should assisted suicide be a crime?

[Crazy4u]

Most countries make assisted suicide illegal. I am not talking about suicide clinics. I am talking about an individual assisting another individual.

Many people want to die peacefully. Some prefer not to be alone.

Some suicidal people want to ctb but they don't because they don't know how to do it without errors or they need physical assistance in the process.

I think suicide is acceptable and I hope many members believe the same. Based on that, I don't think assisted suicide should be illegal. Helping a suicidal with co method, hanging methode or other methods should be a acceptable assuming the person helping is giving the suicidal person many chances to change their mind if they want.

 

[YourNeighbor]

I don't think there will be a fair consideration of all aspects of such laws here, given the audience. There are many reasons why it should be illegal for someone who is not medically trained to assist another in suicide. One problem, however, is that such laws often do not precisely define what it means "to assist," which may create an opportunity for prosecutorial abuse. Is holding a loved one's hand as they commit suicide "assistance?" How about driving them to a preferred location so the loved one can suicide with a view?

I will note that it is interesting that assisting suicide is often illegal in many jurisdictions where suicide itself is not illegal. Not many examples come to mind where it is illegal to assist another in a legal activity.

I guess my answer is: "it depends", or "yes, but."

 

[Onthe29th]

I've thought about this actually and I think the problem is that there needs to be a clear line drawn between assisted suicide and murder.

I think that's why doctors don't directly intervene even in places where euthanasia is legal. They just prescribe the medicine and give it to the patient to administer it themselves.

I think the assistance or monitoring at the very least would be beneficial and increase the chance of success for people who want to ctb so maybe they'll get real creative about the laws in about 100 years.

 

[Mr2005]

No but since it is I'm sure more criminals will be happy to offer their services and some poor sod will say yes

 

[Crazy4u]

I don't think there will be a fair consideration of all aspects of such laws here, given the audience. There are many reasons why it should be illegal for someone who is not medically trained to assist another in suicide. One problem, however, is that such laws often do not precisely define what it means "to assist," which may create an opportunity for prosecutorial abuse. Is holding a loved one's hand as they commit suicide "assistance?" How about driving them to a preferred location so the loved one can suicide with a view?

I will note that it is interesting that assisting suicide is often illegal in many jurisdictions where suicide itself is not illegal. Not many examples come to mind where it is illegal to assist another in a legal activity.

I guess my answer is: "it depends", or "yes, but."

yeah I am not sure why suicide itself is legal but assisted suicide is illegal. The legality of suicide is strange because if someone says they want to ctb out loud, they will get locked up.

I agree that the definition should be clear but I don't agree that the assistant should be medically trained. Assisting by helping with supplies purchase, transportation, and rope or knot preparation doesn't need medical training.

I've thought about this actually and I think the problem is that there needs to be a clear line drawn between assisted suicide and murder.

I think that's why doctors don't directly intervene even in places where euthanasia is legal. They just prescribe the medicine and give it to the patient to administer it themselves.

I think the assistance or monitoring at the very least would be beneficial and increase the chance of success for people who want to ctb so maybe they'll get real creative about the laws in about 100 years.

exactly. a good definition and guideline is needed. I don't think the assistant in general needs to be directly involved (e.g. pushing the person from a high building) but the assistant can provide emotional support and guidance. It is unfair for someone to spend years of suffering because they are not brave enough to ctb on their own.

If someone wants to ctb and is 100% sure but needs some support, let them receive it. why not?

No but since it is I'm sure more criminals will be happy to offer their services and some poor sod will say yes

the person can hire a criminal to kill them but they may take your money without killing them. I don't think this will change if assisted suicide is legal.

I like the idea of hiring someone to accompany the suicidal if they don't have anyone who can accompany them (e.g. a service similar to escort, cuddlers, tourist guide,
....etc)

 

[deletedaccount30982]

the issue comes into play as @Onthe29th said, at drawing the line between assisted suicide and murder. pulling the gun for someone to commit suicide could become murder if the person changes their mind last second. assisting someone could become murder if you are telling them they should/have to do it when they are expressing reservations. i think suicide should be less taboo but i think legalizing assisted suicide needs a lot of conversation about how it could be done safely. i do think you should be allowed to emotionally support someone in their suicide without being labeled an accomplice

 

[myopybyproxy]

I've thought about this actually and I think the problem is that there needs to be a clear line drawn between assisted suicide and murder.

I think that's why doctors don't directly intervene even in places where euthanasia is legal. They just prescribe the medicine and give it to the patient to administer it themselves.

I think the assistance or monitoring at the very least would be beneficial and increase the chance of success for people who want to ctb so maybe they'll get real creative about the laws in about 100 years.

That line is so thin, especially when you consider methods such as suicide by cop and provocation of someone else to kill you. Should the assistant in this case be considered a helper or given a life sentence or death penalty for first degree murder?

A written contract between the two parties seems a good idea. But even this can be twisted for nefarious purposes, or edited once one party dies.

However, a parallel to this is passively allowing death, ie DNR. A professional who respects a valid - though there is much debate as to who can declare DNR and under what circumstance - DNR is not charged with negligent murder. Perhaps only in cases where the family wished the individual did not choose DNR and are taking out their denial on the poor doctor.

The key issue then seems to be is the assistance passive or active. Giving someone money vs purchasing the method for them vs directly telling them to kill themselves vs standing by and respecting their choice and remaining with them in their final moments are all seen very differently based on how much free will the dead person is perceived to be exercising. Anything that would or would have the potential to be considered some sort of coercion that could cross the line would only be used as ammunition for the 'pro-life'rs and make matters worse regarding policy.

 

[blueclover_.]

Yes imo, just because it is very hard to control and risky. But i also think you should be able to get a legal document which says that you are allowed to assist one's suicide with their permission and with that document you should be able to defend yourself in court.

 

[myopybyproxy]

yeah I am not sure why suicide itself is legal but assisted suicide is illegal. The legality of suicide is strange because if someone says they want to ctb out loud, they will get locked up.

I agree that the definition should be clear but I don't agree that the assistant should be medically trained. Assisting by helping with supplies purchase, transportation, and rope or knot preparation doesn't need medical training.

exactly. a good definition and guideline is needed. I don't think the assistant in general needs to be directly involved (e.g. pushing the person from a high building) but the assistant can provide emotional support and guidance. It is unfair for someone to spend years of suffering because they are not brave enough to ctb on their own.

If someone wants to ctb and is 100% sure but needs some support, let them receive it. why not?

the person can hire a criminal to kill them but they may take your money without killing them. I don't think this will change if assisted suicide is legal.

I like the idea of hiring someone to accompany the suicidal if they don't have anyone who can accompany them (e.g. a service similar to escort, cuddlers, tourist guide,
....etc)

You hit the nail on the head with the paradox of legality regarding self-determination. As long as that is in effect, the assisted suicide taboo will remain a moot point. If one cannot freely express themselves on their own, how in the hell can anyone expect society to accept this expression to another who does not invalidate and dissuade them?

The issue with the idealised view 'let them receive it, why not' is the assumptions it makes. Firstly, that the 'accomplice' to the suicidal individual will not have discomfort or reservations of their own. What if they end up being the one to call a 5150 on their confidantee? That possibility alone makes me wary of trusting anyone with a matter of this gravity (if you're jumping...very punny, I know, please pat me on the back). The only thing I might possibly consider is if they were planning to die by suicide as well, but at that point call a spade a spade - dual assisted suicide - a suicide pact. And even then if they back out at the last moment and alert authorities whilst I'm already falling into unconsciousness - recipe for disaster.

Other people in the physical form cannot be trusted. It's easy to talk online - nothing is tangible. If I had to speak face to face to interact with everyone on here, I would not be as vocal as I am, I can guarantee you that. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Yes, there is betrayal and disappointment with online connections, but it is mitigated somewhat with the fact that I can turn off my computer at any point and it all goes away. Same with avoiding people offline, or literally running away - out of sight, out of mind. And people who don't see you often are less likely to be informants if only because there is less shared with them.

As long as suicide is seen as a bad thing that must be prevented at all costs, this desperate sense of loneliness is my reality. And even then - I doubt the shift will happen in the next few decades - there will still be enough individual 'pro-life'rs who disagree with any progressive policy change that might be implemented that I would fear truly speaking my mind to another person offline.

 

[TooConscious]

Regardless of what any of our personal beliefs are on the matter I think we can all agree its an absolute disgrace they get punished several times worse than sadistic child rapists.

 

[YourNeighbor]

However, a parallel to this is passively allowing death, ie DNR. A professional who respects a valid - though there is much debate as to who can declare DNR and under what circumstance - DNR is not charged with negligent murder. Perhaps only in cases where the family wished the individual did not choose DNR and are taking out their denial on the poor doctor.

A DNR is not a good parallel, it's entirely different. In essence, a DNR informs others you do not consent to treatment even if you are unresponsive. In other words, it lets others know that if they attempt treatment when you are unresponsive, they are committing a battery.

 

[Crazy4u]

You hit the nail on the head with the paradox of legality regarding self-determination. As long as that is in effect, the assisted suicide taboo will remain a moot point. If one cannot freely express themselves on their own, how in the hell can anyone expect society to accept this expression to another who does not invalidate and dissuade them?

The issue with the idealised view 'let them receive it, why not' is the assumptions it makes. Firstly, that the 'accomplice' to the suicidal individual will not have discomfort or reservations of their own. What if they end up being the one to call a 5150 on their confidantee? That possibility alone makes me wary of trusting anyone with a matter of this gravity (if you're jumping...very punny, I know, please pat me on the back). The only thing I might possibly consider is if they were planning to die by suicide as well, but at that point call a spade a spade - dual assisted suicide - a suicide pact. And even then if they back out at the last moment and alert authorities whilst I'm already falling into unconsciousness - recipe for disaster.

Other people in the physical form cannot be trusted. It's easy to talk online - nothing is tangible. If I had to speak face to face to interact with everyone on here, I would not be as vocal as I am, I can guarantee you that. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Yes, there is betrayal and disappointment with online connections, but it is mitigated somewhat with the fact that I can turn off my computer at any point and it all goes away. Same with avoiding people offline, or literally running away - out of sight, out of mind. And people who don't see you often are less likely to be informants if only because there is less shared with them.

As long as suicide is seen as a bad thing that must be prevented at all costs, this desperate sense of loneliness is my reality. And even then - I doubt the shift will happen in the next few decades - there will still be enough individual 'pro-life'rs who disagree with any progressive policy change that might be implemented that I would fear truly speaking my mind to another person offline.

IMO, many suicidal people can express themselves properly. The subject is mainly about them.

5150 hold should disappear, period. After reading your response, I think assisted suicide won't work if the assistant betrays the suicidal person and calls for 5150 hold. It would be a nightmare.

It would be much easier to legalize assisted suicide if suicide itself is not considered a stigma. Making suicide a stigma is forcing people to stay alive against their will :(

 

[Hirokami]

Depends on what would constitute as assisted suicide. If someone where to provide someone else with the means to end their life, with the latter's written consent, then I think that should be allowed. And, ideally, being there for someone during their final moments shouldn't be illegal either. Though, a person near a dead body isn't a good look in the eyes the law. Over the phone or online is another case entirely, though.

The only direct method of assisted suicide I would feel comfortable with is done by a physician as that seems the most ethical rather than carried out by a fellow layman. It's not really just the lack of medical expertise, either, that gets to me; that's honestly minor in comparison to what follows. My main concern is that it could easily be used as an excuse to murder someone, especially if the victim had a history with mental disorders.

 

[myopybyproxy]

A DNR is not a good parallel, it's entirely different. In essence, a DNR informs others you do not consent to treatment even if you are unresponsive. In other words, it lets others know that if they attempt treatment when you are unresponsive, they are committing a battery.

Why should the writer of a letter stating a sincere desire to die - a will or note if going solo, or a contract where an accomplice or assistance is involved - then be considered of unsound mind? It is a fine parallel. One is passively accepting a death that could technically be considered natural whilst the other actively seeks it out by means of artificial hastening.

Sectioning someone against their will because they are 'a danger to themselves' is fundamentally the same concept and violates basic bodily integrity and autonomy.

IMO, many suicidal people can express themselves properly. The subject is mainly about them.

5150 hold should disappear, period. After reading your response, I think assisted suicide won't work if the assistant betrays the suicidal person and calls for 5150 hold. It would be a nightmare.

It would be much easier to legalize assisted suicide if suicide itself is not considered a stigma. Making suicide a stigma is forcing people to stay alive against their will :(

I didn't say they're incapable of being coherent or lucid - in fact, some posts here, which I assume were composed by suicidal people, have been of the sanest content I've ever read online or offline - I meant they lack an environment in which it would be welcoming or not-taboo for them to do so. As in, if you're entirely honest about your thoughts and plans, you will inevitably get locked up. Thus you cannot be honest unless you are willing to undergo a patronising imprisonment.

We are in agreement here. And yes, your last two sentences were what I was trying to convey earlier. The two perspectives or policies or however you wish to call them cannot coexist because of the cognitive dissonance and ensuing practical difficulty. So even if assisted suicide was somehow legalised whilst the stigma remained, many people would still feel isolated and be unable to benefit from having a companion there as they die, because society tends to follow politically correct trends. The law may not always be PC and vice versa. The end result would be most people would be uncomfortable or straight up unwilling to assist. It's like sharing method sources and explicit information - beyond a general guide, I've observed people tend to shy away from advising any further due to their own discomfort rather than any legal prohibition. Information is free and available on the internet, after all.

General method information guides differ here because it contributes to the crowdsource feel. It's not a direct conversation instructing someone on how to take their own life. The specific action of connecting a person with that knowledge that will definitely kill them unsettles people. Or in this case, being an assistant, or even holding hands as one takes their last breaths - it's still too close to that moral quagmire where acceptance slides into condoning which slides into promoting. And even if they aren't slapped with at least third degree murder charge from that (given the current legislation), the guilt they will likely feel from the idea that they may have wanted or encouraged their friend to die will be sufficient damper on the idea of acting as assistant.

Just thoughts. I'm attempting to explain a simple and intuitive link but I feel in trying to expand on the nuances I am only thoroughly overcomplicating the matter. You summed it up well.

 

[Ta555]

It shouldn't be but it's very hard to monitor that's why they gave the clinics in Switzerland. Have to be able to prove it was assisted suicide and not homicide. If it's just you and one other person and then you die how can they prove they didn't kill you or didn't coerce you to kill yourself? It's a legal nightmare.

 

[Crazy4u]

It shouldn't be but it's very hard to monitor that's why they gave the clinics in Switzerland. Have to be able to prove it was assisted suicide and not homicide. If it's just you and one other person and then you die how can they prove they didn't kill you or didn't coerce you to kill yourself? It's a legal nightmare.

video, contract like someone else mentioned, detailed suicide note, ...etc. Suicide clinics are much better but they are not going to be a reality anytime soon.