Judge bans suicide show

[Skunk]

I have absolutely *no* idea where he gets his figures and when they were collated - but the reality is rather different. While there *is* some trafficking - it is not nearly as bad as the article makes out - the police and the unions have made great strides to reduce trafficking - and most of the 'window' prostitutes in Amsterdam do indeed have full work permits, health checkups and frequent police visits.

If you could read Dutch, I could point you to the prostitutes union (yes, they have a union here!) who could tell you otherwise...Indeed, the prostitutes union works very hard themselves to ensure that other 'ladies of the night' are not illegals - they don't want unlicenced competition... Indeed, the 'Red Thread union' even spoke out against the EU enlargement because they are afraid of an influx of eastern european workers who will undercut their members...

In any event - it is not LEGAL to force someone to perform services against their will, and to refuse to allow them to leave. What you are talking about is kidnap and rape - which is something entirely different.

[ 10-20-2003, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Maelakin: Suicide is the ultimate in selfish acts; however, it is also selfish in nature to keep someone here against their will. So who are you to tell someone that your needs are greater than theirs, especially when it pertains to their life.

When they are exhibiting signs of immense distress that indicate they are unable to make a correct decision about their life. Usually a suicide is attempted by a person in incredible agony. The primary concern is to end the agony. When in intense pain, the strongest desire is for it to end.

Pain clouds judgement. Suicide can seem at the time, to be the only alternative to existing in pain.

A person removed from the situation is often able to see solutions that the person caught in it cannot. Especially the seasonal nature of pain. For example, when extremely ill for a long period it is exceptionally difficult to visualise health. We normalise our current situation.

A suicider is clearly at a point of distress to the point when they make a decision about continuing existence they would not make if the pain was not there. The question would have to be asked as to how much we want to be protected from ourselves. Due to the fact that society has kept suicide illegal, it can be argued that the majority of decisionmaking individuals WANT to be protected from themselves given the extreme and temporary circumstances I am speaking about.

Picture Oddeuseus commanding his crew to chain him to the mast when they passed through the sirens territory.

That is what a sane and at that point, painless person is doing by asking society to make suicide illegal.

Yorick You are comparing apples and oranges here. Slavery takes away your ability to make decisions that alter the course of your life, while, debt is a choice you made at one time. One is a ramification of your decision making, while the other is forced upon you.

Not all debt is a ramification of choice. Some is indeed forced upon you.

In any case, I was making a point.

Yorick By restricting a personal freedom, you give another protection from the after-effects associated with suicides. You are not bestowing any form of freedom at all; rather you are taking away a freedom for your own benefit. When you start restricting personal freedoms based upon the psychological impact it may have upon another, you open a door best left closed. Anything could be construed as emotional damage, and the minute you start placing barriers in effect to stop these stimulants, you take away free will.

You're questioning the whole concept of society having laws that protect innocents here.

Emotional damage can be caused by sexual harrasment. Should a man have the freedom to DO sexual harrasment to a female colleague, or should the female have freedom FROM a highly stressful and upsetting workplace? Or having to restrict career options because of some bullheaded pigs refusal to respect a lady?

What of the emotional damage a teacher can cause a student? Should there be no restrictions on behaviour of teachers because they should be free to do whatever they wish?

Freedom of action only works where humans control themselves, Where they don't laws MUST protect the innocent or chaos reigns.

Someone who feels blame after another commits suicide has a choice. They choose to feel that guilt. Feelings of emptiness associated with the loss of a loved one are normal, but a healthy individual, in mind and body, innately understands that they need to move on and resume life. Any who do not need to seek help.

Easier said than done. Perhaps you can tell everyone that for yourself?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: [QB] Let's look at it from an entirely different perspective. In British law-making, the legislature adheres to the principle that unforceable laws are pointless - hence the reason why suicide was decriminalised (it's hard to punish a dead person) but remains an offence to assist someone. When someone desires to end his/her own life - the stage is already set: it is virtually impossible to prevent that person from committing the act without (inhumanely) locking them up in a paddded room - where their lives continue in increased agony.

I did as I said, physically prevent the person three times. It is not impossible given circumstances.

As Billy Connelly quipped on the subject of the Catholic 'Rhythm Method' of birth control: What?! At the point of ejaculation whip it out?! Father, at the point of ejaculation, wild horses wouldn't make my a*** go in the opposite direction!"

He should speak for himself. I've used that method many times in the past. Willpower. Excercises that which makes us human: Concious will over instinct. You should try it. Good excercise in increasing willpower strength. Long term consequences over short term satisfaction. No way I'm going to decide to have a child just so I can get my rocks off.

If you criminalise suicide, if you make it illegal to commit suicide, you force that person to 'go underground'. Rather than risk discovery and 'imprisonment', that person will tell no-one of his plans. This means that someone has to 'discover' the body. This means that relatives will never get to say 'Goodbye' or understand or get to ask 'Why?'. They will just get a sudden withdrawl of that person's life: out of the blue. It may also mean that the act of suicide may endanger others (jumping off a building, in front of a truck etc.) So, in actual fact, I would argue that a legalised form of suicide is actually kinder on the relatives than a society that forbids it in all circumstances.

It is already illegal. You are speculating on something that already exists.
Some tell, some don't. Some have spontaneous suicide, others plan it. The circumstances are all different. What we do achieve by making it illegal, is make it legal for a person to be detained until they are in a better frame of mind.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: No, I wasn't trying to incite you. Look, you saw his religion as irrelevant -- that is not necessarily the case. Depending on his beliefs, it could very well be relevant.

Which is why I said this: "Now that's just being pedantic and presenting a belief-dependent argument.

I kept my own beliefs about the afterlife out of the equation.

[Skunk]

What we do achieve by making it illegal, is make it legal for a person to be detained until they are in a better frame of mind.

No, what you achieve by suicide is the endangerment of others, increased emotional distress with regards to the suicide's own families and cruelty to the person who wishes to end his/her own life.

If someone is serious about ending their life (as opposed to a 'cry for help'), you will not be able to stop them. Most people are intelligent enough to know that sticking your fingers in the wall socket probably won't kill you (even in the UK where voltages are much higher); but if you choose to fly a kite next to a high-capacity power line, you are as likely to be successful as pointing a .44 magnum at your head or diving off a 12 story building.


And this doesn't answer the question about the terminally ill - the area where most people would like to see suicide decriminalised. The guy who has to choose between 3 months of intense pain or three months doped to the gills before death? Hold on to him until he 'feels better'?
Living in the Netherlands where Euthanasia under these circumstances *is* legal, I can only sing in praise of it as humane practice that answers the right of an individual to dispose his/her own life at the time and place of their choosing - and act which allows both the suicidee and relatives the chance to say goodbye and come to terms with the death. It's one of things that the Dutch really have got right.


Finally, and probably my last take on this issue.
To me, the most poignent images of the tragic events of 9/11 were the suicides. The people who jumped from the building a little while before its collapse.
Perhaps, rather than label those people as 'criminals', we should honour the extraordinary courage, presence of mind and sheer logic to which they approached their situation. They were cool headed individuals who, upon seeing the choice before them, being burnt to death or ending their own lives, chose the latter option.

In so doing, not only did they reaffirm that their lives were theirs alone to dispose of, they also cheated the terrorists out of their deaths. Nothing can take that fact away from them, nor deny their extraordinary courage.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Skunk: I have absolutely *no* idea where he gets his figures and when they were collated - but the reality is rather different. While there *is* some trafficking - it is not nearly as bad as the article makes out - the police and the unions have made great strides to reduce trafficking - and most of the 'window' prostitutes in Amsterdam do indeed have full work permits, health checkups and frequent police visits. If you could read Dutch, I could point you to the prostitutes union (yes, they have a union here!) who could tell you otherwise...Indeed, the prostitutes union works very hard themselves to ensure that other 'ladies of the night' are not illegals - they don't want unlicenced competition... Indeed, the 'Red Thread union' even spoke out against the EU enlargement because they are afraid of an influx of eastern european workers who will undercut their members... In any event - it is not LEGAL to force someone to perform services against their will, and to refuse to allow them to leave. What you are talking about is kidnap and rape - which is something entirely different.

Here is somw more information on modern slavery world-wide. Also there was another report release earlier this year that I'm having trouble finding on the web that went into a great deal of detail on modern slavery.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: Finally, and probably my last take on this issue. To me, the most poignent images of the tragic events of 9/11 were the suicides. The people who jumped from the building a little while before its collapse. Perhaps, rather than label those people as 'criminals', we should honour the extraordinary courage, presence of mind and sheer logic to which they approached their situation. They were cool headed individuals who, upon seeing the choice before them, being burnt to death or ending their own lives, chose the latter option. In so doing, not only did they reaffirm that their lives were theirs alone to dispose of, they also cheated the terrorists out of their deaths. Nothing can take that fact away from them, nor deny their extraordinary courage.

I was going to use this to support my own argument, but reconsidered due to the insensitivity factor, but no worries...

You are aware that it got very hot up there? Intense heat is what melted the steel skeleton of the towers, let alone humans. They were in intense pain - seeking the end of which is the primary concern for those who seek to end their life.

Cheating terrorists out of death was certainly not on their minds. We down below didn't know who was responsible. Those upstairs wouldn't have. There were no news crews giving us speculations on the TV. Confusion reigned. Some made it to the top of the tower only to find the door rendered unopenable because of jumpers in the past. One guy surfed down on debris of the towers as they fell (in a ball) and miraculously survived.

Instinct.

Do you really think a terminally ill patient would end their life if they weren't in extreme agony or discomfort? Making pallative care better, cheaper, more effective and more dignified is the solution, not making the right to die legal. I abhor euthenasia. It is a cop-out on behalf of society and a failure to address the needs of terminally ill patients to live out the remainder of their life pain-free, dignified and self-aware. Relishing each and every moment of self awareness on this planet as a gift.

[ 10-21-2003, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Skunk]

You can not be 'pain-free' and self-aware at the same time with many, many terminial illnesses - I'm trying to square how its dignified to be on such high a dosage of painkillers that a patient has trouble remembering their own name when they are conscious.

I really find it hard to believe that anyone who finds themself requiring the assistance of another to fulfill their own lavatory requirements as 'dignified'. Walk up and down any cancer ward and you'll find all sorts of examples of such dignified living.

I think that you would have to see euthanasia in action and speak to both the patient and the relatives concerned before making your mind up on this - unless of course, you are ill-disposed to the idea as result of religion.

But hey - why not read how dignifed it is from someone who fought her way through the British courts in the hope that they would be humane towards her:

"I am only 43 years old. I desperately want a doctor to help me to die. Motor neurone disease has left my mind as sharp as ever, but it has gradually destroyed my muscles, making it hard for me to communicate with my family. It has left me in a wheelchair, catheterised and fed through a tube. I have fought against the disease for the last 2 years and had every possible medical treatment.

I am fully aware of what the future holds and have decided to refuse artificial ventilation. Rather than die by choking or suffocation, I want a doctor to help me die when I am no longer able to communicate with her family and friends. I have discussed this with my husband of 25 years, Brian who has come to terms with what I want and respects my decision. He says that losing me will be devastating for him and our two children but he would be pleased to know I had had the good death I want. I want to have a quick death without suffering, at home surrounded by my family so that I can say good-bye to them.

If I were physically able I could take my own life. That's not illegal. But because of the terrible nature of my illness I cannot take my own life - to carry out my wish I will need assistance. Should a doctor give me the assistance I need, he or she will be guilty of a crime that carries a lengthy prison sentence. As the law stands it makes no sense. The law needs changing so that I, and people like me, can choose how and when we die and not be forced to endure untold suffering for no reason."
http://www.justice4diane.org.uk/story.asp


The transformation did not appear dignified to Ms Petty - I agree with her.

Diane petty eventually died of asphyxiation as a result of her illness - it took a full 16 hours. **shudder** One of Saddam Hussein's henchman couldn't have arranged a more terrifying or tortuous death if he'd tried...

[Maelakin]

After reading through this thread a couple times, I decided to restructure the way in which I presented my support for a person to have a right to commit suicide.

Yorick has mentioned pain in conjunction with suicide, but has failed to fully detail what exactly is being presented. In this situation, pain is defined as anything within a person’s life that requires the ability to cope in order to overcome. Whether the pain is caused by a physical, emotional, or mental state doesn’t matter, it only matters that the person is experiencing something within their life that they need to deal with in some fashion.

Suicidal thoughts occur when a person no longer feels they have the capabilities required in order to cope with the situation. The pains of life are offset by our coping abilities, and when pain exceeds our abilities we often feel as if we cannot continue. Most commonly, this leads to depression and the search for an exit.

The normal method for treating people with suicidal tendencies is teaching the individual how to cope with their current situation. Thus, when you increase a person’s ability to cope, you increase their will to live. The common belief is that no matter the situation, a person can be taught the needed skills to cope with any situation, thus removing the option of suicide as an exit.

Where this logic fails, however, is when the result is already a forgone conclusion. Skunk gave a perfect example of this situation. You have a lady who will die independent of any action we may take. Her continuing to live is not dependant on her ability to cope. We have no recourse in this situation.

She was in sound frame of mind, and she made a decision on how she would like to leave this life. When you put aside all religious beliefs, there is no reason she should not be allowed to act upon her decision. She could have gone home, said her goodbyes in a peaceful manner and passed on while surrounded by friends and family. Instead, her family witnessed her in extreme pain as she suffocated over a 16-hour period.

This person at her time of death was not capable of cognitive thinking, and due to the laws that prevented her from taking her desired course of action; her family was forced to endure watching her suffer. She had come to terms with her passing, as had her family, yet they were forced to follow a course of action dictated by another.

The arguments here against allowing suicide at best have been presumptuous assumptions. Each one of them is based off one person knowing what is better for another. I concede to the fact that there are many that can be helped and should be given every opportunity to receive help. Where the argument breaks down comes from the assumption that everyone wants help. There are those that truly want to end their lives.

The ability to act as one sees fit, where the action applies to a specific individual, should not be restricted in any manner. Instead of removing one person’s right to own themselves in order to “protect” innocents, it should be the responsibilities of all to make sure people are educated on the matter. It should also be the responsibility of the people to provide a humane means for carrying out ones will towards oneself.

In any case, society should not stand for, not support any situation where one individual is given the right to exert their will onto another, especially in cases where the actions of an individual pertains to themselves.

[Timber Loftis]

Gosh, you guys went and got all *DEEP* on me. And, here I just wanted to TELEVISE the darned thing. *runs*

Good post, Maelakin. You're likely to get hit with a Yorick-stick(*) though because you didn't address how far that liberty can go and when one person can enforce their will on another. Clearly, liberty does not extend to the right to walk up and punch someone. But where does liberty stop? What harm to another done by an individual's action is the threshhold at which we can exert society's will on them?
________________________________
(*)Note: A Yorick-stick is very similar to a Willow Stick, and looks like this: [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]
________________________________

The hitting example is clear -- your liberty infringes on another person's liberty. But, what about smoking? Can your right to destroy your lungs (via one form of lengthy legal suicide, nonetheless ) be stopped so that you don't infringe on another's right to breathe clean air? What if that other person is so incredibly sensitive to smoke that you can't smoke within 100 feet of them?

What if you exercising your liberty is going to hurt someone's feelings? They aren't physically harmed by you smoking, but it makes them feel really bad and oogey inside -- is that enough to infringe on your liberty? What about really attenuated harms? You exercising your right to not wear a seatbelt just may result in costing taxpayers all an extra $0.0001 a year, so is that enough to require seatbelts? Obviously, in most states it is (Grrrr.... bastards).

My problem with not allowing suicide is that the harm you prevent is too attenuated. The harm one person's suicide causes to others is not at all comparable to their right to do what they will with their own body and very existence. If you own yourself any at all, don't you at least own the "OFF" switch? This becomes especially true where legalized suicide is concerned. In the places where it is legalized, numerous forms must be filled out, doctor approval is often required, and psychiatric review is a must. There are also affirmative statements regarding improper influence/ duress that must be made which help to address the earlier concern I stated: that the right to die can become the obligation to die. Family counseling can be required -- yes, that means the person wanting to commit suicide would have to inform his relatives and deal with that whole issue up front -- no surprises, less grief.

So, since legalized suicide can be done in a way to minimalize the associated harms, and since ownership of your very existence is a paramount liberty, there is a very strong argument in favor of legalized suicide -- as a right.

But, then again, seatbelts are required in all states but 1. (New Hampshire, home of Live Free or Die.)

[ 10-21-2003, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]