(December 17, 2014 at 6:25 am)robvalue Wrote: Sure, I would have killed myself several years ago, the only reason I haven't is because of how it would affect my wife and those around me. Literally. If it would affect no one, I'd go out and do it right now.

I understand that helping to support and encourage suicidal people is very important. But my question remains, how do we implement these "ethics" you speak of? Do we educate, enforce or coerce? I see no other methods. I'm all for education and support, but not enforcement or coercion when it comes to your own life. And teaching people what is ethical, by some rigid standard, is the very problem with religion.

So what is your practical suggestion?

(As always normal caveats apply)

The issue of liberty revolves around the concept of free will: who has it, and to what degree should they be allowed to act on it?

I think by far the majority of suicidal people are either naturally imbalanced due to bipolar disorder, or due to the effects of drug and alcohol use. In strong cases, love (or the loss of love) could lead to overwhelming negative affect as well.

If you knew someone was drugged, and that they were thinking about suicide because they were drugged, would you intervene? I would. What if rather than being artificially drugged, a brain malfunction (largely correctible) caused the release of unhealthy levels of neurotransmitters, causing what in essence is still a loss of self-determination? Would you intervene? I still would, given that there were avenues still available by which the person's mental experience might be brought into line.

So the short answer-- counseling, social support, hotlines, free addiction clinics, parenting support, free meds, and in extreme cases commission to an institution. "She's so horribly sad that ending it will save her from her horrible suffering" only works for me if there's no better option that society can provide-- asked for or not. Sometimes, liberty is just the freedom to hang oneself, and that's not a very good kind of freedom, in my opinion.

Aren't all those things we have already? To some extent at least. Things can be improved.

Yes, that's what I mean by usual caveats, if you have reason to believe someone is not in their normal state of mind, there's a good argument for preventing them to kill themselves. That is an exception. But otherwise, short of committing anyone you suspect is suicidal, I don't know what practical steps you can take. If there's no signs, there's no action to take.

Education on spotting the signs would be a great thing, I don't know if there's enough of that. That would help support, which I'm all for.

Support, but not dictation. If a psychiatrist comes to the conclusion that someone is not in their usual state of mind and is likely to return, then you do have a case for restraint.

Also, education about the effects of suicide on the living wouldn't be a bad thing.

---

But simply put, if someone is in their right mind and wants to die, I think it's wrong to stop them from doing so. I'm not saying don't try, you could stop their attempt if the situation allows and try your best to get them help, I'd have no problem with that. I mean stop them from executing a well thought out decision. If you have reason to think it isn't well thought out, then intervention is justified.

What I would have a problem with is then forcing them to live under suicide watch indefinitely because they are "not allowed" to make that choice.

It's "dilemma," not "delimna."

(December 17, 2014 at 8:22 am)robvalue Wrote: Yes, that's what I mean by usual caveats, if you have reason to believe someone is not in their normal state of mind, there's a good argument for preventing them to kill themselves. That is an exception. But otherwise, short of committing anyone you suspect is suicidal, I don't know what practical steps you can take. If there's no signs, there's no action to take.
[. . .]
What I would have a problem with is then forcing them to live under suicide watch indefinitely because they are "not allowed" to make that choice.

I would argue that the desire to kill oneself is in itself sufficient to show that a person is not functioning normally mentally-- unless there are mitigating circumstances like a terminal cancer or the tragic loss of one's entire family (town buried in a mudslide etc.), or even some long-pondered philosophical position. And you're right-- all those instutions do exist, and that's because suicide potentially affects everybody and experts are working hard to develop ways of dealing with it.

I agree that it's unethical to permanently stunt someone's liberty (psych-ward-imposed meds for life, for example) to prevent a suicide-- as Losty said, that's maybe more unethical than the suicide itself. After all, what's the point of taking away all the liberties and pleasures of life in order to keep that life going? At some point, you're going to have to let the person go and accept some of the burden of guilt if they go through with it.

---

(December 17, 2014 at 3:09 pm)Vosur Wrote: It's "dilemma," not "delimna."

Yeah, and this after we even had a whole thread about the importance of checking spelling and meaning in new thread titles. Bad spelling in thread titles is heavily unethical, and I cannot support it!

I think education is the only possible way forward of the three options presented. Enforcing and coercing only increase the feeling of powerlessness, and although I'm no expert, I sometimes think that suicide is the expression of ultimate power by someone who feels powerless. While I hate buzzwords like empowering, in this case, it hasn't completely lost meaning through misuse or overuse. I think you could reduce suicidal inclinations in people by teaching them the ways that they are powerful inside their own spheres. However, I don't think education is the only way forward.

I've been suicidally despondent twice in my life, and both times it was my son who (unknowingly) saved my life. But I don't think my suicidal feelings were based in powerlessness so much as extreme self-loathing -- which is exactly why his love was the salve that soothed my inner pains. I therefore don't think that empowerment by education is the only, or even primary, way to reduce suicide. But I certainly think it's a viable, and valuable, avenue.

Totally agree. In practical terms, and ethical terms, I think education is the only way forward. Any action should be to "protect someone from themselves", but not to be confused with enforcing prolonged suffering of someone who no longer wants to live.

I'm a big advocate of assisted euthanasia. I know all about the slippery slope shit people always wheel out... We'll be marrying pigs... But if done properly, I think for people who really want to die, terminal or not, they should be allowed to do so with dignity. Of course the case should first be fully assessed to check for coercion, and mental stability.

But it could well be that at some point in my life, I will want to die. And I will have made that decision after careful thought. Isn't it better that I can have it done in a proper way, rather than going out and throwing myself off a cliff? Suicide on your own can be messy and unreliable, and making sure you die will often entail other people having to find and clean up your body. I would want to avoid that part of it if possible.

Wait, what's wrong with marrying a pig? At least you know that divorce will bring you bacon -- talk about your consolation prizes.

But yeah, legalizing suicide seems appropriate to me. I don't get the hostility towards it, under reasonable circumstances.

Odd fact: in most American jurisdictions, attempting suicide is a crime. It's perhaps the only crime where, if the "crime" is successful, the culprit will not get prosecuted, no matter what.

I think it being a crime is insane.

(December 18, 2014 at 4:21 am)robvalue Wrote: In practical terms, and ethical terms, I think education is the only way forward. Any action should be to "protect someone from themselves", but not to be confused with enforcing prolonged suffering of someone who no longer wants to live.

(December 18, 2014 at 3:10 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: I think education is the only possible way forward of the three options presented.

No offense, but I don't think you guys are being realistic. How do you "educate" against manic depression, or schizophrenia, or the extreme imbalances caused by drug addiction and withdrawal?

If someone isn't thinking straight, and they want to kill themselves, you have to prevent them from killing themselves, because they may straighten out later, find value and joy in their lives, become productive (and enlightened because of the obstacles they've overcome) members of society.

I don't know what to tell you, I've made my case several times so I think I'll sign off from the debate. You're talking again of exceptions where someone is not in their normal state of mind, and you have reason to think that may change. These are the exceptions in which intervention is justified, in my opinion. I've already said that many times.