I believe in live and let live. However that also means dont ask me to bail you out or support your bullshit. I don't give a shit what you do, I ask the same.

In many cases, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. I was married to a woman who went through periods of severe depression and attempted suicide on 3 occasions. Support and treatment cured her and she is now a happy 77 year old great-grandmother.

quote:

Originally posted by Lord Vaalic:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
If you are not free to end your own life, you are someone else's property.

That said, suicide for trivial reasons should be discouraged, and an effort made to convince the person that there are other choices.

But once the person takes their life, speak no ill of them.

You either have the right or you don't. Whether your reason is trivial or not, it shouldn't be either encouraged or discouraged. As for not speaking ill of them, it's also my right to speak well or ill of anyone whether alive or dead.

I also feel when you become a parent you have given up the right to be stupid, and the right to self terminate. I applaud those who know they don't want kids, it's not for everyone. When you have kids you take on responsibility outside yourself. Once they are adults, fine.

Suicide would be really pushing the envelope for this issue, but I have seen people stay in a marriage "for the kids," when that probably wasn't the best thing to do. Showing your kids two parents trapped in a mutually destructive relationship is not helping them build good models for their life. Neither is divorcing willy-nilly, but...

I'd think any major life decision should be made considering how it affects those in one's tribe. Perhaps that consideration has no effect on the final decision, but I'd think the consideration should be there. Nota Bene: Consideration is *not* consultation, nor is it asking permission.

I believe you should be able to punch your own ticket.

I also think that you should be mindful of those persons who will have to deal with your corpse...and/or the mess you made while ejecting.

My grandmother had breast cancer (her second bout of it) and she did not punch out, but her old country doctor made her real comfortable...

I talked to him about a year after she passed, and we got onto the subject of caring for the patient in extreme pain...he reckoned it to a sick animal...he said we shoot horses, we shoot cows, we shoot dogs and all other types of animals to put them out of their misery...he asked, "why should people suffer more?"

I told him he was truly a good man and shook his hand. (I was 19 when she died); I hope he was able to be treated the way he treated others.

As long as you are of sound mind, you should be able to decide when and how your life ends.

Like someone said, be mind full of the people who have to recover the remains.

As my time comes closer, this has been discussed in detail with the Mrs. She knows where to send them to find me.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris17404:
A man deciding to end his marriage knowing its the right thing for him, yet affects his family.

I'd suggest that in many cases "knowing" should be replaced with "thinking." I know a couple of men who made the decision to divorce and got extremely close to pulling the trigger and ended up staying. They both grew a great deal by staying and examining what was really going on. We all have a lot of shit in our lives. Sometimes we can lose perspective on how much of that is "our own shit" as opposed to "the other person's shit".

Yes, there are plenty of cases where it really is the best thing for at least one party, if not both, but that isn't always the case.

There are many times when one is in the middle of a situation and things look a certain way, but with the passage of time or more information they look very different.

Looping back to the idea of when or how we can judge an individual for the choices they make, the answer is simple: We can't. None of us share the same reality. Even if we were in the same situation with all the same information that another person has, it would still be different as we have different experiences which shape the filters through which we perceive and understand the world around us and our experiences. Even if we did "walk a mile in his shoes" we still wouldn't know what he experienced. We might be closer, but we wouldn't be there. The best that we can do is take care of ourselves and our own, help others when we can, and try really hard to not judge anyone (certain political issues aside).

It's a societal acceptance issue.

Japan considered suicide an honorable way out.

I came across a story about some indian tribe. Old people will hang around. But, at some point, they realize they're not carrying their own weight. Then on a winter day, they would proclaim they will go on a hunt. And everybody knew what that meant. The old warrior would go out into the snow never to be seen again.

For those considering suicide because of poor life choices, I'm torn. If their choice was molesting young boys and they're facing trial, I may even contribute towards buying the rope. For those who are dealing with a devastating yet temporary problem, I think it's a matter of having a safety net. Then there's the third type where they're just ill in the head like depressed or any other mental ill. I think the right thing to do is to offer help.

My grandfather passed from stomach cancer when I was in my late teens... His cancer went in remission for almost a year, but when it came back - it did so with a vengeance. He was in a lot of pain, the docs said there was nothing they could do. He was put on hospice, but he was mostly unconscious for the duration and still VERY uncomfortable. He lasted for too damn long in that state - it was very difficult for all involved. Based on his strong religious beliefs (traditional catholic) I don't think he or my grandma would have even thought of suicide. As young as I was I made up my mind that I'd never go through something like that if it was terminal. Seeing him suffer, needlessly for weeks was awful.

I personally believe that it should be discouraged for otherwise healthy individuals, but still be an option. While the crude methods we have may discourage some (fear of messing it up or pain) - it clearly doesn't discourage anyone that is serious about it.

If you have a terminal disease I think it should be presented along with hospice.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Too often the decision appears to be not the result of informed, sound rationality, but some elements of irrationality, or misperception.

Most of the decisions one makes are mistakes in some respects. The fewer you make, the better off you are.

I agree. In a real sense, we should have the right to kill ourselves, but a large proportion of suicides seem to be by people who are not rationally considering the question.

I understand someone facing a debilitating and painful death may chose a death that is less terrible, for example. That can be a rational choice. But this kind of suicide is not all that common.

And I know people with depression feel real pain, but they often miss that the pain can be treated and diminished, and kill themselves when they need not suffer through it to that degree. It seems to me that this is not a rational choice.

I think (for me) that the older we get, the more we tend to see this in different way, as our point of view changes what we thought we saw of the matter, and what we see of it the closer we are to the matter.

Choice. It is a small word, but has such profound and myriad understanding.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
In a real sense, we should have the right to kill ourselves, but a large proportion of suicides seem to be by people who are not rationally considering the question.

And you know this...how?

Who determines what is rational when only the individual has the experience of being their self? Shall we appoint someone to think for those who are deemed (by other people and based upon guess work) to be "irrational" merely because they are suffering?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
In a real sense, we should have the right to kill ourselves, but a large proportion of suicides seem to be by people who are not rationally considering the question.

And you know this...how?

Who determines what is rational when only the individual has the experience of being their self? Shall we appoint someone to think for those who are deemed (by other people and based upon guess work) to be "irrational" merely because they are suffering?

I can't speak for JHE, but perhaps the answer is in a post of yours in the other thread. You discussed the 'permanent answer to a temporary problem' statement in a way I had not considered. I think you boiled it down for me when you used the term 'hopeless'. When I was in deep despair the hopelessness of it is what drove me to a suicidal answer. In my case, that hopelessness was rooted in emotion. That is what made it an irrational decision, I think. The examples you describe are hopelessness based in a rational assessment where the emotion may be far less of a component. Maybe that is the observation JHE had too. Either way, I am convinced it is not my place to pass judgment on someone who gets off the merry-go-round.

So, if a person is hopeless, they're irrational?

Hopelessness is irrational? Sorry, no.

For those who are bound and determined to hold people prisoner to this life when they no longer wish to be here, yeah, I guess suicide is irrational.

What's truly irrational, though, is the idea there is no such thing as a hopeless situation.

No. Hopelessness is not irrational. Sometimes overwhelming emotion is irrational. Hopelessness seems to have more than one origin. One is rational and the other is many times not.

You guys just need to acknowledge the truth. That's all you need to do. Just stop with the platitudes and acknowledge that sometimes, suicide is the only solution.

And if you stop someone from ending their life, do you then proceeed logically from that point? Do you then essentially adopt this person with whom you interfered? Do you check in with them several times a day- every day, day in, day out? Do you listen to their problems, monitor their feelings? Do you ty to anticipate any (gasp!) "relapse" into this umm...wrong-headed thinking?

Come on. You stepped in and interfered with a momentous decision in someone's life as if you know what's good for them better than they. What do you do then? Just walk away, feeling good about it, leaving the person you meddled with to suffer while you tell yourself that you did such a noble thing?

Do you tell this person how to think? You're so much more clear-thinking than they, right? You took charge of their life. What are you going to do with it?

I coudn't be more serious.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
You guys just need to acknowledge the truth. That's all you need to do. Just stop with the platitudes and acknowledge that sometimes, suicide is the only solution.

And if youy stop someone from ending their life, do you then proceeed logically from that point? Do you then essentially adopt this person with whom you interfered? Do you check in with them several times a day- every day, day in, day out? Do you listen to their problems, monitor their feelings? Do you ty to anticipate any (gasp!) "relape" into this umm...wrong-headed thinking?

Come on. You stepped in an interfered with a momentouds decision in soneone's life. What do you do then? Just walk away, feeling good about it, leaving the person you meddled with to suffer?

I coudn't be more serious.

Nope. It's not possible to 'adopt' everyone in distress. I'll go one further. It's not practical to do so with even one as a stranger. The circumstances are too unpredictable. The most one could offer is some other perspective, but the choice must remain with the individual if we are to remain free. Parabellum is right. As hard as it is to witness....

Then, leave people the fuck alone. Stop spouting meaningless, untrue platitudes and acknowledge that individuals have the right to end their existence without any interference from "concerned" people who think they know better.

How arrogant

Check the signature line

Again, you are right. I used to express the 'permanent solution/temp problem' belief because that had been my experience. But you gave two examples that contradicted that perspective. I have corrected my perspective based on that. When a matter is complicated to consider, I try to examine the true principles that apply to reach a resolution. In this case, one of those principles is individual liberty.

We judge what is people's heads all the time, and we can say that sometimes what is in their head is irrational and not based on fact.

People with clinical depression do feel hopeless. It is the very nature of the disease. But there are factual reasons that is irrational. They can often be treated successfully (with drugs and talk therapy) and rid themselves or lessen the feeling of hopelessness and despair. Factually, they should not be hopeless, but their disease makes it hard or impossible to see that. That is irrationality, and it is not illegitimate to point that out.

I have dealt with people in my work who were flat-out crazy. When they are not treated, they cannot see the irrationality of their actions and do things that harm themselves and damage others. Maniac-depressives run off with their children to parts unknown, taking them out of school and away from the other parent, when in maniac states. In depressed states they can't get of bed and don't feed the kids or take care of them. When taking lithium, they realize this is destructive, irrational behavior. When they are treated, they themselves realize that their "crazy," untreated selves are not rational, but also know that when they are in that state, they can't act otherwise.

Suicide can be a rational response to a problem - again, fatal and terrible disease is the easiest example to see. But people with mental illness are not rational. Their disease prevents rational consideration of their situations. I can easily support some interventions in their lives by friends and family. I know they think it is unbearable when in the grips of a mental illness, but the illness makes it impossible for them to realize that there are steps that can be taken to make it bearable.

Perhaps the state shouldn't intervene in those people's lives. And strangers both can't, and shouldn't. But that doesn't mean other people in their circles of friends and family shouldn't.

In the end, we can't fix other people, and we might fail when we do try. But I am unwilling to just stand by and say, "Well, old crazy uncle Tony feels terrible so we should let him hang himself," when there might well be some way I can help Tony not feel so hopeless. Now, if Tony gets treatment, and when he isn't in the grips of depression, still thinks life isn't worth living, then he should be free to kill himself, if that is what objectively rational Tony decides.

I think people do, in the end have the liberty to kill themselves. I don't think those close to them should stand by with their hands in their pockets if they want to do when they aren't rational.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
I think people do, in the end have the liberty to kill themselves.

Well, miracle of miracles.

quote:

I don't think those close to them should stand by with their hands in their pockets if they want to do when they aren't rational.

I wouldn't expect them to stand by and allow a loved one kill themselves even if the person in question seems perfectly rational, but that's not the point I'm making.

Once again- the issue is meaningless, untrue platitudes, such as "suicide is never the answer".