Boer: I was wrong — Euthanasia has a slippery slope

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

It's only a slippery slope if you don't believe that a person has every right to do as they wish with their own body.

Should we abolish suicide prevention?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Should we abolish suicide prevention?

Probably not, since 99% of suicide prevention groups are private and/or not-for-profit.

Kind of a reach suggesting that based on my comment.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Economics will come in to play and already does. We are already denying people medication that may save their life because it costs too much. This is already happening. Our healthcare is unsustainable

True. Those are policy decisions based on where to allocate resources. I could see further such decisions as budgets face further stress. Not ideal but as you said the healthcare situation is unsustainable.

The point I was trying to make is that the choice to terminate or not a specific life based on economics is a bad situation. If there is policy that treatment is not given after a certain point that's unfortunate but maybe necessary. Making that decision individually based on ability to pay is problematic

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Probably not, since 99% of suicide prevention groups are private and/or not-for-profit.

Kind of a reach suggesting that based on my comment.

I'm not suggesting it, I'm asking where the line is. You're saying let people do what they want with their bodies, I'm only trying to ask where your line is. I agree with you, but I don't think most people have thought this through. So we let a teenager commit suicide? It's what they want to do with their body. It's the logical extreme and nobody would agree with it, but still it falls under a blanket statement like that. Who can/can't do what they want with their body then when it comes to suicide?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'm not suggesting it, I'm asking where the line is. You're saying let people do what they want with their bodies, I'm only trying to are where your line is. I agree with you, but I don't think most peepee have thought this through. So we let a teenager commit suicide? It's what they want to do with their body. It's the logical extreme and nobody would agree with it, but still it falls under a blanket statement like that. Who can/can't do what they want with their body then when it comes to suicide?

You're going to a ludicrous end however.

Making something legal doesn't mean that we should remove (or make illegal ) therapeutic recourse.

Making statements like that does nothing to help your argument.

At hand, right-to-die means that people who want to end their life can seek a legal, clean, and dignified alternative to stepping in front of a C-Train, and that benefits everyone.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

You're going to a ludicrous end however.

Making something legal doesn't mean that we should remove (or make illegal ) therapeutic recourse.

Making statements like that does nothing to help your argument.

At hand, right-to-die means that people who want to end their life can seek a legal, clean, and dignified alternative to stepping in front of a C-Train, and that benefits everyone.

Again, I'm agreeing with you. The point of the article was this idea is much more difficult to define and you still haven't. Who can choose to die and who can't?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Again, I'm agreeing with you. The point of the article was this idea is much more difficult to define and you still haven't. Who can choose to die and who can't?

Anyone can choose to die in a variety of ways. Your piont about preventing suicide is different than actually trying to stop suicide. Preventing is important in the way of offering avenues for psychological help for troubled people, but in the end if those things don't work there's not much you can do.

Same with people with physical health issues. Do all you can to help the person become healthy again, but if the doctors have essentially given up (hospice, assisted living, medically induced comas, high level pain meds so they can die slowly, but comfortably, etc...), why is it so bad that the person has too?

Relating it to something like teen suicide, keeping people on life support who don't want to be there is essentially the same as trying to go around preventing everyone from walking in front of trains, moving crash mats under jumpers, etc etc. Which is nice to try, but its an exercise in futility as the act of suicide is not the problem, it's the issues that lead to it.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Anyone can choose to die in a variety of ways. Your piont about preventing suicide is different than actually trying to stop suicide. Preventing is important in the way of offering avenues for psychological help for troubled people, but in the end if those things don't work there's not much you can do.

Same with people with physical health issues. Do all you can to help the person become healthy again, but if the doctors have essentially given up (hospice, assisted living, medically induced comas, etc...), why is it so bad that the person has too?

Relating it to something like teen suicide, keeping people on life support who don't want to be there is essentially the same as trying to go around preventing everyone from walking in front of trains, moving crash mats under jumpers, etc etc. Which is nice to try, but its an exercise in futility as the act of suicide is not the problem, it's the issues that lead to it.

Sure, but that wasn't really what I'm getting at.

Pretty much all of us agree about the right to die. The trouble is, if that's given as a right, where do we draw the line?

People often talk about terminal cancer and want to limit it to that. That works, but leaves out lots of other people needlessly suffering. There isn't a magical line. If you leave it where doctors have given up, what about cancer patients who don't want the slim chance for a couple more months of it just prolongs suffering?

Someone posted an article about end of life that was very enlightening (Russic?). It was called "How Doctors Die" and reaffirmed my belief in right to die. However, having a lot of family in Holland, I know they have changed their opinions a bit.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Sure, but that wasn't really what I'm getting at.

Pretty much all of us agree about the right to die. The trouble is, if that's given as a right, where do we draw the line?

People often talk about terminal cancer and want to limit it to that. That works, but leaves out lots of other people needlessly suffering. There isn't a magical line. If you leave it where doctors have given up, what about cancer patients who don't want the slim chance for a couple more months of it just prolongs suffering?

Someone posted an article about end of life that was very enlightening (Russic?). It was called "How Doctors Die" and reaffirmed my belief in right to die. However, having a lot of family in Holland, I know they have changed their opinions a bit.

And again, why does there need to be a line?

If someone wants to die with assistance, they should have that right.

Pretty much that same logic that is applied to safe-injection sites and abortion clinics. Giving someone the safe option to perform a self-harming act is in every possible case less harmful to society than forcing them to act on it privately.

[Coach]

^^^ I would say there is no line really. If someone wants to die, whatever the reason is, all that can be done is to offer them help and guidance. If its a psychological issue, therapy and things like that can certainly help, but if they don't they are likely to find ways to off themselves regardless.

The problem is generally people in intensive medical care don't have that choice. They may not be strong or mobile enough to physically pull the plug. If a person decides they are in too much pain and want to end it, especially if they are already basically maxed out on pain killers, who is to say otherwise? It's obviously very sad and tragic for the people that love them, but in the end it's their choice. And at least this way they have an understanding as to why.

There's some notions in here that people are not of the right mind at these points and thus shouldn't be making the choice for themselves, but to me that's wrong. Even if someone has written in their will that they want to be kept alive under any circumstance, they have no idea what type of pain or trauma they might incurr at the time of writing that. The reason they are so distraught and out of mind in those moments is because they are so desparate for relief.

I guess what I'm saying is that "normal" people tend to assume that the desire to die itself is a crazy notion and so someone who wants that must not be of their right mind. And I don't necessarily think that's true.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

And again, why does there need to be a line?

If someone wants to die with assistance, they should have that right.

Pretty much that same logic that is applied to safe-injection sites and abortion clinics. Giving someone the safe option to perform a self-harming act is in every possible case less harmful to society than forcing them to act on it privately.

I disagree. Safe injection is not a permanent life ending act, it is by definition "harm-reduction" which is the exact opposite of assisted suicide. Abortion clinics are closer to that, but again harm reduction for the person we believe is the decision maker. That also is still the opposite.

Assisted suicide is a permanent intervention and runs completely counter to improving health, which is our health care mandate. How many people who have seriously considered suicide are now very thankful they didn't go through with it? The answer is many

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Assisted suicide is a permanent intervention and runs completely counter to improving health, which is our health care mandate. How many people who have seriously considered suicide are now very thankful they didn't go through with it? The answer is many

Using an anecdotal reference to reinforce a point is specious.

Aside from that, an argument can be made that assisted suicide can itself be a form of harm reduction, again, not to the individual, but to society as a whole.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Using an anecdotal reference to reinforce a point is specious.

Are you then suggesting that free and open suicide should be available to anyone? If not I'm simply asking who may not, or what barriers should there be. There is ample evidence on attempted suicide regret, and I could link if you like, though it should be common sense. I'm for assisted suicide, but believe there needs to be well thought out safe guards here. You seem to believe it's open for everyone for any reason with our without psychiatric intervention. Is that correct?

Aside from that, an argument can be made that assisted suicide can itself be a form of harm reduction, again, not to the individual, but to society as a whole.

Most suicides are impulse, not well thought out. I highly doubt having an assisted suicide program would curb the number of people jumping in front of a train or shooting themselves on the head or swallowing all of their pills

[Coach]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Using an anecdotal reference to reinforce a point is specious.

Aside from that, an argument can be made that assisted suicide can itself be a form of harm reduction, again, not to the individual, but to society as a whole.

It also depends on what you consider "harm". Is being in constant pain or feeling like you are not even a person anymore not a harmful to that individual?

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Most suicides are impulse, not well thought out. I highly doubt having an assisted suicide program would curb the number of people jumping in front of a train or shooting themselves on the head or swallowing all of their pills

This is an interesting point. I'm not sure if it's true that most suicides are impulse decisions as I would think most people who come to that conclusion have likely thought about it at least a few times before.

Maybe for something like assisted suicide for people who are more or less "healthy" would be something along the lines of having to go through a certain amount of treatment attempts before qualifying for it. At least then you can try and help the people who are seeking it. And if suicide is their end choice, maybe some of their loved ones can end up convincing them otherwise. As generally something like suicide is never brought up with those groups of people before the act occurs. That's why most times people are taken by surprise when it happens. Maybe putting it out in the open rather than tip toeing around it is the solution, or at least part of it.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Are you then suggesting that free and open suicide should be available to anyone?

Yes. It already is, just not safely/legally.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

You seem to believe it's open for everyone for any reason with our without psychiatric intervention. Is that correct?

Again, yes.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Most suicides are impulse, not well thought out. I highly doubt having an assisted suicide program would curb the number of people jumping in front of a train or shooting themselves on the head or swallowing all of their pills

This is simply conjecture not based in existing fact.

Essentially:

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Yes. It already is, just not safely/legally.

True, but you provide no good reason to change that.

Again, yes.

What if I told you after psychiatric intervention many people would be glad they didn't commit suicide? If we don't at bare minimum require psychiatric intervention, we lose 100% of people.

This is simply conjecture not based in existing fact.

Essentially:

No, it's more than that.

The best study done to date showed that 90% of people pulled back from the Golden Gate Bridge never tried to commit suicide again (Richard Seiden). Reattempts for adolescents are between 6-15%. If these people thought it out so well and for so long, why did they give up after the first attempt? Could it be that suicide is often an acute answer to larger problem? Are you suggesting there's no benefit to ensuring intervention?

There's ample evidence to show acute factors being the largest contributors to suicidal behaviour. That by definition makes it essentially an impulse behaviour.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MattyC

It also depends on what you consider "harm". Is being in constant pain or feeling like you are not even a person anymore not a harmful to that individual?



This is an interesting point. I'm not sure if it's true that most suicides are impulse decisions as I would think most people who come to that conclusion have likely thought about it at least a few times before.

Maybe for something like assisted suicide for people who are more or less "healthy" would be something along the lines of having to go through a certain amount of treatment attempts before qualifying for it. At least then you can try and help the people who are seeking it. And if suicide is their end choice, maybe some of their loved ones can end up convincing them otherwise. As generally something like suicide is never brought up with those groups of people before the act occurs. That's why most times people are taken by surprise when it happens. Maybe putting it out in the open rather than tip toeing around it is the solution, or at least part of it.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-ma...ity/#Simon2005

9/10 people in this study contemplated suicide for less than one day. That is impulse behaviour in my mind.


I believe at the bare minimum a psychiatric intervention is required before we assist suicide. However, due to the impulsive nature, I don't see those 9/10 making an appointment before acting. PsYcHnEt is flat out wrong here

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-ma...ity/#Simon2005

9/10 people in this study contemplated suicide for less than one day. That is impulse behaviour in my mind.


I believe at the bare minimum a psychiatric intervention is required before we assist suicide. However, due to the impulsive nature, I don't see those 9/10 making an appointment before acting. PsYcHnEt is flat out wrong here

What I think you're missing, is that I think people should be able to make the decision to end their lives in a manner that does not harm others or damage infrastructure by their own choice.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

What I think you're missing, is that I think people should be able to make the decision to end their lives in a manner that does not harm others or damage infrastructure by their own choice.

That I agree with, but I think a psychiatric consult at a minimum should be necessary. Your harm reduction is wrong though, as it would not really decrease the number of people jumping in front of trains by much. Without psychiatric consult I believe we're simply creating a bigger problem.

The right to die is not the same as the right to have help doing it

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

That I agree with, but I think a psychiatric consult at a minimum should be necessary. Your harm reduction is wrong though, as it would not really decrease the number of people jumping in front of trains by much. Without psychiatric consult I believe we're simply creating a bigger problem.

The right to die is not the same as the right to have help doing it

I agree you need the psychiatric consult and probably a 'cool-down' period of some time before it actually happens. The one issue that is brought up in the article is the doctors.

Not many are going to sign-off on a death for a physically healthy person (hippocratic oath and all of that). In the end it should be the individuals choice. The doctor could say here's a plan and I think we can deal with this but I don't think you can ask a doctor to sign off to approve death especially with our current lack of understanding of mental health.