Are you afraid of dying?

[Griffin NoName]

But a suicide is a huge weight in the direct family, particularily of children (and I don't necessarily mean small children). ...........

Assisted suicide in cases of chronic/terminal pain is a different story, but from all the tales of people doing the impossible to keep their parents alive prove that the problem isn't as simple.

IOW make children part of the decision as much as possible.

My adult children do not regard any of their actions as having any connection with me or impingement on me. They seem to need to know I exist but beyond that I have no value to them. Why, therefore should I not have the final say over my existence? Is it really the case that by the act of generating new individuals one forfeits rights over one's own life?

No I dont want my children to be part of any decision. They have no comprehension of what I am living with and do not want to have, and actively avoid that knowledge. The argument that it is too painful to have a seriously ill parent doesn't wash with me in terms of awarding them rights. I have struggled a long timew with this and arrived at the Grow Up or Shut Up stage.

Every case is individual.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Hence the 'as much as possible' part. In some cases it will be impossible, but those same cases are the ones to look, precisely because of that refusal. That's when planning ahead is so important (and even that doesn't guarantee it  ).

[Griffin NoName]

Hence the 'as much as possible' part. In some cases it will be impossible, but those same cases are the ones to look, precisely because of that refusal. That's when planning ahead is so important (and even that doesn't guarantee it  ).

Yes, that's so, and as much as possible is so hard.

I'm considering being embalmed in a nice rocking chair at the Bates Motel so I can still fulfill the need for my body to be in existence. 

[Swatopluk]

The suffering/grief of relatives is of course one thing to consider, if judging a suicide morally. The "taking others with you against their will" is just an extreme case.
The decicion of course should lie with the individual or we will end with Plato's final solution to healthcare (mandatory suicide if unable to go back to work within 3 days*)

* I kid you not, read the "Politeia" and get as disgusted about that old philosopher as I got. [that he promoted the equality of both sexes is not enough to redeem him in my eyes]

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Yikes! I'd be dead after more than one bad flu!

Is true that in those days medicine was more in the guesswork realm, but it is a bit harsher than usual.
---
Sounds like the kind of proposals certain individuals (whose affiliation I'll avoid mention) would make provided it wouldn't apply to them...

[Griffin NoName]

The "taking others with you against their will" is just an extreme case.

Had a rethink. Perhaps that's a better solution for my sons than the embalming. 

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I had not seriously given the suicide option much thought, until I read many of Heinlein's older works.

Heinlein's attitude about suicide has shaped mine quite a bit, over the years - a sort of uber-practical, I'm-in-control sort of attitude. In that, an individual has both a right to choice of living OR dying styles.  So long as it does not infringe on another's physical safety.

I remember being struck in particular by a scene in Time Enough for Love, by Lazarus Long complaining (he was a very, very old man in the scene, and he hurt.  And, he was bone-weary-tired of living.) complaining that his suicide-switch had been removed from his medical support-chair. The implications of that statement went very deep, and I remember pausing in my reading to contemplate them, the first time I read that.

I suppose I still have a practical attitude about it still.  If a person is otherwise mentally healthy, and that person decides that terminating his/her life is the next thing on their list of things to do... who are WE to impede such a decision?  Moreover, who is the CHURCH to so impede?  It flies against the "God will not force God's self upon an individual" theology.  On which free will is founded.

I sometimes think it's a purely selfish motive, on the part of society and/or the Church (any church) that makes it illegal or 'Uber-Sin' to suicide.  The Church does not wish to loose a contributor to it's cause ...

I understand the quasi-reasoning that is usually proposed by the religious, but I don't think it's very sound doctrine.  It's certainly not based in any actual scripture ...

On the gripping hand, I also think that mental health clinics should be free and open to the public.  Anytime, anyone should be permitted to check-in for a "mental tune-up", paid for by society at large.  It would be HUGELY cheaper in the long run, to handle it like this - just imagine the crises that could have been avoided, if easy mental-health care was available to all?  Anonymous, if desired. (I'm thinking of those misguided kids at Columbine as an example.)

After a time, mental-health "checkups" would become the norm, and not have the social stigma it has presently.

And, it would be a good safety-out for those mentally depressed individuals, as an alternative to the easy-suicide option.

But what do _I_ know? <smirk>

[Griffin NoName]

We have free public mental health wards here, although you can't just wander in, you generally have to be refered by a doctor or behave in a way that ensures the police or social workers or doctors will stuff you in there anyway. Or a way that will ensure your relatives will talk a doctor into conspiring with a social worker to get you stuffed in there (mostly applies to young men and women).

They are worse than the Victorian Bedlam (see wikipedia). But on paper they offer all the right things. Just it usually never happens and when it does it's useless (inadequate, badly run, etc).

Many people manage to commit suicide in these places as they do in our prisons and so on.

I have two issues with suicide. 1) Who finds the body, how the body is found, and friends and family knowing why. That's the bit that needs planning, care and attention. 2) Is it what the person really wants?

My answer is if someone deals with 1) adequately, then it almost certainly indicates they really intend it and want it. And in that case I believe it is wrong to stop them.

I've spent hours talking to people to keep them alive. Sometimes I've felt I shouldn't be, but I'll go on doing it. If they choose, as one did, to go ahead, I respect it.

The thing I find hard is persuading someone to go into hospital (free !!) because it's the last resort when I know exactly how bad the treatment and experience will be. But again, I still do it.

Mental health is a different issue to unbearable disabling physical illness or dementia in old age. But I believe that sometimes someone who is mentally ill can still make their own choice. I know people living with terrifying mental ill health, who are young and who will never recover; hmmm, actually I wouldn't call it living. That's a tough one.

[Swatopluk]

A very "popular" suicide method is jumping in front of trains entering a station. This contains about everything one can do wrong.
a) it's ineffective because the train is already slow, many survive maimed or die after long agony only
b) the train driver is usually a mental wreck afterwards
c) it's highly public and inspires imitators (proven fact)
d) the line is usually blocked for hours (and those things notoriously happen during rush-hour).
e) it's usually not a prepared action, so many loose threads remain

If someone commits suicide, that person should take care that their affairs are managed, that people not connected to the matter aren't drawn in, that the shock for the finders is minimized (warning signs) and that the method is either fool-proof or there is a backup plan.

[beagle]

There's a lot to be said for the old "accident cleaning a gun". Don't even need to be a terribly good shot, though the family may not be too pleased if you wing the Gainsborough on the way out.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I had thought about it very seriously, once upon a time.*

I also thought that flying through the air sans airplane, would be a cool thing as well.

So, I had decided the best method, was to rent a fast, cool totally inappropriate car, and buy the "total" insurance (making the agent happy, and covering the car for what comes next).

Next, (or maybe previously- order is not critical at this stage) I would locate a lonely mountain road - one with little or no regular traffic. 

I would need a very steep drop - hundreds of feet.

Then, I'd rev the car to max speed and drive it over the drop (alone, natch, unless I had a suicidal friend along - but who gets to drive?  Naaah.  Alone it is.) aka Thelma and Louise.  (actually, they unwittingly copied my idea for the movie, even though I had zero contact with the writers of that screen-play)  The difference, is that I wouldn't be chased by so many cars.  My idea is that the following season, someone would finally notice the car at the bottom of the ravine ...

In this way, I just went "missing" for a season or so to those who knew me, and when they're finally told I'm gone, it's not quite such a shock.

But the real reason I picked this method, is twofold:  I get to stick it to a really annoying money-grabbing company by smashing one of their cars (well, this is really secondary, and the insurance covers the $$ anyway) and two:  I get to fly in a car.  How cool would that be? The quick-crunch at the end would be too fast to perceive, most likely. At any rate, high enough cliff, and it's certain to be fatal.

I think that the drop would be a very cool experience-- literally once in a lifetime.

Anyway, that's how I'd do it-- if I were even remotely inclined to 'exit stage left'.




_______________________________________________

_{* Edit: I've never been suicidal at all.  But, I do have one of those too-neat, you must consider every aspect of everything sorts of minds.  And, I also am a firm believer in thinking about the really serious decisions long before you need to actually make them.  I used to lecture kids about their decision to or not to engage in sex.  I advised them to consider it before they ever got seriously involved with someone.  In this way, they can make a decision in the cold light of rational thought--so that when the emotional moment came later (and I assured them it would) they would already have considered all the ramifications beforehand.  Then, if they went ahead, they could do so with both eyes open (and hopefully, with better preparedness and protection).  But, that is another topic completely.} 

[Opsa]

I have a friend who, when faced with a tough decision chants "sex or death? sex or death?" under her breath. I don't know if it helps. It's just a mantra of hers.

All this is reminding me of the suicide parlour scene in "Soylent Green". The old man dcides to go, checks into the nice place, and watches a pretty movie with nice music as he slips away. That doesn't sound so bad. Plus, they have everything right there to take care of the body. Except in that case, they made it into food for the starving masses. Oh well, waste not, want not.

But seriously, if you could go somewhere with the blessing of your family or not, have people there ready to help you and prepared to cope with your corpse right away, wow. No threat of flying cars falling on innocent campers, no inconvenienced commuters, no gooey walls, and hopefully no surprises.

I love the idea of having everyone screened for mental health. That makes so much sense. Our kids have to have checkups and proper innoculations for school, why can't we throw in emotional maintenance as well? Heaven knows we could use it.

I guess we would also have to work on stigmas about getting mental help, too. Those Columbine boys sure seemed to be asking for help, but would they have accepted it?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I love the idea of having everyone screened for mental health. That makes so much sense. Our kids have to have checkups and proper innoculations for school, why can't we throw in emotional maintenance as well? Heaven knows we could use it.

The problem is privacy. Your insurance pays for the stuff and your information is on file. At present time I wouldn't go farther than marriage counseling. Who knows where the information of therapy would go and when will it bite you in the @$$.
O_o

[Outis the Unready]

But a suicide is a huge weight in the direct family, particularily of children (and I don't necessarily mean small children). They will feel guilt and blame themselves for the act in the process to explain it, and once that happens they will be much more likely to follow the same path at some point.

Not really, no.

Children raised in an Abrahamic culture where suicide=failure, maybe, but not those raised with the idea of an honorable suicide.

After 13 years (dear gods! now it's almost 14!) with the same person, I can say that I would probably not be capable of functioning if I lost that person after 20 or 30 years.

To lay the type of burden that lack of functioning would encompass upon my family is out of the question.

I honestly don't think all adult partnerships have the type of intermingling of lives I'm speaking of, here, though. 

[Griffin NoName]

The problem is privacy. Your insurance pays for the stuff and your information is on file. At present time I wouldn't go farther than marriage counseling. Who knows where the information of therapy would go and when will it bite you in the @$$.
O_o

Privacy may be an issue over whether given a clean bill on mental health or not but if it were always routine to screen, many people would not be given a clean bill of health so it would have less "meaning".

Information as to content of therapy, in the UK, is totally confidential unless there's a risk of endangerment to self or others, for example terrorism - (although plenty of people disclose risk to self or others I doubt a terrorist would!!), or occasionally in court hearings, but even then it is not a simple process obtaining the information. If there is a need to disclose, the client's permission is sought. Therapists are also trained as to note taking and record keeping (ie what is actually commited to paper) with confidentiality in mind too. No one should ever feel they cannot talk to a therpaist for reasons of confidentiality. There has been a tendancy in the UK for people to keep quiet about seeing a therapist but it's becoming so common now that fewer and fewer people keep it a secret. What is more alarmingly still very common is for people to find a therapist without having a clue as to their training or qualification but the "industry" is making waves on that one.

Even when therapy is paid for by the insurer here (unusual) it is still confidential.

We also have a considerable number of charitable organisations which give therapy free or for fees commensurate with income. They would never disclose who their clients are.

The big scare here at present is the Governments attempts to put all our medical records on computer available to anyone who has a legitimate need for it...... they were not even going to ask our permission... now they seem to be saying we can opt out but have to do that before they enter the records... doctors are alarmed because they say their patients will stop telling them things...