NationStates Jolt Archive

When is it acceptable?

Should people have the right to take their life whenever they want?

Yes, yes they should. Whos life is it if not theirs?

It's a basic, fundamental human right.


This, of course, means that people will consider it selfish, immature, cowardly, and detestable in all manners and forms.

-When you've been bitten by a zombie and there's no cure.
-When you're surrounded by Pod People and there's no way out.
-When you've realized that McCain/Palin won the election.

:D

It's against the law, so no. ;)

Yea, I think people should have the right to end their own life if they want to. I mean what are we going to do, jail them?

lol lock up their corpse for a few years now that'll show em!

It's a basic, fundamental human right.


This, of course, means that people will consider it selfish, immature, cowardly, and detestable in all manners and forms.I r agreeing wit tis. :(
Okay, no more horribly misspelling words for entertainment purposes. Okay, seriously, who am I kidding? :)

Yea, I think people should have the right to end their own life if they want to. I mean what are we going to do, jail them?

Lock them up when they become suicidal.

Other than the fact that most of the time its the most selfish thing you can do...

It's a basic, fundamental human right.


This, of course, means that people will consider it selfish, immature, cowardly, and detestable in all manners and forms.

This.

If we have any right as a living breathing conscious being, shouldn't it be to end ourselves? The conscious decision to not exist is the most fundamental human right there ever could be.

Other than the fact that most of the time its the most selfish thing you can do...

When is it not selfish though? I mean is there a point where people should respect the decision?

Other than the fact that most of the time its the most selfish thing you can do...

Who cares? Its their life, they own it. No one else does.

Anything I own I can do what I want with. My life included.

-When you've been bitten by a zombie and there's no cure.
-When you're surrounded by Pod People and there's no way out.
-When you've realized that McCain/Palin won the election.

:D

This is about it. Otherwise, go with psychological therapy.

I think all people have the right to end their lives if they so choose.

I also think it's pretty much always the wrong choice, and one that will generally hurt a lot of other people.

This is about it. Otherwise, go with psychological therapy.

What if you were going to die anyway?

This is about it. Otherwise, go with psychological therapy.

But I Thought we were arguing that suicide is a bad thing . . .

What if you were going to die anyway?

We're all going to die anyway.

I'd personally prefer that they didn't except in cases of terminal illnesses or quality of life issues. We should be helping those who are suicidal get back on track. After all, unless you screw it up, it's rather hard to decide that committing suicide was a bad idea AFTER you do it.

I think all people have the right to end their lives if they so choose.

I also think it's pretty much always the wrong choice, and one that will generally hurt a lot of other people.

There always comes a time when I have to put myself first though. If Im suffering from uncurable, painful cancer that makes every moment of my life unbearable agony, Im going to kill myself no matter who will miss me. At that point it becomes selfish of my friends/family to not want me to kill myself.

We're all going to die anyway.

No, like if you knew you were likely going to die soon, and you knew the lead up would be miserable and painful and undignified?

Other than the fact that most of the time its the most selfish thing you can do...

Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it isn't an inalienable right of a human being. The ultimate right a person can have and the greatest control over themselves.

For no reason at all should this option be barred from anyone. Discouraged if other options are available? Certainly. But it shouldn't be rendered void just because others might call it 'selfish'.

If the pain & suffering is too great, Dr assisted suicied should be legal.

There always comes a time when I have to put myself first though. If Im suffering from uncurable, painful cancer that makes every moment of my life unbearable agony, Im going to kill myself no matter who will miss me. At that point it becomes selfish of my friends/family to not want me to kill myself.

Interesting. Thanks.

-When you've been bitten by a zombie and there's no cure.
-When you're surrounded by Pod People and there's no way out.
-When you've realized that McCain/Palin won the election.

:D

So...

When you've realized that McCain/Palin won the election then?

No, like if you knew you were likely going to die soon, and you knew the lead up would be miserable and painful and undignified?

That's covered under the Zombie Bite Clause.

Interesting. Thanks.

No problem....?


Any alterior motive for asking?

the choice most definitely should be up to the person, which should be able to take his or her own life whenever she wants, though it should be backed by a moral reason like stated above.

Interesting. Thanks.

So what brought this on Smunkee?

It's a hard question, because there are two ways of looking at it. On one hand, it's their life, it's their body, they should have the right to do largely whatever it is they chose to do.

On the other hand, suicide is often an irrational proposition. Often those who seriously undergo suicide attempts are not thinking rationally and objectively about their lives, but acting under extreme depression and mental illness. It's one thing to simply say "his body, let him kill himself if he wants" and another one entirely to realize that he is quite possibly severely depressed and not thinking clearly. It's one thing to let objective, rational people make the choice for them, another to let mentally ill people do it.

There are times when suicide can be a rational choice...terminally ill and in extreme pain, maybe it becomes the clear choice, but a lot of times those who make that choice aren't thinking clearly.

When bitten by a zombie. That's the only time. Then it's not only acceptable, but expected. I mean if you don't, you become a danger to everyone, no?

Similarly, suicide is selfish and harms everyone who knows and/or cares for you. Traumatizes them really. It should be considered a form of assault. A felony, really, demanding the harshest punishment. The death penalty!

So what brought this on Smunkee?

My friend committed suicide tonight. He had recently been diagnosed with a particularly nasty cancer and was terminal. I'm kinda trying to figure out how to decompress and go to sleep so I can help his mother sort things out tomorrow.

There are plenty of reasons why suicide can be acceptable.

1) Terminal, painful illness.
2) To prevent someone from extracting information for you that will cause harm to others.
3) To preserve honor.

And those are what I can come up with off the top of my head.

Now, let me be honest: If I wanted to be selfish, I wouldn't just be suiciding. I'd be taking as many people as I can with me. Something like walking into a shopping mall wearing a vest made out of C4 and studded with ball bearings, then detonating it. Or maybe see how many cops I could kill while entrenched in a bank before I finally get gunned down.

Lock them up when they become suicidal.
Some people have good reason to be suicidal, so why should they be locked up? Do you think it's insane to want to end suffering, to escape painful terminal illness, to avoid the ravages of Altzheimer's while you still have your mind?

Everybody dies. Why shouldn't people be allowed to take control of their own manner of death?

If a person is driven to suicide because of mental illness, they are obviously not making a rational decision. In most such cases, it is better to stop such a person from killing themselves, for the exact same reason that it's probably better to stop them from doing lots of other serious things while they are not in their right minds. Not because suicide is so horrible, but because their decision is not really their own.

But a person who is not mentally ill IS perfectly capable of making rational decisions, even if they are ones you personally would never make.

I believe absolutely that the right of people to end their own lives should be recognized and respected. As mentioned above, I can think of several very good reasons to end one's life -- they are reasons I might choose to end my own life, if it were ever to come to it. That said, however, I will not presume to judge whether someone else's reason to kill themselves is good or not. As far as I'm concerned, "I don't want to do this any more" is really all the reason a person needs to decide what to do with themselves.

Hell, I'd go so far as to say that even a mentally ill person who, restored to lucidity under proper care and medication, still decides to commit suicide rather than spend an indefinite number of years struggling with their disease, should have that decision respected. Personally, I would not stop them.

What if you were going to die anyway?

Define. See, I've got no problem with a person discontinuing medication if it means a little less time, but a better quality of the remaining time when facing a terminal disease. And since chronic pain management medication has a tendency to shorten life spans, but make the remaining time less painful, I've got no problem with that.

But I do have a problem with a person giving up even if there are good odds. Granted, I also favor universal healthcare. I'm talking in a most ideal situation.

Oh, geez, Smunkee. I assume this is the friend you mentioned on GM? That's really terrible. :(

You're ignoring two facts. The first is that when rational people do comit suicide, it is often for the financial gain of their families. The second is that there is a huge sociological cost to a suicide. For this same reason I think divorce laws should be strengthened.

When is it not selfish though? I mean is there a point where people should respect the decision?

Who cares? Its their life, they own it. No one else does.

Anything I own I can do what I want with. My life included.

When/why is it selfish? Because there are almost always people who care about you, people who depend on you, and people who are in just as much if not more trouble and heartbreak than you are. There is a 1 in 6 billion+ chance that you are the one person on earth who has lost and suffered the most... by taking your own life for that all you are doing is taking that last final selfish act and saying "I am the only thing that matters."

When is it not selfish? How about when the act of taking your own life is the last thing you can do for the benefit of someone else? Thats about the only time I can think of.

My friend committed suicide tonight. He had recently been diagnosed with a particularly nasty cancer and was terminal. I'm kinda trying to figure out how to decompress and go to sleep so I can help his mother sort things out tomorrow.

I knew it had to be something. You're not the type to pull this out of the blue.

I'm sorry to hear that. The only thing I can tell you is that he won't be suffering how the cancer would have made him suffer. His decision was probably a rational one, and in fact one that many people here would agree with.

Now, you have to take care of yourself and get some sleep. You're going to have a busy day tomorrow, taking care of things.

You're ignoring two facts. The first is that when rational people do comit suicide, it is often for the financial gain of their families. The second is that there is a huge sociological cost to a suicide. For this same reason I think divorce laws should be strengthened.

Oftentimes, when they do, it's actually less of a financial burden than if they continued to live. For example, the aforementioned cancer. The sheer expensiveness of keeping a cancer patient alive honestly makes the cost of dealing with their suicide seem cheap by comparison.

As for sociological: Not really.

My friend committed suicide tonight. He had recently been diagnosed with a particularly nasty cancer and was terminal. I'm kinda trying to figure out how to decompress and go to sleep so I can help his mother sort things out tomorrow.
I am very sorry to hear about your friend. But like I suggested in my first post, it was his death, as much as it was his life -- his to control, his to do with as he saw fit. It's bad to lose someone from one's life so quickly like that, but his going could not have been avoided, and at least he went out master of himself.

I'm not trying to make you feel better, because I wouldn't presume to do that. But if it were me, I'd feel better thinking about it that way. It's like when my grandfather died. He didn't kill himself, and the disease that killed him was much faster and kinder than cancer usually is, but he saw it coming and had to resign himself to it -- and he did that, and died well, on his own terms -- as much as one can have terms with death.

My friend committed suicide tonight. He had recently been diagnosed with a particularly nasty cancer and was terminal. I'm kinda trying to figure out how to decompress and go to sleep so I can help his mother sort things out tomorrow.

sorry. To you and him and to his family

My friend committed suicide tonight. He had recently been diagnosed with a particularly nasty cancer and was terminal. I'm kinda trying to figure out how to decompress and go to sleep so I can help his mother sort things out tomorrow.
Damn... Sorry to hear that Smunkee. You take care of yourself and hang in there, ok?

My friend committed suicide tonight. He had recently been diagnosed with a particularly nasty cancer and was terminal. I'm kinda trying to figure out how to decompress and go to sleep so I can help his mother sort things out tomorrow.

Dying while he still has his dignity, while his family remembers him as who he was and not who he might become before death.. that's not so selfish either. Two reasons I guess.

Very sorry for your loss however.

My friend committed suicide tonight. He had recently been diagnosed with a particularly nasty cancer and was terminal. I'm kinda trying to figure out how to decompress and go to sleep so I can help his mother sort things out tomorrow.

Hun, I wish youd said this in the OP so I could have offered sympathy before I got all militant.

You're ignoring two facts. The first is that when rational people do comit suicide, it is often for the financial gain of their families.

lulwat?

Source.

The second is that there is a huge sociological cost to a suicide.

Like what?

When/why is it selfish? Because there are almost always people who care about you, people who depend on you, and people who are in just as much if not more trouble and heartbreak than you are. There is a 1 in 6 billion+ chance that you are the one person on earth who has lost and suffered the most... by taking your own life for that all you are doing is taking that last final selfish act and saying "I am the only thing that matters."

When is it not selfish? How about when the act of taking your own life is the last thing you can do for the benefit of someone else? Thats about the only time I can think of.

No no no. Im sorry, but its VERY selfish of YOU to not want me to die when Im already dying and am in terrible pain. You ar putting what YOU want over ending my suffering. Sorry, that puts you in the wrong.

so suicide is.....heredity!?!

Hun, I wish youd said this in the OP so I could have offered sympathy before I got all militant.

I would rather people be honest.

No no no. Im sorry, but its VERY selfish of YOU to not want me to die when Im already dying and am in terrible pain. You ar putting what YOU want over ending my suffering. Sorry, that puts you in the wrong.
This is actually a very helpful point of view. I'm unsure right now what I'm thinking, other than anger and sadness and confusion and selfish things. I hadn't adjusted to the fact that he was going to die......and I thought I had more time, but I guess I didn't.

Other than the fact that most of the time its the most selfish thing you can do...

Murdering someone is selfish. It involves thinking that your desires are so important as to trump another person's right to self-determination.

Committing suicide is not. The only thing it requires is not being so noble and saintlike as to live for the sake of others. No one has any such obligation. Not even close.

I would rather people be honest.


This is actually a very helpful point of view. I'm unsure right now what I'm thinking, other than anger and sadness and confusion and selfish things. I hadn't adjusted to the fact that he was going to die......and I thought I had more time, but I guess I didn't.

In time, you'll adjust. Just know that his suffering is over and every pain he's experienced in life is ended.

You probably don't share my beliefs (very few do), but I believe his afterlife won't be bad. Death judges on the whole of life. And Death isn't cold-hearted.

And since this topic started from a serious matter:

What suicide is depends. Most of the time in modern society, it's a cry for help and the subject usually won't be driven to going through with it if they do receive the attention they want and need.

Other times, it's simply an act of mercy that's been inflicted on oneself, as in the case of cancer, Alzheimer's or some other slow and debilitating death in the future.

Murdering someone is selfish. It involves thinking that your desires are so important as to trump another person's right to self-determination.

Committing suicide is not. The only thing it requires is not being so noble and saintlike as to live for the sake of others. No one has any such obligation. Not even close.
In some instances, it requires a person to be so noble and saintlike as to die for the sake of others -- to spare them financial ruin from a long expensive illness which can only end in your death anyway.

No no no. Im sorry, but its VERY selfish of YOU to not want me to die when Im already dying and am in terrible pain. You ar putting what YOU want over ending my suffering. Sorry, that puts you in the wrong.

Murdering someone is selfish. It involves thinking that your desires are so important as to trump another person's right to self-determination.

Committing suicide is not. The only thing it requires is not being so noble and saintlike as to live for the sake of others. No one has any such obligation. Not even close.

I came to my conclusions while staring down the several hundred feet to the ground from the window sill of my apartment building. So fuck off with your "Its not selfish" BS. I have been there, a rope around my neck and hundreds of feet of air beneath me when I came to this conclusion, I'm not changing my mind and I am not looking back.. and I am better for not doing it.

I came to my conclusions while staring down the several hundred feet to the ground from the window sill of my apartment building. So fuck off with your "Its not selfish" BS. I have been there, a rope around my neck and hundreds of feet of air beneath me when I came to this conclusion, I'm not changing my mind and I am not looking back.. and I am better for not doing it.

It depends, really. I was quite selfish when I attempted suicide, in fact I'm still damn selfish.

I don't think it's fair to judge people on it though, nobody can truly know how bad it was for you.

I came to my conclusions while staring down the several hundred feet to the ground from the window sill of my apartment building. So fuck off with your "Its not selfish" BS. I have been there, a rope around my neck and hundreds of feet of air beneath me when I came to this conclusion, I'm not changing my mind and I am not looking back.. and I am better for not doing it.

Great. Good for you. Glad your alive. But if you want someone who lives every moment of their life in agony to go on living because you want them to, that makes you selfish, and no amount of "fuck off!"s will change that reality.

I came to my conclusions while staring down the several hundred feet to the ground from the window sill of my apartment building. So fuck off with your "Its not selfish" BS. I have been there, a rope around my neck and hundreds of feet of air beneath me when I came to this conclusion, I'm not changing my mind and I am not looking back.. and I am better for not doing it.

I was rescued by an old friend and a tree that happened to be unaccommodating to my efforts. I am still mad at him, and I had the tree cut down and the wood burned. My life has only gotten worse since then, but morbid curiosity compels me to see just how bad it can actually get before it gets better.

I still don't know yet, but I'll keep you posted. In any case, I may be a selfish bastard, but I feel justified all the same.

Great. Good for you. Glad your alive. But if you want someone who lives every moment of their life in agony to go on living because you want them to, that makes you selfish, and no amount of "fuck off!"s will change that reality.

Dying while he still has his dignity, while his family remembers him as who he was and not who he might become before death.. that's not so selfish either. Two reasons I guess.

Very sorry for your loss however.

And here I add further clarification.

I am now going to refrain from this thread before someone actually pushes me to become angry either on purpose or on accident.

I came to my conclusions while staring down the several hundred feet to the ground from the window sill of my apartment building. So fuck off with your "Its not selfish" BS. I have been there, a rope around my neck and hundreds of feet of air beneath me when I came to this conclusion, I'm not changing my mind and I am not looking back.. and I am better for not doing it.
I'm glad you decided to take the short jump instead of the long one (back inside the window rather than outside it), but your experience is not everyone's experience.

Personally, I do not think it's selfish for a person sliding into Altzheimer's -- which can take years to kill a person, all the while leaving them completely incapacitated and in need of constant professional care and minding at a financial cost which can destroy their spouse's and childrens' futures and an emotional cost that can only create years of unhappiness and suffering for their loved ones -- to choose to die before it comes to that.

In your unhappy state, there was the chance for you to get out of it and find happiness again and enjoy life. For the Altzheimer's patient, there is no such chance. He has only one choice to make and that is which death he'll opt for. Not dying is not an option. He can only control when and how. Considering the effect his disease will have on those who care about him, why shouldn't he exercise that control?

EDIT: Forget it. You posted a reminder of what you said earlier, so I don't want you to take this as hounding you personally. I'll leave it up, in case anyone else wants to respond to it, but I understand what you're saying about suicide committed by people who are unhappy, rather than already dying. It's just that I partially disagree with you. Yes, such suicides are selfish, but it's a selfishness that I personally think a person has a right to.

I came to my conclusions while staring down the several hundred feet to the ground from the window sill of my apartment building. So fuck off with your "Its not selfish" BS. I have been there, a rope around my neck and hundreds of feet of air beneath me when I came to this conclusion, I'm not changing my mind and I am not looking back.. and I am better for not doing it.

Just because you had selfish reasons in mind doesn't mean everyone does. You are being quite selfish in that you presume that your action must be the only reason people are doing it and thus you are condemning the act without stopping to consider that you might just be wrong.

Honestly, I see no difference between your actions on the day you had that rope around your neck and your posted argument now. In both cases, it is putting the self before others. Try not being selfish in this case and look at the situation from other outlooks.

And before anyone calls this an ad hominem: You made your own desires and your own person central to your argument. You have no one but yourself to blame for them for the fact that attacking your argument requires attacking you as well.

I'd personally prefer that they didn't except in cases of terminal illnesses or quality of life issues. We should be helping those who are suicidal get back on track. After all, unless you screw it up, it's rather hard to decide that committing suicide was a bad idea AFTER you do it.

Pretty much this.

Smunkee, have a hug.

Because there are almost always people who care about you,

There are people, probably including some of my relatives, who find atheism in a person like me rather horrifying and emotionally distressing, especially in a world climate where religious Judaism is in decline due to assimilation.

Does that mean I have an obligation to try my best to believe and practice, for their sake? To live life a certain way so that their desires about my life can be fulfilled?

We are obligated to respect the freedom of others, and we should seek and make use of opportunities to help others as well. But this need not be the focal point of our existence, and certainly need not determine the answer to a question as fundamental as, "Should I continue to live?"

people who depend on you,

With the possible exception of children, the people who depend on us do so only through the right of free association. If tomorrow I decide that I no longer want to be friends with someone, he does not automatically still have a claim to my time and energy simply because in the past he has depended on me.

The same applies to suicide: a person may have made use of her time while alive to help someone, and the person helped may "depend" on her, but it does not follow that that person has a claim on her time--let alone her life.

and people who are in just as much if not more trouble and heartbreak than you are.

What of it? Must we respond to difficulties the same way as others? Just because some people believe that enduring the suffering of life is worth it does not mean that others must believe the same way, and act accordingly.

by taking your own life for that all you are doing is taking that last final selfish act and saying "I am the only thing that matters."

As far as the decision as to whether to live or die, I think the person whose life is in question in an important sense is the only thing that matters.

Of course, a large proportion of suicide cases are not in their right minds... but in such cases, they need treatment, not condemnation.

When is it acceptable?

Should people have the right to take their life whenever they want?

I admit I have not yet read the rest of this thread.

On the one hand, we should each be captains of our own ship and have the right to end our own lifes.

On the other hand, almost all suicides are by those suffering from mental disorders. That suggests the deciding mind was not fully functional or rational.

Then add the impact that suicide has on others.

I think the scales weigh heavily against letting people freely committ suicide.

Cat-Tribe, you should really read the rest of this thread. Trust me.

And, honestly, I think which way it goes depends on the scales. Perfectly rational people come up with perfectly rational reasons as to why their lives should be ended, and there have been cultures where suicide in certain situations is actually more honorable than living.

I came to my conclusions while staring down the several hundred feet to the ground from the window sill of my apartment building. So fuck off with your "Its not selfish" BS. I have been there, a rope around my neck and hundreds of feet of air beneath me when I came to this conclusion, I'm not changing my mind and I am not looking back.. and I am better for not doing it.

You came to the conclusion that YOU were doing it for selfish reasons. You may even have been right. That does not mean that it is always a selfish choice.

I was rescued by an old friend and a tree that happened to be unaccommodating to my efforts. I am still mad at him, and I had the tree cut down and the wood burned. My life has only gotten worse since then, but morbid curiosity compels me to see just how bad it can actually get before it gets better.

I still don't know yet, but I'll keep you posted. In any case, I may be a selfish bastard, but I feel justified all the same.

I still don't talk to the friend who "saved" me.

I admit I have not yet read the rest of this thread.

On the one hand, we should each be captains of our own ship and have the right to end our own lifes.

On the other hand, almost all suicides are by those suffering from mental disorders. That suggests the deciding mind was not fully functional or rational.

Then add the impact that suicide has on others.

I think the scales way heavily against letting people freely committ suicide.
If you read the rest of the thread, you'll see arguments in favor of allowing people to commit suicide that refer to both situations in which it may be the rational choice, and also to principles of self-determination.

I would also point out that people suffering mental illness are wisely stopped from freely doing lots of things becuase they don't have the capacity to make rational decisions for their own sakes. I believe that is the reason people suffering mental illness should be stopped from committing suicide in most cases -- not because suicide is inherently bad.

But just because we stop the insane or extremely distraught from doing things, that doesn't mean we also stop sane, calm people from doing them, too.

I still don't talk to the friend who "saved" me.

Well, considering that it just keeps getting worse, on I had a chance to go out on a comparatively good note, I see no reason to be thankful.

Cat-Tribe, you should really read the rest of this thread. Trust me.
Why?

Unless this thread was made to attention whore sympathy, then the underlying premise should be the focus, and he dealt with it. There is nothing hidden in these pages that would invalidate what he's said.

Lock them up when they become suicidal.

Yea....that'll stop them.....maybe getting them some actual help will work better than putting them in a rinky dink cold dark cell.

Well, considering that it just keeps getting worse, on I had a chance to go out on a comparatively good note, I see no reason to be thankful.
I have no idea whatever what your situation is, and I'm not prying, but I do wish there was something I could do to help you have a good time while you're here (in this world, I mean).

yes they should because they have all right of their life

Why?

Unless this thread was made to attention whore sympathy, then the underlying premise should be the focus, and he dealt with it. There is nothing hidden in these pages that would invalidate what he's said.

Obviously, you should stop and read the rest of the thread as well. Because, honestly, you have no clue what you're talking about.

Here's one quote that deals with it:

If you read the rest of the thread, you'll see arguments in favor of allowing people to commit suicide that refer to both situations in which it may be the rational choice, and also to principles of self-determination.

I would also point out that people suffering mental illness are wisely stopped from freely doing lots of things becuase they don't have the capacity to make rational decisions for their own sakes. I believe that is the reason people suffering mental illness should be stopped from committing suicide in most cases -- not because suicide is inherently bad.

But just because we stop the insane or extremely distraught from doing things, that doesn't mean we also stop sane, calm people from doing them, too.

There's also another issue within this thread that isn't on the front page.

Why?

Unless this thread was made to attention whore sympathy, then the underlying premise should be the focus, and he dealt with it. There is nothing hidden in these pages that would invalidate what he's said.
I started it to gain opinions and discuss the topic.
Yea....that'll stop them.....maybe getting them some actual help will work better than putting them in a rinky dink cold dark cell.
I meant in a mental health ward. Believe me, when you don't want to be there and they make you stay, it's being locked up.
Well, considering that it just keeps getting worse, on I had a chance to go out on a comparatively good note, I see no reason to be thankful.
There isn't really. It wasn't any of their business. However, it's probably not going to get worse forever.....and if it does, that sucks ass.

Why?

Unless this thread was made to attention whore sympathy, then the underlying premise should be the focus, and he dealt with it. There is nothing hidden in these pages that would invalidate what he's said.
Neesika, that's a little harsh, I think. I advised TCT to read the rest of the thread, too, because there are arguments and thoughts in it that might open up further, more in-depth discussion.

I made this thread a couple weeks ago. I suppose great minds think alike, eh? To the topic at hand. I find life to be, quite literally a joke. There's no great reward or point to what we do or who we are. Seeing as such, we should be allowed to take our lives whenever and how we see fit. In the end after all, it simply doesn't matter.

Obviously, you should stop and read the rest of the thread as well.


Wow, guess what? I did! And my statement stands.

Because, honestly, you have no clue what you're talking about. Hmmm, crazy! Gee, look at this! I can haz opinion of my own?

I have read this thread and there has been no argument particularly compelling enough to invalidate the position that the Cat-Tribes has taken, which you'll note, if you can actually understand such nuance did NOT include 'banning suicide' or other such farcicial idiocy but has rather support Neo Art's and Murav's position that those people suffering from mental illness cannot make a rational decision and therefore should not be 'allowed' to commit suicide willy nilly.

So who isn't paying attention, hmmm?

Why else do you think he should 'read the rest of the thread'? Because had he not admitted it, you'd have never known it, and for some reason his statement that he did not in fact read it caused YOU to read all sorts of things into his post.




There's also another issue within this thread that isn't on the front page.

And intuitive to anyone with half a brain. Your point is? I'm sorry, do you actually have an argument here?

I have to go now, but --

Smunkee, I give you all my best hopes and feelings. I hope talking about this is helping, but don't feel bad about grieving over losing your friend. Even though he made the decision that was right for him, it's still appropriate for it to feel fucking horrible to you. So... *hug*

Neesika, that's a little harsh, I think. I advised TCT to read the rest of the thread, too, because there are arguments and thoughts in it that might open up further, more in-depth discussion.

Really? So it's not so that he'll see the context and tread lightly or something?

Because that's the 'code' I read with my little cereal box ring.

\There isn't really. It wasn't any of their business. However, it's probably not going to get worse forever.....and if it does, that sucks ass.

Exactly. It's not any of their business. Smunkee, sometimes it's scary how much we are alike.

Exactly. It's not any of their business. Smunkee, sometimes it's scary how much we are alike.

If things aren't getting progressively better in a few weeks, it would make sense to seek help. If things get progressively worse between now and then, seeking help would be an even better idea.

Things always suck, they don't have to suck so much that you are in pain daily though.......well, not always.

Really? So it's not so that he'll see the context and tread lightly or something?

Because that's the 'code' I read with my little cereal box ring.
I got the Cracker Jacks ring, which decoded it differently. I saw nothing scolding in Forensatha's post to TCT. Only a suggestion that he get more into the thread -- and considering TCT's mind, I'd like him to get more into it as well because I know that if he has anything further to say, it will be good.

EDIT: Anyway, I have to go for now.

Really? So it's not so that he'll see the context and tread lightly or something?

Because that's the 'code' I read with my little cereal box ring.

There is no reason to tread lightly or to hijack. If you could please answer the questions in to OP or go throw your little fit elsewhere that would be most pleasant.

Wow, guess what? I did! And my statement stands.

Your statement stands that TCT shouldn't bother to read the rest of the thread and instead post in ignorance of all of the factors influencing the conversation? Not to mention the arguments made that are intended to be thought-through and which have been mostly from a more enlightened method of discussing it that are actually relevant to what TCT had to say, which would require us to waste time restating?

Hmmm, crazy! Gee, look at this! I can haz opinion of my own?

Yes, you can. That doesn't stop your opinion from being wrong or others from trying to prove to you that it is. Everyone is allowed to have their opinion, but no one should be protected from the results of expressing that opinion without tact.

I have read this thread and there has been no argument particularly compelling enough to invalidate the position that the Cat-Tribes has taken, which you'll note, if you can actually understand such nuance did NOT include 'banning suicide' or other such farcicial idiocy but has rather support Neo Art's and Murav's position that those people suffering from mental illness cannot make a rational decision and therefore should not be 'allowed' to commit suicide willy nilly.

So who isn't paying attention, hmmm?

Why else do you think he should 'read the rest of the thread'? Because had he not admitted it, you'd have never known it, and for some reason his statement that he did not in fact read it caused YOU to read all sorts of things into his post.

Actually, what he posted was an assumption about suicide. For one thing, he doesn't know that most people who have committed suicide have actually been mentally unstable. No one does. To say such a thing is to posit a position that is inherently unsustainable due to the massive lack of ability to contact the dead and ask them their reasons, assuming you only get suiciders, for deciding to become dead. We also know that there are people in history who were rational and suicided for perfectly rational reasons, but exact numbers are unknown.

Secondly, whether or not others have said the same position on the reasoning behind suicides is irrelevant to my reply to his post and to my reply to your post.

Thirdly, you continue to prove you have no idea what you are talking about, specifically in that you are coming to the wrong conclusion about my reason for posting what I did or why it is I suggested the topic be reread. TCT came to the conclusion, based upon a flawed argument that relies upon an assumption, that the current evidence is mostly against suicides. I suggested he reread the thread because there's plenty of discussion within it which may change his viewpoint on the subject and which would be very important for TCT's conclusion. The discussion of reasons behind suicide alone, along with certain refutations of points, does help to invalidate his ultimate conclusion, though TCT could attempt to resupport it with information that is not based entirely upon a single assumption.

And intuitive to anyone with half a brain. Your point is? I'm sorry, do you actually have an argument here?

My point is that tact is called for from your end, which you have shown a dishonorable lack of.

If things aren't getting progressively better in a few weeks, it would make sense to seek help. If things get progressively worse between now and then, seeking help would be an even better idea.

Things always suck, they don't have to suck so much that you are in pain daily though.......well, not always.

Things have been going bad for about 17 years now, and I've seen psychiatrists. They just take my depression and give it enough enthusiasm to begin strangling psychiatrists.

But, all of that is irrelevant. My point is - don't worry about your friend. He made the right decision for him. It is not our place to question it, but simply to deal with it and move on. You above almost all the people here know that.

I got the Cracker Jacks ring, which decoded it differently. I saw nothing scolding in Forensatha's post to TCT. Only a suggestion that he get more into the thread -- and considering TCT's mind, I'd like him to get more into it as well because I know that if he has anything further to say, it will be good.

EDIT: Anyway, I have to go for now.

Correct. I wasn't scolding TCT, but merely suggesting he read more of the topic and get deeper into it.

Neesika, however, I was scolding... mostly because he irked me by assuming too much.

Smunkee, I know this is hard for you and I can't really offer words of condolance. I can't. You seemed a tick upbeat about the whole thing when you were talking about what he was going to do with the rest of his life, and I know you probably feel like a sobbing husk right now.

I guess the one thing about this that you may or may not come to respect is that he took his life on his own terms. It's not exactly going gently into the sweet night, but it's... something, I guess.

Someone IM'd me and brought it to my attention that people are still responding to what I said so I will repeat for everyone in a singular post:

I am out of this topic, you could even delete my responses if you want. I will not read or respond to anyone's responses to what I said because I personally feel too deeply about this concept and there is no use arguing and making enemies. So please just leave me out of this.

Wow. Tough question. I would have to say that a person with nothing to look forward to but a slow lingering death and was capable of making a lucid informed decision should have that right. Here's the problem: I don't see how a person can make such a decision without conferring with someone capable of helping him or her verify that this decision is informed, lucid and in the person's best interest. Once you start involving other people, you start involving other people's problems. Who then decides the person being conferred with is lucid, informed and has the person's best interest in mind? Look at Dr Jack Kevorkian. While he seems to genuinely care and want to help people, who decides if he truly has the best interests of his patients in mind and not his political agenda? I think we should let robots decide. Or God if the robot thing doesn't pan out.


Oh, and just to lighten things up a little: http://vodpod.com/watch/491791-futurama-suicide-booth

:)

Yea, I think people should have the right to end their own life if they want to. I mean what are we going to do, jail them?

In Australia if you fail you can be charged with attempted murder.

In Australia if you fail you can be charged with attempted murder.

Failure ought to be punished. Darth Vader taught me that. *nod*

Exactly. It's not any of their business. Smunkee, sometimes it's scary how much we are alike.

I hope you don't mind if I ask you a question.

I understand that it wasn't his business, and I know I don't know any details on your life, but if he wanted to stop you was it because he may have cared for you and wanted to help you?

If a Family member,relation or close friend of mine decided to commit suicide,mental health sound,I would be upset of course.Moral issues and Self interest by the the suicidee would not enter into the debate for myself.I would say "it was his/her choice",mourn and get on with life.

Touchy subject... touchy subject. But I will dare answer this as earnestly as I can. Yes, I do think people, depending on the circumstance, should have the right to take their own life. And by depending on the circumstance I mean, terminally ill. Perhaps I´m being hypocritical, maybe you´ll ask me why would suicide apply only to the terminally ill and not to anyone who wishes to end his or her existence, and I can´t honestly say I have a valid argument for my claim. I just think it should be that way.

-When you've realized that McCain/Palin won the election.

Would knowing they even stand a chance not be sufficient reason ? It is after all quite depressing...

I'd say I am in favour of allowing and even facilitating suicide. Perhaps a system should be implemented where someone who wishes to kill him/herself needs to reaffirm that wish for a prolonged period of time (say: 5 months or so) if they are not already dying/in immense pain daily to avoid the "omg - my gf dumped me - life is meaningless" suicides; but if someone still feels that way after that time, why not ? Their life after all.

Then again, the earth is overpopulated already. Maybe that safetynet should not be there.

First, my heart goes out to Smunkee. This is never easy to deal with.

Second, I never expected a minor tempest over my failure to read the thread. Suffice it to say (1) I didn't want to get too deep into the thread for personal reasons, but (2) I have now read the thread anyway.

Third, with that in mind, I stand by my comments. I did not and do not deny that there are extraordinary circumstances that may justify an individual suicide, but the fact of the matter is that most suicides occur under circumstances (mental disorders or substance disorders) that raise serious questions about the rationality of such a choice.

Your statement stands that TCT shouldn't bother to read the rest of the thread and instead post in ignorance of all of the factors influencing the conversation? Not to mention the arguments made that are intended to be thought-through and which have been mostly from a more enlightened method of discussing it that are actually relevant to what TCT had to say, which would require us to waste time restating?

Actually, what he posted was an assumption about suicide. For one thing, he doesn't know that most people who have committed suicide have actually been mentally unstable. No one does. To say such a thing is to posit a position that is inherently unsustainable due to the massive lack of ability to contact the dead and ask them their reasons, assuming you only get suiciders, for deciding to become dead. We also know that there are people in history who were rational and suicided for perfectly rational reasons, but exact numbers are unknown.

Secondly, whether or not others have said the same position on the reasoning behind suicides is irrelevant to my reply to his post and to my reply to your post.

Thirdly, you continue to prove you have no idea what you are talking about, specifically in that you are coming to the wrong conclusion about my reason for posting what I did or why it is I suggested the topic be reread. TCT came to the conclusion, based upon a flawed argument that relies upon an assumption, that the current evidence is mostly against suicides. I suggested he reread the thread because there's plenty of discussion within it which may change his viewpoint on the subject and which would be very important for TCT's conclusion. The discussion of reasons behind suicide alone, along with certain refutations of points, does help to invalidate his ultimate conclusion, though TCT could attempt to resupport it with information that is not based entirely upon a single assumption.

My point is that tact is called for from your end, which you have shown a dishonorable lack of.

*sigh*

My "assumption" is actually the following FACT: Research shows that risk factors for suicide include depression and other mental disorders, or a substance-abuse disorder (often in combination with other mental disorders). More than 90 percent of people who die by suicide have these risk factors See NIMH (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/suicide-in-the-us-statistics-and-prevention.shtml).

See also link (http://www.medicinenet.com/suicide/page3.htm) ("Nine out of 10 people who commit suicide have a diagnosable mental illness and up to three out of four individuals who take their own life had a physical illness when they committed suicide."), link (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0857/is_n3_v11/ai_14046431) ("Retrospective studies show that up to 80-90 per cent of suicides had definable psychiatric problems such as major depression (not just sadness), bipolar disorder (manicdepression), anxiety disorders or schizophrenia"), link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7598636) ( "In all three [study] groups, a high proportion of suicides suffered from mental illness before committing suicide (97% to 100%).")

EDIT: I know far more about suicide than I want to know, thank you very much. Nothing I've "learned" from this thread changes my opinion.

Third, with that in mind, I stand by my comments. I did not and do not deny that there are extraordinary circumstances that may justify an individual suicide, but the fact of the matter is that most suicides occur under circumstances (mental disorders or substance disorders) that raise serious questions about the rationality of such a choice.

Ironically, suicide is often rational if it is done for "selfish" reasons and irrational if it is for the perceived benefit of others. "I suffer, if I kill myself I will suffer no more" is after all 100% correct reasoning; while "my family is better of without me" quite often is not.

I meant in a mental health ward. Believe me, when you don't want to be there and they make you stay, it's being locked up.

Been there, done that. DON'T want it to happen ever again. :(

Smunkee, please let us know if there is anything we can do to offer you solace.

Second, I never expected a minor tempest over my failure to read the thread. Suffice it to say (1) I didn't want to get too deep into the thread for personal reasons, but (2) I have now read the thread anyway.

Ironically, the tempest isn't over what you said, but what Neesika said. If it wasn't for Neesika's comments, those two posts would probably have been it and we would have moved on.

Note: I'm Forensatha. I'm just also typing up an RP post as well, so I'm going ahead and posting on this one.

Third, with that in mind, I stand by my comments. I did not and do not deny that there are extraordinary circumstances that may justify an individual suicide, but the fact of the matter is that most suicides occur under circumstances (mental disorders or substance disorders) that raise serious questions about the rationality of such a choice.



*sigh*

My "assumption" is actually the following FACT: Research shows that risk factors for suicide include depression and other mental disorders, or a substance-abuse disorder (often in combination with other mental disorders). More than 90 percent of people who die by suicide have these risk factors See NIMH (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/suicide-in-the-us-statistics-and-prevention.shtml).

Research has also shown that brocolli causes cancer. And then shown that brocolli prevents cancer. And let's not forget the rather famous research that showed cigarettes do not cause cancer, despite a lot of research since that shows otherwise.

I'm pretty sure I could perform a search and find research that suggests the opposite of what you've found does. However, I'm not going to, simply because I already know it'll be adding flawed research on top of flawed research to support a counterpoint to an assumption.

The basic fact: All of your research suffers from the flaw of trying to use correlation to prove causation. And while I am certain that there are cases where the research is correct, I'm also certain that there's a lot of cases where the correlation between the two isn't proof of the causation.

And that's before we get into the fact this is all talking about mental health, which is an industry in the U.S. particularly known for having problems with overzealous doctors and misdiagnosis. I wouldn't be surprised if as much of 50% of the patients were misdiagnosed or even perfectly mentally healthy in some of those studies. This seriously wouldn't be the first period in the history of mental health that it's turned out to have a massively high mistake rate.

Oh, and before you point out those are respectable organizations, let me counter by saying that even the CDC makes mistakes like this. In particular, look for a report covering the 1990s and smoking-related deaths. You may be surprised to learn that the particular report in question happens to omit fire-related deaths that were not caused by smoking, creating the picture that all of the fire-related deaths for that period were because of smoking, and you can actually refute their figures in the report using reports from other government agencies over the same period.

So, yes, I'm taking those figures with a pillar of salt.

Now, I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong... just saying that, yes, it is an assumption and, no, you really can't support it.

Now, I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong... just saying that, yes, it is an assumption and, no, you really can't support it.
I'll let Cat-Tribes tear into you in detail, but I did want to note that, yes, he DID support his claim with evidence; YOU however have an unsupported assumption that consists of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "I can't hear you!"

In other words, saying that research has been wrong about other issues does not discount these particular studies. Saying that the CDC has been wrong about smoking also does not discredit them either or cast doubt on the ability of the CDC. Saying that mental health is an industry in the US means nothing without something to show that misdiagnosis is indeed a serious problem, and has any bearing on said studies. You didn't refute what Tribes said at all.

I'll let Cat-Tribes tear into you in detail, but I did want to note that, yes, he DID support his claim with evidence; YOU however have an unsupported assumption that consists of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "I can't hear you!"

Ironically, this is what I hear a lot when it comes to pointing out flaws in the mental health sciences. People would rather characterize it as doing something childish rather than stopping and realizing the person doing the talking might actually know what they're talking about.

So, here's my question: Have you ever actually studied these sciences? Have you ever actually taken the necessary courses to try to get certification in them? By your answer, the truth is obvious: You haven't. You might want to stop and study the sciences sometime before you challenge me on that issue, as it's obvious you don't actually know them.

The truth of the matter is simple: It's a combination of personal beliefs and commonly-accepted symptoms, which often get changed once people realize their assumptions about how the mind works are wrong. You still have people practicing the theories of Freud, mixed in with people who have more modern beliefs. The entire set of sciences is more a set of competing theories and assumptions with very little actual imperical data to back it.

How can they prove anyone they diagnosed as depressed for those studies actually was? They actually can't. What they can do is assume that they're right and hope to hell that they've not been misdiagnosing it this entire time. And, if you've ever studied the history of the mental disease known as depression, you'll learn that it rarely, if ever, has a true success story for curing it. I personally don't count medicating a person to cover up the symptoms as a success story, since the depression comes back as soon as they're off the meds.

So, has TCT provided me with actual evidence to support his claim that I can verify through repeated testing? Nope. The tests themselves rely upon a science that has no actual imperical evidence to support it. Thus, when I toss those out as being unimportant, I'm doing so because I know that no one can actually provide me with the same level of evidence as I could get when asking about global warming, despite the fact that global warming is the younger science of the two.

In other words, saying that research has been wrong about other issues does not discount these particular studies. Saying that the CDC has been wrong about smoking also does not discredit them either or cast doubt on the ability of the CDC. Saying that mental health is an industry in the US means nothing without something to show that misdiagnosis is indeed a serious problem, and has any bearing on said studies. You didn't refute what Tribes said at all.

You missed the point entirely and you are assuming too much. I used the CDC item as an example of respectable organizations making mistakes from time to time. And I was never trying to refute his argument.

On a lighter note (I guess) a zombie outbreak and the lack of hope might be enough of an acceptable situation to commit suicide, no?

Ironically, this is what I hear a lot when it comes to pointing out flaws in the mental health sciences. People would rather characterize it as doing something childish rather than stopping and realizing the person doing the talking might actually know what they're talking about.

So, here's my question: Have you ever actually studied these sciences? Have you ever actually taken the necessary courses to try to get certification in them? By your answer, the truth is obvious: You haven't. You might want to stop and study the sciences sometime before you challenge me on that issue, as it's obvious you don't actually know them.
*cough mastersofscienceincounselingandeducationalpsychology cough*
I'm sorry, you were saying something?

The truth of the matter is simple: It's a combination of personal beliefs and commonly-accepted symptoms, which often get changed once people realize their assumptions about how the mind works are wrong. You still have people practicing the theories of Freud, mixed in with people who have more modern beliefs. The entire set of sciences is more a set of competing theories and assumptions with very little actual imperical data to back it.

How can they prove anyone they diagnosed as depressed for those studies actually was? They actually can't. What they can do is assume that they're right and hope to hell that they've not been misdiagnosing it this entire time. And, if you've ever studied the history of the mental disease known as depression, you'll learn that it rarely, if ever, has a true success story for curing it. I personally don't count medicating a person to cover up the symptoms as a success story, since the depression comes back as soon as they're off the meds.
And I'm sure you have something to actually back your claims up? Anything? Anything at all? No? Then you spout naught but hot air.

So, has TCT provided me with actual evidence to support his claim that I can verify through repeated testing? Nope. The tests themselves rely upon a science that has no actual imperical evidence to support it. Thus, when I toss those out as being unimportant, I'm doing so because I know that no one can actually provide me with the same level of evidence as I could get when asking about global warming, despite the fact that global warming is the younger science of the two.
Oh, I see! I see, since we're dealing with humanity and given that the study of humanity, its motivations, and other, does not provide hard numbers, we must therefore discount anything we actually know and have working theories on. Let me guess, you're an engineer.

You missed the point entirely and you are assuming too much. I used the CDC item as an example of respectable organizations making mistakes from time to time. And I was never trying to refute his argument.
Which does nothing to actually address Cat-Tribes. Again, you do not want to accept the evidence at hand and stick your fingers in your ears.

*cough mastersofscienceincounselingandeducationalpsychology cough*
I'm sorry, you were saying something?

Bwahaha! That's a good one. Okay, so you specialize in the psychology of helping design educational programs and helping kids advance their academic careers. :D

And I'm sure you have something to actually back your claims up? Anything? Anything at all? No? Then you spout naught but hot air.

Just every textbook on teaching psychology and psychiatry, specifically the history of and the modern theories of, I've ever run across. Oh, well. I guess an entire field of published literature is nothing after all ^^

Oh, I see! I see, since we're dealing with humanity and given that the study of humanity, its motivations, and other, does not provide hard numbers, we must therefore discount anything we actually know and have working theories on. Let me guess, you're an engineer.

Nope. Just someone who's a little more realistic about it than those who typically have devoted a lot of time to it.

I'll also note that a lot of the issue with it is that the working theories themselves often contradict each other. For example, psychiatry vs. psychology. Psychiatry focuses more on the biological component, believing that the primary cause, while psychology believes it's primarily the mental component that is the primary cause. Thus, why it is that psychiatrists have to have medical degrees and are allowed to prescribe medications.

One other thing to note is that we've found ways to give imperical data on other nebulous items. Like, racism. You can design a test where you ask how people if they've had racist policies used against them. You record the statements, then examine the actual percentage of your population before running a statistical analysis. If you don't end up supporting the null hypothesis, you then have a study that shows racism is still a problem and exactly how much of a problem it is, based upon your study group. Anyone can go out and repeat that test.

Of course, my test example is overly simplified, but you get the idea.

Which does nothing to actually address Cat-Tribes. Again, you do not want to accept the evidence at hand and stick your fingers in your ears.

Bwahaha! This is rich :tongue:

Again, you're making a mistake. Here, let me quote it to you so you can see what I was hoping you would have spotted before now.

Oh, and before you point out those are respectable organizations, let me counter by saying that even the CDC makes mistakes like this.

That's from my own post. It's a technique known as "heading off parts of their argument before they even make it." It's natural to respond to someone tossing out data such as that by pointing out the respectability of the sources. What I was doing was heading TCT off before that was even done, thus making it a point to counter a line of argument before it was even made.

Edit: Okay, I can't keep looking at this one without laughing. I come off as such an asshole despite the fact I'm trying to write an amused tone. I've editted it to include smileys, which I really need to use more of.

I think that 9999999/10000000 times, suicide is a completely irrational choice. Although it's meaningless to talk about 'rights' in this context, because it's usually impossible to stop people anyway, but I think we should do everything we can to discourage someone from suicide.

When is it acceptable?

Should people have the right to take their life whenever they want?

Short answer, yes.

Slightly longer one, if of sound mind.

..... but I think we should do everything we can to discourage someone from suicide.

Why?

Why?

Because sometimes it may not be the best option. They may be the parents of children and because they just lost their job just want to quit, this will have an effect on these children and could ruin their lives.

Because sometimes it may not be the best option. They may be the parents of children and because they just lost their job just want to quit, this will have an effect on these children and could ruin their lives.

And if they don't if they are well within their 90's, have no dependants and just wish to leave?

Why would the suicde of a parent ruin a childs life less than an natural death? Death is death, and berevement is berevement.

And if they don't if they are well within their 90's, have no dependants and just wish to leave?

Why would the suicde of a parent ruin a childs life less than an natural death? Death is death, and berevement is berevement.

We can't always help a natural death, taking ones life without thinking about who it might effect is selfish and if you are doing it just to escape it is a coward's way out. I'm sorry if that offends anybody but that is the way I feel, it is taking the easy way out. I may be wrong and I accept that but it is the way I feel about the issue.

To tell you the truth Peepelonia when I answered your "why?" post I was just playing devils advocate.

I hope you don't mind if I ask you a question.

I understand that it wasn't his business, and I know I don't know any details on your life, but, if he wanted to stop you, was it because he may have cared for you and wanted to help you?

Well, no good deed goes unpunished. When you have a person who wishes to die, and you deny them that, do you really expect that they're going to turn around and thank you? I find that extremely unlikely in any circumstance.

By the way, I added commas to your statement so that it made sense. I had to read it three times before I got what you were going for.

We can't always help a natural death, taking ones life without thinking about who it might effect is selfish and if you are doing it just to escape it is a coward's way out. I'm sorry if that offends anybody but that is the way I feel, it is taking the easy way out. I may be wrong and I accept that but it is the way I feel about the issue.

To tell you the truth Peepelonia when I answered your "why?" post I was just playing devils advocate.

Well you know I was only asking as the way you phrased the post to which I replied, it seemed like you where saying that all those who plan suicide, we should endevour to talk out of it.

I don't belive for a secons that those who contemplate suicide do not thing about how it would affect those left behind.

Seen in this light then I would say suicide is no cowards way. To help yourself no matter who it hurts is a brave thing to do, isn't it?

Well, no good deed goes unpunished. When you have a person who wishes to die, and you deny them that, do you really expect that they're going to turn around and thank you? I find that extremely unlikely in any circumstance.

It's this whole 'Right to life' thing.

Personaly I belive that each indivdual has the ultimate right to their own life. Nobody should be able to take somebody else life, I belive this to be the number one rule.

So conversly if somebody(in sound mind) wishes to end their own life I belive nobody has the right to gainsay them.

Why?

By the way, I'm not referring to the very elderly or terminally ill here. But for the rest of the suicidal people, again, it's almost always a completely irrational choice, if not always, and everyone I've met who was suicidal, completely regrets even thinking about that now.

Seen in this light then I would say suicide is no cowards way. To help yourself no matter who it hurts is a brave thing to do, isn't it?

Erm.. no? That is the very definition of selfishness.

By the way, I'm not referring to the very elderly or terminally ill here. But for the rest of the suicidal people, again, it's almost always a completely irrational choice, if not always, and everyone I've met who was suicidal, completely regrets even thinking about that now.

Except two, in this thread alone.

Except two, in this thread alone.

Three. I'm one of those few people to deal with untreated clinical depression for nearly a decade and come out alive (so far). It's actually been a bit of a good thing, as it's taught me a lot about how to look outside the normal assumptions and preconceptions most people have.

OK let me rephrase that, what I meant is I've never met anyone who was suicidal, who would even think about killing themselves now.

Erm.. no? That is the very definition of selfishness.

No I disagee. Say you are a Mulsim, with a bad heart. The surgen has offered to replace your bad ticker with that of a pig donar.

Now you know that this probably flies in the face of your religoin, and you can only imagine what your peers, family, and iman would say.

Yet you go ahead with the op in spite of the consequences. Would you say that is, brave or selfish, umm perhaps even both?

Being able to make the hard choice despite the consequences seem incredibly brave to me.

OK let me rephrase that, what I meant is I've never met anyone who was suicidal, who would even think about killing themselves now.

I assume by your statement you meant suicidal in the past. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all, and I like statements to make sense so I interpret them to do so.

In any case, you've still got one certainly and probably at least two in this thread who don't fit that mold.

Unless, of course, you're saying that only people who are no longer suicidal wouldn't think of killing themselves anymore, in which case, it's kind of a circular statement.

From a legal standpoint, yes.

I don't agree with suicide. Never take the easy way out - you got this life for nothing anyway, why not enjoy it?

I don't agree with suicide. Never take the easy way out - you got this life for nothing anyway, why not enjoy it?

I've been reminded of Kiryuu Zero. :)

I've been reminded of Kiryuu Zero. :)

Indeed. :)

No I disagee. Say you are a Mulsim, with a bad heart. The surgen has offered to replace your bad ticker with that of a pig donar.

Now you know that this probably flies in the face of your religoin, and you can only imagine what your peers, family, and iman would say.

Yet you go ahead with the op in spite of the consequences. Would you say that is, brave or selfish, umm perhaps even both?

That is almost the opposite of the example you presented. In this case, you're doing something you DON'T want to do, for a greater good. In the other one, you're doing something you WANT to do, but will be bad for all your friends and family, that is selfish.


Being able to make the hard choice despite the consequences seem incredibly brave to me.

Just because it's brave to commit suicide, doesn't mean it's not selfish. Doing something only for yourself, that will hurt lots of other people (which is what's happening in your example), is by definition, selfish.

I don't agree with suicide. Never take the easy way out - you got this life for nothing anyway, why not enjoy it?

Ummm, I'm not sure that suicide or it's contemplation is easy. And life for nowt, bwahahaha you are joking right?

OK let me rephrase that, what I meant is I've never met anyone who was suicidal, who would even think about killing themselves now.

You obviously need to reread this thread, as I've already discussed methods of killing myself, despite not currently being in a suicidal state (anymore, it comes and goes, which tells me my method of control is getting more effective).

Ummm, I'm not sure that suicide or it's contemplation is easy. And life for nowt, bwahahaha you are joking right?

Usually. :p

I don't agree with suicide. Never take the easy way out - you got this life for nothing anyway, why not enjoy it?

Ever give it a try? I mean, ever stare down the barrel of a gun?

There's nothing easy about it.

Just because it's brave to commit suicide, doesn't mean it's not selfish. Doing something only for yourself, that will hurt lots of other people (which is what's happening in your example), is by definition, selfish.

Heh that's fine, I don't disagree with that at all, but then the referse is also true. Selfishness does not exclude bravery.

I assume by your statement you meant suicidal in the past. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all, and I like statements to make sense so I interpret them to do so.

In any case, you've still got one certainly and probably at least two in this thread who don't fit that mold.

Unless, of course, you're saying that only people who are no longer suicidal wouldn't think of killing themselves anymore, in which case, it's kind of a circular statement.

OK what I said was a bit vague and it's easy to get confused by it, so just ignore that and let me start from scratch. I've never met anyone, who has been suicidal (to the extent that they would rather commit suicide, than not commit suicide, not just to the extent of having thoughts about it regularly), who has stayed that way for a long period of time, where people or therapists have failed to talk them out of it.

Heh that's fine, I don't disagree with that at all, but then the referse is also true. Selfishness does not exclude bravery.

Killing yourself, for no greater purpose than yourself, doesn't deserve the title brave.

Usually. :p

Zero, darling, this is a serious topic and there's no easy way to approach it. And this also touches Smunkee deeply. Humanity's needed here. Thread carefully.:wink:

Doing something only for yourself, that will hurt lots of other people (which is what's happening in your example), is by definition, selfish.

No. Doing something only for yourself without consideration of the hurt it will cause to others is selfish.

A rational non-selfish person could easily reason, "While I acknowledge that it is horrible that other people will suffer because of my decision, I have no obligation to live on for their sake alone." That's not selfish callousness. It's not the denial of altruism, it's the recognition that our duties to altruism are not unlimited or absolute.

Zero, darling, this is a serious topic and there's no easy way to approach it. And this also touches Smunkee deeply. Humanity's needed here. Thread carefully.:wink:

Yes mam. *Flees thread before he puts his foot in his mouth*

Killing yourself, for no greater purpose than yourself, doesn't deserve the title brave.

Agreed. I think you'll get no argument out of anyone on here. Yes, it requires a lot of willpower to overcome the self-preservation instinct, but that doesn't mean you're being brave. People overcome that instinct all the time for the most idiotic of reasons and activities (like getting your head stuck in a sewer drain while trying to retrieve a quarter).

No. Doing something only for yourself without consideration of the hurt it will cause to others is selfish.

A rational non-selfish person could easily reason, "While I acknowledge that it is horrible that other people will suffer because of my decision, I have no obligation to live on for their sake alone." That's not selfish callousness. It's not the denial of altruism, it's the recognition that our duties to altruism are not unlimited or absolute.

I call that recognition that you have no absolute obligation to not be selfish.

OK what I said was a bit vague and it's easy to get confused by it, so just ignore that and let me start from scratch. I've never met anyone, who has been suicidal (to the extent that they would rather commit suicide, than not commit suicide, not just to the extent of having thoughts about it regularly), who has stayed that way for a long period of time, where people or therapists have failed to talk them out of it.

I had a really long response all typed out to this, but then I decided to take a step back and realize that it's not important for me to convince you of any one way or the other. This is Smunkee's thread about a deeply personal issue and I won't turn it into a flame fest.

Just know that whatever your assumptions about how a suicidal person thinks or feels, it's probably not the way that you think. Until you've been there, it's impossible for you to even comprehend what can bring a person there and keep them there for decades. I can't make you see it - nor would I want to. You're better off not knowing.

I happen to agree with Forensatha's points about assumptions concerning suicide in THIS WAY:

I believe very strongly that there is in the US (where I live) a cultural assumption that suicide is always irrational and always the wrong thing to do.

I believe that many professionals in mental health research and care, health care, and the legal system operate on the assumption that choosing suicide is, in and of itself, a symptom of mental defect, of a person not being in their right mind and not competent to make decisions for themselves.

I believe this assumption colors some research on the issue, just as it colors some law that affects it, too.

I believe this assumption came to light very strongly with Dr. Kevorkian and other assisted suicide cases, and it also comes to light every time there is a competency dispute in a family over whether an elderly person -- who is nearing the natural end of their life and is suffering from painful, crippling and humiliating conditions of old age -- should be institutionalized because they express a desire to commit suicide and speed up their dying process.

As I said, I believe very strongly that this "suicide = derangement" assumption exists and colors many researchers' work and many other people's interpretation of research on the issue.

Thus, although I accept the facts that TCT presented, I do not accept them as the last word on the subject. Yes, it does say that 99% of suicides suffer from mental illness. But how many of that 99% are diagnosed with mental illness only because they attempted or committed suicide? How many of that 99% did have mental illnesses, such as chronic depression or schizophrenia, but were lucid and rational when they made their decision to kill themselves?

In a society that automatically assumes that it is crazy to kill oneself, how can we automatically trust even established authorities who confirm that, yes, indeed, those who kill themselves are overwhelmingly likely to be crazy? Especially when we can see clear examples in daily life that suicide is sometimes the sane choice?

LG mentioned the doubt that comes in when others are consulted. He mentioned that Dr. Kevorkian seemed like he only cared for the suffering of his patients, but how can we know his motives were not driven by his social-political agenda, which might have made him more likely to counsel suicide than not? It's a valid point.

And the flipside of it is, how can we know that the doctors who come in with the a priori belief that suicide is connected with mental illness are not being guided by that assumption in their research?

I am not saying necessarily that it is. I am just saying that we should not just point to the current state of research as the last word on this issue. We should look at the social context of the research and of our own beliefs and assumptions and find our own ethical stance on the matter.

I had a really long response all typed out to this, but then I decided to take a step back and realize that it's not important for me to convince you of any one way or the other. This is Smunkee's thread about a deeply personal issue and I won't turn it into a flame fest.

Just know that whatever your assumptions about how a suicidal person thinks or feels, it's probably not the way that you think. Until you've been there, it's impossible for you to even comprehend what can bring a person there and keep them there for decades. I can't make you see it - nor would I want to. You're better off not knowing.

I don't think the specific emotional trauma you're going through is actually relevant to what I'm saying, I don't doubt that it's extremely intense, I do however know that it's irrational.

I call that recognition that you have no absolute obligation to not be selfish.

Then you're using "selfish" in a non-normative sense, in which case it doesn't matter whether or not suicide is selfish.

Then you're using "selfish" in a non-normative sense, in which case it doesn't matter whether or not suicide is selfish.

Hold on, what is the normative definition of selfish?

Hold on, what is the normative definition of selfish?

Something like "excessive concern for oneself"--regard for one's own desires that extends beyond its rightful limits.

We can't always help a natural death, taking ones life without thinking about who it might effect is selfish and if you are doing it just to escape it is a coward's way out. I'm sorry if that offends anybody but that is the way I feel, it is taking the easy way out. I may be wrong and I accept that but it is the way I feel about the issue.

But does it need to be forbidden for that reason ?

And of course the very notion that one has an "obligation" to stretch ones existence as long as possible is as ludicrous as it is repugnant.

Something like "excessive concern for oneself"--regard for one's own desires that extends beyond its rightful limits.

But does that not mean that doing something that will hurt others a great deal, to do something for your own benefit only, falls under excessive concern for oneself?

I don't think the specific emotional trauma you're going through is actually relevant to what I'm saying, I don't doubt that it's extremely intense, I do however know that it's irrational.

Without knowing the circumstances, you cannot guess whether it is rational or not. Suicide has been practice for thousands of years throughout the full spectrum of society. Certainly, it was done in different ways and many times for different reasons (the Japanese were definitely the most hardcore about it), but the same subject remains.

Sometimes, it is better to live, and sometimes it is better to die. Who are you to decide for the entire world when that is?

Killing yourself, for no greater purpose than yourself, doesn't deserve the title brave.

Well to your mind surley, but we are agreed that taking the hard action in spite of the consequences is brave?

Without knowing the circumstances, you cannot guess whether it is rational or not.

Right, but I did originally say that 999/1000 attempted suicides are done for irrational purposes, so I can allow for extreme but very rare circumstances.


Suicide has been practice for thousands of years throughout the full spectrum of society. Certainly, it was done in different ways and many times for different reasons (the Japanese were definitely the most hardcore about it), but the same subject remains.


And in pretty much all of these cases, they are based on irrational purposes (like religion) or because it's impossible for society to accommodate their needs, meaning they would die a slow death anyway (like the elderly in some native American tribes), although I am excluding the elderly and terminally ill here.


Sometimes, it is better to live, and sometimes it is better to die. Who are you to decide for the entire world when that is?

All I'm saying is that, we should do everything we can to discourage a suicidal person from committing suicide, especially if it's based only on emotional trauma.

Well to your mind surley, but we are agreed that taking the hard action in spite of the consequences is brave?

Yes, reluctantly, but the difficulty to commit suicide varies for different people.

But does it need to be forbidden for that reason ?

And of course the very notion that one has an "obligation" to stretch ones existence as long as possible is as ludicrous as it is repugnant.

Wait a minute did I say I think it should be forbidden? I am asking because I don't remember saying it.

Oh and I think I do have an obligation to raise my son and so I should look out for myself not only for myself but for him.

Right, but I did originally say that 999/1000 attempted suicides are done for irrational purposes, so I can allow for extreme but very rare circumstances.

However, i suspect it's perfectly rational to the person making that decision. You just don't agree.

And in pretty much all of these cases, they are based on irrational purposes (like religion) or because it's impossible for society to accommodate their needs, meaning they would die a slow death anyway (like the elderly in some native American tribes), although I am excluding the elderly and terminally ill here.

Again, you assume it's irrational.

All I'm saying is that, we should do everything we can to discourage a suicidal person from committing suicide, especially if it's based only on emotional trauma.

Now here I can go with you. We should discourage a person from committing suicide - the same way we should discourage a person from from driving faster than they can handle a vehicle safely. However, we should not immediately label them mentally defective if they disregard our advice.

Guys, cool it please. Really. *and she ain't a mod*

Guys, cool it please. Really. *and she ain't a mod*

Suicide can be a touchy subject. I guess it struck a nerve.

Guys, cool it please. Really. *and she ain't a mod*

I'm perfectly cool my dear. In fact, I'm thinking of having some iced tea to go along with this conversation.

Third, with that in mind, I stand by my comments. I did not and do not deny that there are extraordinary circumstances that may justify an individual suicide, but the fact of the matter is that most suicides occur under circumstances (mental disorders or substance disorders) that raise serious questions about the rationality of such a choice.

It's very uncomfortable to talk as an outsider to people about something with which they have had very intense personal experience, but I feel have to point out a flaw in your argument.

Let's accept the assertion that the vast majority of people who attempt/commit suicide are mentally ill at the time they do it (because I'm not going to claim that isn't true).

Even so, does the fact that most people will not choose to die if they are thinking calmly and rationally necessarily make the CHOICE itself irrational?

If anything that a crazy person is likely to do becomes, in and of itself, an irrational act or choice, then what isn't an irrational choice? Crazy people do lots of things -- lots of things that sane people do, too. They drink, eat, have sex, do drugs, spend money, all to extreme excess -- so do sane people. They believe erroneous ideas -- so do sane people. They get into inappropriate disputes with others -- so do sane people. They become excessively litigious -- so do sane people.

The difference is not what they do. It's WHY they do it.

An irrational person may do something self-destructive not by choice but by compulsion of their illness, lacking the ability to judge the risks/consequences, not able to choose to stop. A rational person may do something self-destructive by choice, in full awareness of the risks/consequences, in full control of the process.

The irrational person should be protected against doing something irreparable to themselves when they are not in control of themselves, especially if their irrational condition can be corrected by care/medication.

But shouldn't a rational person have their control over their own life recognized and respected, regardless of what they freely choose to do with it?

To my way of thinking, it does not matter if only 1 suicide out of a thousand makes their decision for rationally. The fact that suicide CAN be a rational choice means that there really is not any reason to take the default position of doubting the ratioanlity of suicide as a choice -- or in other words, no reason to assume that suicide = irrationality.

If a person attempts suicide, it should be asked, did they do this because they are irrational, or for some other reason? I do not believe we should be assuming irrationality, even temporary irrationality. EDIT: And it is my view that, in the US at least, there is the automatic assumption that there is no other possible reason, and I disagree with that.

However, i suspect it's perfectly rational to the person making that decision. You just don't agree.


I don't think rationality is subjective.


Again, you assume it's irrational.


It's more than assuming.


Now here I can go with you. We should discourage a person from committing suicide - the same way we should discourage a person from from driving faster than they can handle a vehicle safely. However, we should not immediately label them mentally defective if they disregard our advice.

I didn't say that we should.

You obviously need to reread this thread, as I've already discussed methods of killing myself, despite not currently being in a suicidal state (anymore, it comes and goes, which tells me my method of control is getting more effective).
I have never felt suicidal in my life. I am not sure but I suspect that my mother has had suicidal feelings in the past, but I am certain she does not now and has not for many years.

Nevertheless, both of us think about killing ourselves rather regularly.

Planning that each of us would likely be the other's primary caregiver in the event of incapacitating illness, we are officially each other's health care proxies, and in working out details of Do Not Resusitate orders, etc, we have gone into depth with each other talking about end of life issues.

Both of us have made it clear to the other that, if we should be facing terminal illness, we reserve to ourselves the right to control the process of our own deaths, even to the point of choosing suicide. And both of us have promised not to interfere with the other's decision on that score, no matter which way it goes.

Obviously, this is an unofficial arrangement, considering the social views of suicide in the US, but there it is.

Two people, rational enough by most measures, not currently suffering any form of depression or illness, both of whom are happy and enjoying life very much thank you -- both of whom not only think about suicide but have plans that include it as an option.

I don't think rationality is subjective.
It's more than assuming.
I didn't say that we should.

So you're saying that it's an irrational decision almost all the time, but we shouldn't assume the person is irrational?

Or, perhaps you're saying that an irrational person is not always mentally ill.

I don't think rationality is subjective.

Why then is it impossible to rationally wish not to continue to exist anymore ?

But does that not mean that doing something that will hurt others a great deal, to do something for your own benefit only, falls under excessive concern for oneself?

Lets talk a bit about this hurt then.

I am 40 years old now, old enough for my elderly releatives to start dropping like flies, old enough to have lost some friends also.

In each case, and with each death, yes of course I grieved, I went through mourning, and in some ways am still doing so.

Yet here I am unhurt, unharmed. Upset, mourning, grieving, yeah sure none of it is nice, but would I consider myself to be damaged, or harmed, or hurt?

Umm no I wouldn't, death is part of life, it effects us all at some point. Unless you have no loved ones nor friends it is inevitable.

So you're saying that it's an irrational decision almost all the time, but we shouldn't assume the person is irrational?


Irrational or not, we should still do everything we can to discourage a person from doing it.


Or, perhaps you're saying that an irrational person is not always mentally ill.

This could be the case.

Why then is it impossible to rationally wish not to continue to exist anymore ?

I didn't actually say it was impossible.

Wait a minute did I say I think it should be forbidden? I am asking because I don't remember saying it.
No, which is why there was a question mark ;)

Oh and I think I do have an obligation to raise my son and so I should look out for myself not only for myself but for him.

That is because you wish to finish a job your started. Noble, good and very pillar of society like.
Now - suppose that job is done. You do not wish to start another. Is that wrong ?

Lets talk a bit about this hurt then.

I am 40 years old now, old enough for my elderly releatives to start dropping like flies, old enough to have lost some friends also.

In each case, and with each death, yes of course I grieved, I went through mourning, and in some ways am still doing so.

Yet here I am unhurt, unharmed. Upset, mourning, grieving, yeah sure none of it is nice, but would I consider myself to be damaged, or harmed, or hurt?


Suicide is a completely different scale to natural, elderly death.

OK what I said was a bit vague and it's easy to get confused by it, so just ignore that and let me start from scratch. I've never met anyone, who has been suicidal (to the extent that they would rather commit suicide, than not commit suicide, not just to the extent of having thoughts about it regularly), who has stayed that way for a long period of time, where people or therapists have failed to talk them out of it.
No doubt, but have all of those people gone on to find happiness in life? Or have they simply continued living in an unhappy condition?

I am sure many people who are suffering a temporary overwhelming problem in life -- such as catastrophic financial disaster, or being trapped in an abusive situation -- would come out of their suicidal panic glad that they were stopped from acting on their feelings at the time and instead were enabled to find another way out of the bad situation.

But what about people whose problems are not so solvable?

I didn't actually say it was impossible.

Good.
Second question: why does it need to be rational ? We are allowed to make a great many life altering decisions without a committee determining the sanity or wisdom of those actions.

Irrational or not, we should still do everything we can to discourage a person from doing it.

Discourage, yes, I can see that. Reason with - yes, I can see that. Physically prevent? No.

This could be the case.

If that is the case, and they are mentally sound, we have no right to interfere.

Yes, reluctantly, but the difficulty to commit suicide varies for different people.

Ohh yes of course, like most things we realy can't generalis too much, each should be taken on a case by case basis.

I have never felt suicidal in my life. I am not sure but I suspect that my mother has had suicidal feelings in the past, but I am certain she does not now and has not for many years.

Nevertheless, both of us think about killing ourselves rather regularly.

Planning that each of us would likely be the other's primary caregiver in the event of incapacitating illness, we are officially each other's health care proxies, and in working out details of Do Not Resusitate orders, etc, we have gone into depth with each other talking about end of life issues.

Both of us have made it clear to the other that, if we should be facing terminal illness, we reserve to ourselves the right to control the process of our own deaths, even to the point of choosing suicide. And both of us have promised not to interfere with the other's decision on that score, no matter which way it goes.

Obviously, this is an unofficial arrangement, considering the social views of suicide in the US, but there it is.

Two people, rational enough by most measures, not currently suffering any form of depression or illness, both of whom are happy and enjoying life very much thank you -- both of whom not only think about suicide but have plans that include it as an option.

And a lot more rationally than I've done it.

Honestly? I know how I'd like to go. If it's terminal like that, put a gun in my hand and send me on a suicide mission no one will ever hear about if I complete it. If I'm lucky, my dying moment will involve me using some as a shield while I'm in the middle of a firefight with about twenty of his buddies and trying to keep track of just how many seconds are left on the timer for the bomb I just planted. If I'm really lucky, I'll get to see the looks on their faces when the bomb goes off.

Otherwise? I have DNR's for certain situations already signed. And, yeah, given my family's medical history, I'm pretty sure my life will be ended as a suicide. I've come to accept that.

Killing yourself, for no greater purpose than yourself, doesn't deserve the title brave.
That's a value judgment.

I admit I have not yet read the rest of this thread.

On the one hand, we should each be captains of our own ship and have the right to end our own li[v]es.

On the other hand, almost all suicides are by those suffering from mental disorders. That suggests the deciding mind was not fully functional or rational.

Then add the impact that suicide has on others.

I think the scales weigh heavily against letting people freely committ suicide.

First, my heart goes out to Smunkee. This is never easy to deal with.

Second, I never expected a minor tempest over my failure to read the thread. Suffice it to say (1) I didn't want to get too deep into the thread for personal reasons, but (2) I have now read the thread anyway.

Third, with that in mind, I stand by my comments. I did not and do not deny that there are extraordinary circumstances that may justify an individual suicide, but the fact of the matter is that most suicides occur under circumstances (mental disorders or substance disorders) that raise serious questions about the rationality of such a choice.



*sigh*

My "assumption" is actually the following FACT: Research shows that risk factors for suicide include depression and other mental disorders, or a substance-abuse disorder (often in combination with other mental disorders). More than 90 percent of people who die by suicide have these risk factors See NIMH (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/suicide-in-the-us-statistics-and-prevention.shtml).

See also link (http://www.medicinenet.com/suicide/page3.htm) ("Nine out of 10 people who commit suicide have a diagnosable mental illness and up to three out of four individuals who take their own life had a physical illness when they committed suicide."), link (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0857/is_n3_v11/ai_14046431) ("Retrospective studies show that up to 80-90 per cent of suicides had definable psychiatric problems such as major depression (not just sadness), bipolar disorder (manicdepression), anxiety disorders or schizophrenia"), link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7598636) ( "In all three [study] groups, a high proportion of suicides suffered from mental illness before committing suicide (97% to 100%).")

EDIT: I know far more about suicide than I want to know, thank you very much. Nothing I've "learned" from this thread changes my opinion.

Repeated so that people can argue with what I said (if they so choose) and not by pigeonholing my position into something it is not.

Are there circumstances -- such as being faced with terminal illness and/or enduring great pain -- where suicide can be a rational choice and ought to be respected? YES!!!

Does that change the fact that suicide is generally not a result of rational choice and should generally be discouraged? NO!!

As for discounting the entire field of psychiatry and psychology because one finds facts inconvenient, well, I think that argument speaks for itself.

But what about people whose problems are not so solvable?

I still think we should discourage it, chronic depression, does not nescecerally mean being chronically suicidal (and by suicidal, I mean actually wanting to commit suicide, not just thinking about it a lot). Does being chronically suicidal actually exist?

I still think we should discourage it, chronic depression, does not nescecerally mean being chronically suicidal (and by suicidal, I mean actually wanting to commit suicide, not just thinking about it a lot). Does being chronically suicidal actually exist?

Generally not for long, unless the person is physically restrained and prevented from taking any action.

Does that change the fact that suicide is generally not a result of rational choice and should generally be discouraged? NO!!

What other life-choices must be made rationally according to you, and deserve discouragement ? Having children (to tie this in with the other thread) ? Converting to a religion ? Falling in love ?

I still think we should discourage it, chronic depression, does not nescecerally mean being chronically suicidal (and by suicidal, I mean actually wanting to commit suicide, not just thinking about it a lot). Does being chronically suicidal actually exist?

Yes, yes it does.

Repeated so that people can argue with what I said (if they so choose) and not by pigeonholing my position into something it is not.

Nice. Prove that is what was going on.

As for discounting the entire field of psychiatry and psychology because one finds facts inconvenient, well, I think that argument speaks for itself.

And I notice you make it a point to pidgeonhole the arguments about psychiatry and psychology and then dodge around dealing with them instead of facing the inconvenient facts about those two disciplines. That, to me, definitely speaks for itself.

Good.
Second question: why does it need to be rational ? We are allowed to make a great many life altering decisions without a committee determining the sanity or wisdom of those actions.

I think that the fact that many, if not the vast majority, are capable of overcoming this period of irrationality, more than justifies heavy discouragement.

I don't think the specific emotional trauma you're going through is actually relevant to what I'm saying, I don't doubt that it's extremely intense, I do however know that it's irrational.
I know this was not directed to me, but I have to express a serious objection to this statement. YOU do not know jack about HIM. YOU do not know what the cause of his emotional condition is, and you have no basis on which to claim that you KNOW it to be irrational.

Such a statement only highlights the biased assumptions people bring to the issue of suicide.

No, which is why there was a question mark ;)

Oh well I don't know, I do think it is wrong and taking the easy way out, but that is just my opinion I know I may be wrong with that but that is my opinion.


That is because you wish to finish a job your started. Noble, good and very pillar of society like.
Now - suppose that job is done. You do not wish to start another. Is that wrong ?

Is it wrong to take your life once your children are entirely dependent? Well I think it is wrong, and it isn't always alright for someone to take their life whenever they want. It is something that I do not have a definitive answer to, as various ideals I hold are currently conflicting with each other on this so I cannot answer the question apart from what I have said above.

Discourage, yes, I can see that. Reason with - yes, I can see that. Physically prevent? No.


Well I'm not advocating physical prevention.


If that is the case, and they are mentally sound, we have no right to interfere.

We have every right to do as much as they can to show that they are acting irrationally.

That's a value judgment.

I know, but I feel that many people will probably concur here.

Yes, yes it does.

What would you say we do about these people then?

I know this was not directed to me, but I have to express a serious objection to this statement. YOU do not know jack about HIM. YOU do not know what the cause of his emotional condition is, and you have no basis on which to claim that you KNOW it to be irrational.

Such a statement only highlights the biased assumptions people bring to the issue of suicide.

An emotive judgement, is not a rational judgement, pretty much by definition.

What would you say we do about these people then?

There's no real known cure. All you can do is cover it up through medication or try to counsel them and hope they're able to get it under control on their own. Medication is the usual answer.

I know this was not directed to me, but I have to express a serious objection to this statement. YOU do not know jack about HIM. YOU do not know what the cause of his emotional condition is, and you have no basis on which to claim that you KNOW it to be irrational.

Such a statement only highlights the biased assumptions people bring to the issue of suicide.

Thanks. I had a very long winded statement about this but it was mean, and I try to remain rational in these discussions, so I skipped it.

There's no real known cure. All you can do is cover it up through medication or try to counsel them and hope they're able to get it under control on their own. Medication is the usual answer.

Actually, what I meant was, are there people who are chronically suicidal to the extent I meant, where medication is NOT working?

Actually, what I meant was, are there people who are chronically suicidal to the extent I meant, where medication is NOT working?

Actually, yes. However, you usually find out about it after the fact... by them suiciding anyway. People that depressed actually have a fairly high rate of successful suicides.

Edit to clarify: Realistically, there's nothing that can be done with them. Depression of that level is beyond the capacity of modern medicine and modern science to treat. You usually either end up with them dead or so heavily drugged that they're effectively dead anyway. There's really no treatment and, given the costs of the drugs to keep them alive, no real reason at this time to prevent it.

What would you say we do about these people then?

I wasn't advocating "doing" anything about "these people." Merely suggesting we shouldn't celebrate their "choice" when it wasn't really a free and rational choice.

But, to answer your question, we offer them help and we don't encourage their desire to kill themselves, but we still respect them as persons.

Also, Muravyets, when I said it's irrational, I didn't mean that him actually going through that emotional trauma is irrational, I meant that it's an irrational basis for suicide.

I wasn't advocating "doing" anything about "these people." Merely suggesting we shouldn't celebrate their "choice" when it wasn't really a free and rational choice.

But, to answer your question, we offer them help and we don't encourage their desire to kill themselves, but we still respect them as persons.

This has pretty much been my position from the beginning, except more than merely not encouraging it, but actually discouraging it (which you may also support).

Repeated so that people can argue with what I said (if they so choose) and not by pigeonholing my position into something it is not.

Are there circumstances -- such as being faced with terminal illness and/or enduring great pain -- where suicide can be a rational choice and ought to be respected? YES!!!

Does that change the fact that suicide is generally not a result of rational choice and should generally be discouraged? NO!!

As for discounting the entire field of psychiatry and psychology because one finds facts inconvenient, well, I think that argument speaks for itself.
1) I do not believe that anyone was making the bolded argument at all. I know I wasn't, and I went to some effort to make that clear.

2) I still do not see why suicide should be actively discouraged just because irrational people may opt for it more readily than rational people. Why can't the discouragement focus on the making of any serious decision while irrational, rather than that one decision in particular?

Socially, we neither encourage nor discourage lots of major decisions/actions -- child bearing, marriage, intoxication, and so forth -- just all by themselves. We only get into encouragement/discouragement on case-basis, when we think about who is doing these things and why.

Why should suicide be different, especially if we acknowledge that there are rational reasons for doing it, as well as irrational ones?

Actually, yes. However, you usually find out about it after the fact... by them suiciding anyway. People that depressed actually have a fairly high rate of successful suicides.

Edit to clarify: Realistically, there's nothing that can be done with them. Depression of that level is beyond the capacity of modern medicine and modern science to treat. You usually either end up with them dead or so heavily drugged that they're effectively dead anyway. There's really no treatment and, given the costs of the drugs to keep them alive, no real reason at this time to prevent it.

You appear to have gone from defending the possibility of rational suicide to arguing in favor of suicide for the chronically depressed.

I'm trying not to take this personally, but I suffer from severe chronic depression (along with other disorders) and am frequently suicidal.

I think, despite your gloomy prospects for me, that I make the right choice every day I decide not to die.

In a society that automatically assumes that it is crazy to kill oneself, how can we automatically trust even established authorities who confirm that, yes, indeed, those who kill themselves are overwhelmingly likely to be crazy?

Psst...mood disorder =/= "crazy." As someone with a mood disorder, I just wanted to note that. I'm sure you don't mean to give offense, but that's a bit of a sore point with some of us depressive and bipolar people.

I still think we should discourage it, chronic depression, does not nescecerally mean being chronically suicidal (and by suicidal, I mean actually wanting to commit suicide, not just thinking about it a lot). Does being chronically suicidal actually exist?
I'm not talking about mental conditions or fixated thought patterns. I'm talking about the circumstances of a person's life. Some circumstances generate so much unhappiness that there is no way to turn them to happiness. And sometimes, those circumstances cannot be changed. Why should it be considered irrational for a person to decide they don't want to keep doing that?

For example, I would not consider it irrational for a prisoner serving a life sentence, without possibility of parole, in a maximum security prison to want to kill himself. His sentence is for life, but that doesn't mandate that it be a long life, and if it is a miserable life, then why shouldn't he want to shorten it?

There may not be such a thing as chronic suicidal-ness (or there might be, I don't know), but I do know there is such a thing as chronic unhappiness. And I also know that such unhappiness is sometimes an entirely rational and appropriate response to external conditions.

Irrational or not, we should still do everything we can to discourage a person from doing it.

Again, why?

Why should people be denied control over their lives? Becasue you are not comfatable with the thought of suicide?

Psst...mood disorder =/= "crazy." As someone with a mood disorder, I just wanted to note that. I'm sure you don't mean to give offense, but that's a bit of a sore point with some of us depressive and bipolar people.
I'm sorry. I used that word just as a convenient way to express how I think society views things like this. I shouldn't have.

Again, why?

Why should people be denied control over their lives? Becasue you are not comfatable with the thought of suicide?

Discouraging does not imply that control be taken away (not that I agree with the quoted post)

Also, Muravyets, when I said it's irrational, I didn't mean that him actually going through that emotional trauma is irrational, I meant that it's an irrational basis for suicide.
I know that's what you meant. My objection stands.

Suicide is a completely different scale to natural, elderly death.

Again why? Why does the manor of death matter? Would it cause me more hurt if my child died of diease, than if he was murdered?

I would say not, dead is dead.

Why do you keep mentioning elderly death, as if only the old can have their lifes taken from them?

You appear to have gone from defending the possibility of rational suicide to arguing in favor of suicide for the chronically depressed.

Which is misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not arguing in favor of it. I'm merely saying there's no point in attempting to stop the worst cases of it. Like everything else, clinical depression has levels of severity.

I'm trying not to take this personally, but I suffer from severe chronic depression (along with other disorders) and am frequently suicidal.

I think, despite your gloomy prospects for me, that I make the right choice every day I decide not to die.

The fact it's only chronic means you're not of the type I'm talking about.

With the type I'm talking, there's literally no reason for them to live from their perspective. The depression is so powerful that it never goes away without extreme medication, never lets up, and changes everything. I'm talking about a case where you perceive the world as though the only people who like you are doing so out of pity for how worthless you are as a living being, let alone how much of a failure you are as a person, and that the entirety of existence itself only is around to further your suffering and feed upon your pain and sorrow. When I say "literally no reason for them to live," I mean it. And it never lets up.

Medically, the only known way to treat it at this time is to medicate the person in question until they're pretty much brain dead. A medically-induced coma is more humane than keeping them aware. Beyond that, there is not even a treatment. Counselling doesn't work, medication below that extreme a level doesn't work, and these people are absolutely serious and usually very resourceful about ending their own lives.

And it's not for lack of trying, either. They're still hoping to someday find a medication that brings that level under control while not turning the patient into a vegetable.

For example, I would not consider it irrational for a prisoner serving a life sentence, without possibility of parole, in a maximum security prison to want to kill himself. His sentence is for life, but that doesn't mandate that it be a long life, and if it is a miserable life, then why shouldn't he want to shorten it?


Well again, as I said, I do allow for extreme circumstances. In this one however, perhaps the person doesn't deserve the privileged of suicide because of whatever he did to get himself in prison.


And I also know that such unhappiness is sometimes an entirely rational and appropriate response to external conditions.

But I think that it's extremely rare that people will stay at this level of unhappiness in reaction to a specific situation, permanently.

Again, why?

Why should people be denied control over their lives?

I'm not denying them control, discouragement doesn't quite work that way. But because there is a very good chance that they will see sense, it's more than justified to do what we can to discourage it.

Which is misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not arguing in favor of it. I'm merely saying there's no point in attempting to stop the worst cases of it. Like everything else, clinical depression has levels of severity.

The fact it's only chronic means you're not of the type I'm talking about.

With the type I'm talking, there's literally no reason for them to live from their perspective. The depression is so powerful that it never goes away without extreme medication, never lets up, and changes everything. I'm talking about a case where you perceive the world as though the only people who like you are doing so out of pity for how worthless you are as a living being, let alone how much of a failure you are as a person, and that the entirety of existence itself only is around to further your suffering and feed upon your pain and sorrow. When I say "literally no reason for them to live," I mean it. And it never lets up.

Medically, the only known way to treat it at this time is to medicate the person in question until they're pretty much brain dead. A medically-induced coma is more humane than keeping them aware. Beyond that, there is not even a treatment. Counselling doesn't work, medication below that extreme a level doesn't work, and these people are absolutely serious and usually very resourceful about ending their own lives.

And it's not for lack of trying, either. They're still hoping to someday find a medication that brings that level under control while not turning the patient into a vegetable.

WTF? I am NOT going to argue with you about the severity of my mental illness, but suffice it to say you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Regardless, you aren't just defending the possibility of suicide being a rational choice for some people but arguing it is the only rational choice for those people.

*signing off before I really lose my cool*

But I think that it's extremely rare that people will stay at this level of unhappiness in reaction to a specific situation, permanently.

Generally, it's not one specific situation. It's a combination of factors that continually kills the person's desire to continue seeing what else is going to hit them upside the head tomorrow. Every day it's something new and even worse than the day before.

I only live now due to morbid curiosity. Scientifically, there has to be a point where it reaches rock bottom, and I want to see what that point is. It's been 17 years now, and still sinks lower. My curiosity is peaked.

Right, but I did originally say that 999/1000 attempted suicides are done for irrational purposes, so I can allow for extreme but very rare circumstances.
That wasn't the statistic mentioned by TCT so I can only assume you're pulling it out of your head. You can't link mental health problems to vast irrationality. I know people who have serious mental health disease and they think rationally all the time, and if during their lucid and rational thought they decide they want to die.....is that okay? I really don't know the answer, I lean towards yes though.



And in pretty much all of these cases, they are based on irrational purposes (like religion) or because it's impossible for society to accommodate their needs, meaning they would die a slow death anyway (like the elderly in some native American tribes), although I am excluding the elderly and terminally ill here.
Irrational to you. It's irrational to the lady down the street that her daughter is on birth control, it's "killing babies" for no reason, it's selfish. These things are very much wrapped up in your cultural notions and how you were raised and very often people don't look at the facts, they just go with what their emotions tell them.



All I'm saying is that, we should do everything we can to discourage a suicidal person from committing suicide, especially if it's based only on emotional trauma.
Okay, but what if they do it anyway? When do we accept the choices of others as their choice?

I know, but I feel that many people will probably concur here.
Appeal to popularity is not a valid argument. Many people concurring with a value judgment does not make it less biased.

An emotive judgement, is not a rational judgement, pretty much by definition.
A biased judgment often lacks rationality, too. I believe in strongly discouraging people from acting on biased judgments.

Generally, it's not one specific situation. It's a combination of factors that continually kills the person's desire to continue seeing what else is going to hit them upside the head tomorrow. Every day it's something new and even worse than the day before.


Before we go on, do you think that the majority of people who contemplate suicide, will eventually stop wanting to be suicidal?

That wasn't the statistic mentioned by TCT so I can only assume you're pulling it out of your head.

Well duh. It was merely to demonstrate the fact that I think it's extremely rare.


You can't link mental health problems to vast irrationality. I know people who have serious mental health disease and they think rationally all the time, and if during their lucid and rational thought they decide they want to die.....is that okay? I really don't know the answer, I lean towards yes though.


The point is, we don't know if they are being rational (and it's extremely likely they aren't), which more than justifies discouragement.


Irrational to you. It's irrational to the lady down the street that her daughter is on birth control, it's "killing babies" for no reason, it's selfish. These things are very much wrapped up in your cultural notions and how you were raised and very often people don't look at the facts, they just go with what their emotions tell them.


Again, rationality is not subjective, it's not culturally relative.


Okay, but what if they do it anyway? When do we accept the choices of others as their choice?

If they do it, then there's nothing we should do, there's nothing we can do.

Before we go on, do you think that the majority of people who contemplate suicide, will eventually stop wanting to be suicidal?

What do I think? That's kind of hard to say. Simply due to cultural bias and sampling, a study to find that out would be doomed to failure. In addition, people who are continually suicidal will most likely at some point succeed. Therefore, it's hard to do any kind of rational study.

If, in theory, we locked up everyone in mental institutions that was suicidal, and looked in on them in 20 years, I would think that a significant number still would be.

Oh they'd deny it of course, so they could get out, but then again... there comes the problem with doing any kind of study.

So, the answer to that is I don't have any empirical evidence one way or the other.

Appeal to popularity is not a valid argument. Many people concurring with a value judgment does not make it less biased.


Who said it was an argument?


A biased judgment often lacks rationality, too. I believe in strongly discouraging people from acting on biased judgments.

Emotion is probably the biggest cause of bias.

Oh well I don't know, I do think it is wrong and taking the easy way out, but that is just my opinion I know I may be wrong with that but that is my opinion.

What I don't get is this. Have you ever contemplated suicide, or have you ever actulay almost gone through with it?

If not then how can you know how easy or hard it is?

I have of course thought about it(I belive lots of us do from time to time) although I have never seriously contemplated doing it, but I really don't see it as 'an easy way out'.

Even if is was so, that really does not change the basic fact that you should be the only one why says when and under what circumstances you die(if possible, bearing accident, ill health ect...). If you agree that nobodyhas the right to take your life, then as a product of that line of reasoning it must also be true that only you have the right to take your life.


Even if I am depressed, if I decide in a moment of lucidity to end it all because it is too hard, or I have nowt left to live for, or I'm in too much physical pain to bear anylonger, what right does anybody have to force me to do that which I don't want to?

What do I think? That's kind of hard to say. Simply due to cultural bias and sampling, a study to find that out would be doomed to failure. In addition, people who are continually suicidal will most likely at some point succeed. Therefore, it's hard to do any kind of rational study.

I disagree, I don't see any reason to believe that these studies presented would be so biased, when it's their job not to be.


If, in theory, we locked up everyone in mental institutions that was suicidal, and looked in on them in 20 years, I would think that a significant number still would be.


Obviously, because that would make it worse.

WTF? I am NOT going to argue with you about the severity of my mental illness, but suffice it to say you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Unless they changed definitions, "chronic" means that it goes away and comes back. That means some of the potential severity of it is lessened by the fact you have periods where you don't to deal with it. Imagine if it came and then never went away.

Regardless, you aren't just defending the possibility of suicide being a rational choice for some people but arguing it is the only rational choice for those people.

*signing off before I really lose my cool*

You know, I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt. Now I'm not, as I'm getting convinced you're purposefully misrepresenting my argument.

I'm not arguing that it's a rational choice. Where did I say it was rational? In fact, I specifically presented it in such of a way that it's obviously not rational. And argued that they're in a position where simple realism has to enter into the scenario and you have to accept the fact that, in one form or another, these people will end up dead. The only difference is if their body continues to live or not.

Discouraging does not imply that control be taken away (not that I agree with the quoted post)

It does to Hy. He has already said as much.

It does to Hy. He has already said as much.

Then apparently you've misread what I've been saying.

Well again, as I said, I do allow for extreme circumstances. In this one however, perhaps the person doesn't deserve the privileged of suicide because of whatever he did to get himself in prison.
Another value judgment that suggests bias.

But I think that it's extremely rare that people will stay at this level of unhappiness in reaction to a specific situation, permanently.
You're wrong -- especially if you include in the group that one sub-group you have preferred to leave out -- the terminally ill. There are millions of such people, and of that number thousands, if not millions who will or would opt for suicide to control the manner of their deaths.

You are also wrong if you set aside your apparent bias in the case of prisoners. Suicide in prison is a common occurrence. Perhaps it is the fault of the prison system that life there is so bad, but if it is, why should we think it irrational to choose to get out, even by one's own death? And I am confident that prisoners are not stopped from committing suicide on the grounds that they don't deserve it, but rather as a mental health intervention.

But in any event, even if it is rare, so what?

I am talking about whether suicide should be considered a rational or irrational decision. The fact that there ARE rational reasons to commit suicide, and situations in which being in the mindset to choose suicide is a rational response, is a strong indicator that suicide, in and of itself, cannot be classified as irrational, in and of itself.

Just because it is a relatively rare circumstance, does not mean we should ignore it and set up a social system for dealing with suicide that does not acknowledge that it can be a rational choice, which I believe is the current situation in the US.

Well again, as I said, I do allow for extreme circumstances. In this one however, perhaps the person doesn't deserve the privileged of suicide because of whatever he did to get himself in prison.

Heh so when did it go from 'the easy way out' to 'the privalige of suicide'?

What I don't get is this. Have you ever contemplated suicide, or have you ever actulay almost gone through with it?

If not then how can you know how easy or hard it is?

I have of course thought about it(I belive lots of us do from time to time) although I have never seriously contemplated doing it, but I really don't see it as 'an easy way out'.

Even if is was so, that really does not change the basic fact that you should be the only one why says when and under what circumstances you die(if possible, bearing accident, ill health ect...). If you agree that nobodyhas the right to take your life, then as a product of that line of reasoning it must also be true that only you have the right to take your life.


Even if I am depressed, if I decide in a moment of lucidity to end it all because it is too hard, or I have nowt left to live for, or I'm in too much physical pain to bear anylonger, what right does anybody have to force me to do that which I don't want to?

Define seriously?

I have in the past during a time when my life was falling around me I thought about it and I wouldn't have to worry about anything anymore, but I didn't come close enough to doing it and then stop.

In regards to your second question, when it comes to suicide I do have the opinion that I stated earlier but many of the ideals I hold are in conflict when talking about this and so I cannot give you a strong answer. Others may have settled in their mind and reasoned it out, I am yet to do so and cannot say one way or the other. But if people are having trouble and they decide to kill themselves as a way of solving the problem I think that is the easy way out of things and may even place further problems on other people.

I disagree, I don't see any reason to believe that these studies presented would be so biased, when it's their job not to be.

Almost all studies are biased. That's why it's important not to just look at the numbers but how the numbers were counted.

Obviously, because that would make it worse.

Well, often life just comes along and makes it worse without any interference from the medical profession. These people would still be suicidal.

However, those for whom life gets better might not be.

In any case, they're possibly (if not most likely) making a rational decision due to their surroundings - and we should respect that. There's just as much likelihood of things getting worse as better.

I'm sorry. I used that word just as a convenient way to express how I think society views things like this. I shouldn't have.

No biggie. I just figured I'd point it out before someone with a shorter fuse than me did. :)

I'm not denying them control, discouragement doesn't quite work that way. But because there is a very good chance that they will see sense, it's more than justified to do what we can to discourage it.

Again I disagree. If I disgourage my kids from having sex by aversion theropy, I would say that I am excersising my will over theres.

If I disgourage junk mail being posted through my door by means of haveing a huge dog kenneled in my garden, then again I would say that I am not giveing people a free choice to post crap through my letter box.

Generalisations huh. You have stated that you belive these people should be 'heavily discouraged', if by that you did not entend to mean excersing your will over theirs, then please explain the sorts of actions or methoeds you had in mind when you said this.

Before we go on, do you think that the majority of people who contemplate suicide, will eventually stop wanting to be suicidal?
I realize I'm jumping on a question that was not directed to me again, but:

It is impossible to answer such a question. There are too many variables, and it requires us both to know what goes on in another person's mind and to make predictions about the future. No answer would have any usefulness except to show something about either the assumptions or the personal experience of the answerer.

Then apparently you've misread what I've been saying.

Ohhh I think not my fine furry friend!:D

Another value judgment that suggests bias.


Everyone is biased.


You're wrong -- especially if you include in the group that one sub-group you have preferred to leave out -- the terminally ill. There are millions of such people, and of that number thousands, if not millions who will or would opt for suicide to control the manner of their deaths.

You are also wrong if you set aside your apparent bias in the case of prisoners. Suicide in prison is a common occurrence. Perhaps it is the fault of the prison system that life there is so bad, but if it is, why should we think it irrational to choose to get out, even by one's own death? And I am confident that prisoners are not stopped from committing suicide on the grounds that they don't deserve it, but rather as a mental health intervention.


Great, but I'm not including the terminally ill, the reason I didn't mention that right from the beginning is because I never think of it as being suicide, I always think of it as being euthanasia with the terminally ill, even though they are essentially the same thing. As for life prisoners, well, that's one of the extreme circumstances I'm talking about that cannot be resolved. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't discourage it, if not for them, for the good of their loved ones.


But in any event, even if it is rare, so what?


Because if there is a good chance that they will get over it, then I find it absolutely sickening the thought that anyone would just leave them be, and not try and help them get over it.


Just because it is a relatively rare circumstance, does not mean we should ignore it and set up a social system for dealing with suicide that does not acknowledge that it can be a rational choice, which I believe is the current situation in the US.

What exactly do you think should be changed?

Unless they changed definitions, "chronic" means that it goes away and comes back. That means some of the potential severity of it is lessened by the fact you have periods where you don't to deal with it. Imagine if it came and then never went away.

You know, I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt. Now I'm not, as I'm getting convinced you're purposefully misrepresenting my argument.

I'm not arguing that it's a rational choice. Where did I say it was rational? In fact, I specifically presented it in such of a way that it's obviously not rational. And argued that they're in a position where simple realism has to enter into the scenario and you have to accept the fact that, in one form or another, these people will end up dead. The only difference is if their body continues to live or not.

I'm done arguing with you for now, but could you be any more arrogant?

Consider, for example, the possibility that perhaps I am more familiar with my mental illnesses than you are.

And, "chronic" in this context means: "For at least two years a person's symptoms have met criteria for a major depressive episode."

Heh so when did it go from 'the easy way out' to 'the privalige of suicide'?

It is in a jail.

<snip>
Again, rationality is not subjective, it's not culturally relative.

<snip>
I'm sorry, but how can you live in the world of today and say that? There are countless examples of cultural differences that have brought up assumptions or accusations of irrationality, as well as even more severe value judgments.

Some cultures, vastly different from each other, consider it totally rational and even socially necessary to commit murder in the form of honor killings, or revenge/retribution killings, or ritualized warfare. And there are other cultures in which justifications for one person to kill another are considered irrational and evidence of cultural dysfunction or inferiority.

There are cultures in which it is considered totally irrational to think you can own the land, or to be materialistic or concerned with money, or to be bound by measurements of time. And there are other cultures where those are not only considered rational, but are included in measurements of sanity, AND are the entire working basis of the societies themselves.

Rationality most certainly is culturally relative.

Almost all studies are biased. That's why it's important not to just look at the numbers but how the numbers were counted.


I'm still not risking NOT discouraging them, on the off chance that these studies might be wrong, and that discouragement is useless.


Well, often life just comes along and makes it worse without any interference from the medical profession. These people would still be suicidal.

However, those for whom life gets better might not be.

In any case, they're possibly (if not most likely) making a rational decision due to their surroundings - and we should respect that. There's just as much likelihood of things getting worse as better.

Obviously I also think we should do what we can to make life better for these people.

Define seriously?

I have in the past during a time when my life was falling around me I thought about it and I wouldn't have to worry about anything anymore, but I didn't come close enough to doing it and then stop.

In regards to your second question, when it comes to suicide I do have the opinion that I stated earlier but many of the ideals I hold are in conflict when talking about this and so I cannot give you a strong answer. Others may have settled in their mind and reasoned it out, I am yet to do so and cannot say one way or the other. But if people are having trouble and they decide to kill themselves as a way of solving the problem I think that is the easy way out of things and may even place further problems on other people.



Seriously. I mean actualy planing it out, rather than wondering would it be better if I was dead.

So you think it is an easy way out? Not you know so. Well fair doo's I don't think it is easy at all.

Go ahead and give some serious thought to the repercussions of your suicide. What happens to any dependants, family, friends, siblings, how will your death effect all of these people?

Now after realsing this, do you still belive it to be 'an easy way out'?

Who said it was an argument?
I did.

Emotion is probably the biggest cause of bias.
Then you are being just as irrational as you say a suicidal person is.

I'm sorry, but how can you live in the world of today and say that? There are countless examples of cultural differences that have brought up assumptions or accusations of irrationality, as well as even more severe value judgments.

Some cultures, vastly different from each other, consider it totally rational and even socially necessary to commit murder in the form of honor killings, or revenge/retribution killings, or ritualized warfare. And there are other cultures in which justifications for one person to kill another are considered irrational and evidence of cultural dysfunction or inferiority.

There are cultures in which it is considered totally irrational to think you can own the land, or to be materialistic or concerned with money, or to be bound by measurements of time. And there are other cultures where those are not only considered rational, but are included in measurements of sanity, AND are the entire working basis of the societies themselves.

Rationality most certainly is culturally relative.

No, what people think is rational is culturally relative, that doesn't mean they are all equally right.

It is in a jail.

Meh only if you view the job of jail as punishment rather than rehabilitation, I guess.

No, what people think is rational is culturally relative, that doesn't mean they are all equally right.

None of us were born in a vacuum. We were all influenced by society in some way shape or form - so no single person can decide what is rational and what isn't for the whole world. Therefore, rationality may not be relative, but human interpretation of rationality is. Hydesland, sorry to tell you this, but you're human - just like the rest of us.

Your statement stands that TCT shouldn't bother to read the rest of the thread and instead post in ignorance of all of the factors influencing the conversation?
My statement stands.

Any reasonably intelligent human being who has actually thought about the issue of suicide for any length of time has likely come up with a personal belief regarding suicide. My point is, nothing anyone said before his post was so enlightening, so amazing, so worth reading that it would have any likelihood of altering someone's opinion on the matter...especially someone who is NOT a wishy-washy, unself-aware n00b. You as much as suggested this indeed would happen, and all your posts following up confirm that this was your intention. I'm sorry that I just don't think the discussion up to that point was all that special. My lack of tact notwithstanding, the absolute arrogance of your advice, as opposed to Murav's actual interest in the topic itself, absolutely disgusted me.

I agree that mental illness, being a huge factor in suicides, whether you want to actually accept the reams of research on the matter or not, vitiates a person's free choice on the matter, and therefore, should not be encouraged, or allowed. In those cases, mental health professionals are clear...intervention is needed.

When the issue is chronic pain, terminal illness...not only do I think a person should have the power to choose to terminate their life, I also believe that they should be able to get medical help to do so. I do not, however, think this decision should ever be made lightly.

Nonetheless, at the end of the day, all this talk of 'allowing' suicide is meaningless. More effort should be spent on helping those left behind, as they are at a heightened risk of suicide themselves, and more needs to be done to lift the stigma of suicide so that those affected by it (either considering it, or suffering from the loss of someone to suicide) can access resources.

Again I disagree. If I disgourage my kids from having sex by aversion theropy, I would say that I am excersising my will over theres.

If I disgourage junk mail being posted through my door by means of haveing a huge dog kenneled in my garden, then again I would say that I am not giveing people a free choice to post crap through my letter box.

Generalisations huh. You have stated that you belive these people should be 'heavily discouraged', if by that you did not entend to mean excersing your will over theirs, then please explain the sorts of actions or methoeds you had in mind when you said this.

Heavily discourage means that we should make it clear that what you think you're doing is a very bad idea, and try everything we can to convince them otherwise.

If you're son, for instance, said he wanted to commit suicide, are you seriously going to tell me that you're not even going to try and convince him otherwise?

None of us were born in a vacuum. We were all influenced by society in some way shape or form - so no single person can decide what is rational and what isn't for the whole world. Therefore, rationality may not be relative, but human interpretation of rationality is.

We're not all idiots. We are capable of acting outside of our cultural biases.

I'm done arguing with you for now, but could you be any more arrogant?

The same question could be asked of you, considering your own attitude and your purposeful misrepresentation of arguments I've made.

Consider, for example, the possibility that perhaps I am more familiar with my mental illnesses than you are.

And, "chronic" in this context means: "For at least two years a person's symptoms have met criteria for a major depressive episode."

"Chronic depression" is, according to four medical books I have in front of me, defined by the fact that it does let up after awhile and that it's not as severe as other types. Here's a few medical websites as well, just because I can.

http://www.hmc.psu.edu/healthinfo/d/depression.htm
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/MEDLINEPLUS/ency/article/000918.htm
http://www.webmd.com/depression/guide/chronic-depression-dysthymia
http://psychcentral.com/lib/2006/dysthymia-chronic-depression/

So, yes, I do have some idea of what I'm talking about.

Heavily discourage means that we should make it clear that what you think you're doing is a very bad idea, and try everything we can to convince them otherwise.

If you're son, for instance, said he wanted to commit suicide, are you seriously going to tell me that you're not even going to try and convince him otherwise?

Well that all depends on circumstances doesn't it.

If for example he contracted an incureable disaese that would eat his body and mind away, and he made this choice; I would agree with him.

If his girlfriend just left him, then yes I would try to make him see that his thought process may be imparied by rage, grief, depression, whatever.

We're not all idiots. We are capable of acting outside of our cultural biases.

You know I think that is harder than you imagine it is.

Well that all depends on circumstances doesn't it.

If for example he contracted an incureable disaese that would eat his body and mind away, and he made this choice; I would agree with him.


I already said that I'm excluding the terminally ill here.


If his girlfriend just left him, then yes I would try to make him see that his thought process may be imparied by rage, grief, depression, whatever.

What if he's suffering from depression?

Well that all depends on circumstances doesn't it.

Not arguing with you - just want to get your view.

What if he had been depressed for most of his life, and at least several decades, and he's decided that he's tired and wants to die. For argument, we will say that by 30 nothing has really gone right for him and he's through. He's not terminal, no terrible painful disease - just life is not going well and hasn't for a long time.

Would you support that or argue it? It seems to be the situation that a lot of people are in.

Everyone is biased.
Another appeal to popularity. The widespread existence of bias in general does not make a biased argument valid.

Great, but I'm not including the terminally ill, the reason I didn't mention that right from the beginning is because I never think of it as being suicide, I always think of it as being euthanasia with the terminally ill, even though they are essentially the same thing.
That's adorable, but you really don't get to BOTH tailor reality AND redefine terms to support you.

When a person kills themselves, that's suicide, not euthanasia. Euthanasia is when someone else kills them.

When a person decides to kill themselves, it counts towards the discussion of suicide in general, regardless of WHY they do it. You don't get to acknowledge that some people have rational reasons for suicide, then remove those people from the picture just so you can press an argument that suicide is an irrational choice. You have to account for the rational suicides if you are going to talk about suicide in general.

As for life prisoners, well, that's one of the extreme circumstances I'm talking about that cannot be resolved. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't discourage it, if not for them, for the good of their loved ones.
1) As has been pointed out by others, nobody is under any obligation to continue living for the sake of others.

2) What possible "good of their loved ones" can be served by forcing a prisoner to continue to exist in misery in prison until they die from some non-suicide cause?

Because if there is a good chance that they will get over it, then I find it absolutely sickening the thought that anyone would just leave them be, and not try and help them get over it.
But how much intervention do you think should be done? It has been asked several times in this thread -- what about those who, regardless of all interventions and care, still want to die? At what point do we respect a person's right to determine their own fate?

What exactly do you think should be changed?
As I have said more than once in this thread, I would like to see my society lose the automatic assumption that suicide is a sign of mental illness, the automatic assumption that it is never rational to choose death, therefore all people contemplating suicide must be irrational and must be treated as such.

I already said that I'm excluding the terminally ill here.



What if he's suffering from depression?

See above where I say, rage, grief, depression, whatever.

Say you're just skimming aint ya! Own up now!:D

The same question could be asked of you, considering your own attitude and your purposeful misrepresentation of arguments I've made.



"Chronic depression" is, according to four medical books I have in front of me, defined by the fact that it does let up after awhile and that it's not as severe as other types. Here's a few medical websites as well, just because I can.

http://www.hmc.psu.edu/healthinfo/d/depression.htm
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/MEDLINEPLUS/ency/article/000918.htm
http://www.webmd.com/depression/guide/chronic-depression-dysthymia
http://psychcentral.com/lib/2006/dysthymia-chronic-depression/

So, yes, I do have some idea of what I'm talking about.

So, according to you, the DSM-IV's definition of "chronic" (as regards depression) is incorrect, because that is what I was quoting.

But, pray tell, what types of depression are more severe?

Not arguing with you - just want to get your view.

What if he had been depressed for most of his life, and at least several decades, and he's decided that he's tired and wants to die. For argument, we will say that by 30 nothing has really gone right for him and he's through. He's not terminal, no terrible painful disease - just life is not going well and hasn't for a long time.

Would you support that or argue it? It seems to be the situation that a lot of people are in.


I would support him. It is after all his right.

I would support him. It is after all his right.

Hydesland. Same question.

Seriously. I mean actualy planing it out, rather than wondering would it be better if I was dead.

So you think it is an easy way out? Not you know so. Well fair doo's I don't think it is easy at all.

Go ahead and give some serious thought to the repercussions of your suicide. What happens to any dependants, family, friends, siblings, how will your death effect all of these people?

Now after realsing this, do you still belive it to be 'an easy way out'?

Well, no I don't think I went into detail into planning it out, I did think about what I would do and the best way of doing it and which one would be quickest and without pain.

Sorry did I say "I know so" I meant I think it is the easy way out.

I do know the serious repercussions of suicide which is why it is something that I think is wrong and when I say an easy way out instead of tackling your problems head on you resign yourself to quit yes it is the easy way out of your problems. Maybe I am thinking that people wo do go ahead and commit it don't consider family and friends and what would happen to them on a financial and emotional scale, I certainly did and was part of the reason why I quickly dismissed it along with saying to myself that I am not the kind of person who runs away from challenges but would rather confront them head on and solve my problems.

No, what people think is rational is culturally relative, that doesn't mean they are all equally right.
Oh, I see. And who gets to decide when it comes down to cases? You?

Another appeal to popularity. The widespread existence of bias in general does not make a biased argument valid.


What I'm saying is, pointing out that I'm bias, doesn't actually mean shit. I can be bias, whilst presenting objective arguments.


You have to account for the rational suicides if you are going to talk about suicide in general.


Which is why I never actually said that all suicide is irrational.


1) As has been pointed out by others, nobody is under any obligation to continue living for the sake of others.


Nobody is realistically under any obligation to do anything ever, it's all moral rhetoric.


2) What possible "good of their loved ones" can be served by forcing a prisoner to continue to exist in misery in prison until they die from some non-suicide cause?


I'm not advocating force here, I'm advocating discouragement. If I had a relative in prison who committed suicide, and I found out that nothing had been done to discourage it, I would be disgusted.


But how much intervention do you think should be done? It has been asked several times in this thread -- what about those who, regardless of all interventions and care, still want to die? At what point do we respect a person's right to determine their own fate?


Until we know that nothing can be done.


As I have said more than once in this thread, I would like to see my society lose the automatic assumption that suicide is a sign of mental illness, the automatic assumption that it is never rational to choose death, therefore all people contemplating suicide must be irrational and must be treated as such.

But what does this change in practical terms? What will change in terms of how we actually do things?

See above where I say, rage, grief, depression, whatever.

Say you're just skimming aint ya! Own up now!:D

I meant the actual condition of depression, not just temporary depression in reaction to an event.

Well, no I don't think I went into detail into planning it out, I did think about what I would do and the best way of doing it and which one would be quickest and without pain.

Sorry did I say "I know so" I meant I think it is the easy way out.

I do know the serious repercussions of suicide which is why it is something that I think is wrong and when I say an easy way out instead of tackling your problems head on you resign yourself to quit yes it is the easy way out of your problems. Maybe I am thinking that people wo do go ahead and commit it don't consider family and friends and what would happen to them on a financial and emotional scale, I certainly did and was part of the reason why I quickly dismissed it along with saying to myself that I am not the kind of person who runs away from challenges but would rather confront them head on and solve my problems.


No you said 'I think'. That is what I was commenting on. You think, rather than you know. which is fine, because I think it is not easy at all. I don't know this, it is just what I think.

Why I think this, is precisly that after realising all of the consequences of taking your own life, then to still go ahead and do it, must be very, very hard.

It must take a strong mind to take such an action. Not only the strenght of will to put that gun in your mouth and pull the trigger, but to do so having an understanding of the difficulties that it will bring to those you leave behind.

No mate, I don't think that is an easy thing to do at all.

Hydesland. Same question.

Just because things haven't gone right for him in the past, doesn't mean there's no chance of things getting better. I don't think that's a rational basis, so I'll discourage it.