And in Christianity, one of the most anti-suicidal religions I can think of, there is the notion that there is no greater expression of love than giving your life for another… so there are exceptions to every rule, aren’t there?
It’s not so much that I’m telling anyone else what to do, but I most certainly do have my own opinions on whether their decisions and/or actions were good or bad, hurtful or helpful, justified or not.
Suicidal ideation seems to be the natural default human response when quality of life drops and negative experiences build. Take a person and give them a few traumas (social alienation, humiliation, mental illness, poverty, break up a few key relationships, etc), and take away a few positive resources (give them drugs that cause negative mood side effects, give them a string of head injuries, or take away social support, etc). Then add more traumas, take away more resources, etc. Soon almost everyone in that situation will start seriously considering suicide. I wonder if we just ‘need’ to believe suicide is always irrational because the reality that almost anyone can be brought to the brink of it fairly easily is scary.
How long and how many attempts to relieve the pain before you think it becomes reasonable?
In most cases suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. It’s a moral responsibility to stop people from making an impetuous and fatal mistake.
it is immoral, however, to impose our own definition of “mistake” upon others who have made a well-considered choice concerning the manner and timing of their own death. Religion by its nature cannot accept this premise because religious precept is the instrument that people use to force others to make the same choice that they think they would make in the same circumstance…and a significant majority of people don’t think they would ever want to kill themselves.
Robin Williams was by all accounts a thoughtful man. He was well-liked and had been in therapy often. I hope he didn’t make an impetuous decision, but I wish him peace if he made the right choice. I don’t have enough knowledge to judge.
What I can be certain of is that if he did make the right decision, he should have had some dignified means to take his last bow. The vast weight of the justice system is still searching for a more humane way to kill killers, but Robin had to improvise.
Yes, there most definitely should be a humane way to kill yourself, and I have often thought that you should be able to go to a clinic where you can go and medications can be administered. To stick with the scenario I know best, depression can be a lifelong agony. I know of people who have tried everything. If you can substantiate that you have made a concerted effort at relief and that you are, in fact, in your right mind and can make this decision for yourself, then there should be a way for you to end your life without having to leave behind a potentially gory mess for somebody else to find. Having this as an option would be merciful to the suffering, I think, and also merciful to those who would otherwise have to deal with the aftermath of the options we have now.
There are many, many people who are perfectly rational in their desire to end their suffering, and who know and understand the contours of their suffering better than you, thank you very much. They shouldn’t have to hang themselves by a belt. They should be afforded dignity.
The problem here is that there is no way for us sitting here to know that Robin Williams really did try everything, exhaust all possibilities, and so forth. We have no way to know if his decision was the result of years of contemplation or an impulsive act. It’s all second guessing and in many cases people (on either side of the debate) trying to justify their own bias.
To repeat, if you can substantiate that you have made a concerted effort at relief and that you are, in fact, in your right mind and can make this decision for yourself, then in my (sadly, fantasy) scenario, you should be able to end your life with dignity in a clinic where medications could be professionally administered.
Again, I feel I must point out that position you’re arguing against is not one I’ve taken. I will take the position that, in general people with healthy minds and bodies don’t want to die.
No. But I don’t think this is really a breakthrough in a debate about assisted suicide and “people like Robin Williams”.
Right. I would put “suicide is the result of a mental disorder, and is irrational” up there with “suicide is the coward’s way out”. The kind of statement that is just meant to dissuade you from considering such a thing, but doesn’t actually stand up to any kind of scrutiny.
I was responding to your question: “Do people who are demonstrably in their right minds want to kill themselves, absent a painful and humiliating terminal disease?”
If you’re saying now that your own answer to that question would be “yes, sometimes”, why did you ask that question? It seems to be neither a rhetorical question, nor a genuine one.
I was watching an AIDS documentary about life before we had effective anti-virals to fight the virus. One AIDS patient was nearing the end of his life and he wanted to kill himself since he was just going to suffer daily for another few months and then die anyway. So he had a big party with all his friends, they all got to say goodbye and talk about the good times they had, and at the end he took some pills to kill himself. Hopefully he was surrounded by his friends when he actually did the deed, and not alone. That is a dignified way to kill yourself, people shouldn’t have to do it alone in the guest bedroom without being able to say goodbye.
So why did you say “This seems to be the default position in US culture…”? You were responding to a position.
Because I’m saying the position I’m responding to seems to be the default position in US culture.
It’s like if you had said “carbs are evil”. I might begin my response by saying “Yeah, this seems to be the default position in US culture right now” before stating why I disagree.
So, back to you.
Again, what was the meaning of asking the question “Do people who are demonstrably in their right minds want to kill themselves, absent a painful and humiliating terminal disease?”, if not to rhetorically imply that’s your position?
OK, you’ve got me. I should have remembered to mention the “five years of torture by terrorists” possibility.
No it’s not.
Yeah, or any other exception. Or just not write rhetorical questions that imply the non-existence of such a possibility in the first place.
And what you really shouldn’t have done is suggest I was debating a straw man, when I was debating what you had said.
Wow, good argument.
Western society is clueless about death. Other cultures do it better.
Way the hell back in 1981 a tremendously good movie was made on this subject called “Whose Life Is It Anyway?”. Watch it not because of the message but because it is just a really good movie.
The thing is, even if you accept this there are still other reasons one can kill themselves. In some cultures, suicide can be seen as “responsible” in some cases. For instance, if one feels they’ve failed or otherwise place an undue burden on their family unit/in-group/society in a significant way.
http://www17.ocn.ne.jp/~ogigaya/keio/CMPOzawadesilva2008.pdf (warning: PDF; long)
ETA: Obviously Robin didn’t come from a culture like that, but from personal experience when I was on wonky depression meds I honestly, truly believed everyone would be far better off if I was dead. I saw killing myself as relieving everyone of my presence. It had nothing to do with escaping personal pain. You can only speculate at the exact reasons (however nonsensical they may be from the outside) for someone who killed themselves. You can’t just assume they just wanted to escape personal pain.
You were debating against a position you inferred, but I did not say. I deliberately didn’t say anything so concrete because doing so on this subject is incredibly difficult, because I honestly don’t know enough about mental health to make an absolute statement on the matter, and because I was trying to avoid exactly this kind of tangent where everything is nitpicks and extreme examples, rather than focusing on the actual debate.
The question I asked was directed at Anaamika in the context of this thread and the OP, and was intended to point out the flaws in the proposal for him/her to think about, not to take a position.
If you’ve found flaws in my criticism of the OP, well done (I could have phrased it better), but I’m sure I don’t need to explain why we don’t have resources for people currently being tortured by terrorists to “say goodbye to the people they love, set their affairs in order, and put on a mask or take a pill and go to sleep and end the pain”. My point remains that the proposal in the OP is not well thought-out. If you want to debate my position, debate that one, because that’s the only one I’m 100% behind here.
I’ll change my original question to a statement, and be a bit more specific. In scenarios relevant to this debate, “suicidal” and “demonstrably in their right mind” are generally contradictory. They may not contradict if the person in question has a painful and humiliating condition, but judging exactly what “qualifies” is almost impossible. I previously mentioned terminal illnesses, because I think people find it a lot easier to accept the idea that someone is only missing a predictably short and painful part of their life, rather than several years or even decades, and it’s much less complicated than suicide with non-terminal illnesses. I certainly think there are scenarios where a non-terminally ill person in their right mind might want to end their life, but each case would seem to be so individual that it would be very difficult to judge when to offer assisted suicide in such a situation.
You certainly can judge the situation in that case. You could have a (for lack of a better word because I haven’t had any coffee) a hearing similar to competency hearings. You could have documentation submitted for medications used, therapists seen, and the length of time used. You could have a person’s mental health team interviewed. You could have a process like granting disability.
For organizations that require proof of terminal illness that offer assisted suicide surely a process could be put in place for non-terminal illnesses. Doesn’t Dignitas do this?
Yeah, it can be done, but the difficulty is deciding what is a good reason for wanting to die (i.e. when it would be irresponsible to assist with a suicide) and proving that the person who wants to die meets the criteria, which may be highly subjective. The decision would take some time, which may be unacceptable to people who are so unhappy with their lives that they want to die. I’m just thinking of the realities, which are that selling this idea to the general public would be quite difficult if there is the chance that people who might change their minds later are being assisted in suicide. Balancing the needs of those such a plan would be designed to help, and the concerns of everyone else, is tricky enough even with terminal illness.
You know, a lot of these arguments about how casual people will get about suicide were advanced in opposition to our Right to Die laws here in Oregon. People would be killing themselves willy-nilly, others would be trying to shame people into killing themselves, all the usual concerns.
That’s not what happened.
Comparatively few people avail themselves of the assistance, and a notable number who do never utilize the means provided to them. For those, it is enough to know there is a way out if things get to be too much. But just the sense of personal control is often sufficient to move someone to tough it out to the bitter, natural end.
I agree that a similar process could be put into place for non-terminal situations. But even if it were, my guess is that most people wouldn’t bother with it and would just rely on the traditional methods like shooting themselves or jumping off a bridge.