your primary objective, very few things are going to be able to override your survival instinct in a way that makes death an acceptable alternative. But again, it all depends on the severity of the sickness, and the personality of the victim. Mental disability should immediately take euthanasia off the table for anyone. It's more difficult to stop suicide in general for that, but as a rule, the choice to die made under a flawed state of mind can't be considered a rational choice, and shouldn't' be dignified as such. Someone suffering a mental disability, or in an abnormal mental state of depression should be helped, because the decision to die made under these circumstances is illogical.

Would it be straight across the board or only those you are emotional attached to?

How can anybody try to make an absolute moral law that revolves around their personal connection to things? A person's choice to live or die is not yours or mine to make. I can agree or disagree with them based on the specific scenario, and I can intervene if I deem it necessary, but it is ultimately not up to me. My personal views on suicide apply to all, regardless of who they are, how I know them, IF I know them, all irrelevant. The logic of the choice is not affected by my presence.

[Heartless Angel]

Psychiatric help doesn't come from a bottle. A lot of that shit makes problems worse. Doctors piss me off, you walk in and say you're depressed, they hand you a scrip for the strongest antidepressant they've got. It's ****ing ridiculous.

[Lacquer Head]

My opinion on the matter is probably pretty common with most. I'm against it..on all fronts. I can't justify supporting an end to a life, no matter the quality of it. Can it really be said that terminating a life, or letting someone do it themselves because of their perception of how awful it is be better than nothing?

See, that's the issue. One one hand we think we're helping, but are we forcing them to do it because it's what we want?

You give examples of tremendous physical aliments but can we really be the ones to say that makes it alright? Other than that, what about metal aliments? Like car crash victims that suffer brain damage that affect them for the rest of their lives. Is it really the pain physically or mentally or just escapism because the new challenge and life is hard?

The problems is that we (so far) don't truly understand that particular frame of mind. We've never had to death with such debilitating stuff.

I guess I'd want to know the standard of comparison in determining what is low enough quality to justify it. The sickly in third world countries, what degree of mental disability? Would it be straight across the board or only those you are emotional attached to?

The funny thing is, what really made me start thinking about this was because of a friend. I could tell they were exaggerating a bit, but I was just thinking, if some one truly can't stand the constant physical ailments that they will never be able to get rid of, who am I to tell them to keep living like that? It really sucks to think about, but I really believe in a persons rights to do with themselves what ever they want, as long as it doesn't invade another persons rights.

Psychiatric help doesn't come from a bottle. A lot of that shit makes problems worse. Doctors piss me off, you walk in and say you're depressed, they hand you a scrip for the strongest antidepressant they've got. It's ****ing ridiculous.

Well...I agree unless it's a "green" state >.>

[Imposter]

Ok I think I get what heartless is saying here. I think what I have a hard time with though is the idea that people on a relative(as in varies from each individual right?) level may have a quality of life lower than zero. I guess I see as any kind of life always greater than none at all. Although by your reasoning that is just my own way of looking at it because of the life I have and circumstances I'm in.

I am curious as what you would think would effect a state of mind to make it other than normal. I gather that constant pain or paralysis wouldn't be factors right? It'd be like actual mental illness and not things that may change the way one thinks, like substance abuse or depression.

As in regards to an absolute moral law, I was saying things like that because I agree with you mostly. Man definitely cannot say this is absolute and this is what the rule will be in regards to suicide and assisted suicide. So depending on the situation is where one would make the call. 'Yes I agree to your wishes or no I don't.'...so what about like comatose patients and other euthanasia scenarios. Where we can't see that they are making a choice. Is that a negative quality of life...speaking of this reminds me of some research I heard about, doctors using scans to communicate with coma patients by telling them to think about certain things for yes and other things for no. If I remember right they thought of how they play a certain sport which illuminated certain aspects in their brain for one answer. Then they thought of like the layout of their home or work for another answer because it used a different part of the brain and it would light up differently on the scan...or something like that.

[Heartless Angel]

Ok I think I get what heartless is saying here. I think what I have a hard time with though is the idea that people on a relative(as in varies from each individual right?) level may have a quality of life lower than zero. I guess I see as any kind of life always greater than none at all. Although by your reasoning that is just my own way of looking at it because of the life I have and circumstances I'm in.

Precisely. A normal human being, operating within a normal mental state should by nature always consider living a positive thing. There are few things which can override that inherent desire to live in a person. Most are that the person has deviated from a normal mental state, causing the instinct to either cease, or go unnoticed. In these cases, they are no longer capable of logically analyzing their quality of life to come to a reasonable decision on whether or not it should continue. The other method, is using logic to suppress that instinct. This generally occurs when their life has actually become a negative, literally causing more pain than pleasure. A normal person can't fathom that, because a normal person's basic instinct tells them that life is exclusively positive. They even see positives to an overall negative life, because their survival instinct makes them value living so highly.

I am able to see from the perspective I do because suppression of instinct is a norm for me. When the logic of a given scenario dictates that my instincts are wrong, I am able to ignore them in favor of the logical conclusion. So can anyone else really, if they're trying at it. But since this is a normal state for me, I naturally think this way, objectifying life itself.

I am curious as what you would think would effect a state of mind to make it other than normal. I gather that constant pain or paralysis wouldn't be factors right? It'd be like actual mental illness and not things that may change the way one thinks, like substance abuse or depression.

Psychological disorders, depression, bipolarity, etc... these all cause deviation from a normal mental state, altering one's ability to be rational along with it. Substance abuse can also affect brain chemistry, having similar effects on one's ability to be logical. Anything that indicates a physical error in the brain chemistry, I would define as something that prevents the suicidal from making a decision to die rationally. That's not to say I would then always ultimately deny them their right to die, however. It is entirely possible that a life could be overall negative in spite of that negativity being perceived by an abnormal mental state. There it would depend on the cause of the mental state, and whether it could ever be returned to normal. If somebody has a literal psychological disorder that's incurable, the mental state it cause them to assume becomes their "new normal", the old normal being forever lost. Basically, whatever mental state is the normal 'ruler' of the body is the one that must be able to rationally reach the decision. So I suppose someone with Dissociative identity Disorder (multiple personalities) would have to put it up to a vote or something. Not sure how I'd go about resolving that issue actually...

As in regards to an absolute moral law, I was saying things like that because I agree with you mostly. Man definitely cannot say this is absolute and this is what the rule will be in regards to suicide and assisted suicide. So depending on the situation is where one would make the call. 'Yes I agree to your wishes or no I don't.'...

I fundamentally believe that people should only have a right to force their decisions to be acted upon if they've given good logical support that their choice is the right one. If I were ever in such a state, I'd probably be conducting family debates from my deathbed to determine whether or not suicide was the logical choice. If it is, I would expect my family to abide by it unless they had better logical reason for not doing so. If they determine that my logic was flawed, I would expect them to disregard conclusions I may have drawn from it. But then I also doubt the majority of the world, or even a majority of my own family would ever be capable of acting entirely within logic in spite of emotions and human nature. A lot of people just can't do that.

So what about like comatose patients and other euthanasia scenarios. Where we can't see that they are making a choice. Is that a negative quality of life...

Presumably, a comatose state is equivalent to death, having no understanding of or interaction with reality. so in this case, unless there were good reason to assume that there WAS suffering, I would say death is at best equivalent to remaining in a coma. At this point, other things must be considered. The probability of recovery, the cost of maintaining a 0 quality of life, and the wishes of those responsible for caring for the comatose victim. If a man is no longer even capable of forming an opinion, he hardly has a right to have the opinion he may have formed enforced. In the case of a comatose patient who will never recover, I'd call comatose life, and death as equal in quality, both at 0. The tiebreaker comes from everyone else, if it's better on everyone else to let the guy go, let him go.

speaking of this reminds me of some research I heard about, doctors using scans to communicate with coma patients by telling them to think about certain things for yes and other things for no. If I remember right they thought of how they play a certain sport which illuminated certain aspects in their brain for one answer. Then they thought of like the layout of their home or work for another answer because it used a different part of the brain and it would light up differently on the scan...or something like that.

If this is accurate, and there is good evidence to support comatose patients being aware on some level, then I would have to consider his quality of life unknown. In this event, I would opt to leave the man alive, at least for the time being until we can be sure of whether or not he HAS wishes.

[Lacquer Head]

Yeah, a quality of life influenced by physical pain and such are factors for a well thought out decision. But a live of slavery, imprisonment and so on as well. But people that I think shouldn't get to choose are the mentally ill. If you seem to be a danger to yourself or other due to mental illness, I think they should be helped, involuntarily. As for me, I really don't wanna see some one die, but I especially hate to see people suffer...