Sophie T wrote:Surely the damage done to very young children by a parent who dies of suicide is even more significant than the damage done to adult children

That's what I was saying. Maybe I didn't express it very clearly. When Gallstones asked his question, I initially thought, in principle, that every person should feel free to opt off this mortal coil, and (perhaps) even be facilitated to find the most humane method, or at least not prevented or discouraged after all other reasonable options have been tried, regardless (in the final analysis) of how much it hurt others, but then it occured to me that one exception might be those who have chosen to bring a dependent child into the world. Even then, I wouldn't always say that this should be frowned upon in all circumstances, but as a general rule, it seems that such parents do have greater responsibilities to consider.

This is not at all to say I wouldn't have sympathy for the suffering of all those left behind, whatever age they are, but that ultimately I would not take away the individual right to choose to die in order to prevent other adults suffering.

In a way, something similar might be said about other types of responsibility for dependents, such as elderly and infirm parents or spouses ('for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, etc....) but a dependent child seems to me to be a special condideration, since they have never made a conscious decision to be in the relationship. In this sense, probably a child has more reason that most to be angry, the way I see it. And of course it's just my personal opinion.

Sophie T wrote:Suicide ends the life of the person who chooses to stop living, but, in many cases, it completely and permanently shatters the lives of the loved ones who are left behind.

I would imagine it does. And not just the loved ones but the loving ones too. A parent's worst nightmare is to have a teenager or young adult who kills themselves.

Excellent responses to my question people, thank you.

Dependent children and those who love certain others lose those others to disease or accident more often than they do to suicide. Are their lives less impacted because the parent/loved one died as result of disease or accident?

If there is an impending loss of a parent or loved one due to terminal illness, should that person be prevented from hastening his/her own demise?

If the pain suffered is intractable and is psychological and emotional rather than physical, why would such persons be vilified for choosing to hasten their demise? Why is their situation different?

Gallstones wrote:[code][/code]Dependent children and those who love certain others lose those others to disease or accident more often than they do to suicide. Are their lives less impacted because the parent/loved one died as result of disease or accident?

Possibly the issue of blame comes up here. If it's an accident or illness, most people, to a large extent at least, probably won't attach large quantities of blame to the dead person, generally speaking. An exception being someone who didn't stop smoking cigarettes for example. Young children however, may not be in a position to either understand this or process it so rationally, because of their dependent relationship. I think it's posible that a very young child might blame a parent for a very long time, because the impressions made at the time are hard to shake off, even when we mature.

And indeed many adults may attach a degree of blame, even if it's unreasonable ('why did he have to go on that stupid business trip to Moscow?' etc.)

With a suicide, the blame component is more clear cut, IMO, for example because the suicide may be seen as a rejection of the love of the loved one, especially if it's because of unhappiness rather than a terminal illness.

And of course, people (and again especially children perhaps) will blame themselves quite often, which is almost certainly irrational in the vast majority of cases.

In short, yes, more impact from a suicide, I think.

Of course, I am generalizing and only giving my opinion. Probably there are scenarios where things can be handled and explained better than others, even to children. And of course there is no one point at which a child suddenly becomes an adult.

Gallstones wrote:If there is an impending loss of a parent or loved one due to terminal illness, should that person be prevented from hastening his/her own demise?

Not in my opinion, assuming that the illness is definitely terminal and that the level of suffering/incapacity is high. I mean, such a parent is arguably not in a position to provide what a child needs, or it may at some point be considered unreasonable to expect them to suffer to the bitter end on behalf of the child, and there might in some cases be a fine balance between the loss on the one hand and the trauma of seeing a parent suffering on the other. But no two cases would be the same.

Gallstones wrote:If the pain suffered is intractable and is psychological and emotional rather than physical, why would such persons be vilified for choosing to hasten their demise? Why is their situation different?

The only difference I can think of is the possibility or impossibility of a cure, and the fact that in some cases the mentally ill person may not be aware of or able to avail of one.

Having said that, I personally wouldn't vilify anyone who committed suicide because of mental anguish. Generally speaking, if I hear of someone who killed themselves in these circumstances, I would tend to assume they must have gone through something pretty awful. And apart from anything else, it usually involves a degree of bravery, because it often involves a high risk of violence or pain. I had a girlfriend once whose brother drank weedkiller.

Hmmm. Lots of good points. Good questions, too. Tough questions. I wish I knew the answers.

One thought . . . if a person (who is not terminally ill in the physical sense) expresses a desire to end his life, I think it would be reasonable to conclude that this person may very well be reaching out for help. He may be saying, “I’m in unbearable emotional pain. I don’t see that I have any options other than to end my life so that this pain can end. Do you see that I have any other options?”

When a person is in physical pain, I think the reasonable thing to do (if we can’t treat the pain with simple home remedies) would be to direct that person to a qualified physician, who could then (hopefully) eliminate or reduce the pain and also treat the source of the pain. If a person who is not physically ill expresses a desire to die, I would personally interpret that (at least until I could know more) as a sign that that person is experiencing what he perceives to unbearable and permanent mental and/or emotional pain. If I didn’t feel that I was qualified to help the person explore options that would reduce or alleviate that pain, I would want to direct that person to a mental health professional who could assist the person in doing the same thing any other kind of doctor would do. i.e. employ various strategies to temporarily eliminate or reduce the pain while at the same time offering a treatment that could, hopefully, alleviate the cause of the pain.

Now if a mental health professional were to provide his or her professional opinion that the person he was treating was “terminally ill” --- or, in other words, if the professional deemed that the person’s emotional pain was not pain that could be treated or eliminated in any way, then I suppose we might have to consider offering the option of euthanasia (if that’s what the patient really wanted) in the same way I think the option of euthanasia should be offered to terminally ill patients in a great deal of physical pain. However, I’m not sure that there would be many mental health professionals who would actually come out with a diagnosis of a patient’s emotional pain as being pain that was wholly untreatable. Instead, I would hope that, at the very least, a qualified mental health professional could assist the person in seeing that he does have options and also in exploring those options. Perhaps one of those options would be euthanasia, but I would think that a heck of a lot of other options would have to be explored (including the option of second and third opinions from additional psychologists and psychiatrists) before the option of euthanasia could be seriously considered.

Whew! I just finished reading through this whole thread. Very, very interesting! I’ve learned a lot. One of the things I’ve learned from reading through the thread is that I need to take some time to sort out my own thoughts on this issue. I started out feeling one way about the issue, but now that I’ve read everyone else’s thoughts here, I’m not so sure what I think anymore. One thing, though--it definitely seems as if there are no easy answers.

I don’t know if Scott is still around in this thread, but if he is—after reading his posts, I did want to make one comment. Scott—I haven’t conversed with you before, and I don’t necessarily agree with everything you’ve said. I did just want to say, though, that you obviously have a very fine mind. As to the hallucination or the voice that you mentioned . . . given that you are so very skilled in pointing out fallacies and energetic in arguing for your point of view, I wondered if you might consider arguing just as energetically and skillfully with that voice that tells you that you’re worthless and unloved.
If that voice tells you that she hates you, maybe you could tell her that you hate her right back.

If she says, “You’re unloved,” counter with, “You’re not real!”

If she says, “You’re an idiot,” say, “It takes one to know one!”

If she says, “People are mean to you!” Say, "No. You're the one who is mean." Then tell that voice that you can't control how anyone else behaves. You can only control yourself.

Call that voice on all of her ad hominem attacks and fallacious arguments. Once she realizes those won't work on you, I bet you that she'll go away. Anyway, even though I don’t know you, I do wish you all good things. I’m sorry that you’re in pain. I hope you stick around for a long time so that you can continue to mature and to develop and to have the opportunity to get back some of the joy that I’m sure you give to others.

Hi Sophie T and welcome.
That's very kind of you to encourage Scott in that way.

Thank you for the welcome, Agrippina. And I should add that I enjoyed reading your posts to this thread. Although I don't necessarily agree with every single point you made, I did agree with and appreciate many points that you made. It's very helpful (and educational) to hear so many different perspectives. I look forward to reading (and learning) more!

Sophie T wrote:Thank you for the welcome, Agrippina. And I should add that I enjoyed reading your posts to this thread. Although I don't necessarily agree with every single point you made, I did agree with and appreciate many points that you made. It's very helpful (and educational) to hear so many different perspectives. I look forward to reading (and learning) more!

Great I always enjoy chatting to people who challenge me to rethink if I'm a bit off track. I don't mind if people don't agree with what I say. What other topics are you interested in, I can possibly direct you if you send me a PM.

Sophie T wrote:One thought . . . if a person (who is not terminally ill in the physical sense) expresses a desire to end his life, I think it would be reasonable to conclude that this person may very well be reaching out for help. He may be saying, “I’m in unbearable emotional pain. I don’t see that I have any options other than to end my life so that this pain can end. Do you see that I have any other options?”

Yes, this sounds like it would sum up a lot of suicides (Japanese Kamikazes are the first exception to spring to mind, but there are bound to be many other exceptions too). Even those individuals who don't issue the prior cry for help to others may still be 'saying' (feeling) the same thing internally, and possibly communicating it to others in non-verbal ways, perhaps because they find it difficult to articulate.

Sophie T wrote:Now if a mental health professional were to provide his or her professional opinion that the person he was treating was “terminally ill” --- or, in other words, if the professional deemed that the person’s emotional pain was not pain that could be treated or eliminated in any way, then I suppose we might have to consider offering the option of euthanasia (if that’s what the patient really wanted) in the same way I think the option of euthanasia should be offered to terminally ill patients in a great deal of physical pain. However, I’m not sure that there would be many mental health professionals who would actually come out with a diagnosis of a patient’s emotional pain as being pain that was wholly untreatable. Instead, I would hope that, at the very least, a qualified mental health professional could assist the person in seeing that he does have options and also in exploring those options. Perhaps one of those options would be euthanasia, but I would think that a heck of a lot of other options would have to be explored (including the option of second and third opinions from additional psychologists and psychiatrists) before the option of euthanasia could be seriously considered.

I suppose you might get a situation where a combination of, say, senility in very old age and mental anguish might be considered untreatable, but by and large I don't think the professionals would or could often consider that there are no more options, even if (let's face it) their current array of options is ....not that brilliantly effective, in many cases.....yet. :]

The individual is, at least in most developed countries that I know of, free to 'take the only remaining option' at any point, since suicide is often legal. But he/she can't be assisted, is how I generally understand it. Even in those countries where euthanasia is legal, I believe the laws and rules are complicated.

Seems to me like it's basically a group morality thing, where suicide and euthanasia have historically been seen as undesirable from a tribal point of view, perhaps being coded into religious morality along the way. And we do have a highly developed sense of empathy into the bargain.

Of course, many of us now live in more amorphous and anonymous societies where 'small tribe' rules no longer have the same imperative (though we still stick to them in many ways) and the rights and considerations of the individual have come to the fore, which can be problematic.

And of course, the old tribal morality may have come from a need to preserve and enhance the size of tribe membership, which is almost exactly the reverse of our best interests nowadays. :]

I imagine there are considerations other than just pure numbers of people. In terms of costs to the tribe/society, it may stll be the case that there is a downside for those left behind in terms of picking up the pieces (even financially speaking) and I suppose this can be balanced against the costs of preferring treatments other than 'the only remaining option'.

And these are just some thoughts on the wider perspectives. At a personal level, every suicide is sad.

Sophie T wrote:I don’t know if Scott is still around in this thread, but if he is—after reading his posts, I did want to make one comment. Scott—I haven’t conversed with you before, and I don’t necessarily agree with everything you’ve said. I did just want to say, though, that you obviously have a very fine mind. As to the hallucination or the voice that you mentioned . . . given that you are so very skilled in pointing out fallacies and energetic in arguing for your point of view, I wondered if you might consider arguing just as energetically and skillfully with that voice that tells you that you’re worthless and unloved.
If that voice tells you that she hates you, maybe you could tell her that you hate her right back.

If she says, “You’re unloved,” counter with, “You’re not real!”

If she says, “You’re an idiot,” say, “It takes one to know one!”

Yes, I'm still around and watching over this thread. I also appreciate your encouragement on the matter of my auditory hallucination.

Believe it or not, I do argue with this hallucination. I try to do it politely at first, but when she continues, I go to great lengths to humiliate her on what a torturer she is (going so far as to sing songs about how she is a 'torturer b*tch' -- which is unfortunate, since I hate using the B-word).

After I posted my 'final rebuttal' in which I mentioned Cho's shooting and called my opponents 'the stupid people,' the auditory hallucination hesitated -- just saying, "...what?" -- and then briefly vanished, rewarding me with momentary peace.

I understand that one of your arguments against voluntary euthanasia is that it could hurt those close to the victim. If you want to go look, I addressed these objections on page one and page five:

"If they don't like the idea, then we can at least tentatively forbid parents to euthanize themselves without consent of their families, providing euthanasia instead to those who are left alone, heartbroken and desolate. At the same time, we may encourage citizens to accept the responsibilities of parenthood (staying alive for your children) before they choose to have children, thereby placing the responsibility to suffer if needed on the prospective parent, rather than the baby, as is done today."

"Agrippina's main objection seems to be that voluntary euthanasia would result in more suffering for those close to the one dying than it would eliminate from the latter. In that case, how about this: we legalize euthanasia, but require family consent before anyone chooses to be euthanized. Your friend on the street might not want you to, but at least your family would be able to have a say, and I think we need to do what we can to be fair to people who are made to suffer."

Scott H wrote:"If they don't like the idea, then we can at least tentatively forbid parents to euthanize themselves without consent of their families, providing euthanasia instead to those who are left alone, heartbroken and desolate. At the same time, we may encourage citizens to accept the responsibilities of parenthood (staying alive for your children) before they choose to have children, thereby placing the responsibility to suffer if needed on the prospective parent, rather than the baby, as is done today."

"Agrippina's main objection seems to be that voluntary euthanasia would result in more suffering for those close to the one dying than it would eliminate from the latter. In that case, how about this: we legalize euthanasia, but require family consent before anyone chooses to be euthanized. Your friend on the street might not want you to, but at least your family would be able to have a say, and I think we need to do what we can to be fair to people who are made to suffer."

Why would it be ok for family members to torture each other in such a manner, but not friends who are just as or even closer to them. Why draw such an arbitrary line as to whom is allowed to torture who. I think that needs to be addressed before I could call these answers to the objection, the ones close to the victim are not always family members, and sometimes aren't the family members at all.

XiledSpawn wrote:Why would it be ok for family members to torture each other in such a manner, but not friends who are just as or even closer to them. Why draw such an arbitrary line as to whom is allowed to torture who. I think that needs to be addressed before I could call these answers to the objection, the ones close to the victim are not always family members, and sometimes aren't the family members at all.

Well, we could require family consent, but you bring up a good point, and that's that it would be nice if a bond of empathy existed between family members that prevents anyone from being made to suffer. I brought this up on page five:

"In any loving relationship, there ought to be a bond of empathy that prevents two parties from having conflicting interests. It should either be easy for the 'sufferer' to live with joy for another, or easy for the close friend or relative to accept the decision of the sufferer to end his or her life."

Gallstones wrote:
If the pain suffered is intractable and is psychological and emotional rather than physical, why would such persons be vilified for choosing to hasten their demise? Why is their situation different?

For the most part psychological pain which leads to suicide is temporary, almost all depressions, while they can be recurring are temporary, with the exception of those that end in suicide. So one major difference is tat with treatment psychological and emotional pain can be cured, or at least severely lessened.
I don't know it there are things other than depression that could cause psychological or emotional pain to that degree, so I'm only referring to depression here.
Also, just to note, I don't think any suicides should be vilified, I understand why those close to a suicide might do so, expressing their own hurt anger etc., but in principal I don't think it's either good or productive.

Sadly such things are not possible, as even that would cause suffering for the individual, as they would realize the magnitude of how much you still care for them.

Me on Page 5 wrote:if the feelings of wanting someone around is torture to that person then to truly care for them and not torture them with what you want of them (to stay alive) then you would have to detach yourself from the person, aka forget them. I was just pointing out that doing this is a dick move, just as trying to convince them to stay alive for you're own needs is as well.

Death is never easy.

as Gallstones said in response to my post, "Rocks and hard places".

Sophie T wrote:Whew! I just finished reading through this whole thread. Very, very interesting! I’ve learned a lot. One of the things I’ve learned from reading through the thread is that I need to take some time to sort out my own thoughts on this issue. I started out feeling one way about the issue, but now that I’ve read everyone else’s thoughts here, I’m not so sure what I think anymore. One thing, though--it definitely seems as if there are no easy answers.

I don’t know if Scott is still around in this thread, but if he is—after reading his posts, I did want to make one comment. Scott—I haven’t conversed with you before, and I don’t necessarily agree with everything you’ve said. I did just want to say, though, that you obviously have a very fine mind. As to the hallucination or the voice that you mentioned . . . given that you are so very skilled in pointing out fallacies and energetic in arguing for your point of view, I wondered if you might consider arguing just as energetically and skillfully with that voice that tells you that you’re worthless and unloved.
If that voice tells you that she hates you, maybe you could tell her that you hate her right back.

If she says, “You’re unloved,” counter with, “You’re not real!”

If she says, “You’re an idiot,” say, “It takes one to know one!”

If she says, “People are mean to you!” Say, "No. You're the one who is mean." Then tell that voice that you can't control how anyone else behaves. You can only control yourself.

Call that voice on all of her ad hominem attacks and fallacious arguments. Once she realizes those won't work on you, I bet you that she'll go away. Anyway, even though I don’t know you, I do wish you all good things. I’m sorry that you’re in pain. I hope you stick around for a long time so that you can continue to mature and to develop and to have the opportunity to get back some of the joy that I’m sure you give to others.

I think this is all excellent advice Sophie. Brilliant thinking you've done.

If we are going to use the argument that loved ones will suffer from the loss of the one who elects to opt out of life on his/her own terms, then we have to accept that that is an argument from selfishness. If the loved one is so important then those who would have him/her seek options to relieve the desire to die need to be proactive before the loved one gets to the point of suicide. They have to be willing to take on responsibility of ministering to that loved one as needed for as long as needed to affect the mental change that causes an abandonment of the suicide option. This goes beyond placing responsibility on the professionals to prescribe the correct medication or the correct therapy. If you want the person to stay alive for the duration of his/her natural life because you don't want to lose him/her, then you bear some responsibility to be proactive in facilitating that. It can be a horrific burden though and a discouraging one too.

shh wrote:

Gallstones wrote:
If the pain suffered is intractable and is psychological and emotional rather than physical, why would such persons be vilified for choosing to hasten their demise? Why is their situation different?

For the most part psychological pain which leads to suicide is temporary, almost all depressions, while they can be recurring are temporary, with the exception of those that end in suicide. So one major difference is tat with treatment psychological and emotional pain can be cured, or at least severely lessened.
I don't know it there are things other than depression that could cause psychological or emotional pain to that degree, so I'm only referring to depression here.
Also, just to note, I don't think any suicides should be vilified, I understand why those close to a suicide might do so, expressing their own hurt anger etc., but in principal I don't think it's either good or productive.

But how much recurrence of that kind of psychological pain must an individual endure to please the wishes of loved ones? And why must recurrent psychological suffering be endured when the same demands in the face of physical suffering is not?

Gallstones wrote:If we are going to use the argument that loved ones will suffer from the loss of the one who elects to opt out of life on his/her own terms, then we have to accept that that is an argument from selfishness.

I can't tell if you are talking to me or people on previous pages.

Gallstones wrote:

Sophie T wrote:Whew! I just finished reading through this whole thread. Very, very interesting! I’ve learned a lot. One of the things I’ve learned from reading through the thread is that I need to take some time to sort out my own thoughts on this issue. I started out feeling one way about the issue, but now that I’ve read everyone else’s thoughts here, I’m not so sure what I think anymore. One thing, though--it definitely seems as if there are no easy answers.

I don’t know if Scott is still around in this thread, but if he is—after reading his posts, I did want to make one comment. Scott—I haven’t conversed with you before, and I don’t necessarily agree with everything you’ve said. I did just want to say, though, that you obviously have a very fine mind. As to the hallucination or the voice that you mentioned . . . given that you are so very skilled in pointing out fallacies and energetic in arguing for your point of view, I wondered if you might consider arguing just as energetically and skillfully with that voice that tells you that you’re worthless and unloved.
If that voice tells you that she hates you, maybe you could tell her that you hate her right back.

If she says, “You’re unloved,” counter with, “You’re not real!”

If she says, “You’re an idiot,” say, “It takes one to know one!”

If she says, “People are mean to you!” Say, "No. You're the one who is mean." Then tell that voice that you can't control how anyone else behaves. You can only control yourself.

Call that voice on all of her ad hominem attacks and fallacious arguments. Once she realizes those won't work on you, I bet you that she'll go away. Anyway, even though I don’t know you, I do wish you all good things. I’m sorry that you’re in pain. I hope you stick around for a long time so that you can continue to mature and to develop and to have the opportunity to get back some of the joy that I’m sure you give to others.

I think this is all excellent advice Sophie. Brilliant thinking you've done.

We need to be very careful here, treating an hallucination as real is almost always considered an escalation of a delusional state, advised coping mechanisms are usually distraction, reading aloud, singing aloud etc. The advice here is almost directly opposed to the professional advice I've seen. The hallucination is not a person that will be affected by rational argument.

But how much recurrence of that kind of psychological pain must an individual endure to please the wishes of loved ones?

None imo, not to please anyone at all, but to not throw away a possible healthy life for the sake of transient pain.

And why must recurrent psychological suffering be endured when the same demands in the face of physical suffering is not?

It isn't necessarily recurring, it just can be. As far as I'm concerned, a person has every right to kill themselves whenever and however they want, but, in the case of doing so to alleviate pain, it's worth considering that the pain might be, in fact is very likely to be, capable of being dealt with without resorting to suicide.
In short, if a person is going to kill themselves to get rid of unendurable suffering it should be made clear that the suffering can be dealt/reduced/made bearable with without suicide. I don't see any reason to distinguish between physical mental and emotional pain, other than that with physical pain that's unendurable death may be the only way to alleviate it, in the vast majority of emotional and psychological pain, that's not the case.

Gallstones wrote:
I think this is all excellent advice Sophie. Brilliant thinking you've done.

Thank you, Gallstones.

And thank you to everyone here who has made such kind and perceptive contributions.

I do want to clarify just one thing. I didn't mean to vilify victims of suicide, and if, in expressing the pain I have experienced as a result of my own loved one dying of suicide, I gave the impression that I think those who complete suicide are awful, horrible, selfish people, then I apologize. I don't feel that way at all. On the contrary, my own pain is not just the result of my very great sense of loss, it's also a result of the deep sadness I feel as a result of my inability and my failure to have acted in a way that could have possibly prevented my father from reaching a point in his life in which he believed that suicide was his only (or his best) option.

I think it was Shh (or perhaps someone else) who said something along the lines of it not being "good" to either feel or to express anger, etc., about a family member's choice to end his or her own life. While I'm not at all offended by that comment, I do disagree with it. I don't think there is any "feeling" that is necessarily bad as long as one recognizes it as a feeling. For that reason, I also don't think that an expression of one's feelings is a bad thing. I will agree, though, that in a rational exchange of ideas regarding a certain subject, the way one may feel about that subject is not something that should be used in the formation of a rational argument. Because of that, I would withdraw my own argument, the "argument from pain" if you want to call it that because I'm not sure that it's relevant.

Having said all of that, I also want to say that in the brief amount of time in which I've participated in this thread, I've come to the realization that this issue is still far too raw (and may forever be too raw) for me to even begin discussing it in any sort of rational manner. At the very least, it's too painful for me to discuss it in a public forum. On the one hand, the subject is one that interests me, which is why I posted here to begin with. On the other hand, I was completely unprepared for the amount of anxiety that such a discussion produces in me. I think it's good when people can recognize their our limitations, and for me, I am now aware that my perception of this issue is so strongly colored by my own loss that it's probably best for me to avoid any attempts to weigh in (in this kind of forum) with my own personal opinions and thoughts.

Normally, if I'm not going to continue participating in a thread, I don't see the need to make an announcement about it. In this case, though, I feel a little differently because of the nature of the subject being discussed and because of all the very kind, supportive, and thoughtful statements that have been made. While I don't see myself participating in this thread from this point forward, I will definitely read it from time to time. I'm very impressed with the intellectual integrity that has (for the most part) characterized the exchange of ideas I've observed here, and I'm grateful for having the opportunity to read what is being written so that, over time, my own thoughts about this difficult subject can continue to evolve.

Thank you to everyone who has participated here and especially to those who have provided such sensitive and thoughtful responses to my own contributions. I have learned from you!