How do you reconcile that with many people that attempted suicide due to some illness like depression, and then later very much we're glad they didn't die. "Only of sound mind" sounds difficult to measure.

Related: Majority of gun deaths in the USA are suicides. In the gun control debate you might want to exclude those, right? But actually having ready access to a way to die increases the total number of suicides - it's not that all of those people taking their own lives would use different methods of suicide - some would but some would never die from suicide at all. So it's used as a argument against having easy to access firearms, and generally an argument against an easy way for suicide.

> How do you reconcile that with many people that attempted suicide due to some illness like depression

I believe that depression should be treated seriously as a mental illness. But treat the depression, and not the choices made while depressed (i.e. suicidal ideation, suicide attempts), which are symptoms of depression. It's not like we treat so seriously any of the other choices made while depressed like over/under-eating, alcoholism, impulsive purchases, etc.

> So it's used as a argument against having easy to access firearms

Personally I believe in restricting access to firearms because they are usually used to kill other people. If someone wants to use their gun to take their own life, rather than take their guns away, I'd like to spare them and their family the mess, and give them a way to die peacefully and quietly in a supine position.

A permanent solution to a temporary problem still leaves the problem solved.

I usually say "No, death is not the solution, death just removes the problem.".

What it does is replace your problem with problems for a bunch of other people.

I don't quite understand this. Postponing my death won't solve the problem; it's inevitable. The real question is, whose time takes priority—others' or mine?

This is a good point. I guess the only counter argument is that, so far, in general, postponing elective death also leads to a bunch of solutions to other problems over the course of a life, even if the original problem is unsolvable.

People forget that the other problems are created by life itself. There is no way out by playing its game. You cannot escape the problem making machine by using it: it will only produce more problems.

But the truth is that I'm not convinced that death is the "the winning move is not playing it". You see death is life: in order to die you must be alive first.

That's why lately I'm thinking unconsciousness is the way out, but I'm not sure about that too.

The end of the universe is created by pre-life physics. I think it's unknown to humanity at this point whether a sufficiently advanced technology can deal with that.

Louis CK has a great bit about suicide.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr7z1YiAWiI

"It will solve all your problems... Once!"

What if they change their mind again? Years later, they might have a fleeting thought: "I could have died back then."

The point is, the mind changes constantly; it's its nature. What should one do?

Personally, I'd rather avoid the rollercoaster of "I'm happy I didn't die" and "I should've died."

Which is why there should be a waiting period.

> How do you reconcile that with many people that attempted suicide due to some illness like depression, and then later very much we're glad they didn't die

You don't have to, it's not your business, it's their right to make that choice and no one else's. "My body, my choice" applies to suicide even more than abortion, if you don't control your own life and body you can't call yourself a free man.

I disagree with dismissing someone's decision because they have a mental illness like depression too. Depression and other issues don't always respond to treatment, and even when they do it's often after trying different treatments for months! I've been through very dark times with depression, OCD, and much more. I live a life of luxury now that most of the country would envy with a wonderful wife. If I knew I had to face a year or too of my past issues again and I would get to spend the last 40 years in my wonderful life again afterwards I don't think it would be worth suffering like that for a year. Some issues like OCD really are that bad. If someone with a mental illness wants to die, offer to help, but respect their decision if they don't accept.

The only people who regret suicide are the ones who survive. Subjectively on success, you stop, and removing any and all future possibilities is the entire point. Suicide prevention has nothing to do with the subject, but everything to do with everyone else. You feel bad if someone else dies with unfulfilled potential. So should lawmakers empathize with the suicidal or their loved ones? I tend to think Assisted Dying laws should focus on who has a right over someone else's life (parents? children? siblings? friends? councilors? colleagues? employers?), and be about under what situations they get to block suicide assistance. Rather than the existing situation where the laws are all about granting an individual the right to die, and making it harder for people to exercise their innate right to die by their own hand.

Let's run a thought experiment - you make death super easy like in a suicide booth in Futurama. How many people are going to fight life obstacles, pushing society forward, or rather terminally quit at the first sign of troubles? Nihilism was quite popular in the 19th century and led us to two world wars already. All you'll get is a quick extinction of people like you in favor of those that persist and your opinion will be eliminated from the gene pool.

Nihilism leading to the two world wars and opinions being coded in the DNA are definitely two of the takes of all time

Opinion and perspective are closely tied to cultural upbringing which is closely tied to race and ethnicity.

We hear about demographics of people and their beliefs "dying off" all the time. It does happen.

Nihilism has nothing to do with either world war. You’re likely trying to blame Nietzsche, who was the polar opposite of a nihilist, for German nationalism. The radical optimist Nietzsche, in his old age while writing Ecco homo, disavowed his German heritage and spoke about how awesome Poland and his polish identity were.

Nihilism is only just now having an impact in the academy as it is the intellectual foundation of post modernist and critical theory.

[delayed]

> How many people are going to fight life obstacles, pushing society forward, or rather terminally quit at the first sign of troubles?

Not many, probably, but the option should be available to those who need it.

> Nihilism was quite popular in the 19th century and led us to two world wars already

I'm sorry, but this is rubbish. Firstly, I'm not nihilistic, but practical. Not everyone who wants to die is suffering; sometimes they just want out of a pointless and meandering life. They don't want to put in the effort to up themselves, and frankly, why should they? What right do other people have to impose their views on someone who's feeling like this?

Sometimes one is suffering, but can't be bothered to, or might suffer more while trying to convince the state and a medical team that they deserve to die. It's 2024, and we have increasing acceptance of the gender spectrum, of the autism spectrum, of recreational narcotics, and more. Why is dying so marginalised? Like I said, this is a Christocentric view. A modern society must allow its citizens to die quietly, peacefully, and cleanly, whenever they choose.

Next, what led to the two world wars was not 'nihilism', a very loaded single word, but rather a bunch of overly-complex defence pacts, treaties, and arms races in 1900s Europe that eventually collapsed into a bloody shit show. The second world war happened because of a feeling of revenge, anti-semitism, and Slavophobia on the part of the Germans, and imperialism on the part of all the Axis powers. Nothing more, nothing less. Depending on who you ask WW2 began as early as 1910 with the invasion and occupation of Korea by Japan.

> your opinion will be eliminated from the gene pool

Wanting to die is not (only) passed down in someone's genes. It is highly environmental and depends on what people do, who they talk to, and where and how they live.

In the West I think alcohol is a massive factor, when talking about the moods of large numbers of people in those days. It is no accident that alcoholic drinking was banned outright for some time, despite the deep cultural roots.

The west? Alcohol has a much, much firmer grip over East Asia than any western countries I've seen. I think your analysis is very much incomplete.

booze has been around for thousands of years. it's not good for you but it's also not a new phenomenon driving suicide numbers up.

IMHO it's a combination of low wages, high cost of living, and scrolling/gaming/streaming/porn addiction. we don't know how to talk about it yet but it's fucking people up. human brains were not ready for what the internet has become

Booze - yes. Culture around booze… not exactly. Serious drinking was reserved for festivals and generally frowned upon. Nowadays… it’s much more common and much more abused. And modern alcohol is getting stronger and stronger, same with other drugs.

I’m curious - are you American? I’ve had some former coworkers (non-Americans) who used to work in San Francisco and it sounded like they encountered a culture of drinking at work that I’ve never seen in Germany or Austria. I remember one story about every Wednesday afternoon a booze cart would go through the office and people would get absolutely hammered on hard liquor (while still at work!)

I don’t know if this was specific to that (large, household name) company or if that’s emblematic but it sounded like a very bad idea (they had more stories of excessive drinking but that was the one I recall off the top of my head).

No. Lithuania. Here drinking culture reached bottom of the barrel during Soviet era. It’s getting somewhat better as the old generation heads for greener pastures. But it’s still pretty bad with full-on alcoholism being tolerated.

I envy some parts of German drinking culture. E.g. seemingly preferring light beer over heavy drinks. But having visited many music festivals in Germany… You guys got some issues too :D

There's loads of alcoholism in Germany and Austria, but its generally frowned upon to get drunk at work (or at work events).

If anything I suspect booze reduces suicide numbers. For some people it's an escape that makes life tolerable.

I'm thinking of a book whose title eludes me at present. It's by a doctor, talking about their ER experience. One of their frequent fliers--and one time he talked a bit about why. He had been a sniper in Afghanistan (Afghani, fighting the Russians), he drank to keep from killing himself because of the horrors he had experienced.

People with alcohol use disorder are many times more likely to commit suicide. Alcohol makes depression worse in the long run, even if someone finds some temporary comfort from a bottle.

People ready to die often don't care about pushing society forward or ensuring the continuation of the human species.

I always ask: for how long? What is the ultimate goal? If you don’t know, it's time to seek answers before pushing society forward carelessly.

> your opinion will be eliminated from the gene pool

The impulse to die being eliminated from the gene pool is a good thing ? Or rather the characteristics to fight for life at all costs is what one would want in the gene pool ?

If what you assume is true, at some point people will want to die less and the problem will self correct .

Death is important tool in evolution delaying it is not argument for it .

I wholeheartedly support this point of view. Death should be an option freely and easily accessibile to anyone.

Why have people here who don't want to be here?

I like to use a metaphor.

You're at a party. You politely say goodbye to everyone and start heading for the exit.

You are restrained and drugged.

Nice party, bro...

You're at a party. You politely say goodbye to everyone and start heading for the exit.

You are restrained and drugged. You are coerced into signing euthanasia papers and are swiftly killed.

In the real world, most people struggle to get permission to opt for medical assistance in dying.

Nobody is getting coerced into suicide.

Canada would like a word with you

I live in Canada. I also have google.

You are referring to an incident where a caseworker mentioned that MAID is an option to a permanently disabled veteran suffering from pain, and it was deemed out of scope for their job. The policy has now changed so that caseworkers are not allowed to even bring up MAID. No one was coerced into the option.

The outcome of the incident you are citing is that it is now less accessible for people to learn about the option.

Meanwhile there are cases across Canada where people have been blocked from getting MAID because of religious hospitals, outside objectors, and debates about what kind of permanent illness qualifies even if two doctors and the patient have all agreed.

The process is not fast, requires psychological assessment, and must be signed off by a doctor.

There is precisely no evidence that anyone has ever undergone MAID when they weren’t 100% consenting and having made there own decision.

> I'd like dying to be as easy as flicking a switch.

It is. Just flick the blade open on a switchblade and stab into your temple. You don't need a fricking second or third party to help you with this.

Some of us atheists view life as more precious than many religious people do because this is it.

> stab

> fricking

Do you really have to be so violent in response?

There exist supervised injection sites for narcotics. You bring the drugs, the healthcare workers give you clean syringes/needles/paraphernalia and help you with the injection. As a society we have decided that it is OK for people to potentially wreck their own lives with narcotics.

Why not a similar concept for dying, where the end is only eternal oblivion? Step into a room, step inside a pod, press a button, pod closes, press another button to replace the air with nitrogen, done.

> life as more precious

I'm sorry, but 'life is precious' is a religious view, even if you call yourself 'atheist'. Life is just life, it is an emergent property of chemical and physical processes and laws. It is interesting, to be sure, but precious? Sorry, no. Humans have killed each other since they evolved from Australopithecus, and have only found more efficient, violent, and deadly ways to do so in the intervening five million years.

> Do you really have to be so violent in response?

I was trying to meet your request for an option that came as close as possible to just flicking a switch.

> Step into a room, step inside a pod, press a button, pod closes, press another button to replace the air with nitrogen, done.

I know of a friend of a friend who did this on his own. If you are of sufficient capacity to step into some place and press a button then you are able to buy or make this equipment on your own and do it yourself.

> I'm sorry, but 'life is precious' is a religious view, even if you call yourself 'atheist'.

And some religious people also believe that taking care of Earth's natural environment is also a religious duty. That doesn't make it a religious view, it makes it a general moral view that is shared between some religions and some atheists. The justification for a moral view is what makes it religious or secular.

> Humans have killed each other since they evolved from Australopithecus

And how many of these deaths have been because of religious beliefs? I think enough of them to say that killing people for moral reasons is a religious view, even if you call yourself 'atheist'.

No. The tank that can hold enough nitrogen (or helium or argon--same volume means the same pressure which means effectively the same weight) to do the job reliably is heavy. By the time your health is such that you would choose that path you likely can't lift it. I have seen my wife struggle with lifting that weight when it's in a form meant to be lifted. I've seen her fail when it wasn't as cooperative.

Too bad, I guess that leaves out the "use disproportionately large amounts of the agent to hotbox the room" method. But that doesn't invalidate the point of the parent comment.

Which is completely missing the point. To hotbox a room you need a bunch of the big cylinders. Look at the tare weights on page 3:

https://www.airgas.com/medias/Airgas-Compressed-Gas-Cylinder...

The have a volume in cubic feet specified, multiply by the 165 bar that's what's typically used to see how much space it will fill. Looking around our house there's a very odd-shaped closet under the stairs that would be difficult to measure. Of the more typical places the smallest room in the house is a closet. 6' x 5' (minus a 1' x 1' chunk that I believe contains an air duct) x 8' = 232 cubic feet. Suppose you dump 232 cubic feet of material into it--you'll displace half the air which gives a time of useful consciousness of 20-30 minutes. Not good enough. Let's try doubling that, now we end up with a time of useful consciousness of 30-60 seconds. That's probably enough. That's 2 cylinders at 137 pounds each. Or if you use aluminum, 3 cylinders of 90 pounds each.

Yeah, nobody is seriously suggesting to do that. It was an example for the sake of argument.

That's what white glove delivery is for.

Why are you against religious views?

I think religion has done more harm to humanity as a whole than anything else, and none more so than the two most popular monotheistic, evangelical, 'convert or die' religions. Religion is a vehicle to power, and I dislike it.

There are of course some very positive side effects like beautiful architecture and music, and plenty of philosophical debate, but I wish it came without the baggage. But then again, I feel the two Abrahamic religions are philosophically scarce—can't have debate when everyone who disagrees with you is killed or converted.

> the two Abrahamic religions

It's three main ones (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and a bunch of off-shoots such as Samaritanism, Mormonism, Baháʼí.

I'm opposed to religious philosophies in as much as non-real/provable beliefs, and feelings based on these non-provable beliefs, are used as justification for the philosophy or moral stance.

Disagree. It should be a considered decision over time.

1) Is the patient of sound mind when the decision is made? (Not necessarily carried out. I have no problem with someone saying "kill me when my mind is gone.")

2) There should be a medical evaluation of whatever the problem is with an eye to what can be done to make life more palatable.

3) There should be a waiting period. (I would, however, say that if the person is no longer capable of confirming it that should count as confirmation.)

Suicide should only be for when one's remaining life is of negative value, not because of temporary bad things.

> The belief that life is a gift from a god is a highly Christocentric, Western view that I disagree with. We are brought into the world without any real consent; we should at least be able to easily choose the date, time, and manner of our passing if we so desire.

Too bad that's only one of many arguments against euthanasia, and one of the easier ones to grandstand against.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.sh...

As someone with depression, I'm very very very glad that your vision is not true

I greatly offended my mother's psychiatrist once with a similar thought. He was using my mother's suicidality as proof that she needed inpatient treatment.

I told him - "She suffers from migraines, and for 3 out of 4 weeks in an average month she must spend the entire day immobile in a dark room. There are no treatments in the near term which are expected to improve her outlook. The pain is debilitating. Doctor, who is "insane" - the person who wants a way out of the constant agony, or the person who says "More, please!""

I believe that the right to life as enshrined in the Constitution (and endowed by my Creator) must, inherently, also include the right to end that life, if a man (or woman) so chooses.

I think death should be easily accessible, but not immediately executable. Mental states can swing quickly and dramatically, and it would be a shame for suicide to be in reach for a short-term, temporary situation.

I'm not sure about the best delay, but my current ballpark is at least around a month delay.