Baudrillard's going to laugh in his grave for this one.

Our modern society has tried so hard to defeat death that we have essentially surrounded ourselves in it. Once we've made machines that try to defeat death, the only natural extension is to make machines that do the exact opposite, since there is no longer a distinction between the two.

(I highly recommend reading Chapter 5 from Baudrillard's Symbollic Exchange and Death, which elaborates about how modern society has ripped apart the symbolic exchange between life and death and neatly partitioned it, and as a consequence death becomes an immortal force that we cannot deal with.)

“Permission” was just a bad way to put it. I'm sure what they are actually talking about is making sure that the person is making the decision in clear mind and not under the effect of drugs, strong temporal emotions and is not being forced by someone to do this.

A reverse Turing test. A discussion with a computer to convince it you are a sane human.

This comment really made me chuckle. Well done =)

> strong temporal emotions

Well said. As Jim Jefferies said in his gun control bit referencing suicide -- 'We all have bad days.'

> strong temporal emotions

That's a pretty loaded statement. You're probably thinking of those ostentatious fools who end up in the news like "man was prevented from jumping off the bridge". Not every suicide does it on a whim, some think about that decision for many years.

As a general trend, when you make effective suicide less convenient, e.g. switching from lethal gas to carbon monoxide free natural gas in ovens, they happen less often. Not necessarily because of fewer attempts though.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/saves...

yes, that's the point, making the distinction between those two? How is that a loaded statement?

Yes, but the vast majority of people who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide.

Some do. Some don't. It is very hard to generalize here.

I personally don't really think that a person, who is making that a leap and decide and stop existing, has a 'clear' mind. It may be an objectively rational decision ( and frankly, I believe it is up to each of us to make that decision ), but I would be hard-pressed to argue that 'this individual, who I find of sound mind opted for the chair'. There is a reason society has certain level of concern for those that try and fail.

It is possible that I do not have enough of a population sample, but I personally see it as part of an effort way to keep world population control at certain level. Before anyone accuses me of tin-foiling, I mean it in the same sense as that there are efforts to prevent suicides by means of suicide prevention hotlines.

I guess what I am saying, as a society, we are grappling with with two competing interests:

1. We care about certain individuals and we don't want them gone from our life. 2. We care about certain individuals and we want them to have control over their own body.

I don't find it very hard to think of situation where it is likely that a person has a clear mind and decides to stop existing. In particular in case of a disease where the person knows that the only thing that life has in store for them is either more pain or being palliatively sedated.

Why choosing not to exist can't be clear mind? Many are suffering, struggling yet choose to continue that trauma. That's clear mind. But as soon as one does not want to continue the trauma, they are mental.

We are going to die in the end. Why not bring that closer so that the useless suffering stops? I think people who want to continue struggle, is the mentally ill. Having to do work 9-5 whole life and yet not being able to afford healthcare, acceptable living standard is somehow okay to continue. People are delusional and having too much copium.

Lots of here have good job life in a first world country and they think everyone is living like that. Someone says different, then it's "why you are enjoying life like me? you are just mentally ill".

These supposedly normal people also bring a kid without their consent to study, work, have disease, die horrible death by giving birth. All of these just to satisfy their own selfish wish to have a child with their gene, but not for the benefit of the kid.

It’s not about permission in the idealistic sense. It’s about issues like people being pressured or manipulated into it so someone can have inheritance, so the healthcare system can save money, etc.

These would be even larger concerns in the US than Switzerland for cultural and economic reasons.

I am personally against assisted suicide for the same reason I am against the death penalty: the logic works but only if you ignore the ugliness and messiness of real human behavior.

So you think several cases of unintended death are more important than suffering of all who really want to die? Cause I can't imagine that percentage of wrong deaths is more than several percents.

A "wrong death rate of several percent" sounds problematic in almost any circumstance.

That must be traded off against a “prolonged suffering rate of X%” as the overwhelmingly likely alternative.

We chose to euthanize our dog this summer. No matter how obvious her medical condition was, I still questioned whether we did it too early, too late, or just right. (Upon reflection, I think very slightly too late [by days or maybe a week].) I also couldn’t help but compare that experience to that of people. In many ways, I think we treat our family pets with more compassion.

>>It’s not about permission in the idealistic sense

Then you proceed to give an idealistic reason to oppose it... A person choosing to end their life to preserve a family inheritance IMO would / should be a valid reason, your opposition to such a choice is idealistic.

>I am personally against assisted suicide for the same reason I am against the death penalty

There is no logical or idealistic similarities between the two as there is a difference between actions being forced upon you, and voluntary actions.

This has become a common trend in the modern era where we attempt to expand the idea of coercion to include scenario;s where people have only poor choices. Examples include people taking a poor paying job being "coerced" into it because they did not have "good" choices,

it is very dangerous to equate a circumstances where there are no good options to coercion

I suspect I’m generally aligned with you on the topic, but I agree that “choosing suicide for grandma to preserve a family inheritance” is perfectly valid if grandma is choosing it, but acknowledge that it’s terribly problematic if the kids or grandkids are behind it. Being in the middle part of my life, I’ve seen the pressures that arise here, the concerns over finances and quality of life, and the diminishment of mental capacity of many elderly folks.

I had a close family member express repeatedly and regularly that “they were done” and “are looking forward to finally dying”. That’s what makes me strongly support individual choice here, but I’m not blind to the possibility of abuse here (and near certainty that it will happen in some cases).

Destruction of government property is generally considered illegal.

Permission is probably correct here. Unless you can live in a close box in isolation without ever needing to depend on another living or having someone depend on you, then sure you can live/die on your own terms.

You live by the rules of whatever society you are living in. You don't live in isolation, you depend on countless other living beings to be where you are in this point of time in your life. Life is interconnected web, not an isolated event.

Your life has a value for other people too. No one can force you to live. "Permission" does not mean being forced. Unless you are physically unable to have a life, you should be needing a permission.

We already give permission in courts and write rules on how a person should live (or not) their lives for so many reasons we think are beneficial/harmful for rest of us. How is this any different?

Because it's naive to think a person wanting to end their own life is going to be deterred by a law?

Like what are they doing to do, throw your body in prison? Hand your body a fine?

They will not let you have a reliable and painless death. I bet some people will be stopped by the pain that a traditional suicide methods might bring, as well as the risk of staying alive but getting mutilated for the rest of their life as a result.

^ This. The risk of becoming a vegetable from a botched suicide is pretty high. The last thing a suicidal person wants is to make their life even worse.

That's the kind of suicide one is going to do anyway. I am here talking about the one which someone is sane enough to seek assistance or buy a device like in the article.

We already put people with mental issues in mental health facilities instead of killing them. We could probably do something similar (not the same) for people who decide to take their own lives and seek out before doing it.

So the plan is to cause bureaucratic headaches and forced treatment options for people who openly and sanely admit they don't like being here, leaving only the messy and less effective methods easily available?

This is one of those, "in theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there are" situations.

Nobody owes society anything. In fact, the reverse is true: society owes things to those brought into this world without being asked: clean water, safety, clean environment, reasonable standards of living. I just don't see how it could cross anyone's mind to try to prevent people from ending their life, since they didn't ask to be here in the first place, to support a society that has clearly failed that individual.

If a society is good and just and receives conscious support from people, that's acceptable. But I don't see how it could possibly justify interfering with a right of self determination w.r.t. ending the ride early.

I guess I just don't get it. It seems cruel and Kafkaesque.

Forced treatment is opposite of how a person already sick of this world needs to be treated. That's not what I was suggesting. Something like providing a way to live a totally different kind of life in a totally different environment might actually help. Psychiatrists etc can suggest better ways.

Society usually tries to help, not deny the rights in a larger scheme of things. If you find someone on the verge of ending their life will you judge their sanity based on their age (what age if so and why) before deciding whether or not you should stop them or just let them do it because they must have a good reason?

I always wonder how we decide that at certain age a person is sane enough to start making decisions for their own life. In some ways or the other, we always need assistance from other people no matter how adult we become. This is just one of them. Society thinks it can help people from killing themselves just like we help kids from killing themselves unknowingly for first many years of their lives.

Attemped suicide should be a capital offence