Hacker News Reader

This isn't the only reason people want to kill themselves. My dad had cancer, and basically got locked into a ruined and barely usable body (in that he wasn't fully bed ridden but couldn't take care of himself or speak).

If he lived in a place with compassion he could have ended it cleanly. He didn't. Where he lived killing himself would be illegal, and would have been much harder dealing with the legality than otherwise. He had life insurance that swapped when he ended his job, he had to die naturally so it would pay out for us because there's no law protecting it.

So instead he suffered for around a year. He was kind, he didn't tell us (the family) what was going on, but about a month after he had the surgery which really f*cked him up to get rid of a tumor, the tumor was back. He just told the doctors no when they tried to help further, and died after 8 months of suffering. One might consider it suicide by inaction, but for some reason that's condoned and seen as strong.

My mom didn't understand this until a few years back when her memory started going and she was losing herself, and talked about how unpleasant life was and there being some alternative. when I mentioned that dad had wanted to as well (he didn't tell her, she couldn't handle it at the time). She expressed regret she didn't live somewhere else. Then she forgot about the discussion the next day. She spends her days with about 3 minutes of memory at a time and will till she passes.

End of life isn't just about suicide. They both wanted to live, but not in the irreversible physical form they were in. Neither legally had the option. Neither actually did it though. I bet my dad would have and I don't blame him if it was socially acceptable and legal.

I'm sorry about your parents, there is nothing that makes me more uncontrollably sad and incapable of holding my tears than the slow decline of aging and disease, even more so when the decline happens to those who raised you, the ones that have been your earliest memory of what healthy and adult humans look like.

You appear to have a very different mental model of assisted suicide than the comment you're replying to. I might be biased by my experience, but the mental model I parsed from the comment is the one most commonly associated with suicidal young(ish)/physically healthy people, suicide appears attractive because there is some mental roadblock the suicidal person faces, their mind can't process some aspect of their enviroment/history no matter how much they try, they can't understand it, they can't ignore it, they can't make piece with it in any way. It torments them like an itch they can't scratch. They can live their life perfectly well if they only knew how to deal with this issue, but they can't, not alone. This is the type that can be helped by more (honest) publicity and attention.

Another way of phrasing this is that assisted suicide for mental issues need not be the same as assisted suicide for physical issues, so both you and the comment you're replying to can have your way, the 2 problems are orthogonal(ish).

There are people whose brain chemistry is so screwed up that no amount of treatment is going to fix their depression. Treatment-resistant severe depression is a big issue. Is it society's role to prevent that person from doing what they want to do to when that thing would also avoid the constant pain that they're currently undergoing? Why isn't it up to that person to make the choice to end their own suffering? I'm not proposing this as the best path for all or even 98% of cases...but I'd claim for those 2%, it's akin to torture to force those people to stay alive when they don't want to consistently and for a long period of time.

On top of which, we now live in a society where insulting, ridiculing, and just generally harassing or terrorizing anyone "different" (but especially those with depression or other "mental issues") is the normal behavior of most humans, making any attempts to live a "normal" life pretty much an impossible to tolerate waking nightmare hell-scape for many who suffer with "major depressive disorder" (or whatever it's being called this week.)

Agreed totally with what you are saying, if they're allowed to be orthogonal. But right now they are not, it's all one thing, in most places and in how people think about it. The GP was very absolutist on how they were approaching ending one's life.

> if someone has lost their motivation to live, that is the fault of the community around them, and it’s the responsibility of society to fix the failures that led to that loss of motivation

Sometimes it's not the community that failed; sometimes the person wanted to die.

My friend Andy Ettelson killed himself by swallowing a bottle of aspirin and pulling a plastic bag over his head. He was sure he wanted to die.

His parents loved him, his friends loved him, and he had a girlfriend who loved him. He had community.

He also was bipolar, and refused to take his meds. He didn't like the side effects.

It was heartbreaking for those around him. When I got the phone call from Alex telling me that Andy had killed himself, he said, "I apologize if I sound so emotionless, but I've been waiting for that phone call from his dad for the last ten years."

We all knew that it was only a matter of time before he killed himself, and short of institutionalizing him against his will there was little we could do.

> He also was bipolar, and refused to take his meds. He didn't like the side effects.

Most psychiatric medicines have horrible side effects. The problem is we don't invest anywhere near enough money into researching how our brain actually functions, what is wired wrong in people with more severe diseases or how to minimize adverse effects. Hell, most of "getting a person on meds" isn't based on science, it's "cycle through medications and dosages and find out what doesn't make the problem worse".

Not to mention getting access to psychologists, psychiatrics and other mental health care is a hellish experience on its own because supply doesn't even come close to demand and insurance to cover for that is an utter PITA even here in Europe.

We as societies fail people with mental health issues immensely. Instead, we waste our best brains on advertising, penis enlargements and iterating on insulin and epi-pens to continuously bleed people and insurances dry.

> No, if someone has lost their motivation to live, that is the fault of the community around them

Speaking as someone who lives with a gibbering terror of death; we all die. Blanket statements that a motivation to live is essential is an attitude that endorses profound suffering.

It is an inescapable reality that at some point in their lives people need to give up their desire to live if they want peace and happiness. The debate is only about negotiating where that line gets drawn, and it is not set in stone that the answer is how old someone is.

> miracle of random chance that led to our existence, with an almost lackadaisical disregard for human suffering

I find your position most uncomfortable, life as a miracle absolute best thing (toxic positivity) when they are thinking from a living a better life than most people on earth can ever dream of. This is the "lackadaisical disregard for human suffering" and want them to continue this suffering because it's uncomfortable for them and they themselves are privileged since birth. Nothing is going to make people's life better for sure.

edit: and if people (without psych evaluation or capacity to provide good life) can bring someone from void without their consent and with lots of disadvantages, then people should also have the option to leave if they don't like it. They should not be forced to live the long life by privileged once.

There are forms of suffering that society is powerless to prevent or treat, no matter the priority we place on it or the resources we put behind it. Whether genetic or due to random chance, some people will have little hope of happiness or even temporary alleviation of suffering, and it’s wildly unjust for society to declare that our collective values supersede those of that person’s, and so therefor their suffering must continue indefinitely.

Then they can be helped in their suffering. Even those who are supposedly incurable can be helped in some way, if they allow themselves to be helped. Not to sound callous about anyone's suffering, but the meaning of life is not the avoidance of pain and suffering. We all suffer to various degrees. Our response as a society should not be to administer death as a treatment option.

Pain and suffering will be part of anybodies life. Often suffering can even have a positive effect longterm. But people who want to kill themselves often see pain/suffering to an amount so great that it only makes them more miserable over time. We as a society can try to help these people, but all in all we really don't (at least where I've been).

I am convinced that a society which doesn't want to commit the resources to help the people who need help must not forbid these people to choose to kill themselves if that is the only solution they can find by themselves. Administering death is not a treatment option society should choose, but the people themselves should be allowed to do so.

If people get good help a lot of them will choose to keep living.

There is no logic to your argument.

There is no inherant reason to life.

The biggest issue with this topic is, that it spits in your face if someone else doesn't think lifing is the only answer after becoming aware of yourself.

But lets take a view which YOU might understand: Imagine yourself without arms and legs. Only way to move around is by asking someone else. Every means of eating or switching the tv channel is by asking someone else. That person actually doesn't even like you but its the only option you can afford.

Imagine being kept alive because alive is the main goal of all of things.

Are you aware that if a medic finds a person without arm and legs (and lower body i think), there is a suggestion to try to not helpm them?

Which medics is that? I served in the US Army and while not a 68W I did run the 10 day medic course the Army offered and at least to the US branch, I can assure you no one is being told to try to envision surgical, prosthetic, and rehabilitation success rate ratio. Medics are masters of two things.....they can stop bleeding and keep air flowing while maintaining suppressive fire with their other hand and plan out what they want for dinner later and not miss a beat. But they don't have the same level of education as a Licensed Practical Nurse and are the last people anyone should want making that kind of call.

there was a documentary about a person (in german) who survived without arms and legs and i beliefe no hip/parts missing of his hips.

The doctor in this documentary said that in these cases its prefered to give pain relieve medication instead of helping surviving further.

I was not able to find it thou.

If someone has lost their motivation to live, then there could be many reasons for that. Society failure? Maybe. Could also be terminal illness, chemical imbalances, PTSD, or other things that are untreatable or uncurable.

Absolutist opposition to suicide no matter how prolonged or severe the suffering is right up there with torture as to why humans are by far the most savage and monstrous animal species.

Lions slowly munching on their prey alive over several hours have nothing on humans who arrange for intolerable suffering to extend over years.

I don't have absolutist opposition to suicide. But what are we gonna do, criminalize it? That would be literally the most unenforceable law. That doesn't mean we should facilitate the act of suicide.

Suicide is illegal in some jurisdictions. It matters more than you seem to think, because there's prosecution of attempted suicide as well as of assisting suicide (which can also be illegal if suicide itself is not).

I wish I could be as bothered by the suggestions as you. I have someone in my life where it would be a humane option, and arguably the only humane option. There are some situations that cause a person to experience a life of permanent suffering.

I don't think I agree with the suggestions, but I certainly understand them, and often find myself contemplating what a better societal solution could be. The solution space varies by cause, in some cases there's only room for marginal improvement, if any, from changing the society. That's not to say that they're not worth pursuing, or there aren't changes that would massively benefit many people...just that it's a murky ethical grey area without any obviously correct solution.

I hope you can take a minute to consider that viewpoints like the above aren't always stemming from disregard for human suffering, but through an abundance of heartbreaking empathy.

If someone really wants to do it, they don't need a government-run apparatus to hold their hand. And if they do need that, then they don't really want to do it.

You're certainly entitled to that opinion. I can see a counterpoint to it being that there could be value in having an option to ensure they don't have a failed attempt, only to suffer more after.

It's probably better to avoid telling someone they don't really want to do it, and erring on the side of believing they do, even if you think you happen to have evidence to the contrary.

That’s basically how I feel. Suicide is not the ideal outcome for anyone, but nobody can stop somebody from doing it. They already have the option for it, because it’s their “God-given” right to take their own life. So the government does not need to give them this option. And it cannot prohibit it. Assuming the government wants to “do something” about it, that leaves them with two possible policies: facilitate it or mitigate it.

In my opinion, mitigating it is the clearly correct choice, because facilitating it would lead to suicides of people who would counterfactually eventually regret it. Whereas mitigating it would at least lead to “false positives” that are failures to prevent someone from suicide, rather than failures to save someone from it.

You evidently have strongly held opinions about something you know very little.

They might want to have official support / professional support to do it proper and not somehow.

Right now this option is blocked by governments around the world.

And due to the problem, that the government can't just legalize it without save guard around it, this makes a quite good case that there has to be some government involvement.

It's really hard to override the innate biological need to live. I have a lot of respect for those who have the force of will to actually pull it off. Even if your life is full of nothing but misery it is hard to actually do.

What if they're so sick they're literally incapable of holding someone's hand?

Even with a loving community, there are those that just want to check out. Often they have trauma that is insurmountable.

I am totally against suicide, but I thank God I'm not in a position today where it feels like my best choice. I've been on that ledge, but what it would do to my family, and fear of divine retribution kept me here long enough to realize my problems had solutions. Religion does have its merits, namely the belief that all life is valuable, and no one is beyond saving.

Are you missing a 'not' or are you indeed "totally against [all] suicide"? The 'but' immediately after makes it seem likely.

I'm glad it helped you turn around how you felt and come back from the metaphorical ledge. But can you be sure that there are more people for whom religions helped persuade them to find solutions rather than commit suicide, than people who never found release from their suffering and ensured many years more of it than they would otherwise had they not felt guilt forcing them to stay alive?

I've never believed in any religion so hard for me to put myself in that mindset, but I suppose it wouldn't make much of a difference to my understanding if I did since my point is that individual anecdotes can go either way. I do at least hope that more people are helped than hurt by religious pressure to stay alive (and indeed by religion generally).

No I am totally against it. I was qualifying the statement because I couldn't speak to the mindset of someone trapped in that downward spiral.

Religion has had effects in either direction, I wouldn't make any definitive claim on its overall impact. I just think it has a place.

I think the idea is to get these people into the support/psych system by dangling the carrot of assisted suicide in front of them. The goal being that nobody ever makes it to their goal but get "fixed" somewhere on the way, by getting in touch with help they would never have seeked if they thought their only path was ending it on their own.

Lots of people kill themselves without seeking professional help for various reasons, the hope is that luring them into the system will help them not actually kill themselves.

And for the people who are truly suffering and for whom there is no helping, maybe it really is more humane to let them be free.

I can see the appeal of this argument, but my default moral stance is usually non-intervention, so it’s hard for me to grapple with the stochastic downstream effects of state sanctioned suicide.

That said, I also believe the government should provision every citizen with a personal firearm on their 18th birthday, so I guess you could say I do support government facilitated suicide.

It's not you choice and it shouldn't not.

> and it’s the responsibility of society to fix the failures that led to that loss of motivation.

I kind of agree with this statement, but there is not a lot of places where there is significant effort spend to help people who have big problems (especially in the US).