Suicide pills okay or no?

Well, if this were an over the counter pill, than I think it would be very easy to get it, and use it over the most ridiculous of reasons. A note from a psychiatrist doesn't really mean much, either. On the other hand, it sure would make things a lot easier for a person in that situation, and easier on the family too( as in they don't have to find their loved one hanging or with a hole in their head).

All in all, I think it's something that we will definitely see sometime in the future, but the morals behind it are, and will, always be sketchy.

"Who would not like to cheat the grim reaper? Ways are known, of course, both scientific and non-scientific, but all of them are uncertain and temporary. Except for the simplest: to get there first oneself."

As a moral issue, I'm not against it. If people have (or they should have) the right to live as they please as long as they cause no harm for others, why don't they have the right to die as they please? Of course there is the sorrow caused for others, but it would be rash to force someone to be responsible for the feelings of others to that point.

That's mah opinion about the matter. But realistically, I don't think any country would ever accept it as legal, it would be black market stuff only. Moral issues aside, they need their labour force living. Every death of a person that could have worked for living is a financial loss.

Which leads to speculation if the world will ever offer blood money for elderly or gravely ill.

It might not be profitable enough for a company to hold up a suicide pill service, at least not in a very big scale... or maybe if it were a part of a bigger pharmaseutical company?

To put it shortly, it's a nice mind-toy scenario that will never happen.

People want to die, then let them die. It's none of your business if a person decides to off themselves. A quick-kill pill is a pretty good way to go too. More people commit suicide, the population reduces, more money for other people, etc. Basically there's not much of a down side to less people living. Just cremate them bodies and it's all cleaned up. The only issue is the moral one which has always been one and even then people need to realize the world isn't as great as someone else sees it and if they want to cross that bridge to the other side then let them.

You can't require a doctor, especially elderly, to end their life. That's not why they went into medicine in the first place. However I do believe in people having the right to make their own decisions. Do I think there should be an age limit? Yes.

You would have to seek out a clinic that offers it, similar to how you have to do that with abortion. But honestly - this can't be done without enough religious fanatics screaming, and I doubt you'll be able to do it in conservative states.

I don't like it, I think part of the reason more people don't commit suicide is that they are afraid too. If anyone asked for such a pill, you think the right thing to do would immediately send them to counseling and get help. There just seems something too hedonistic about a society that lets people just kill themselves.

I'd like to see it. As long as it's a strong enough dose to kill them for sure. I used to know an ER nurse andone time she said she wished that if people were going to commit suicide, that they would do it right so she didn't have to deal with their fucked up failed attempt.*







*[size=1]I think i mentioned this in my suicide thread, but i'm too lazy to go look.[/h]

I agree with you suicide should be peaceful nobody wants to die and the last emotion being fear well thats what think at least.

Hm, I'd say the idea is acceptable. I support euthanasia. Sometimes a person is simply beyond help whether medically or psychologically, and I can fully understand the desire to end one's life rather than go through it in an endless stream of agony and misery.

We can debate the moral implications of this until we are all blue in face, but my point is no government body or any such entity should have the authority or ability to tell someone that they can't kill themselves. This would be just like any other drug. We can't tell people that cannot smoke, that they cannot drink. We cannot simply tell them to not take a pill that would silently end their life just because some, even most, may think it morally reprehensible.

As long as proper regulation is adhered, then there would be no reason for the drug not to exist. People are far too quick to draw up the moral card here. You have to remember that your morals, are just that - your morals. Nothing is more dangerous, egotistical and selfish in this world than trying to apply your morals to someone else.

i would say no....
well I don't actually care, as long I don't use it I'm completely fine with it

[font=Verdana][color=green]The medical standpoint on this is to cure, not kill. Therefore, I believe that these suicide pills should only be reserved for terminal cases. Before you say "You're just following the medical standpoint, get your own opinion", that's my opinion; I only support euthanasia for cases which are terminal, much like I only support abortion in cases of endangerment to the mother. But, that's another argument for another day.

In regards to cases where the person is depressed etc etc I believe that they shouldn't be able purchase or use them. Apart from their state of mind, there's nothing wrong with their body, yet their willing to throw that all away.

To Tsurayu; I understand your point about morals. But, one thing that you fail to acknowledge is that the laws that govern the world are built around morals. Surely it's more dangerous to not let them apply?

Laws are based off morals and the society we choose to live in. Not being allowed to abuse your own children is a moral based law, as is school teachers not being able to hit kids in school - and they are laws that many people agree with. We decide the as a species/nation/community what laws we want to live under. The only way to be absolutely free of laws based on other people's morals is to leave society.

I think that with this Suicide pill people that commit suicide will not die in a horrific way, like jumping into the train track, cutting themselves and bleed too death, falling off from high rise building, and etc.

Suicide Pills Are A Lazy Way Out. If You're Going To Snuff Yourself, You're Going To Work For It.

I'm pretty sure overdosing on certain drugs would do the same job. Why waste the resources to produce such a thing?

On the black market, suicide pills would be far more convenient than lethal injections. Imagine where those pills could end up.

In my case, I'm talking specifically on the elderly. There are so many elderly people with terminal illnesses, chronic painful absolutely awful terminal illnesses. That they have to take medication that make them feel even more sick from side effects and so forth.

When you're old, and you have one or two years left, and you don't want to spend those years in dreadful pain counting the days until you die -- that's when they mostly bring up the idea of suicide pills.

I'm not talking about a teenager or an abused wife seeking an escape. I'm talking about people who are going to die soon and don't want to live in misery anymore.

Ugh, that is such a cop-out. A moral code does not necessarily have to equal a set of laws. Philosophy, religion, culture, that is what a moral code represents. It doesn't have to be a set of rules that everyone has to live by. I'm tired of people using that as an excuse to shove their moral code in the faces of others.

I'm not saying that it isn't the way that it is, but it doesn't have to be either, like you claim. It wouldn't be easy, but morals don't have to have any affect on the creation of laws. A person can be amoral and still be a law abiding citizen.

You said it yourself, laws are made by the people. That inheritly makes them not moral. Based on morals maybe, but to think that makes them a moral code or that they have to be based on that is just incorrect.

Legal positivism, people, legal positivism.

I didn't say that laws which govern us are a "moral code", but that our morals and ethics determine what those laws are (likewise, laws created out of a matter of practicality can affect what a society's morals and ethics are as well - works both ways).

It isn't an excuse to shove anything into anyone's face, but that is just how a society works. As a group of people, you decide on what laws you want your society to be governed by based off many factors - one of the more important factors are a society's morals and ethics. And like any law, it must apply to each person within that society.



Yeah, that is a huge difference from just allowing it to the general population, as well would allowing it for "assisted suicide" for terminally ill patients. But just a legal suicide pill for the general populace, well that sounds like something you'd see on Futurama.

Still, I think allowing such a pill would lead to people thinking suicide is an acceptable alternative, and more people would start doing it. Whether or not that is a bad thing is personal opinion I suppose. However, even if the law was that only the elderly could take such pills, I think eventually younger people would also start demanding the pill.

[font=Verdana][color=green]Don't kid yourself; you're being naive. When you say that, you truly don't understand how the law operates and evolves. Law and Society, as such the Society's morals, are intimately linked and cannot operate without each other. Take away the morals, and the law becomes useless. Take away the law, and morals are soon disregarded.

An example of this intricate relationship between law and society is the law of Rape in England and Wales. This law has changed so much in the past half-century or so. Why? Because society has evolved. If I were to say to you that, until 1991, it was legal for a husband to rape his wife, would you believe me? In the late 1800's, it was declared that wives were the property of the husbands; based on societies morals, that law was fitting. Now, if law and society didn't have this intimate relationship based on morals and values, that law would still be in place. Thanks the the R v R case (figured that you might want to know this landmark case's name), that law was reversed.

A person being amoral and being a law abiding citizen, and the law being made based off morals are two different things. Don't mix them up.

It's when your morals ('yours' held loosely and not directed at you) interfere with my rights. Georgia in my area tried allowing the selling of alcohol on Sunday's recently, and it didn't pass again. Why? Because it's God's day. Don't make it so I can't buy alcohol on a day that you go to church. That's effecting my life and shouldn't be restricted because of your belief.

Just like I believe you shouldn't create a law that forbids me from having assisted suicide if I am terminally ill and in chronic pain 24/7 - you're not the one in pain and you're not the one its effecting, unless you're immediate family, and even then - in the end it's my decision.

It's when morals effect these kind of laws that piss me off.

^That is completely true. However, I think there are a bunch of subtle factors that effect why we restrict things that some people would say, "Well, it only effects me, I doesn't hurt anyone else so just let me do it!". Although religious groups are usually the main focus of who we designate the "killjoys", secular people also oppose a lot of progressive or radically ideas as well. It could be because they don't want their children to see others committing certain acts or behaving in certain ways because it inhibits their ability to teach their children such behavior is wrong. For example, this is why a lot of non-religious people oppose Gay marriage.

There are many other factors that c, but I suppose my point is that in the end, it is very complex and I don't think something like this is as easy as saying "Yes, I don't see what the problem is." or "No, I think it is wrong." It is complex and either approving or disallowing these kind of pills is something that would cause not only great conflict withing a society, but within an individual.

It is tricky business trying to balance the rights of individuals and the laws that govern a society, because when you change what rights an individual has you also change the society that individual lives in. And that effects everyone.