Legality of Suicide

[Nessus]

Generally speaking Life's only function appears to be to continue living. Individual living things all attempt to stay alive as long as possible, unless the individual death promotes the continuance of the species --- and unless the individual is defective somehow. Taking this line of reasoning as premise, no healthy human individual should want to commit suicide. Conversely, if a human wants to commit suicide, it is unhealthy and usually we try to help unhealthy people become healthy, especially when probable death is involved. Actually aiding a suicide, rather than helping an individual get better, is a lot like murder.

What a splendid display of circular reasoning, religious upbringings do wonders for the mind

On the off-chance you're not just trolling, you honestly can't see how, say, antibiotics etc argue against your favour here? "Life's" functions are dictated by the law of large numbers, the individual is meaningless and thereby a singular suicide has no bearing on what you're trying to say here. The "function" of "life" is not to perpetuate as many individuals to as long an existence in space-time as possible, if anything it's concerned with passing the code along. If the code was "transcribed" incorrectly, then it doesn't "deserve" to get passed on, whereby suicide is not only reasonable, it is in fact demanded by the dicdatum of "Life". See how vague and vapid metaphors can be used to argue whatever position one finds fanciable?

[EyeKhan]

What a splendid display of circular reasoning, religious upbringings do wonders for the mind

On the off-chance you're not just trolling, you honestly can't see how, say, antibiotics etc argue against your favour here? "Life's" functions are dictated by the law of large numbers, the individual is meaningless and thereby a singular suicide has no bearing on what you're trying to say here. The "function" of "life" is not to perpetuate as many individuals to as long an existence in space-time as possible, if anything it's concerned with passing the code along. If the code was "transcribed" incorrectly, then it doesn't "deserve" to get passed on, whereby suicide is not only reasonable, it is in fact demanded by the dicdatum of "Life". See how vague and vapid metaphors can be used to argue whatever position one finds fanciable?

I wrote that for you. Somewhere in your cob-webby mind you should have memories of me arguing staunchly for assisted suicide....


Anyway, I can't think of any non-human species where individuals gladly destroy themselves. Yes, some die after breeding. Some get eaten after breeding. Some altruistically sacrifice themselves to save the herd, or nest or whatever. And certainly the argument is true that generational turnover is the key to evolution and so once an individual breeds succesfully, it's better for all if it died. But do any individual non-human animals kill themselves....just because they've had enough of life?

[GGT]

If someone wants to talk about attempted suicide than they should say attempted suicide. The law in any jurisdiction that matters here has also draws a distinction between attempting an act and succeeding at that act. The former is of far less interest and is responded to far less severely.

Furthermore given that we don't prosecute the dead (except trial by media sometimes) its already the case that this does not apply to successful completions apart from trying those who assist etc

I see what you mean about the semantics. For the most part we've been talking about individuals attempting suicide, and laws written to allow police or health professionals to intervene (even if it's against the person's will). I assumed suicide being illegal covered attempts and assists, whether 'successful' or not. Is it different by jurisdiction?

"Posing imminent danger or threat to self or others" can be used to detain someone for 24-48 hour mental health observation, followed by a court hearing, and usually court-ordered psych treatment. Attempting suicide is considered "severe", especially for minors or dependents, and the legal system kicks in....compelling Social Services, Family Services, Legal Aid and court advocates, plus psych/mental health professionals to intervene and follow-up.

I'm not sure how laws would be written to still allow "mandatory evaluation" for mentally ill people acting out violently....but I think de-criminalizing attempted suicide would go a long way toward de-stigmatizing mental illness. That would encourage people to seek help well before they're having suicidal ideations, or making active attempts. As minx said:

Suicide being illegal doesn't have to have anything to do with justifying forced therapy. It has to do with an outdated approach to suicide-prevention through deterrence and it has to do with the notion that taking a life is wrong, even if it's your own life.

Recall the guy who shot the Arizona Congresswoman and killed a half dozen or so others? He was mentally ill when he pulled the trigger, was medicated in jail against his will to get him suitable for trial, then he was sentenced to life in prison after a guilty plee. They might have given him a death sentance had he not bargained down to life. Isn't that prosecuting the mentally ill? I, like you, thought insanity would have been taken into consideration in his defense. Apparently he was so heavily sedated during his sentancing that he was barely responsive. Is this justice? Can there be any justice in such a situation?

He'd be prosecuted for murder and attempted murder, regardless of his mental state. Sad to say, but not everyone who kills is psychotic. And not everyone in a full-blown psychotic episode is legally or criminally "insane". But the mentally ill can still be persecuted....by our culture and society. That may be too strong a word, but many employers consider it too risky to hire someone with schizophrenia or PTSD (vets). Even families are attune to the stigma, and don't like others knowing about 'the crazy Aunt in the attic'.

[Aimless]

This may be of some interest:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923

many suicidal acts — one third to four fifths of all suicide attempts, according to studies — are impulsive. Among people who made near-lethal suicide attempts, for example, 24% took less than 5 minutes between the decision to kill themselves and the actual attempt, and 70% took less than 1 hour.2

Second, many suicidal crises are self-limiting. Such crises are often caused by an immediate stressor, such as the breakup of a romantic relationship, the loss of a job, or a run-in with police. As the acute phase of the crisis passes, so does the urge to attempt suicide. The temporary nature and fleeting sway of many suicidal crises is evident in the fact that more than 90% of people who survive a suicide attempt, including attempts that were expected to be lethal (such as shooting oneself in the head or jumping in front of a train), do not go on to die by suicide. Indeed, recognizing the self-limiting nature of suicidal crises, penal and psychiatric institutions restrict access to lethal means for persons identified as potentially suicidal.

[GGT]

....
Anyway, I can't think of any non-human species where individuals gladly destroy themselves. Yes, some die after breeding. Some get eaten after breeding. Some altruistically sacrifice themselves to save the herd, or nest or whatever.

And certainly the argument is true that generational turnover is the key to evolution and so once an individual breeds succesfully, it's better for all if it died.

How are you making that extrapolation? Human civilization would go to hell pretty fast if people died after "breeding". Especially males.

But do any individual non-human animals kill themselves....just because they've had enough of life?

Yes. Marine mammals sometimes "beach" themselves, almost like attempted suicide. But we don't know why.

[Veldan Rath]

Huh, if I had to hear the female whales bitching at me all day long like that, I'd be on the beach too, trying my damnest to get run over by a tractor trailer truck.