Why isn't a suicide machine offered as a public service?

[Juddog]

It strikes me as odd that we have an overpopulation problem and yet abortion is looked at as wrong, as is suicide, yet we are quick to constantly rant about people needing to die.

What's so immoral about offering a suicide service? For example, having a machine set up somewhere, you go in, fill out paperwork, sign away your possessions (so that all loose ends are tied up), then put in the quarter and have the machine blast you to oblivion.

This would save so much time versus people having to hunt around to find various suicide methods, some of which are painful, others which are a mess to clean up, etc.. It would save the victim's families and friends from wondering what the motivation was, because the person could very clearly write out what they thought was wrong with their lives / the planet and offer them a nice clean death without pain.

If someone is determined to take their own life, there are a million ways to do it. In my opinion this would be a public service. If someone wants to give away their body parts, they could have medical staff on hand ready to harvest the organs, etc..

 

[OinkBoink]

I've asked this question on the internet myself. You'll get a list of answers ranging from suicide being selfish to the ethical and practical problems associated with doing such a thing. Not to mention, some people will write you off for having the audacity to ask such a question. Also, you might get some emotion based answers as well.

 

[fskimospy]

Suicide should absolutely be an option for anyone of sound mind who chooses it. That being said, we should do it for personal freedom reasons, not overpopulation ones. (the US isn't overpopulated by any reasonable metric I'm aware of)

 

[OinkBoink]

Suicide should absolutely be an option for anyone of sound mind who chooses it.

Wanting to kill oneself is by definition deemed to be the trait of someone of an unsound mind.

 

[smackababy]

What do we do with the body? Clean up? How can we "blast them into oblivion" without an extreme amount of energy.

Also, most suicides are from an unstable frame of mind. A person with serious depression can get better, but an easy and affordable suicide machine would give them a more readily available solution.

Personally, I think if people want to kill themselves, they can go right ahead. Nothing wrong with that. But, I do understand people usually don't make that decision with clear frame of mind.

 

[fskimospy]

Wanting to kill oneself is by definition deemed to be the trait of someone of an unsound mind.

No. People with degenerative disorders such as Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's, terminal cancer, etc can be of absolutely sound mind and decide they don't want to live trapped in a paralyzed body, have their mind destroyed, drag on for months in terrible pain, etc.

 

[OinkBoink]

No. People with degenerative disorders such as Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's, terminal cancer, etc can be of absolutely sound mind and decide they don't want to live trapped in a paralyzed body, have their mind destroyed, drag on for months in terrible pain, etc.

This is not my definition. Also, I'm not talking about people with degenerative disorders in general. They should certainly be allowed to kill themselves. It becomes trickier when you're talking about those who want to off themselves for reasons other than degenerative diseases.

What about someone who's chronically depressed and has tried all means to have a life that he/she deems worthy of living? What if that person wants to off himself/herself?

When I say all means, I mean whatever modern medicine and the system has to offer.

 

[OinkBoink]

What do we do with the body? Clean up? How can we "blast them into oblivion" without an extreme amount of energy.

Also, most suicides are from an unstable frame of mind. A person with serious depression can get better, but an easy and affordable suicide machine would give them a more readily available solution.

Personally, I think if people want to kill themselves, they can go right ahead. Nothing wrong with that. But, I do understand people usually don't make that decision with clear frame of mind.

You can give them the kind of barbiturates that Dignitas uses. It's a painless death. Or is said to be so.

You can cremate the body, bury it, or donate it to science.

 

[Anarchist420]

What's so immoral about offering a suicide service?

Nothing as long as there is no govt involvement.

I often worry about living more than dying myself. There are too many things worse than death.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Suicide machine?

Just think of the market there'd be for gift certificates!

More seriously, you might want to have a process not unlike those used in "death with dignity" states to be sure that he/she is of sound mind.

 

[OinkBoink]

.....

 

[Juddog]

The thing is this - people are going to commit suicide regardless of whatever ramifications have been stated in the thread. That is fact - pure and simple.

The only difference is that this machine would offer a way to do it in a way which was painless to the person desiring death. People bring up all these arguments about "what about the dependents, what about their stuff, what about this and that" but fail to see that this is something that happens regardless of those issues. The only thing this does is mitigate the damage done to a family / etc. when someone decides to off themselves, and ready the body for medical harvesting if the person wishing death desires to do so.

 

[nickbits]

Litigation from family would be a big problem regardless of any document they signed.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I'm in favor of this from a personal liberty perspective.

One advantage of a suicide machine over Wal-mart selling a KillMeNow! suicide kit is that it is harder for someone to use this to commit murder. You can't give someone a death pill and tell them it's an aspirin, or slip it into grandma's pillbox.

Litigation from family would be a big problem regardless of any document they signed.

Good point. We'd probably need both the suicide machines and a federal law or constitutional amendment to protect the providers of this service.

 

[Carmen813]

I debated if it is appropriate for me to respond, but I think I will anyway. I work as a mental health professional at the VA as part of a national suicide prevention program. The individuals I assist are at high risk for suicide and I previously worked on a national crisis line for Veterans. Working with individuals thinking about or having made suicide attempts is my day job. I genuinely try to fight the stigma about mental health and suicide, as unless we talk about these subjects openly we will never be able to help. I would be against offering these machines as a "public service" simply because it doesn't give us an opportunity to help these folks.

The vast majority of individuals will respond extremely positively to mental health treatment if they can connect with the right provider. Suicide is a life threatening mental health status that is often transient - while many may think of killing themselves for years, they are often not at "imminent" risk all the time. In times of crisis, people tend to develop a "fog" of thinking that can lead them to make a decision rashly or they will fail to consider alternatives. Some mental health and medical conditions do have impair cognitive thinking and lead to impulsive behavior. Often these folks are experiencing tremendous pain and suffering. This is a difficult place to make a life altering decision from. Having easily available "suicide machines" may lead to many unnecessary deaths.

If someone even has the tiniest iota of ambivalence about living vs. dying there is a good chance we can help. Often times there is a part of the person that wants to die, and a part that doesn't. Most folks will say to me that they simply don't want to keep living this way. I haven't really encountered someone who was thinking about killing themselves who was content and not in some form of pain. As a therapist you try to honor both parts of the person while also working to increase an individuals desire to live and quality of life. Sometimes this is very difficult, however there are therapies that can help folks make meaning out of suffering. In fact our culture is full of examples of individuals who suffered tremendous pain yet continued living. I also believe very strongly that meaning can be made from tremendous suffering. Our culture is full of examples of this. There can be a dignity in suffering.

I do not view people who want to kill themselves or the act itself as immoral. I know of circumstances in my life that could lead me to the same place.

I suppose I disagree with the idea of suicide as a "death without pain." The person thinking about suicide is already in tremendous pain. I haven't encountered anyone who was thinking about suicide who wasn't in some way suffering. I would rather see our government offer public services that improve our culture and society's mental health than simply offer a policy that would make those who are suffering disappear. "Mental Illness" - a phrase I despise - often has environmental and cultural factors associated with it.

 

[nanette1985]

I'm in. Medical issues. No idea about other suiciders.

 

[Carmen813]

In thinking about it more I think I can better articulate my concern. I can definitely understand circumstances where an individual with significant suffering elects to end their life or cease treatment. I don't really see that as suicide. I see that as a natural part of life.

What concerns me about how the OP proposes this is I think it would simply be society turning it's head the other way to human suffering. Rather than taking steps to help individuals or improve our culture, we can simply let those who "can't shake it" take themselves out. It's an extreme form of making human suffering invisible, and in a way, almost mechanical (particularly the part about harvesting organs).

I think there are some debates about if you can make a rational decision if all those around you believe it to be irrational. Might be something interesting to discuss.

 

[OinkBoink]

I don't think that the OP is claiming that there should be no programs to help those in distress and that society should have only one solution for them, i.e. death. Far from it.

It is about when an individual has used all forms of help available and still has a life that he/she does not deem satisfactory. Which is why I, for instance, talked about an age restriction.

"Dignity in suffering" (or even the lack of dignity in suffering)? What does that even mean? Sounds like a literary ploy to romanticise and/or justify suffering. Suffering is what it is. Some people may want to endure it and some may not. There is no doubt that suffering has led to advancements in the human race in the sense that there have been inventions in order to reduce suffering. But these have been done by individuals willing to go through suffering. Some may not want that (this is evident from the fact that people do take themselves out). In fact, even members who have contributed to science, music and humanity in general have taken themselves out. They were forced to resort to nasty methods of killing themselves. When we're talking about a painless suicide, we're not talking about whether it is pain and suffering that has led to one wanting to kill themselves but the act of doing it itself. Was it done by setting yourself on fire or by ingesting a drug that offed you in your sleep with no physical pain?

Some of the debates that have centred around the notion of letting people die have been about what would happen to institutions that seek to alleviate suffering in other ways than letting the person die. This is probably a legitimate debate. No one here is really talking about this though. Everyone's implicitly assuming that letting people die would mean that society will magically do away with things like therapy etc. This isn't the case.

 

[Carmen813]

I'm not sold on the idea of a painless suicide. For one, there is an assumption that such a thing exists - but that is far from a certainty. Just look at the debate about lethal injection for the death penalty. Telling ourselves it is painless is likely just to comfort the living.

Perhaps I would have been more accurate in saying making meaning out of suffering. There is a difference between being in pain and suffering - one is a much more total state of being. And helping individuals find meaning in their suffering does alleviate it. If you want to learn more, look into logotherapy. This is a western view and I imagine nihilists would not agree with it

Advancements that reduce pain have contributed to a change in how individuals in our society view pain. Experiencing pain is no longer "acceptable" since there should be some drug/surgery/treatment that makes it go away. If you look back in human history a couple hundred years, pain was seen an accepted and normal part of life. Aside from a few things like alcohol, there really wasn't much that could be done about pain. That doesn't mean I think medications aren't valuable and important, but it is does complicate working with individuals who are in significant pain. We are basically bombarded 24/7 with messages about how pain is unacceptable or different wonder drugs that are supposed to take it away. That leaves folks in a rough spot when those treatments don't work - I think it actually fosters the sense of hopelessness that many contemplating suicide express.

Increasing access to means to suicide in this way is a dangerous proposition. Thinking about suicide is a far more common experience than most in our society realize (>50% of adults at some point in their life) and those who make suicide attempts are around ~20%. That is based on the hard data that we actually have - and suicide is something that still has tremendous stigma about it so it's probably inaccurate. The reported suicide rates in the U.S. are likely low balling it by 60-70% simply because so many cannot be proven to be suicides. We know of 30-40k per year, but there is likely triple that. There is also tremendous financial incentive for families not to have their loved one's death ruled a suicide - not to mention that thinking that a loved one killed themselves does often lead to their own psychological distress.

Now the idea that many of are proposing seems to be for those with severe medical conditions/terminal illnesses where continuing to live would simply prolong the suffering of not only themselves but those around them. I don't think it is impossible for those individuals to make a decision to end their life, however I do not (in my own view of suicide) necessarily see that as suicide. I think people have the right to decide their treatments and I am not personally against the idea of physician assisted suicide. However, their needs to be some thought and debate put into the moral/ethical implications of those acts...and personally, I don't think our elected leaders are the ones to hold that discussion.

For what it's worth, counselors ethical guidelines state about working with the terminally ill. This is from the American Counseling Association:
Recognizing the personal, moral, and competence issues related the end-of-life decisions, counselors may choose to work or not work with terminally ill clients who wish to explore their end-of-life options. Counselors provide appropriate referral information to ensure that clients receive the necessary help.

Counselors who provide services to terminally ill individuals who are considering hastening their own deaths have the option of breaking or not breaking confidentiality, depending on applicable laws and the specific circumstances of the situation and after seeking consultation or super-vision from appropriate professional and legal parties.

 

[Scotteq]

Thank you for Using Stop and Drop!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-vRpQ0YyYo

 

[OinkBoink]

I'm not sold on the idea of a painless suicide. For one, there is an assumption that such a thing exists - but that is far from a certainty. Just look at the debate about lethal injection for the death penalty. Telling ourselves it is painless is likely just to comfort the living.

What would happen if you gave a person general anesthesia and then cut off life support? A painless death.

You might also want to look into the kind of drugs the organisation "Dignitas" uses.

 

[BrightCandle]

I don't think it would be unreasonable for such a machine/service to require a session with a counsellor to begin with, even if just via a remote monitor. Just by going through the process of explaining why it is you want to die, what it is you want done with your body/organs etc and giving them an opportunity to suggest therapy and to help to potentially stop the death might actually work quite well to balance the two aspects. It may in essence provide free therapy to those in desperate need of it especially those without the insurance to make it a reality (a problem largely limited to the USA) and at a moment in time when its most likely to help.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I don't think it would be unreasonable for such a machine/service to require a session with a counsellor to begin with, even if just via a remote monitor. Just by going through the process of explaining why it is you want to die, what it is you want done with your body/organs etc and giving them an opportunity to suggest therapy and to help to potentially stop the death might actually work quite well to balance the two aspects. It may in essence provide free therapy to those in desperate need of it especially those without the insurance to make it a reality (a problem largely limited to the USA) and at a moment in time when its most likely to help.

This sounds like a good way to help those that can be helped, while still giving the choice to those that can't.

The fact that we can use drugs to block some kinds of suffering does not always mean that the person is left with what they consider an acceptable quality of life. For example, I'd personally rather be dead than drifting through life in a narcotic-addled haze.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't think it would be unreasonable for such a machine/service to require a session with a counsellor to begin with, even if just via a remote monitor. Just by going through the process of explaining why it is you want to die, what it is you want done with your body/organs etc and giving them an opportunity to suggest therapy and to help to potentially stop the death might actually work quite well to balance the two aspects. It may in essence provide free therapy to those in desperate need of it especially those without the insurance to make it a reality (a problem largely limited to the USA) and at a moment in time when its most likely to help.

I think this is a good idea. A 30 minute session with a counselor, in person or by remote, is required. I would also add a 72 hour cool down. You have 72 hours after you first register the request, and during that time you have to complete a counseling session.

 

[Whiskey16]

An honest and on topic question (as per the OPs presentation): Juddog, why do you always present every post of yours with an insult upon all Muslims as terrorists? With your avatar of one of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons, your post introduced and directs to this line of discussion.

As a Jew, I would be equally offended if a member here chose an avatar portraying Jews as rats or criminals (an easy search will return them):

....or Blacks criminal, rapists, and savages. Plenty records of cartoons that have been used for propaganda and political purposes to prejudicially target a group. Generalised and insulting prejudice serves no purpose than to inflame, disrupt, and divert from what you may have intended to be a suitable thread.

It is clear of what this image is, it's "Islamophobic, racist, or baiting and blasphemous to Muslims" [WIKIPEDIA]. Regardless if your misplaced motive is a perceived "legitimate exercise of the right of free speech," [WIKIPEDIA] the action to continually present is the action to insult.

Insulting for the sake of insulting does not create nor welcome an atmosphere for respectful discussion.

As you presented such, I have replied upon your presentation to speak my peace.