As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Legal suicide!
Shorty
touching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered User regular
touching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered User regular
There's an Initiative on the ballot this year in Washington that, if passed, would legalize suicide in some cases.
http://www.itsmydecision.org/
Personally, I'm all about this shit! Almost certainly for the wrong reasons, because I'm kind of a dick.
DISCUSS
http://www.itsmydecision.org/
Personally, I'm all about this shit! Almost certainly for the wrong reasons, because I'm kind of a dick.
DISCUSS
Shorty on
0
Posts
Since when is suicide illegal?
Since...forever?
This is euthanasia, not suicide.
Well, it is suicide, but euthanasia is more specific.
Oh what.
I wasn't aware of that.
But... that is pretty strange though.
To clarify, this doesn't deal with suicide, but rather with assisted suicide. Basically legally providing lethal medicine to patients in certain circumstances.
I'm conflicted about this. I agree completely that a person who does not want to deal with the pain of a terminal illness should be allowed a release. On a personal level, though, it does skeeze me out...I've had 4 family members die by suicide so far. Of course, my personal feelings shouldn't prevent others from taking such action if they feel it's the right thing to do.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
This is a story about a British woman with MS who wants the option to travel to Sweden to an Assisted Suicide clinic. She's worried about the potential legal ramifications if she needs help from her Husband to get there and nobody is giving her any answers on whether he would be prosecuted.
I heard an interview with her on Radio 4 the other day on the way to work. This is not Euthanasia, this is Assisted suicide.
Also: How do other European Nations deal with the issue?
I'm in kind of two minds. Personally, I feel that every second a person lives is another second they can potentially contribute to society. On the other hand, I think there's a limit on how much any one person owes society and if they really think that they've done their time then, uh, I guess.
I suppose that I'm saying is, I can understand why people let religions make their decisions for them in situations like this, it's morally grey and very much subject to specific circumstances and isn't something that I'd like to have to make a blanket moral choice on one way or another.
I asssume that's so that courts can intervene if someone fails. It seems wrong to actually call it illegal, but I don't think there's any other means by which to impose restrictions on individuals.
To be perfectly clear, suicide isn't illegal, since they can't prosecute you for killing yourself. Because you're dead, see?
Attempted suicide is completely illegal and has been for forever. Typically if you are found guilty, they send you to a mental health hospital.
I believe that if a person qualifies for euthanasia they are definitely not fit to contribute to contribute to society anymore...?
Contributing to society is a pretty crap reason to decide between either a few months of pain before going to eternal rest or just going straight to it anyway.
I was going to say that but that's incorrect and I was too lazy to actually look up when that shit was outlawed.
Ditto. The wording in it is important. Basically, if someone who is capable of making decisions for themselves falls terminally ill and reaches a point where their life expectency is super short, they have the legal option to end their life via a specific manner.
Cleans up that mess of doctors and families going to court methinks.
Depending on what you define as "contributing to society" many of these people will have been unable to work for years, and in a purely monetary view (sorry to be that guy) - have not contributed in a long time and will be very expensive to maintain.
If however, you mean that they are here and we can benefit from and enjoy their presence - then that's also a little grey as they no longer thing so. If you're in a vegetative state - are you contributing to society? A lit of people just don't want to end up like that.
This is obviously an extreme example, but when Stephen Hawking developed amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, doctors estimated he'd have two to three years left to live. Upon contracting the disease he temporarily abandoned his PhD as he didn't see any point in getting a doctorate if he was going to die soon.
Also, I'm not sure if this applies to vegetative states because at that point, the person is no longer capable of making any decisions.
Which is funny in a way (not ha ha funny) because some people think wanting to off yourself means you're not of sound mind.
I think most people feel that way.
My main qualms are:
a) People who are depressed about their illness, but possibly have quite a few more good years ahead of them deciding to end it. In that case, they could simply be making the decision based on clinical depression.
b) Family members deciding to get rid of Grandma because she's too much of a burden. If she is in the early stages of dementia, she could be convinced that it's the best choice, but still seem lucid and capable of making her own decision to doctors.
There needs to be strict regulation. It should only be for people who aren't suffering from any mental illness, are in the late stages of a terminal illness, who have consistently made demands for assisted suicide over a period of weeks or months, and have received counselling from a trained mental health expert.
I didn't really know that it was actually a law though. That you could be persecuted for and found guilty of. (Though is that how the process goes?)
Just seems strange to me.
Eh. It causes disruption, costs money to clean up, you might be doing it to dodge other legal responsibilities etc. Lots of reasons to make it, or attempts at it, illegal.
Also the fact that a lot of our laws stem from religious moral codes, where suicide is typically considered a sin
It's for terminally ill people with around 6 months to live.
Having had a minor (well, 2 or so years) brush with chronic low levelish pain I have a bit of sympathy for people who have severe chronic pain and very little probable chance of recovery having the terminate option.
That sounds fine, as long as they have had a comprehensive evaluation of their mental health.
Which we know from the OP, thanks guys!
The only problem I see with this is being sure of those 6 months. Are such predictions for life expectancy accurate?
That's what I'm wondering. I'd expect that by the time doctors are saying six months it's a good bet you're fucked, but if having a baby has taught me anything, it's that time estimates in medicine are rarely completely accurate (Christ, our doctor said it normally takes about a year and a half to conceive. It took us one day. Literally).
Also, see my previous example of Hawking. He was given 2-3 years to live. 45 years ago.
Not that I'm against this necessarily.
If they say six months, then it's pretty much certain you're not getting better.
A person owns their own body, and they could kill themselves in a much more horrible way than a nice, peaceful injection in the company of family and friends.
If you know that you'll only have 6 months to live and also live it in near constant agony you're bound to feel a little blue.
They probably only analyze to see if the patient understands the decisions and consequences fully and made it on their own free will.
True...but a lot of people feel at peace, and ready to die when they know it's inevitable, particularly if they've been battling it for a long time and it's just getting worse. That's different to being clinically depressed with no physical condition, for example.
There's a difference between "being depressed" as a result of upsetting news, and clinical depression, which is a chronic condition related to biological factors such as low seratonin levels.
But one can lead to another. Clinical depression often occurs in patients with other long-lasting medical conditions.
For what it's worth, my grandfather lived for 2 years after being given only three months.
That aside, this seems pretty reasonable to me. It's not something I would do, or even especially condone, but I agree that the option should be available.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
So it's always a shock, and then there's nothing left but maybe a suicide note. Everyone has unresolved things with that person, everyone feels like maybe if they just talked to him one more time...
But if you're terminally ill, and you don't want to live out the remaining months of your life in not only intense suffering but also in ever-degrading mental faculties (in many cases) there's time to tie up those loose ends, for everyone involved to accept that someone they love is going to die. I mean, they'll have to do it anyway right? Just a few months later. After they've watched that person suffer. Which won't make it any easier.
Make it legal for that terminally ill patient to get assistance with suicide and you (a) give him the chance to obtain some closure with their his and family (the lack of which makes suicide such an awful, selfish act in the first place) and (b) avoid pointless suffering.
I'm pretty sure if you attempt suicide you're assumed to be of unsound mind and therefore can't DNR yourself up or refuse treatment, etc, but I don't think they can exactly put you in jail for it.