"Your experience" flies in the face of modern psychology, and while I do not mean to insult I suspect that there is little actual experience involved. Depression can be dampened or cured through therapy, and tendencies towards depression can be lessened in the same fashion. Your comparison between depression and debilitating, life-ending diseases does not hold water.
<!--quoteo(post=1773467:date=Jun 5 2010, 06:54 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jun 5 2010, 06:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1773467"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Your experience" flies in the face of modern psychology, and while I do not mean to insult I suspect that there is little actual experience involved. Depression can be dampened or cured through therapy, and tendencies towards depression can be lessened in the same fashion. Your comparison between depression and debilitating, life-ending diseases does not hold water.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm mostly basing it off my grandmother and a couple of friends, my grandmother is always somewhat morose, and apparently always has been, although she does have good reasons so I suppose she might actually be optimistic considering. Although with my friends, some of them just tend to be very bleak in their outlooks and react very badly to stress becoming quickly consumed by it, others tend to attack problems and beat them silly and don't seem to be affected badly by it at all.
Like I said it seems to be based quite heavily on who you are as a person, and without changing who you are as a person I don't see how you can change how you react to situations.
I'm not talking about terminal illnesses, not sure where you got that from, I'm talking more in general, some people are happy, some people aren't, if you take a person who is usually unhappy and rewrite them so that they are a happy person, I don't really see what the difference is between that and killing them. You effectively destroyed the old person and replaced them with a new one who just happens to look the same, but if they don't react to things the same, and if they don't have the same outlook on life, it's not really the same person.
That's based mostly on friends as well, all the ones I've spoken to, even the ones who seem miserable a lot, seem very much opposed to the idea that they should be changed to become happier, and I can actually see where they are coming from. It would make me happier to see them smile more and not be as sad all the time, but that's a very selfish outlook, what I want doesn't enter into it, it's their life and not mine.
I wouldn't pressure people to kill themselves, but I wouldn't oppose it either. I see it as an entirely legitimate choice for anybody in any situation, and I would encourage them to think about it carefully and decide if it is the right thing for them, just as I would with any decision. The choice of whether to live or die can only rest with the person whose life is to be ended or not ended, nobody else is really more qualified to make it, except in specific circumstances such as with childen who don't know enough to make an informed decision, or people who are completely insane and are unable to make a reasoned decision, in which case it should fall to someone who can best estimate the wishes of the person involved and who can make an informed and reasoned decision, and this would likely be a family member.
But if you're able to be held legally and morally accountable for your actions, you should be allowed to decide to die, without having to justify it to anybody but yourself.
There is chronic depression which causes sufferers to become depressed for little or no reason at all, and obviously that is a serious problem. Not that I'd condone suicide as a solution to it. But most depression is motivated by other factors, it's a response to problems. In these cases it's often a question of poor coping mechanisms, and therapy would consist of teaching them how to deal with problems without just resigning and slipping into depression. This doesn't constitute "changing" people any more than teaching your kid how to tie shoelaces changes it. Unless people actually LIKE being depressed, why would they object to that? And if they like it, why would they consider suicide? You're doing people a tremendous disservice by implying that there is no good solution to their problems when there probably is, and by implying that suicide is a sensible choice in this situation.
But that's a general problem: We're reasonably good at knowing when to see a physician (it hurts, I feel nauseous, oh god where's all that blood coming from), but markedly worse at knowing when to seek help for mental problems. And so we often come to see our problems as "just part of how we are." And to think that your mental problems are an inseperable part of the person you are is to diminish yourself. You're more than just an illness, and if we cure that illness you'll still be there, just sans illness.
And since we're doing the whole personal anecdotes thing, your personal anecdotes speak of people who are depressed and think that you couldn't change that without unmaking them as a person. Well, my personal anecdote speaks of someone who took that step. For over a decade he suffered from moodiness and depression. Not because "that's just how he was" but due to deep-seated problems that went unsolved. Well, he eventually went about solving those problems (with help from friends and family), and today he's a much happier, upbeat person with a more positive outlook on life. And I can state with confidence that he's still the same guy, just notably less depressed and bleak about his lot in life. How can this possibly be a negative outcome?
<!--quoteo(post=1773501:date=Jun 6 2010, 01:29 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jun 6 2010, 01:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1773501"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(personal anecdotes and other stuff)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You really should read up on the subject before telegraphing these views. I mean this is the internet and you dont have to care about what we think, but old fashioned and frankly uninformed views such as yours would surely cause problems for you socially "irl".
So: study pal, please.
[Edit] Unless of course you feel depressed yourself, and are in the process of rationalising suicide, in which case read what lolf said again. And I can add from both personal and professional experience that depression indeed is something you most of the time can help. Personality (if you want to call being depressed a part of your perosnality) is something that is constantly changing and with help from family and friends, counseling and more often than you'd believe medicine, depression is not some hopeless chronic illness or a permanent part of you.
I've already rationalised suicide quite a lot, as I said it's important to me to always have the option.
While I would agree that you are always changing and that the person you are tomorrow is not the one you are today, I don't imagine everybody else shares that view, and like I said, what I think is irrelevant, if someone is not happy with the idea of changing themselves radically I have no desire to force them simply because I like having them around.
I suppose the main area in which we differ is that you think it's always better to live, whereas I think that living is something people do because they have an instinctive aversion to the alternative. Whether someone lives or dies at any given point doesn't seem hugely important to me, if they live, they won't for very long, and if they die, soon it won't matter as they will be forgotten. An individual life is a small thing with very little importance in the general scheme of things. I suppose that delaying death for a few years which will probably be full of more unpleasant things to endure doesn't seem very worthwhile. The only deciding factor really seems to be whether the person wants to live or not. Hence why I think it should be their choice.
Therapy to prevent suicide, to me seems like asking someone a question with two equally valid answers, then deciding they've given the wrong answer and going to great lengths to convince them they're wrong and that your answer is right, and then asking them again until they give the answer you want, apparently just so that you can have the satisfaction of hearing it.
Suppose a friend of mine is suicidal, this implies that they are very upset about something and it's weighing so heavily on them that any release from the burden seems preferable to enduring it. This is obviously intolerable, a morally minded person cannot allow this state to continue, so I have two major options. I can either encourage them to continue to endure the pain while they go through the process of recovering from it, which always incurs the possibility of failure, and could take a very long time. Or I have the option of allowing them to instantly and easily remove all possible problems forever, by killing themselves. I find it very difficult to justify the first option altruistically, the only justification for it I can really think of is 'I don't want my friend to die because then I won't be able to see them again' which doesn't seem like a very friendly motivation, a good friend thinks about the other person before themselves.
While it is of course possible that the recovery from depression could allow them to live a 'normal' life afterwards, it is unlikely that 'normal' would be very fun, because life is full of problems, for most people it seems to contain far more unpleasantness than happiness, so soon enough there would be another problem to weigh on their mind, and whether or not it results in a relapse of depression, it's still making their life less worth living.
It is certainly a valid viewpoint that life is something you should always try to preserve, because living is always preferable to dying as living means there's a possibility of happiness and happiness is good. But I also think that about the idea that the chance of happiness is an improbable goal, that human nature prevents many people from ever being happy for long without requiring something even better to allow them to still feel it, and that what will probably happen is that they will be constantly bogged down by problems, overcoming one only to fall right into the next. They will always be driven to keep living, but life only exists because it has a built in desire to, possibly the strongest desire imaginable considering all life on the planet is impossibly complex, and could only have formed by having an active tendency to resist death. Every form of life is entirely geared towards surviving, because ability to survive is what allows life to spread. I don't think humans have lost this desire overnight. It is impossible to think entirely rationally about death because the idea of dying is one which inspires so much instinctive aversion that most people will devise any argument to avoid it, and if they can't they won't think about it.
From as rational a standpoint as I can manage, forcing someone to continue living solely because an instinctive bit of programming in my animal brain tells me that above all else I must survive, even when it is entirely possible that at this moment in time, they don't share that, something more powerful than even that desire is telling them to kill themselves, that seems hard to justify.
Oh and before you ask I'm not planning on killing myself, I have a much better life than most people seem to and am quite content with it.
<!--quoteo(post=1773581:date=Jun 6 2010, 06:53 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jun 6 2010, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1773581"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I give up. No wait, one last try: Do you think antibiotics are pointless too?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, antibiotics are as far as I understand, a chemical solution which is toxic to specific organisms but not to human biology, introducing them into a person infected with these organisms will help to kill them, bolstering the efforts of the person's immune system and eventually ridding them of the infection. They carry the risk of building resistance to them, as the incredibly fast reproductive cycle of bacteria means they can rapidly mutate and eventually, that speed of evolution will produce a strain that is resistant to whatever chemical it has survived, so use of antibiotics must be moderated in order to slow this process and keep the drug effective for longer, but in terms of killing bacteria they are quite effective yes.
Well obviously people who break their legs should just die from infection. I mean it's their own faul.. oh wait no what was it we were talking about? Oh right, another medical condition that isn't orthopedical.
<!--quoteo(post=1773634:date=Jun 6 2010, 11:22 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ Jun 6 2010, 11:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1773634"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well obviously people who break their legs should just die from infection. I mean it's their own faul.. oh wait no what was it we were talking about? Oh right, another medical condition that isn't orthopedical.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not entirely sure I understand your point.
Fault is irrelevant, if someone wants to have their legs treated when they break them, they should be able to see someone about it, if they don't, then they shouldn't have to, it's kinda up to them.
And yet if somebody said "no I like having a gangrenous, broken leg" we'd think them quite mad and do our damn best to change their minds. Anything less would be irresponsible of us.
<!--quoteo(post=1773683:date=Jun 7 2010, 05:37 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jun 7 2010, 05:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1773683"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And yet if somebody said "no I like having a gangrenous, broken leg" we'd think them quite mad and do our damn best to change their minds. Anything less would be irresponsible of us.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well yes I probably would think them quite mad, but then I don't really have much experience with gangrenous legs, so it is understandable that people who want to have one would seem quite mad to me.
As I do have some experience with being bloody miserable, it is a bit easier for me to understand why people might want to die as a result of it, so it seems less mad to me. In either case however my actions are the same, ignorance of something is not generally a rational motivation for action on it. If I don't know a lot about something that doesn't inspire me to start telling people who do know a lot about it what they should be doing with regards to it, rather it makes me inclined to trust their judgement on the matter.
Lots of things people do make them look quite mad to me, because I have significant gaps in my experience of the world that many other people do not, however I have learned not to act on that assumption because it so often turns out to be inaccurate. Personal taste is quite varied and I daresay that somewhere there is someone who really enjoys having gangrene, and if that's what they want to do, I'm certainly not going to stop them. Like I keep saying, it's up to the person to decide what they want to do with their life.
Having a gangrenous leg gives you experience with having a gangrenous leg. It makes you qualified to tell what the symptoms and problems are, how it affects you. But it teaches you jack ###### about if and how it's treatable. So in short, if somebody with a gangrenous leg but no medical qualifications goes around telling people his homebrew theories, he's most likely engaging in quackery. I'd say dangerous quackery to underscore my point if it wasn't so very redundant.
And yes, people have the prerogative to refuse treatment, but that doesn't mean we have to encourage them. That doesn't mean we have to act like it's a good idea. Especially when we obviously don't know what we're talking about. Especially when our every word runs contrary to what people with expertise in this particular area say. Especially when we contradict ourselves by conjecturing that people enjoy or otherwise find their condition desirable, yet simultaneously want to kill themselves over it.
MonkfishSonic-boom-inducing buttcheeks of terrifying speed!Join Date: 2003-06-03Member: 16972Members
Do you even have any friends chris? You view life so callously that everybody else apart from you doesn't deserve to be happy and they should just kill themselves at the first sign of depression becauase hey, they'll never be happy again right?
<!--quoteo(post=1773721:date=Jun 7 2010, 09:08 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jun 7 2010, 09:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1773721"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Having a gangrenous leg gives you experience with having a gangrenous leg. It makes you qualified to tell what the symptoms and problems are, how it affects you. But it teaches you jack ###### about if and how it's treatable. So in short, if somebody with a gangrenous leg but no medical qualifications goes around telling people his homebrew theories, he's most likely engaging in quackery. I'd say dangerous quackery to underscore my point if it wasn't so very redundant.
And yes, people have the prerogative to refuse treatment, but that doesn't mean we have to encourage them. That doesn't mean we have to act like it's a good idea. Especially when we obviously don't know what we're talking about. Especially when our every word runs contrary to what people with expertise in this particular area say. Especially when we contradict ourselves by conjecturing that people enjoy or otherwise find their condition desirable, yet simultaneously want to kill themselves over it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you're confusing the situation a bit.
The overruling ideas are that personal choice is important, and that the reason for this is because a person is probably the most qualified person to make decisions about their <i>own</i> life.
From this, I reason that if someone wants to kill themselves, for whatever reason, I should respect their wishes, they know their situation far better than I do and to be honest, the idea that you don't have control over the most fundamental life choice, whether to have one or not, is more than a little worrying for me.
Again as I said, I would encourage anybody in that situation to decide carefully, as it is a quite important choice and any important choice deserves careful deliberation. Whether or not I agree with the choice or if I would do the same in their situation is entirely irrelevant, because <i>I am not them.</i>
When it comes to my own life, I think the option of suicide is important, it brings me quite a lot of peace to know that I have the option, and I have no intention of denying other people that option if they wish to take it, even if I don't want them to, because I am generally a considerate person and what other people want comes first.
Because I have that personal outlook it makes it easier to have this viewpoint, which is what I mean by having personal experience makes it easier to understand. It just makes it easier to appreciate that the choice has some validity. It doesn't make me any more qualified to make the decision <i>for</i> someone, which is why I still emphasise that it should be <i>their choice.</i>
The same logic applies to anything, whatever someone wants to do, if they want to do something that to me seems very painful but they express a sincere desire for it, well why shouldn't I let them? Just because I don't like it doesn't mean they won't, just because I don't understand it doesn't mean they don't. The very fact that they are doing it means they understand it more than I do, you agree with that. There's an awful lot I don't understand so if I reacted with fear and hatred to everything on that list, I would be a very angry man. You suggested an example where someone wanted to <i>live</i> with something apprently painful, before that we were discussing people who wanted to <i>die</i> because of things apparently painful, the two are not contradictory as they are different examples, although the same argument for personal choice applies to both.
I am not saying everyone should immediately kill themselves, I'm saying that it should be up to everyone to decide if they want to do that, or anything else that affects them, and whatever their choice it should be respected by anybody who professes to care about other people.
<!--quoteo(post=1773738:date=Jun 7 2010, 11:40 AM:name=Sonic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sonic @ Jun 7 2010, 11:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1773738"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you even have any friends chris? You view life so callously that everybody else apart from you doesn't deserve to be happy and they should just kill themselves at the first sign of depression becauase hey, they'll never be happy again right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I view life as an opportunity, rather than something inherently good, just like any opportunity it can have good or bad outcomes, if you think your life is good, you probably don't want to kill yourself, and that's fine. If you view your life as bad, and do want to kill yourself, that is also fine.
If I really didn't think anybody deserved to be happy I would hardly be arguing for suicide, considering the entire point of it is usually to bring greater happiness by ending misery.
MonkfishSonic-boom-inducing buttcheeks of terrifying speed!Join Date: 2003-06-03Member: 16972Members
Depression isn't an outlook, it's not an ideal or a personality trait. When you cure depression you don't "kill" a person and replace them. Severe depression is an <i>illness</i> and you know the thing about ill people? sometimes they don't think clearly. They aren't able to see past the bad to the good.
Advocating severely depressed people to kill themselves out of "respect for their wishes?" If you actually respected your friends like you think you do then you'd realise what an awful friend and an even worse human being you are by allowing them to go through with it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If I really didn't think anybody deserved to be happy I would hardly be arguing for suicide, considering the entire point of it is usually to bring greater happiness by ending misery.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you explain to me how they achieve greater happiness by ending their own lives?
I'll let you in on a little secret.
They don't. Because they'll be dead.
Dead people don't feel anything.
Life is <i>everything</i> and for someone to just dismiss it so emotionlessly and carelessly as if it didn't even matter is just so downright disrespectful that I wonder if you're secretly a dalek that's come to our little planet just to laugh at people who aren't very happy.
<!--quoteo(post=1773786:date=Jun 7 2010, 06:31 PM:name=Sonic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sonic @ Jun 7 2010, 06:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1773786"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Depression isn't an outlook, it's not an ideal or a personality trait. When you cure depression you don't "kill" a person and replace them. Severe depression is an <i>illness</i> and you know the thing about ill people? sometimes they don't think clearly. They aren't able to see past the bad to the good.
Advocating severely depressed people to kill themselves out of "respect for their wishes?" If you actually respected your friends like you think you do then you'd realise what an awful friend and an even worse human being you are by allowing them to go through with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't consider personal desire to keep them around to be a very good motivation. Friendship is important to me, and because it's important I take it very seriously, friendship is about sacrifice, it's about what you will give up to benefit those you love, and in my case that is quite a lot. Including them if need be, regardless of how much I will miss them.
If one of my friends has an instant solution to their problems, is willing to take it, and is to all appearances desperately in need of it. I cannot in good conscience forbid them from doing it. Even if it means I won't ever see them again.
It's not noble or good or anything, it's simply neccesary. I would be much happier if nobody was ever miserable and I never had to make the decision whether or not to intercede, but unfortunately that is not likely to happen within my lifetime, and if I do have to decide I'll have to choose between being responsible by inaction for the death of someone I love, or responsible by action for prolonging their misery, both choices are wrong, but suicide seems less wrong than the other.
So I object to you saying I don't care about people or life, I care about both deeply which is why I think about this so much. <!--quoteo(post=1773786:date=Jun 7 2010, 06:31 PM:name=Sonic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sonic @ Jun 7 2010, 06:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1773786"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Can you explain to me how they achieve greater happiness by ending their own lives?
I'll let you in on a little secret.
They don't. Because they'll be dead.
Dead people don't feel anything.
Life is <i>everything</i> and for someone to just dismiss it so emotionlessly and carelessly as if it didn't even matter is just so downright disrespectful that I wonder if you're secretly a dalek that's come to our little planet just to laugh at people who aren't very happy.
That is if you can actually laugh.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah that is kind of a stumbling block, but not everyone shares that outlook on death. Personally I think of it as sort of a zero on the scale, where positive is happy and negative is unhappy. If existing is unpleasant then not existing is an improvement, although I suppose some people would argue that as you won't be around to notice it doesn't count. Personally I don't think it's important whether you're around afterwards or not, sometimes getting away from something is more important than where you go to.
Suicide is a personal choice, like eating too much or jumping off a building which is legal if it doesn't result in intentional death or insurance fraud. You can legally kill yourself through stupidity, but not intentionally. It should not be illegal to kill ones self or provide assistance for someone who is suffering to end that suffering.
Despite the majority of suicides being for things that can be fixed there are situations and illnesses where there is no cure and despite one or two great stories of how they overcame that illness and were the exception to the rule (Stephen Hawking) that shouldn't bar anyone else from choosing when to end their life because most people don't turn out the same way and shouldn't be forced to just because there might be a cure.
That said, encouraging or promoting suicide to a single person and not just providing information or requested assistance by a physician should be illegal. Unlike other procedures this one should be request only but a doctor should not be punished legally for letting someone who requires assistance in doing something they will do anyway find a way to do it in a more humane way. We can put dogs down when they have terminal cancer, why must people drag it out?
Banning suicide is telling other people what to do with their own bodies, and contrary to a free society, although I would find a requirement to have a terminal disease for physical assistance acceptable. I'd still tell people not to do it in 99.99% of the cases that I have known where they faced terminal issues or depression.
<!--quoteo(post=1772989:date=Jun 1 2010, 04:57 AM:name=Scythe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scythe @ Jun 1 2010, 04:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1772989"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All I have to add is that I spit on anyone that would hautily proclaim that suicide is wrong on religious grounds.
Taking a few deep breaths of CO or drinking some sleepypoison is vastly preferable to soiling yourself for six months before suffocating, regardless of what some magical mythical man in the sky has to say on the subject.
--Scythe--<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ones time on earth is minute compared to life everafter. What's sad is that by opting for suicide you eliminate any chance of seeing your loved ones again, assuming they are saved and going to heaven.
No matter the state of my mental or physical being, God will take me when HE is ready to, not when I want to go. I am assuredly going to spend eternity with my son, my mother, my grandmother, and anyone else who dies before I do. If you don't care about spending eternity in Heaven with God and your loved ones, then by all means commit suicide.
<!--quoteo(post=1774410:date=Jun 11 2010, 05:03 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Depot @ Jun 11 2010, 05:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1774410"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ones time on earth is minute compared to life everafter. What's sad is that by opting for suicide you eliminate any chance of seeing your loved ones again, assuming they are saved and going to heaven.
No matter the state of my mental or physical being, God will take me when HE is ready to, not when I want to go. I am assuredly going to spend eternity with my son, my mother, my grandmother, and anyone else who dies before I do. If you don't care about spending eternity in Heaven with God and your loved ones, then by all means commit suicide.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't think anybody I love would be allowed in anyway.
I don't really see much difference between heaven and hell, both seem equally unpleasant prospects for eternity. Eternity here on earth would be nice mind you.
<!--quoteo(post=1774440:date=Jun 11 2010, 04:02 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jun 11 2010, 04:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1774440"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Don't think anybody I love would be allowed in anyway.
I don't really see much difference between heaven and hell, both seem equally unpleasant prospects for eternity. Eternity here on earth would be nice mind you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Everything in Heaven is perfect. How is that unpleasant?
<!--quoteo(post=1774442:date=Jun 11 2010, 10:31 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Depot @ Jun 11 2010, 10:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1774442"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Everything in Heaven is perfect. How is that unpleasant?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perfect for some, I'm assuming you're not allowed to do un-christian things in heaven, which is more or less my entire range of enjoyment.
Besides, I rather like the idea of things being imperfect, trying for perfection is about the only thing that seems worth doing, I imagine if I just got it handed to me I would become somewhat bored, earth and the universe is an immense space full of things we don't know and which aren't perfect, and therefore are varied and interesting.
Here is where I want to be, and here is where I would like to stay, indefinitely if possible, enforced immortality here might start to wear eventually, as the option of ceasing to exist is also something I think is important, but if I had to choose between an inescapable afterlife and an inescapable life here, I'd choose here. <!--quoteo(post=1774454:date=Jun 12 2010, 12:24 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jun 12 2010, 12:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1774454"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I already once asked you to keep that stuff out of the thread. Would you kindly?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's somewhat integral to the idea of death, dying, and suicide, a lot of people believe in an afterlife as well as religious rules regarding death and suicide, it's hard to discuss the subject without discussing this because for a lot of people, this is the most important factor.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
We have a general rule in this forum, which is that a given debate is either secular or open to religious views - largely to avoid a repeat of extremely acrimonious "science vs. religion" debates. This topic certainly falls into that camp and it seems to me that it's been established on the secular side of things. So that said: Depot, please keep your religious views out of this thread. If you wish to discuss euthanasia in a religious context, please make a separate thread. If you continue to post them in here I'll assume you're trolling and take an extremely dim view. The rest of you: please refrain from trashing his beliefs. You may find them distasteful, but these forums have rules.
Chris: You've obviously thought a lot about this, certainly enough to write a great deal about it. However what you're clearly lacking is a working knowledge of mental illness and the ways in which it affects people. Please, <i>please</i> educate yourself a bit more about this. I realise you're coming at this from an angle that you feel maximises personal freedom, but I don't think you realise the extent to which mental illness affects people. Depression isn't an outlook or a world-view, it's an illness. For some, it's crippling. It can overtake people - happy, well-adjusted people- and stop them thinking clearly. In many of those cases the choice to commit suicide is one ruled by the illness rather than the individual. But it's something that can be dealt with and overcome, and talking about death as a solution to these problems is unhelpful in the extreme. People with clinical depression go through suicidal periods, but when they recover, those impulses go away. During those periods it's the illness, not the person, that is driving suicidal impulses. Again, treating suicide like a solution in these circumstances is extremely unhelpful for the person involved.
Which is not even to touch on the various other, often more serious, mental illnesses that can cause suicidal thoughts. I've seen people recover from depression, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder and schizophrenia and go on to carve themselves a space in the world where they can function. They'll never be free of these illnesses (especially in the case of the latter three), but they're in a place where they can find joy in the world, rather than living at cross purposes to it. To have encouraged suicide during their darkest hours, or even to have treated it as a possible necessity, is one of the cruellest things I can imagine.
I know you can have plenty of reasons for depression and I also know that you can sometimes remove it by use of medication or mental conditioning, people just being miserable sods is obviously not the only reason for depression.
I just don't really get the 'it's the disease not the person' idea. If someone periodically becomes incredibly prone to morbid thoughts and is easily overcome by stress and self destructive impulses, that's obviously part of who they are. It might be a part they and others don't like, but it's still them. You are whoever you are, regardless of whether you like it. It doesn't really matter what causes it because everything about a person is a result of nature and nurture, if someone has a physical trait which causes chemical change in the brain and that results in depression, that's just as much the person as someone who has a more normal chemical balance in their brain. Same goes for life events which result in depression. You can call all of those things diseases but they are still part of the person. I'm prone to bouts of it myself, it's often annoying, but I can't distance myself from it and pretend it's someone else because there's only me in here. It's simply a part of me I could sometimes do without.
I support the right of an individual to seek psychological help with excising those parts of their personality they dislike, if they want to do so. However I also think suicide is a perfectly valid solution to that as well, so if they want to do that I would also be willing to allow it. I also see the depressive aspect of someone's personality as being equally real as the other part. If that part wants to simply die I don't see any reason to favour the other part over it.
Basically, if you view someone's depressive bouts as being some outside, not-really-them force which makes them do things against their will. I would find it hard not to also view their non-depressive bouts as being the same thing from the other point of view, so the only way that makes sense to look at someone to me is as a single person who is entirely themselves all the time, albeit often conflicted.
The easiest solution to any problem a friend of mine might have is to simply make their wishes clear to me in advance, if I am sworn to not let them kill themselves under any circumstance, then I won't, regardless of how sensible it seems to me. Like I said, personal choice is above all the most important thing.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1774470:date=Jun 12 2010, 01:21 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jun 12 2010, 01:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1774470"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I just don't really get the 'it's the disease not the person' idea.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can see that, although you've oversimplified it a great deal. That's why I'm asking you to research this a bit before you continue to opine. You're more or less repeating yourself at this point, without having taken on board anything that anyone's actually said about how mental illness affects people's attitudes to suicide. We get that you're all about the personal freedom, but that's not a substitute for a thorough understanding of the issues.
As far as I know I do have an understanding of it however. I realise that depression is the word for a condition with a variety of symptoms, the common theme of which is that the person finds it difficult to function in everyday life because their mental state is distracting and very unpleasant. I know it can be caused by a lot of things ranging from brain chemistry to events that happen in someone's life, to probably just about anything else under the sun. I know you can treat it with medication and/or psychotherapy, and that which you use would be determined by the cause, if it's a physical cause you suppliment the chemicals the person is lacking in or use others to reduce the chemicals they are overproducing. If it's a psycholigical thing where the person either has a lot to deal with or lacks the knowledge of how to deal with problems, you teach them how to do that and try to break common habits like thinking in vicious circles and a tendency to blame yourself for everything. Basically you treat it just like anything else, you find the cause and remove it in order to remove the undesired effects. Correct me if I'm wrong.
My point is that this doesn't make it some outside force, I'm colourblind, prone to bouts of depression, probably have a couple of other mental disorders if you looked hard enough, and currently have some sort of stomach bug. All of those things are me, the person I am includes all of those at this moment in time. Eventually the stomach bug will clear up and I won't have it any more. I'll likely be colourblind due to a genetic factor for my entire life, and that is also me. I would be surprised if my mental state remains constant for the remainder of my life, but whatever it does, I will be the person I am at any given time. If I start thinking differently due to a bout of depression or a change in beliefs about the world or because I haven't slept in a while, the person I am is still me and my thinking is not in some way broken then and not-broken at other times.
The only difference between a disease and not a disease is that diseases are more commonly disliked, you can choose to remedy that if you want to, by whatever means you want to. You can also choose to change any part of yourself, and you can use the same methods to change either. If you don't like having a broken leg you can go to the hospital and get it fixed. If you don't like having a big nose you can also go to the hospital and get it fixed. If you don't like being depressed you can go to a psychologist and have them check you out to see if it's a psychological disorder and get it seen to if it is, if you don't like being indecisive you can probably also go to a psychologist and get them to help you with that. I really don't see the difference.
Comments
I'm mostly basing it off my grandmother and a couple of friends, my grandmother is always somewhat morose, and apparently always has been, although she does have good reasons so I suppose she might actually be optimistic considering. Although with my friends, some of them just tend to be very bleak in their outlooks and react very badly to stress becoming quickly consumed by it, others tend to attack problems and beat them silly and don't seem to be affected badly by it at all.
Like I said it seems to be based quite heavily on who you are as a person, and without changing who you are as a person I don't see how you can change how you react to situations.
I'm not talking about terminal illnesses, not sure where you got that from, I'm talking more in general, some people are happy, some people aren't, if you take a person who is usually unhappy and rewrite them so that they are a happy person, I don't really see what the difference is between that and killing them. You effectively destroyed the old person and replaced them with a new one who just happens to look the same, but if they don't react to things the same, and if they don't have the same outlook on life, it's not really the same person.
That's based mostly on friends as well, all the ones I've spoken to, even the ones who seem miserable a lot, seem very much opposed to the idea that they should be changed to become happier, and I can actually see where they are coming from. It would make me happier to see them smile more and not be as sad all the time, but that's a very selfish outlook, what I want doesn't enter into it, it's their life and not mine.
I wouldn't pressure people to kill themselves, but I wouldn't oppose it either. I see it as an entirely legitimate choice for anybody in any situation, and I would encourage them to think about it carefully and decide if it is the right thing for them, just as I would with any decision. The choice of whether to live or die can only rest with the person whose life is to be ended or not ended, nobody else is really more qualified to make it, except in specific circumstances such as with childen who don't know enough to make an informed decision, or people who are completely insane and are unable to make a reasoned decision, in which case it should fall to someone who can best estimate the wishes of the person involved and who can make an informed and reasoned decision, and this would likely be a family member.
But if you're able to be held legally and morally accountable for your actions, you should be allowed to decide to die, without having to justify it to anybody but yourself.
But that's a general problem: We're reasonably good at knowing when to see a physician (it hurts, I feel nauseous, oh god where's all that blood coming from), but markedly worse at knowing when to seek help for mental problems. And so we often come to see our problems as "just part of how we are." And to think that your mental problems are an inseperable part of the person you are is to diminish yourself. You're more than just an illness, and if we cure that illness you'll still be there, just sans illness.
And since we're doing the whole personal anecdotes thing, your personal anecdotes speak of people who are depressed and think that you couldn't change that without unmaking them as a person. Well, my personal anecdote speaks of someone who took that step. For over a decade he suffered from moodiness and depression. Not because "that's just how he was" but due to deep-seated problems that went unsolved. Well, he eventually went about solving those problems (with help from friends and family), and today he's a much happier, upbeat person with a more positive outlook on life. And I can state with confidence that he's still the same guy, just notably less depressed and bleak about his lot in life. How can this possibly be a negative outcome?
You really should read up on the subject before telegraphing these views. I mean this is the internet and you dont have to care about what we think, but old fashioned and frankly uninformed views such as yours would surely cause problems for you socially "irl".
So: study pal, please.
[Edit] Unless of course you feel depressed yourself, and are in the process of rationalising suicide, in which case read what lolf said again. And I can add from both personal and professional experience that depression indeed is something you most of the time can help. Personality (if you want to call being depressed a part of your perosnality) is something that is constantly changing and with help from family and friends, counseling and more often than you'd believe medicine, depression is not some hopeless chronic illness or a permanent part of you.
While I would agree that you are always changing and that the person you are tomorrow is not the one you are today, I don't imagine everybody else shares that view, and like I said, what I think is irrelevant, if someone is not happy with the idea of changing themselves radically I have no desire to force them simply because I like having them around.
I suppose the main area in which we differ is that you think it's always better to live, whereas I think that living is something people do because they have an instinctive aversion to the alternative. Whether someone lives or dies at any given point doesn't seem hugely important to me, if they live, they won't for very long, and if they die, soon it won't matter as they will be forgotten. An individual life is a small thing with very little importance in the general scheme of things. I suppose that delaying death for a few years which will probably be full of more unpleasant things to endure doesn't seem very worthwhile. The only deciding factor really seems to be whether the person wants to live or not. Hence why I think it should be their choice.
Therapy to prevent suicide, to me seems like asking someone a question with two equally valid answers, then deciding they've given the wrong answer and going to great lengths to convince them they're wrong and that your answer is right, and then asking them again until they give the answer you want, apparently just so that you can have the satisfaction of hearing it.
Suppose a friend of mine is suicidal, this implies that they are very upset about something and it's weighing so heavily on them that any release from the burden seems preferable to enduring it. This is obviously intolerable, a morally minded person cannot allow this state to continue, so I have two major options. I can either encourage them to continue to endure the pain while they go through the process of recovering from it, which always incurs the possibility of failure, and could take a very long time. Or I have the option of allowing them to instantly and easily remove all possible problems forever, by killing themselves. I find it very difficult to justify the first option altruistically, the only justification for it I can really think of is 'I don't want my friend to die because then I won't be able to see them again' which doesn't seem like a very friendly motivation, a good friend thinks about the other person before themselves.
While it is of course possible that the recovery from depression could allow them to live a 'normal' life afterwards, it is unlikely that 'normal' would be very fun, because life is full of problems, for most people it seems to contain far more unpleasantness than happiness, so soon enough there would be another problem to weigh on their mind, and whether or not it results in a relapse of depression, it's still making their life less worth living.
It is certainly a valid viewpoint that life is something you should always try to preserve, because living is always preferable to dying as living means there's a possibility of happiness and happiness is good. But I also think that about the idea that the chance of happiness is an improbable goal, that human nature prevents many people from ever being happy for long without requiring something even better to allow them to still feel it, and that what will probably happen is that they will be constantly bogged down by problems, overcoming one only to fall right into the next. They will always be driven to keep living, but life only exists because it has a built in desire to, possibly the strongest desire imaginable considering all life on the planet is impossibly complex, and could only have formed by having an active tendency to resist death. Every form of life is entirely geared towards surviving, because ability to survive is what allows life to spread. I don't think humans have lost this desire overnight. It is impossible to think entirely rationally about death because the idea of dying is one which inspires so much instinctive aversion that most people will devise any argument to avoid it, and if they can't they won't think about it.
From as rational a standpoint as I can manage, forcing someone to continue living solely because an instinctive bit of programming in my animal brain tells me that above all else I must survive, even when it is entirely possible that at this moment in time, they don't share that, something more powerful than even that desire is telling them to kill themselves, that seems hard to justify.
Oh and before you ask I'm not planning on killing myself, I have a much better life than most people seem to and am quite content with it.
No, antibiotics are as far as I understand, a chemical solution which is toxic to specific organisms but not to human biology, introducing them into a person infected with these organisms will help to kill them, bolstering the efforts of the person's immune system and eventually ridding them of the infection. They carry the risk of building resistance to them, as the incredibly fast reproductive cycle of bacteria means they can rapidly mutate and eventually, that speed of evolution will produce a strain that is resistant to whatever chemical it has survived, so use of antibiotics must be moderated in order to slow this process and keep the drug effective for longer, but in terms of killing bacteria they are quite effective yes.
It's nice having studied biology sometimes.
Seems you didnt study biology long enough.
Seems you didnt study biology long enough.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, what about it?
I'm not entirely sure I understand your point.
Fault is irrelevant, if someone wants to have their legs treated when they break them, they should be able to see someone about it, if they don't, then they shouldn't have to, it's kinda up to them.
Well yes I probably would think them quite mad, but then I don't really have much experience with gangrenous legs, so it is understandable that people who want to have one would seem quite mad to me.
As I do have some experience with being bloody miserable, it is a bit easier for me to understand why people might want to die as a result of it, so it seems less mad to me. In either case however my actions are the same, ignorance of something is not generally a rational motivation for action on it. If I don't know a lot about something that doesn't inspire me to start telling people who do know a lot about it what they should be doing with regards to it, rather it makes me inclined to trust their judgement on the matter.
Lots of things people do make them look quite mad to me, because I have significant gaps in my experience of the world that many other people do not, however I have learned not to act on that assumption because it so often turns out to be inaccurate. Personal taste is quite varied and I daresay that somewhere there is someone who really enjoys having gangrene, and if that's what they want to do, I'm certainly not going to stop them. Like I keep saying, it's up to the person to decide what they want to do with their life.
And yes, people have the prerogative to refuse treatment, but that doesn't mean we have to encourage them. That doesn't mean we have to act like it's a good idea. Especially when we obviously don't know what we're talking about. Especially when our every word runs contrary to what people with expertise in this particular area say. Especially when we contradict ourselves by conjecturing that people enjoy or otherwise find their condition desirable, yet simultaneously want to kill themselves over it.
And yes, people have the prerogative to refuse treatment, but that doesn't mean we have to encourage them. That doesn't mean we have to act like it's a good idea. Especially when we obviously don't know what we're talking about. Especially when our every word runs contrary to what people with expertise in this particular area say. Especially when we contradict ourselves by conjecturing that people enjoy or otherwise find their condition desirable, yet simultaneously want to kill themselves over it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you're confusing the situation a bit.
The overruling ideas are that personal choice is important, and that the reason for this is because a person is probably the most qualified person to make decisions about their <i>own</i> life.
From this, I reason that if someone wants to kill themselves, for whatever reason, I should respect their wishes, they know their situation far better than I do and to be honest, the idea that you don't have control over the most fundamental life choice, whether to have one or not, is more than a little worrying for me.
Again as I said, I would encourage anybody in that situation to decide carefully, as it is a quite important choice and any important choice deserves careful deliberation. Whether or not I agree with the choice or if I would do the same in their situation is entirely irrelevant, because <i>I am not them.</i>
When it comes to my own life, I think the option of suicide is important, it brings me quite a lot of peace to know that I have the option, and I have no intention of denying other people that option if they wish to take it, even if I don't want them to, because I am generally a considerate person and what other people want comes first.
Because I have that personal outlook it makes it easier to have this viewpoint, which is what I mean by having personal experience makes it easier to understand. It just makes it easier to appreciate that the choice has some validity. It doesn't make me any more qualified to make the decision <i>for</i> someone, which is why I still emphasise that it should be <i>their choice.</i>
The same logic applies to anything, whatever someone wants to do, if they want to do something that to me seems very painful but they express a sincere desire for it, well why shouldn't I let them? Just because I don't like it doesn't mean they won't, just because I don't understand it doesn't mean they don't. The very fact that they are doing it means they understand it more than I do, you agree with that. There's an awful lot I don't understand so if I reacted with fear and hatred to everything on that list, I would be a very angry man. You suggested an example where someone wanted to <i>live</i> with something apprently painful, before that we were discussing people who wanted to <i>die</i> because of things apparently painful, the two are not contradictory as they are different examples, although the same argument for personal choice applies to both.
I am not saying everyone should immediately kill themselves, I'm saying that it should be up to everyone to decide if they want to do that, or anything else that affects them, and whatever their choice it should be respected by anybody who professes to care about other people.
<!--quoteo(post=1773738:date=Jun 7 2010, 11:40 AM:name=Sonic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sonic @ Jun 7 2010, 11:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1773738"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you even have any friends chris? You view life so callously that everybody else apart from you doesn't deserve to be happy and they should just kill themselves at the first sign of depression becauase hey, they'll never be happy again right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I view life as an opportunity, rather than something inherently good, just like any opportunity it can have good or bad outcomes, if you think your life is good, you probably don't want to kill yourself, and that's fine. If you view your life as bad, and do want to kill yourself, that is also fine.
If I really didn't think anybody deserved to be happy I would hardly be arguing for suicide, considering the entire point of it is usually to bring greater happiness by ending misery.
Advocating severely depressed people to kill themselves out of "respect for their wishes?" If you actually respected your friends like you think you do then you'd realise what an awful friend and an even worse human being you are by allowing them to go through with it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If I really didn't think anybody deserved to be happy I would hardly be arguing for suicide, considering the entire point of it is usually to bring greater happiness by ending misery.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you explain to me how they achieve greater happiness by ending their own lives?
I'll let you in on a little secret.
They don't. Because they'll be dead.
Dead people don't feel anything.
Life is <i>everything</i> and for someone to just dismiss it so emotionlessly and carelessly as if it didn't even matter is just so downright disrespectful that I wonder if you're secretly a dalek that's come to our little planet just to laugh at people who aren't very happy.
That is if you can actually laugh.
Advocating severely depressed people to kill themselves out of "respect for their wishes?" If you actually respected your friends like you think you do then you'd realise what an awful friend and an even worse human being you are by allowing them to go through with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't consider personal desire to keep them around to be a very good motivation. Friendship is important to me, and because it's important I take it very seriously, friendship is about sacrifice, it's about what you will give up to benefit those you love, and in my case that is quite a lot. Including them if need be, regardless of how much I will miss them.
If one of my friends has an instant solution to their problems, is willing to take it, and is to all appearances desperately in need of it. I cannot in good conscience forbid them from doing it. Even if it means I won't ever see them again.
It's not noble or good or anything, it's simply neccesary. I would be much happier if nobody was ever miserable and I never had to make the decision whether or not to intercede, but unfortunately that is not likely to happen within my lifetime, and if I do have to decide I'll have to choose between being responsible by inaction for the death of someone I love, or responsible by action for prolonging their misery, both choices are wrong, but suicide seems less wrong than the other.
So I object to you saying I don't care about people or life, I care about both deeply which is why I think about this so much.
<!--quoteo(post=1773786:date=Jun 7 2010, 06:31 PM:name=Sonic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sonic @ Jun 7 2010, 06:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1773786"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Can you explain to me how they achieve greater happiness by ending their own lives?
I'll let you in on a little secret.
They don't. Because they'll be dead.
Dead people don't feel anything.
Life is <i>everything</i> and for someone to just dismiss it so emotionlessly and carelessly as if it didn't even matter is just so downright disrespectful that I wonder if you're secretly a dalek that's come to our little planet just to laugh at people who aren't very happy.
That is if you can actually laugh.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah that is kind of a stumbling block, but not everyone shares that outlook on death. Personally I think of it as sort of a zero on the scale, where positive is happy and negative is unhappy. If existing is unpleasant then not existing is an improvement, although I suppose some people would argue that as you won't be around to notice it doesn't count. Personally I don't think it's important whether you're around afterwards or not, sometimes getting away from something is more important than where you go to.
Despite the majority of suicides being for things that can be fixed there are situations and illnesses where there is no cure and despite one or two great stories of how they overcame that illness and were the exception to the rule (Stephen Hawking) that shouldn't bar anyone else from choosing when to end their life because most people don't turn out the same way and shouldn't be forced to just because there might be a cure.
That said, encouraging or promoting suicide to a single person and not just providing information or requested assistance by a physician should be illegal. Unlike other procedures this one should be request only but a doctor should not be punished legally for letting someone who requires assistance in doing something they will do anyway find a way to do it in a more humane way. We can put dogs down when they have terminal cancer, why must people drag it out?
Banning suicide is telling other people what to do with their own bodies, and contrary to a free society, although I would find a requirement to have a terminal disease for physical assistance acceptable. I'd still tell people not to do it in 99.99% of the cases that I have known where they faced terminal issues or depression.
anyone else see the documentary? I remember there was uproar when it aired on BBC several years ago
Taking a few deep breaths of CO or drinking some sleepypoison is vastly preferable to soiling yourself for six months before suffocating, regardless of what some magical mythical man in the sky has to say on the subject.
--Scythe--<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ones time on earth is minute compared to life everafter. What's sad is that by opting for suicide you eliminate any chance of seeing your loved ones again, assuming they are saved and going to heaven.
No matter the state of my mental or physical being, God will take me when HE is ready to, not when I want to go. I am assuredly going to spend eternity with my son, my mother, my grandmother, and anyone else who dies before I do. If you don't care about spending eternity in Heaven with God and your loved ones, then by all means commit suicide.
No matter the state of my mental or physical being, God will take me when HE is ready to, not when I want to go. I am assuredly going to spend eternity with my son, my mother, my grandmother, and anyone else who dies before I do. If you don't care about spending eternity in Heaven with God and your loved ones, then by all means commit suicide.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't think anybody I love would be allowed in anyway.
I don't really see much difference between heaven and hell, both seem equally unpleasant prospects for eternity. Eternity here on earth would be nice mind you.
I don't really see much difference between heaven and hell, both seem equally unpleasant prospects for eternity. Eternity here on earth would be nice mind you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Everything in Heaven is perfect. How is that unpleasant?
Perfect for some, I'm assuming you're not allowed to do un-christian things in heaven, which is more or less my entire range of enjoyment.
Besides, I rather like the idea of things being imperfect, trying for perfection is about the only thing that seems worth doing, I imagine if I just got it handed to me I would become somewhat bored, earth and the universe is an immense space full of things we don't know and which aren't perfect, and therefore are varied and interesting.
Here is where I want to be, and here is where I would like to stay, indefinitely if possible, enforced immortality here might start to wear eventually, as the option of ceasing to exist is also something I think is important, but if I had to choose between an inescapable afterlife and an inescapable life here, I'd choose here.
<!--quoteo(post=1774454:date=Jun 12 2010, 12:24 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jun 12 2010, 12:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1774454"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I already once asked you to keep that stuff out of the thread. Would you kindly?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's somewhat integral to the idea of death, dying, and suicide, a lot of people believe in an afterlife as well as religious rules regarding death and suicide, it's hard to discuss the subject without discussing this because for a lot of people, this is the most important factor.
Chris: You've obviously thought a lot about this, certainly enough to write a great deal about it. However what you're clearly lacking is a working knowledge of mental illness and the ways in which it affects people. Please, <i>please</i> educate yourself a bit more about this. I realise you're coming at this from an angle that you feel maximises personal freedom, but I don't think you realise the extent to which mental illness affects people. Depression isn't an outlook or a world-view, it's an illness. For some, it's crippling. It can overtake people - happy, well-adjusted people- and stop them thinking clearly. In many of those cases the choice to commit suicide is one ruled by the illness rather than the individual. But it's something that can be dealt with and overcome, and talking about death as a solution to these problems is unhelpful in the extreme. People with clinical depression go through suicidal periods, but when they recover, those impulses go away. During those periods it's the illness, not the person, that is driving suicidal impulses. Again, treating suicide like a solution in these circumstances is extremely unhelpful for the person involved.
Which is not even to touch on the various other, often more serious, mental illnesses that can cause suicidal thoughts. I've seen people recover from depression, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder and schizophrenia and go on to carve themselves a space in the world where they can function. They'll never be free of these illnesses (especially in the case of the latter three), but they're in a place where they can find joy in the world, rather than living at cross purposes to it. To have encouraged suicide during their darkest hours, or even to have treated it as a possible necessity, is one of the cruellest things I can imagine.
I just don't really get the 'it's the disease not the person' idea. If someone periodically becomes incredibly prone to morbid thoughts and is easily overcome by stress and self destructive impulses, that's obviously part of who they are. It might be a part they and others don't like, but it's still them. You are whoever you are, regardless of whether you like it. It doesn't really matter what causes it because everything about a person is a result of nature and nurture, if someone has a physical trait which causes chemical change in the brain and that results in depression, that's just as much the person as someone who has a more normal chemical balance in their brain. Same goes for life events which result in depression. You can call all of those things diseases but they are still part of the person. I'm prone to bouts of it myself, it's often annoying, but I can't distance myself from it and pretend it's someone else because there's only me in here. It's simply a part of me I could sometimes do without.
I support the right of an individual to seek psychological help with excising those parts of their personality they dislike, if they want to do so. However I also think suicide is a perfectly valid solution to that as well, so if they want to do that I would also be willing to allow it. I also see the depressive aspect of someone's personality as being equally real as the other part. If that part wants to simply die I don't see any reason to favour the other part over it.
Basically, if you view someone's depressive bouts as being some outside, not-really-them force which makes them do things against their will. I would find it hard not to also view their non-depressive bouts as being the same thing from the other point of view, so the only way that makes sense to look at someone to me is as a single person who is entirely themselves all the time, albeit often conflicted.
The easiest solution to any problem a friend of mine might have is to simply make their wishes clear to me in advance, if I am sworn to not let them kill themselves under any circumstance, then I won't, regardless of how sensible it seems to me. Like I said, personal choice is above all the most important thing.
I can see that, although you've oversimplified it a great deal. That's why I'm asking you to research this a bit before you continue to opine. You're more or less repeating yourself at this point, without having taken on board anything that anyone's actually said about how mental illness affects people's attitudes to suicide. We get that you're all about the personal freedom, but that's not a substitute for a thorough understanding of the issues.
My point is that this doesn't make it some outside force, I'm colourblind, prone to bouts of depression, probably have a couple of other mental disorders if you looked hard enough, and currently have some sort of stomach bug. All of those things are me, the person I am includes all of those at this moment in time. Eventually the stomach bug will clear up and I won't have it any more. I'll likely be colourblind due to a genetic factor for my entire life, and that is also me. I would be surprised if my mental state remains constant for the remainder of my life, but whatever it does, I will be the person I am at any given time. If I start thinking differently due to a bout of depression or a change in beliefs about the world or because I haven't slept in a while, the person I am is still me and my thinking is not in some way broken then and not-broken at other times.
The only difference between a disease and not a disease is that diseases are more commonly disliked, you can choose to remedy that if you want to, by whatever means you want to. You can also choose to change any part of yourself, and you can use the same methods to change either. If you don't like having a broken leg you can go to the hospital and get it fixed. If you don't like having a big nose you can also go to the hospital and get it fixed. If you don't like being depressed you can go to a psychologist and have them check you out to see if it's a psychological disorder and get it seen to if it is, if you don't like being indecisive you can probably also go to a psychologist and get them to help you with that. I really don't see the difference.