Suicide against the law,

[Holy shit this makes sens]

It's illegal to commit suicide, is that just? You have the right to live, but its punishable to not live?

Who says you can't die? Why do they say that?

Isn't the action enough deterrence that people speculate doing it, is a law necessary?

Euthanasia, another related topic,

 

[EyeSeeCold]

The law is just there so people don't encourage it. Laws reflect traditions and killing yourself is taboo, probably the first.

Of course you can freely attempt it.

 

[Mary]

The law is just there so people don't encourage it. Laws reflect traditions and killing yourself is taboo, probably the first.

Of course you can freely attempt it.

Don't you get placed in a mental institution if you attempt suicide?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

If people killed themselves they would no longer be able to collect your contribution towards income tax.

 

[Mary]

If people killed themselves they would no longer be able to collect your contribution towards income tax.

xD
Well put, my friend.
Actually, it might have some effect on inheritance, and certainly on life insurance.

 

[Reluctantly]

Don't you get placed in a mental institution if you attempt suicide?

Only if someone finds out that you failed - LOL. What a way to add insult to injury.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Don't you get placed in a mental institution if you attempt suicide?

If you attempt and fail and are deemed mentally unstable.

EDIT: ninja'd

 

[Mary]

Only if someone finds out that you failed - LOL. What a way to add insult to injury.

Yeah, that's gotta suck. Hopefully the mental institution actually can help them..

Isn't committing suicide basically foolproof evidence of mental instability?

 

[gnome]

If people killed themselves they would no longer be able to collect your contribution towards income tax.

I've always thought it was because society has invested 18 years in you and they expect something in return. If you kill yourself it was a waste. Income tax too. The thing is once you do kill yourself how is it against the law? What are they going to do? Handcuff your dead body and take you in for questioning?

 

[RobertJ]

It's illegal to commit suicide, is that just? You have the right to live, but its punishable to not live?

Who says you can't die? Why do they say that?

Isn't the action enough deterrence that people speculate doing it, is a law necessary?

Euthanasia, another related topic,

The law against suicide is essentially there to provide motivation to succeed in the endeavor. As they say; "don't fuck up".

Once you're dead, you're no longer in the jurisdiction man. Obviously, anyone contemplating suicide realizes this and no level of deterrence would be affected by the law against it. Maybe the law does serve to weed out the fakes and attention seekers. But is that all?

Now the question becomes: how much of an individual's internal moral doctrine and personal code of ethics is shaped by externally imposed imperatives and constraints? If we are to assume that the conscious effect is considerable than we're implored to go back and wonder how much influence social dictates do have on one's decision to snuff themselves out.

In a culture that is more tolerant of suicide, then, it is likely that one would be less apprehended in performing it. For many who contemplate suicide, the aftermath of their deeds weigh heavily on their decision to carry it out. I wonder if the larger part of suicide contemplations are driven by the desire to absolve personal misery, or to spite the world and those who've (they felt) done them improper. Of course, these two sources of motivation can coexist, but I'm more interested in finding out if suicide is more typically a means to hurt others, or simply to absolve one's self from perpetual misery.

To be more concise, I think that a law against suicide can (and probably does) deter the act of doing so. On one hand, with regard to the contrarian mindset, the law may actually promote the idea of suicide due to the fact that the law against it grants it that much more power to spite. Alternatively, I don't think the majority of people are of this opposing mindset, and that the law serves as a sort of conditioning device to implore that suicide is "bad, wrong, no".

Yes, people are determined by externally derived imperatives.

 

[Holy shit this makes sens]

The law against suicide is essentially there to provide motivation to succeed in the endeavor. As they say; "don't fuck up".

Once you're dead, you're no longer in the jurisdiction man. Obviously, anyone contemplating suicide realizes this and no level of deterrence would be affected by the law against it. Maybe the law does serve to weed out the fakes and attention seekers. But is that all?

Now the question becomes: how much of an individual's internal moral doctrine and personal code of ethics is shaped by externally imposed imperatives and constraints? If we are to assume that the conscious effect is considerable than we're implored to go back and wonder how much influence social dictates do have on one's decision to snuff themselves out.

In a culture that is more tolerant of suicide, then, it is likely that one would be less apprehended in performing it. For many who contemplate suicide, the aftermath of their deeds weigh heavily on their decision to carry it out. Consider if the larger part of suicide contemplations are driven by the desire to absolve personal misery, or to spite the world and those who've (they felt) done them improper. Of course, these two sources of motivation can coexist, but I'm more interested in finding out if suicide is more typically a means to hurt others, or simply to absolve one's self from perpetual misery.

To be more concise, I think that a law against suicide can (and probably does) deter the act of doing so. On one hand, with regard to the contrarian mindset, the law may actually promote the idea of suicide due to the fact that the law against it grants it that much more power to spite. Alternatively, I don't think the majority of people are of this opposing mindset, and that the law serves as a sort of conditioning device to implore that suicide is "bad, wrong, no".

Yes, people are determined by externally derived imperatives.

Well now same questions with euthanasia, this is quite bit more serious, (or assisted suicide) If someone wants to kill them self but they can't own their own, then someone helps them, that person can be tried and found guilty of first degree murder (this has happened many times)

 

[RobertJ]

Well now same questions with euthanasia, this is quite bit more serious, (or assisted suicide) If someone wants to kill them self but they can't own their own, then someone helps them, that person can be tried and found guilty of first degree murder (this has happened many times)

To me, the question of euthanasia is a question of will, intent, and effect.

The will of the individual considering euthanasia is to die in order to avoid excessive or impending suffering. The intent of the prospective helper in this deed is to aid the sufferer in escaping their misery. The effect is that you have one person killing another person.

Is it possible to triangulate these three matters in a balanced manner so that they make sense? Reason, ethics, and humanity play interceding roles in this consideration. Which one of those three constructs do you most closely adhere to? What are the specifics of the situation at hand?

I feel that all I can do is worthlessly opine about the matter of euthanasia. The devil is in the details. Actually, I'm just too dumb and lazy to answer adequately.

 

[gruesomebrat]

If you attempt and fail and are deemed mentally unstable.

Yeah, that's gotta suck. Hopefully the mental institution actually can help them..

Isn't committing suicide basically foolproof evidence of mental instability

See, there's the problem. Society views suicide attempts as mental instability, and immediately locks you up in a mental ward for the failed attempt. The unfortunate truth is that most of these people who attempted suicide failed for a reason.Jumping off a bridge or building is kind of a 50/50 situation, as it is, so if someone survives that, chances are they are still a risk to themselves, but almost every other failed attempt is due to the potential suicider changing their mind in the middle of the act, and not finishing properly. Considering that suicide is nothing more than a symptom of depression, though, why would we then stick suicide attempts into one of the most depressing places the human mind has come up with.

Having visited friends who had attempted suicide in the mental ward, and after counseling some others, I can safely say that the current state of affairs does not help those people who attempt suicide and change their minds in the act. Without a support network of friends and family, the mental institutions become just another part of the problem that lead to the attempt in the first place.


Just as an aside, I find it odd that the Grade 12 English curriculum here in Canada focuses so heavily on Hamlet, considering that he actually encourages suicide. The stress of high school on it's own generally leads to high levels of depression among teenagers, and in Grade 12, you have the added stress of trying to figure out what post-secondary education you want to pursue. To focus so intently on depression and suicide in a mandatory class the way that our curriculum does, just seems... cruel. I'm thinking specifically at the moment, of Hamlet's soliloquy "To be or not to be", wherein he states that

No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd.

and asks

For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of dispriz'd love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin?

It seems to me that rather than focusing on Hamlet and tragedy in general in Grade 12 English, we should be focusing on something that may take depressed students minds off their troubles, rather than working through a famous play that essentially says, "If you don't take your life, you are nothing more than a coward."

EDIT: I just realized how incredibly morbid a subject this is given the time of year. Although, it may be fitting, given that suicide rates tend to climb around Christmas-time...

 

[Jean Paul]

The law is just there so people don't encourage it. Laws reflect traditions and killing yourself is taboo, probably the first.

Of course you can freely attempt it.

...................... what she said ^

 

[Taniwha]

To make suicide illegal is ridiculous, what you are you going to do with the corpse? Take it down town and lock it up in a cell?

Villainizing or illegalizing suicide I my opinion is not the solution. Advocating support is. I would personally would love to see more PSA's on television and online regarding suicide, especially in places here like New Zealand where it is a problem. As far as rights go, It is an individuals right to live and to die by their own hands. Euthanasia should be made legal, but should be portrayed as a last option resort and done with the consent of the individual. However I do not agree to euthanasia as suicide, it should only to be given to those that are dying in pain. Emotional pain is terrible but there are other solutions than death. I'm not an advocate of suicide, but I've been there and live to tell the tales, my sympathy is there. I've lost many family friends to suicide.

Suicide may end one's life, but the pain remains with those that are living.

 

[The Gopher]

Suicide should be punishable by death. However if it is against the law can you try to pull a citizens arrest on a suicidal person? I don't know much about that but it would be interesting. The one of the problems with euthanasia is some people get encouraged to commit suicide.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

It seems to me that rather than focusing on Hamlet and tragedy in general in Grade 12 English, we should be focusing on something that may take depressed students minds off their troubles, rather than working through a famous play that essentially says, "If you don't take your life, you are nothing more than a coward."

Yes, what the hell. My 12th grade English teacher had us read existential literature and I sat there thinking how could he give us this stuff when it's potentially a permanent demotivator. I was going through troubles and the books had a significant effect on my outlook on life and my self.

...................... what she said ^

She? Or are you being a wise guy?

 

[gruesomebrat]

Yes, what the hell. My 12th grade English teacher had us read existential literature and I sat there thinking how could he give us this stuff when it's potentially a permanent demotivator. I was going through troubles and the books had a significant effect on my outlook on life and my self.

Thank god I'm not the only one who's confused by this. It's funny, though, how people are so confused over why teenager suicide rates are so high, and then in the same breath, teach those teenagers that life has no meaning outside of what they give to their own life. Those same teens are often unable to find meaningful employment due to a lack of education, unable to start new, meaningful relationships because so much of their day is taken up by school... is it any wonder that they get depressed? They're being told "Your life is meaningless unless you give it meaning" by the schools, and society is, at the same time, telling them, "You have nothing to offer us, leave us alone."

She? Or are you being a wise guy?

Thank you for clarifying that. I was so confused by Jean Paul's assertion that you were a she...

 

[Bird]

The law is just there so people don't encourage it. Laws reflect traditions and killing yourself is taboo, probably the first.

Of course you can freely attempt it.

In Hinduism killing oneself is seen as
the ultimate repentance.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Moksha, right? I was speaking for the U.S. though, it's like the default setting for topics, lol.

Maybe offtopic, but I think desiring death to join the universe is still a selfish act. Faulty ethics.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Isn't committing suicide basically foolproof evidence of mental instability?

No. It can be a deliberate, rational, long-considered choice.

 

[nexion]

Moksha, right? I was speaking for the U.S. though, it's like the default setting for topics, lol.

Maybe offtopic, but I think desiring death to join the universe is still a selfish act. Faulty ethics.

At least mostly all choices are consciously or unconsciously selfish.

Suicide is not illegal in any of the states, strictly speaking. That is, it still has ramifications.

Why isn't physician-assisted suicide legal? Fuck ethics, I disregard you.

 

[Reluctantly]

Isn't committing suicide basically foolproof evidence of mental instability?

Sort of. Mental institutions are more about forcing a person to think and live through their circumstances than it is a support for people to help solve them. Getting put into a mental institution is a forced punishment, similar to prison; a person's freedom to do anything but accept their situation is what is given. There will be a lot of people judging the person for being in their pathetic position, asserting such a view by condescendingly pressing childlike explanations and childlike ways they believe the person can help themselves avoid feeling suicidal.

So in general, a person that attempts to commit suicide is seen as having a weakness that the person must be forced to solve them-self. So is a person that attempts to commit suicide and fails truly mentally unstable? I don't believe that personally. I think most of the time people really need some kind of positive helping-hand connection with another person and that the push to suicide is a natural occurrence for a lack of fulfilling relationships with those other people around them.

Society is strange. Most of us don't even look at the many people we have to come across in a day, let alone remember every interaction we've had at the end of the day or even care about them. There is very little concern for other people because we usually feel we need to do more important things and have become desensitized to being aware of the people around us or even caring about them except for those that we have to for a paycheck or those we decide upon forming a relationship beforehand with (like a date).

It seems the role of society is to disconnect from one another, and those that refuse or don't want to are looked down upon and pushed to do so; and mental instability has become a way to categorize those that haven't found a way to do so and be happy with it. It's as if no one wants to deal with the root problem, but explain ways to deal with and eliminate the symptoms since that's infinitely easier. It's a very disconcerting thought to have if I choose to dwell on it, but I'm done.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

At least mostly all choices are consciously or unconsciously selfish.

Suicide is not illegal in any of the states, strictly speaking. That is, it still has ramifications.

Why isn't physician-assisted suicide legal? Fuck ethics, I disregard you.

Yea we discussed this already, the selfishness of suicide and survival.

The case of assisted suicide is an interesting one. Wouldn't it be outright murder unless the dying party actually helped? Wanting to die is nothing, unless you commit, you haven't acted. If you require an extra party to do the deed because you are helpless then it really isn't a suicide, is it?

 

[nexion]

Yea we discussed this already, the selfishness of suicide and survival.

The case of assisted suicide is an interesting one. Wouldn't it be outright murder unless the dying party actually helped? Wanting to die is nothing, unless you commit, you haven't acted. If you require an extra party to do the deed because you are helpless then it really isn't a suicide, is it?

Why should it be, if the beneficiary consented? Just because one cannot, for any reason, do it themselves, does not mean they do not want it.

I can certainly understand how it could be interpreted as murder. However, murder is unwanted. How can it be murder if he kills someone who wants to die?

Blah.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Why should it be, if the beneficiary consented? Just because one cannot, for any reason, do it themselves, does not mean they do not want it.

I can certainly understand how it could be interpreted as murder. However, murder is unwanted. How can it be murder if he kills someone who wants to die?

Blah.

Murder is the act of killing. I don't think the will to die by the dying party has any bearing on that fact because murder requires only one acting party. Also, it becomes ethically complicated if you assume that murder is only murder if the dying party did not give their consent. For example, do not all Christians want to go to Heaven? Well, surely they must die in the process, which means they must have already accepted and willed their death beforehand. Therefore killing a Christian would not constitute murder as the person has already willed to die, accepting his fate, while the killing party is free of action.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Why isn't physician-assisted suicide legal? Fuck ethics, I disregard you.

It's legal in a few places. And, I predict, will be legal in more places over the upcoming decades. Personal autonomy is being seen by more and more governments as a primary ethical matter. It'll just take a while--even liberal administrations in liberal states tend to have legislatures that are conservative when it comes to the pace of change.

Dave

 

[socialexpat]

The other side of the coin about suicide being lawfully yes or no .. Is because of the existance of cults .. Let us look at Jim Jones, The Davidian Branch (David Koresh aka Vernon Howell).
There is a cult at the moment somewhere in or near Siberia .. Where some individual poses to be Jesus Christ himself .. It is said that he has Thousands of followers in total, starting in Russia and ending in other countries .. They fear for a message involving mass suicide, that is why suicide isn't allowed in a way .. It would be too easy to get away with it and a cult leader couldn't be seen as a potential danger to mankind.. So keeping track of their activities wouldn't be needed either, same for working preventive against that problem.
I'm not sure about America since i live in another country but where i live it is possible by law if there are grounded reasons to it with medical background to support it.
Then again it is never said that it still happens behind a closed door .. No one can forbi someone else to do so...
In some other cultures it is forbidden not only by law but also by religion .. Which reaches far more than it does by laws.

A debatable topic without an end i say.

 

[gruesomebrat]

Just found out a few days ago that apparently, the law against suicide here in Canada is no longer on the books... I was in class when it was mentioned by my teacher and I had already derailed the class more than enough that day, so I didn't find out when or why.

However, thanks to the wonder that is the Internet, I was just able to search through our Criminal Code for any references to suicide, and was able to find only one, that being:

241. Every one who
(a) counsels a person to commit suicide, or

(b) aids or abets a person to commit suicide,

whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

So, while suicide itself isn't illegal, helping someone commit suicide, or telling someone to off themselves is still a felony.

 

[socialexpat]

I have seen a documentary about Jim Jones, where it gets questioned if he turns out to be a serial killer yes or no .. It seemed a bit controversial.
Are there any studies about that?