Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:
To put this into context, in the trigger lock thread d and Prestor were having a discussion about the state having things in place to prevent easy suicide. The number of suicides by gun was being spoken of, which led me to comment on d's point, which I thought was good:

I will throw this in here, though, because I like where I think d is heading. Think about a , ""heat of passion" killing. If the person has time to think about what they're doing, they usually wouldn't have killed someone. Could the same not be true for someone who says, "Aw, feth it.", and put a gun to their head, who, being forced to take another minute to think, would instead say, "Aw feth, that's crazy"?

How would the state force suicidal people to pause for a cooling off period? How would the state even know that somebody is suicidal? What gives the state the right to intrude on an individual's personal decision to commit suicide? If the state does have the right to forcibly prevent somebody from committing suicide what are the limitations plac d on the state when exercising that right?

We already have laws and regulations making it illegal for people with mental health issues to purchase guns. Obviously the inability to make a legal purchase doesn't guarantee a lack of access to a firearm but there are limits on what the state can do in both practical and legal ability.

Prestor Jon wrote:
How would the state force suicidal people to pause for a cooling off period?

By putting obstacles in a person's path. For example, even something as seemingly trivial as a higher railing on a popular suicide bridge can be enough to stop people from committing suicide. Obviously you're not going to stop someone who is really determined to end their own life, but a lot of suicides are impulse decisions and even delaying a person by a few minutes can be enough to make them change their mind.

How would the state even know that somebody is suicidal?

You don't. You assume that everyone is suicidal and put the barriers in place just in case you're right.

What gives the state the right to intrude on an individual's personal decision to commit suicide?

The same thing that gives the state the right to rescue you from a burning building.

If the state does have the right to forcibly prevent somebody from committing suicide what are the limitations plac d on the state when exercising that right?

That's a difficult question. IMO the state should be able to try to discourage a person from committing suicide, but the state's ability to restrain a person by force and prevent them from doing it should be severely limited. In the context of right-to-die laws the state should be able to delay the process temporarily to ensure that it's what the person really wants, but that is all.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Relapse wrote:
To put this into context, in the trigger lock thread d and Prestor were having a discussion about the state having things in place to prevent easy suicide. The number of suicides by gun was being spoken of, which led me to comment on d's point, which I thought was good:

I will throw this in here, though, because I like where I think d is heading. Think about a , ""heat of passion" killing. If the person has time to think about what they're doing, they usually wouldn't have killed someone. Could the same not be true for someone who says, "Aw, feth it.", and put a gun to their head, who, being forced to take another minute to think, would instead say, "Aw feth, that's crazy"?

How would the state force suicidal people to pause for a cooling off period?

Most likely through a combination of direct intervention when the state is aware of a suicidal intent, and passive preventative measures when they are not aware of a suicidal intent. The later would include things as barriers and safety netting on bridges and high buildings, programs that let you dispose of old prescriptions and narcotics, and programs supporting safe weapon storage.

How would the state even know that somebody is suicidal?

The only time the state knows if when the suicidal person lets the state know, or if someone who is aware of the suicidal person tells the state.

Often a suicidal person lets someone know for a number of reason: they want to justify their actions, they want to let survivors know that it's not their fault, and sometime they tell others because they are hoping that they will be stopped. Because sometimes a small barriers is all it takes.

Sometimes they don't let anybody know, but if another person has reasonable suspicion that a person wants to commit suicide they can notify law enforcement and medical providers. Of course they can do that whenever the other person straight up tells them as well.

The actual process differs from state to state, but here in Oklahoma it starts with either a police officer filling out a peace-officer affidavit or any other person filling out a third party affidavit. That affidavit allows law enforcement to place you into protective custody for up to 12 hours during which time a licensed mental health professional is required to examine you. If that LMHP finds that you are a danger to yourself they fill out the required paperwork to place you into emergency detention. Emergency detention lasts up to 72 hours (not counting weekends or state holidays). During that 72 hours two LMHP must evaluate the patient and if they determine that the treatment has been successful the patient can be discharged. If they determine that the patient continues to be at risk they can petition the district court for involuntary confinement. If the court agrees that the patient remains at risk of self-harm it can order treatment at a specific facility. That facility must review the status of involuntary confinement at least every 90 days, but it also must initiate discharge planning as soon as the patient is no longer a risk to himself.

Not saying this is right or wrong, just sharing the process here in my state. But for disclosure I do work in a health care setting and I have also worked for EMS and the fire department and have filled out my fair share of third party affidavits.

What gives the state the right to intrude on an individual's personal decision to commit suicide?

The state does have a right to protect those that cannot legally protect themselves. That includes protecting children and elderly from abuse, appointing guardians to those that cannot take care of themselves, and protect the mentally ill that are at risk for injury. The argument is, like I stated already, that wanting to kill yourself is a sign of mental illness and therefore the state has to protect you from yourself.

If the state does have the right to forcibly prevent somebody from committing suicide what are the limitations placed on the state when exercising that right?

That also varies by state law. Here in Oklahoma a person in protective custody or emergency detention remains the right to refuse participation in treatment and refuse medication unless that medication is needed to keep you from hurting yourself and others (so usually sedatives, etc). If a person is under involuntary confinement the court may order that a patient does not have capacity to refuse medications, but absent such an order the patient retains the right to refuse. The court is also supposed to take into account the least restrictive means of treatment and can order supervised participation in outpatient treatment and other treatment options.

We already have laws and regulations making it illegal for people with mental health issues to purchase guns. Obviously the inability to make a legal purchase doesn't guarantee a lack of access to a firearm but there are limits on what the state can do in both practical and legal ability.

Agree, and in regard to guns my argument would be the same for the mental health aspect as it is for the "keep kids away from guns" aspect: Continue to promote the use devices that make it harder to access guns, and I am also in favor of increased legislation that makes a person accountable if someone uses their unsecured firearms.

I'm not sure if a court can order that weapons be removed from the home of someone that is mentally ill.

Edit:

A copy of the "third party" form we use in my state: https://www.oumedicine.com/docs/ad-psychiatry-workfiles/thirdpartystatement.pdf?sfvrsn=2

A copy of the "Clinical Considerations for Involuntary Mental Health Treatment of Adults in Oklahoma": http://www.ablminc.org/a%20day%20with%20the%20judges_10-30-09_okc/Presentations_By_Speakers_pdf/12_Schader_Involuntary%20Mental%20Health%20Treatment.pdf

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
How would the state force suicidal people to pause for a cooling off period?

By putting obstacles in a person's path. For example, even something as seemingly trivial as a higher railing on a popular suicide bridge can be enough to stop people from committing suicide. Obviously you're not going to stop someone who is really determined to end their own life, but a lot of suicides are impulse decisions and even delaying a person by a few minutes can be enough to make them change their mind.

How would the state even know that somebody is suicidal?

You don't. You assume that everyone is suicidal and put the barriers in place just in case you're right.

What gives the state the right to intrude on an individual's personal decision to commit suicide?

The same thing that gives the state the right to rescue you from a burning building.

If the state does have the right to forcibly prevent somebody from committing suicide what are the limitations plac d on the state when exercising that right?

That's a difficult question. IMO the state should be able to try to discourage a person from committing suicide, but the state's ability to restrain a person by force and prevent them from doing it should be severely limited. In the context of right-to-die laws the state should be able to delay the process temporarily to ensure that it's what the person really wants, but that is all.

This is a night of nights. I find myself agreeing heavily with both d and Perigrine. Well spoken, gentlemen.

As an example of the whole "barriers to suicide" thing, here in the UK quite a few years back a law was written which meant that purchases of painkillers such as paracetamol and ibuprofen couldn't exceed a certain amount of pills in a single transaction.

So whereas before you could buy a giant bottle of 400 pills you could now only buy a maximum of 40ish in a single transaction.

Whilst the number of overdoses remained constant, this resulted in a decline of successful suicides by overdosing on these drugs, despite the fact that a determined person could just walk into several shops and buy the same number of pills in multiple transactions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21370910

Making bridges and other dangerous areas safer with improved features to help prevent falling deaths, whether the falls are intentional or accidental is a good prudent thing to do. Making public places safer from accidents is beneficial whether it prevents any suicides or not.

I still think it's wrong to make a blanket classification of every suicidal person to be mentally ill and therefore trigger a state intervention to prevent the suicide. If suicidal tendencies alone were grounds for a diagnosis of mental illness and impairment then right to die laws can't work.

I don't see why right to die laws should only be applicable once somebody is already dying in a hospital bed. If a person gets diagnosed with a medical condition that is like fatal and even if he/she survives the process guarantees physical pain for the patient and emotional and financial hardship for his/her family then that person should have the right to choose to end their life and not have the state classify him/her as mentally ill/impaired and intervene to stop the suicide.

Of course believing that suicide should be legal under those circumstances then leads me to believe that the reasoning behind a person's suicide shouldn't matter. The state shouldn't have the right to exert control over YOUR body against YOUR will. It is your body not the state's.

That said I do agree with having medical professionals help keep people diagnosed with mental illness or impairment from harming themselves or others due to the symptoms and conditions of their mental state. Helping sick/impaired people is good but it should require more than just suicidal thoughts to classify what was previously thought to be a healthy sane person as mentally ill/impaired, in my opinion.I am far too leery of the state making erroneous judgmental calls and intruding into people's lives needlessly.

Prestor Jon wrote:
I still think it's wrong to make a blanket classification of every suicidal person to be mentally ill and therefore trigger a state intervention to prevent the suicide. If suicidal tendencies alone were grounds for a diagnosis of mental illness and impairment then right to die laws can't work.

The issue is that, while not all suicidal people are suffering from temporary mental illness, a large percentage of them are. There are a lot of cases where a person feels like they've been pushed past their limits, attempts/considers suicide as their only way out, and then never goes back to that point. And later, once they're past the worst part, they're glad that they didn't die and thank whoever saved them. So we, as a society, have decided that the right thing to do is to err on the side of caution and assume that all potential suicides fall into that category and do whatever it takes to save the person.

The point of right-to-die laws is acknowledging that not all people who wish to die follow that pattern. However, we have to be careful that we don't swing too far in the opposite direction and abandon people to die. That's why most right-to-die proposals include things like waiting periods and professional evaluations.

I don't see why right to die laws should only be applicable once somebody is already dying in a hospital bed. If a person gets diagnosed with a medical condition that is like fatal and even if he/she survives the process guarantees physical pain for the patient and emotional and financial hardship for his/her family then that person should have the right to choose to end their life and not have the state classify him/her as mentally ill/impaired and intervene to stop the suicide.

This is true, and arguably a subject for future laws to deal with. But it's also a huge gray area because it's a lot harder to tell the difference between cases where someone's quality of life has legitimately dropped below a point where they wish to live and cases where someone is having temporary problems that they need help dealing with. Terminally ill patients aren't the only people who deserve the right to control over their life, but it's a much easier situation to handle from a legal perspective. And giving that option to people who are dying painfully right now is more important than passing a perfect law that handles every case.

Of course believing that suicide should be legal under those circumstances then leads me to believe that the reasoning behind a person's suicide shouldn't matter. The state shouldn't have the right to exert control over YOUR body against YOUR will. It is your body not the state's.

Again, the state has that right for the same reason that the state has the right to rescue you from a burning building. Do you really want to live in a society where protecting abstract rights is more important than saving lives, and people are just left to burn/drown/whatever unless they first sign a form explicitly allowing the state to exert control over their body and save them?

Im gonna Start a Make A Wish Style Company that lets you die the way you want if you are terminally ill.
"Wanna die On your Terms? Come down, We got everything, Wanna Die on a Nascar Race Track while the Car is Rigged to explode, We can do that, Want to get beaten to death by a Women Boddy Builder? Can do, Come down, only 9999.99 You aint taking it with you anyway"

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
How would the state force suicidal people to pause for a cooling off period?

By putting obstacles in a person's path. For example, even something as seemingly trivial as a higher railing on a popular suicide bridge can be enough to stop people from committing suicide. Obviously you're not going to stop someone who is really determined to end their own life, but a lot of suicides are impulse decisions and even delaying a person by a few minutes can be enough to make them change their mind.

Why do think to presume you have the right to tell someone what to do with their ultimate right, the right to choose?

Christian nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im gonna Start a Make A Wish Style Company that lets you die the way you want if you are terminally ill.
"Wanna die On your Terms? Come down, We got everything, Wanna Die on a Nascar Race Track while the Car is Rigged to explode, We can do that, Want to get beaten to death by a Women Boddy Builder? Can do, Come down, only 9999.99 You aint taking it with you anyway"

"Well it was in his will that he be cremated, made into bullets and shot into this list of people. See your name is #3, yes right there. Now hold still"
-The Wife executing Frazzled's last will and testament, with gusto.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
How would the state force suicidal people to pause for a cooling off period?

By putting obstacles in a person's path. For example, even something as seemingly trivial as a higher railing on a popular suicide bridge can be enough to stop people from committing suicide. Obviously you're not going to stop someone who is really determined to end their own life, but a lot of suicides are impulse decisions and even delaying a person by a few minutes can be enough to make them change their mind.

Why do think to presume you have the right to tell someone what to do with their ultimate right, the right to choose?

Christian nonsense.

Most people that are prevented from suicide while in an acute depressed state don't try suicide again. It's not a real choice, but a feeling of profound, but temporary, despair.

Stopping a person from killing themselves when they are not themselves is no different from stepping in anytime a person is making a terrible decision while mentally off balance. It's what caring people do.

I'm not against suicide as a blanket policy, but I know most people that have felt suicidal, but didn't go through with it, probably feel good they didn't.

Interesting suicide fact: for people suffering from clinical, major depression, the most common time for a suicide attempt isn't prior to treatment: it's about a month in. A lot of people actually need to improve, psychologically, before they have the mental ability to motivate themselves enough for a suicide attempt. That's what real depression looks like...

 Polonius wrote:
Most people that are prevented from suicide while in an acute depressed state don't try suicide again. It's not a real choice, but a feeling of profound, but temporary, despair. Stopping a person from killing themselves when they are not themselves is no different from stepping in anytime a person is making a terrible decision while mentally off balance. It's what caring people do.

All too true ofc - it's often a spur-of-the-moment decision to take that gun to yourself, jump off a bridge or turn in front of a truck. It's quick, easy and available right now. If it takes more effort people will often stop halfway because they've had time to think or they're so depressed they just can't bother with the preparations.

Still, for someone terminally ill suicide might be the only way to die with some dignity left. And it could also be kinder to family and friends if they don't have to see your last months hooked up to machines that go ping.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Most people that are prevented from suicide while in an acute depressed state don't try suicide again. It's not a real choice, but a feeling of profound, but temporary, despair. Stopping a person from killing themselves when they are not themselves is no different from stepping in anytime a person is making a terrible decision while mentally off balance. It's what caring people do.

All too true ofc - it's often a spur-of-the-moment decision to take that gun to yourself, jump off a bridge or turn in front of a truck. It's quick, easy and available right now. If it takes more effort people will often stop halfway because they've had time to think or they're so depressed they just can't bother with the preparations.

Still, for someone terminally ill suicide might be the only way to die with some dignity left. And it could also be kinder to family and friends if they don't have to see your last months hooked up to machines that go ping.

I am sure its true on both counts. But if thats what a person wants to do, what right do we have to stop them?

 Frazzled wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Most people that are prevented from suicide while in an acute depressed state don't try suicide again. It's not a real choice, but a feeling of profound, but temporary, despair. Stopping a person from killing themselves when they are not themselves is no different from stepping in anytime a person is making a terrible decision while mentally off balance. It's what caring people do.

All too true ofc - it's often a spur-of-the-moment decision to take that gun to yourself, jump off a bridge or turn in front of a truck. It's quick, easy and available right now. If it takes more effort people will often stop halfway because they've had time to think or they're so depressed they just can't bother with the preparations.

Still, for someone terminally ill suicide might be the only way to die with some dignity left. And it could also be kinder to family and friends if they don't have to see your last months hooked up to machines that go ping.

I am sure its true on both counts. But if thats what a person wants to do, what right do we have to stop them?

A lot of preventative measures for acts of suicide are also good measures to protect against accidents in general. Making bridges safer for everyone has the the side effect of making it harder to commit suicide by bridge jumping but I don't think bridge jumping suicides are so prevalent (although there might be some local anomalies) that we need to have an extensive program for suicide proofing bridges, etc.

Mental health is important but it's a very tricky subject. Nobody wants to further stygmatize mental problems or discourage people from seeking help by imposing too onerous restrictions on people under the auspices that it's for their own good. You don't want unqualified people making judgements about somebody's mental state, you can't force people to get help against their will and there are limits as to what the govt can or should do even after somebody has been properly diagnosed with a mental health issue.

 Frazzled wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Most people that are prevented from suicide while in an acute depressed state don't try suicide again. It's not a real choice, but a feeling of profound, but temporary, despair. Stopping a person from killing themselves when they are not themselves is no different from stepping in anytime a person is making a terrible decision while mentally off balance. It's what caring people do.

All too true ofc - it's often a spur-of-the-moment decision to take that gun to yourself, jump off a bridge or turn in front of a truck. It's quick, easy and available right now. If it takes more effort people will often stop halfway because they've had time to think or they're so depressed they just can't bother with the preparations.

Still, for someone terminally ill suicide might be the only way to die with some dignity left. And it could also be kinder to family and friends if they don't have to see your last months hooked up to machines that go ping.

I am sure its true on both counts. But if thats what a person wants to do, what right do we have to stop them?

The same right we have to treat an unconscious person that's bleeding out: we presume that a person that is non-responsive wants their life saved. For what it's worth, I'd be fine with legalized, prescription euthanasia at will, but if I see a person trying to jump off a bridge, I'm going to assume they're in an acute episode, and not making a rational, calm choice to end their life.

 Polonius wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Most people that are prevented from suicide while in an acute depressed state don't try suicide again. It's not a real choice, but a feeling of profound, but temporary, despair. Stopping a person from killing themselves when they are not themselves is no different from stepping in anytime a person is making a terrible decision while mentally off balance. It's what caring people do.

All too true ofc - it's often a spur-of-the-moment decision to take that gun to yourself, jump off a bridge or turn in front of a truck. It's quick, easy and available right now. If it takes more effort people will often stop halfway because they've had time to think or they're so depressed they just can't bother with the preparations.

Still, for someone terminally ill suicide might be the only way to die with some dignity left. And it could also be kinder to family and friends if they don't have to see your last months hooked up to machines that go ping.

I am sure its true on both counts. But if thats what a person wants to do, what right do we have to stop them?

The same right we have to treat an unconscious person that's bleeding out: we presume that a person that is non-responsive wants their life saved. For what it's worth, I'd be fine with legalized, prescription euthanasia at will, but if I see a person trying to jump off a bridge, I'm going to assume they're in an acute episode, and not making a rational, calm choice to end their life.

Thats if they are non-responsive. If they are alert and expressing themselves that have the same right to privacy as does a woman have in regards to abortion. Where is the right to tell them what to do in this most personal of decisions?

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats if they are non-responsive. If they are alert and expressing themselves that have the same right to privacy as does a woman have in regards to abortion. Where is the right to tell them what to do in this most personal of decisions?

I don't disagree with you, but everything I've seen shows that when people are stopped from suicide, they generally don't re-attempt, which strongly indicates that most suicides are due to temporary conditions, not permanent ones. So, if you stumble across an act of suicide, the odds of it being somebody alert and at baseline are... low.

As for the right to privacy, I think your analogy is a good one, although flawed. Both abortion and suicide are one way decisions, in that once made, they cannot be undone. Where suicide is different, of course, is that it's a decision that can still be made if delayed, while abortion eventually cannot (and many states have waiting periods for abortions). But, of course, the right to privacy does, IMO, erode when it's not private. A decision made with a doctor in a clinic is private. A decision to end one's life in your den with a pistol is private. Climbing over a bridge railing really isn't private to me.

It comes down to them having the capacity to make a fully informed decision and understanding the consequence of their action. People with certain degrees of mental illness are considered to not have capacity, with suicidal intentions being one of this benchmarks.

From a legal, and to an extend societal, standpoint we have long been ok with prohibiting certain legal decisions when a person is too impaired. If you are drunk you can't get a tattoo (or at least you can't sign the paperwork), if you are drugged up you can't sign legal contracts, I think it is technically illegal to serve alcohol to a drunk person. If you don't have capacity the court can appoint a guardian for you. The whole "you need to be able to fully understand the consequences and be able to appreciate the enormity of those consequences" idea is not new.

Suicide just ends up being caught in the weird Catch 22 of it all end ends up being this circular argument: you need to be competent to make the decision to commit suicide, but wanting to commit suicide shows that you are too mentally ill to be competent. I'm not arguing the "rightness" of this logic, just explaining it.

The only reason that right-to-die is different is that society went from "why would anyone want to kill themselves, they must be crazy" to "I would want to kill myself too if I was in their shoes".

As for the right to privacy, I think your analogy is a good one, although flawed.

I'm a pretty flawed cat. Thats as good as it gets.

 d-usa wrote:

Suicide just ends up being caught in the weird Catch 22 of it all end ends up being this circular argument: you need to be competent to make the decision to commit suicide, but wanting to commit suicide shows that you are too mentally ill to be competent. I'm not arguing the "rightness" of this logic, just explaining it.

Well, I doubt we'll move into legalized suicide any time soon, as a culture, due to that problem, among many others.

I think there's room to make a distinction between mentally incompetent and wanting to end your life. Not to be smarmy, but if you have a chronic mental illness, isn't that a valid reason to want to die? Is it wrong to look at future full of horrible mental symptoms and equally bad medical side effects, and say "no thanks?"

I dunno, I never took a class in bioethics, but while I'd be careful to make sure decisions are made well, I don't like replacing any other person's judgment with my own.

 Polonius wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Suicide just ends up being caught in the weird Catch 22 of it all end ends up being this circular argument: you need to be competent to make the decision to commit suicide, but wanting to commit suicide shows that you are too mentally ill to be competent. I'm not arguing the "rightness" of this logic, just explaining it.

Well, I doubt we'll move into legalized suicide any time soon, as a culture, due to that problem, among many others.

I think there's room to make a distinction between mentally incompetent and wanting to end your life. Not to be smarmy, but if you have a chronic mental illness, isn't that a valid reason to want to die? Is it wrong to look at future full of horrible mental symptoms and equally bad medical side effects, and say "no thanks?"

I dunno, I never took a class in bioethics, but while I'd be careful to make sure decisions are made well, I don't like replacing any other person's judgment with my own.

Well, we haven't moved to the point where a chronic physical illness qualifies as a right-to-die illness either, so there is parity there. Mental illness rarely is a terminal illness, unless we count suicide.

 d-usa wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Suicide just ends up being caught in the weird Catch 22 of it all end ends up being this circular argument: you need to be competent to make the decision to commit suicide, but wanting to commit suicide shows that you are too mentally ill to be competent. I'm not arguing the "rightness" of this logic, just explaining it.

Well, I doubt we'll move into legalized suicide any time soon, as a culture, due to that problem, among many others.

I think there's room to make a distinction between mentally incompetent and wanting to end your life. Not to be smarmy, but if you have a chronic mental illness, isn't that a valid reason to want to die? Is it wrong to look at future full of horrible mental symptoms and equally bad medical side effects, and say "no thanks?"

I dunno, I never took a class in bioethics, but while I'd be careful to make sure decisions are made well, I don't like replacing any other person's judgment with my own.

Well, we haven't moved to the point where a chronic physical illness qualifies as a right-to-die illness either, so there is parity there. Mental illness rarely is a terminal illness, unless we count suicide.

Should only terminal illnesses qualify as a reason to want to die? There are a whole host of mental and physical health issues that aren't terminal that can have a drastic negative effect on your quality of life. If somebody wishes to end their life what gives the state the right to decide he/she can't because his/her reasoning isn't valid? Why should the state have the right to force somebody to keep on living against their will just because they aren't afflicted with a terminal condition that's been officially recognized as a valid reason to end your life? Whose life is it, yours or the state's?

This is the fifth(?) time that you asked "why does the state get to decide", and for the fifth time the answer is the same "the state gets to step in when you are incapable of making a decision because you are not competent to make that decision, and mental illness is considered a sign of incompetence if it is expressed in the form of suicidal intentions".

If you want to make an actual argument about why suicidal intentions should not be considered signs of mental illness, or what the line should be where mental illness makes you incapable of making an informed decision, or anything along that line it would most certainly be a welcome addition to the discussion.

But at this point repeating "why does the state get to stop you from killing yourself" over and over again when it has already been explained why just seems like spamming.

 d-usa wrote:
This is the fifth(?) time that you asked "why does the state get to decide", and for the fifth time the answer is the same "the state gets to step in when you are incapable of making a decision because you are not competent to make that decision, and mental illness is considered a sign of incompetence if it is expressed in the form of suicidal intentions".

Because thats what we call a circular bs answer. Why are you incompetent? Why is that mental illness? Suicide is a time honored respectable tradition in many societies. Don't oppress me with your religion.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
This is the fifth(?) time that you asked "why does the state get to decide", and for the fifth time the answer is the same "the state gets to step in when you are incapable of making a decision because you are not competent to make that decision, and mental illness is considered a sign of incompetence if it is expressed in the form of suicidal intentions".

Because thats what we call a circular bs answer. Why are you incompetent? Why is that mental illness? Suicide is a time honored respectable tradition in many societies. Don't oppress me with your religion.

So your rebuttal is to repeat the part of my post you cut out?

"If you want to make an actual argument about why suicidal intentions should not be considered signs of mental illness, or what the line should be where mental illness makes you incapable of making an informed decision, or anything along that line it would most certainly be a welcome addition to the discussion. "

Surely you can see that "why is it a mental illness, why does it make you incompetent" is a different, and better, follow-up question than just repeating the original question over and over again.

You said I was repeating my argument. I was because no one had answered it.

Coming up with the CBS answer is just justificaiton for doing what you want to do. You're claiming people aren't competent to make a decision, and that the decision they are making shows they are incompetent.

WHY?
"I'm the PoPo and I'm going to shoot you if you try to kill yourself because you're incompetent!"
er...what?

In my instance, there is extreme chance I am going to get a lethal form of cancer. I aint going through that gak thank you very much, and everyone knows it. Please justify your statement that I am incompetent without involving a personal view on your part.

If you tell a doctor that you are planning on killing yourself, he will assume you are mentally ill, and begin, at the least, close observation. Suicidal intent is so closely linked to mental illness that to ignore it is virtually malpractice.

However, if you told a doctor that you had sharp chest pains, the reaction would be the same, even if its just bad gas.

The taboo against suicide is cultural, but our current reaction to suicidal ideation is based on at least a somewhat coherent scientific basis.

To be of sound mind and want to end your life makes you a minority, and perhaps you should simply handle that yourself. A person of sound mind should be able to handle the act of suicide without being interrupted or caught, I would imagine.

Now, there is a pretty deep stigma and taboo against suicide in our culture that relates to both Judeo-Christianity and a sort of collectivism that is both ancient and sharply distinct from the modern understanding of self. If that's your problem, I hear ya, but you're not going to convince society that a person's life is really their own. Anybody that really wants to die can, and will, be able to kill themselves, but its a deeply selfish act to their loved ones in most circumstances.

The taboo against suicide is cultural,

Yes.

 Frazzled wrote:

In my instance, there is extreme chance I am going to get a lethal form of cancer. I aint going through that gak thank you very much, and everyone knows it. Please justify your statement that I am incompetent without involving a personal view on your part.

Except ending life when facing terminal illness is exactly the situation the bill in the OP addresses, which is a very different situation from other decisions to end life.

Trading a slow death for a quick one might still be suicide to some people, but the ethics are very different from an otherwise healthy person deciding to end his life.

 Polonius wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

In my instance, there is extreme chance I am going to get a lethal form of cancer. I aint going through that gak thank you very much, and everyone knows it. Please justify your statement that I am incompetent without involving a personal view on your part.

Except ending life when facing terminal illness is exactly the situation the bill in the OP addresses, which is a very different situation from other decisions to end life.

Trading a slow death for a quick one might still be suicide to some people, but the ethics are very different from an otherwise healthy person deciding to end his life.

And thats why I am supportive of this bill.

Note it here first Ladies and Germs: FRAZZLED SAID SOMETHING NICE ABOUT CALIFORNIA.

 Frazzled wrote:
You said I was repeating my argument. I was because no one had answered it.

Coming up with the CBS answer is just justificaiton for doing what you want to do. You're claiming people aren't competent to make a decision, and that the decision they are making shows they are incompetent.

Read before you type, that will help with making sure that you are replying to the right posts and understanding the post that you are replying to.

1) If you spend even a cursory amount of time reading the posts it would be clear that I am replying to Prestor Jon who started that line of discussion in another thread and which I moved here since it seemed to fit more with the California thread. The original question basically was "why is it okay for terminal people to kill themselves in California but it's not okay for anybody else to commit suicide whenever they want to". I replied by explaining the legal reasoning behind the two areas: You have agency over your body as long as you are mentally capable of making those decision. In Right-To-Die states people have decided that wanting to die because you have a terminal illness doesn't make you crazy, but they still have inserted a mental evaluation that is required before you commit suicide to make sure that you have the mental capacity to make that decision. In these states if you want to kill yourself for other reasons, and in all other states for any reason, you are automatically deemed incapable of making an informed decision because you are mentally ill or else you wouldn't want to kill yourself. The follow by Prestor Jon was "but why does the state get to stop you", which doesn't really move the discussion forward at all and just repeats the original question over and over again.

2) I have also explained over and over again that I am simply explaining what the legal and medical viewpoint is, and that I'm not saying why I think you shouldn't be able to commit suicide but that I am simply saying why the state thinks you should't be able to commit suicide. Heck, I even posted a number of times the same argument that you made "You have to be competent to commit suicide, but wanting to commit suicide makes you incompetent, it's very circular reasoning and doesn't make much sense, but that is where the law is at right now".

WHY?
"I'm the PoPo and I'm going to shoot you if you try to kill yourself because you're incompetent!"
er...what?

Wanna find anywhere in this thread where anyone advocated killing suicidal people? Because if you are already going into the usual "say hyperbolic stuff just because you have nothing better to do" mode then I will just go ahead and be on my way.

In my instance, there is extreme chance I am going to get a lethal form of cancer. I aint going through that gak thank you very much, and everyone knows it. Please justify your statement that I am incompetent without involving a personal view on your part.

Texas Health and Safety Code, Title 7. Mental Health and Mental Retardation, Subtitle C. Texas Mental Health Code, Chapter 573. Emergency Detention

Which goes back to the whole "I'm explaining why the State has a legal right to intervene" thing, and not a "I'm saying that wanting to commit suicide automatically makes you crazy" argument.

Texas does not have Right-To-Die yet. Maybe more states will pick up bills like this. We can only hope.

And just to clarify in case you missed the fact that I started this thread and that I am okay with Right-To-Die law with the right safeguards (which are included in the bill): I'm just trying to explain why Right-To-Die laws are different than laws allowing the state from letting you commit suicide at any other time and why Right-To-Die laws are required in the first place.