Similar to Euthanasia, this pill would kill someone who just doesn't want to live anymore. This would encompass those who were terminally ill or just people who wanted to off themselves for whatever reason. There could be a program that the individual would have to go through that would include counseling and a mandatory waiting period. After this point, if someone still wants to kill themselves they could just take a pill - say, cyanide - and die a relatively painless death. I don't think this would increase the number of suicides - if someone really wants to do it, they'll find a way. But wouldn't it be much better if everyone in the family knew and it wouldn't be a sudden shock to an unsuspecting family member? Thoughts?
I never thought there was anything wrong with euthanasia, especially to those who die a painful death otherwise anyway. (This only applies when the patient is the one who wills it, not the doctor.) I like the idea mainly because the person first has to go to counceling and then a waiting period to think about it, whereas a person who will commit suicide on their own will not really give it as much thought.
I believe that if a person truely wanted to kill themselves, they have a right to. yet, I do not believe this "ill" would be used very much at all, unless for medical reasons (allstimers ect). Most people who kill themselves, do it with the intention of attention. Plus, I am a very pro-life person, and i don't think a person with the mind set of a suicider, they could fully grasp that they have a large chance of ending up in, wel, not heaven. It would probably become popular in colts and religious sacrifice.many pros, more cons.
Most suicides occur in solitude with no chance of being found in the process of dying. This is also an incredibly traumatic experience for whoever ends up finding the person. Also, if the act of killing yourself is what gets you attention, I don't really see the difference between a pill or any other method.
This was semi-legal in Oregon for a while, yes? I agree with the concept, at least in terminally ill or chronic pain situations. But I can't approve of it if someone wants to take the pill because of depression. I think society has an obligation to protect people, from themselves in this case. It's a tough call for me, though, and I'd listen to arguments either way.
Well, my argument has several facets. Someone who is terminally ill wants to die because they are suffering - living day to day is actually worse than death. If someone is so depressed that they want to kill themselves, then their logic is the same. If someone is suicidal and goes through with it, then they were obviously committed enough to doing the act, and I think the pill is simply a better, more effective, and more humane method than almost anything else. Even with the pill, there will be plenty of people who kill themselves because they don't want to have to go through the counseling and waiting period, but conceivably there would be quite a number who do.
Actually, it would lower the amount of suicides. The period it takes to have therapy is something that most people who commit suicide don't get to have. This would make the people who would kill themselves without a second thought would think about life and the people who they are going to hurt. Then, on the other hand, there is the fact that the pill could be used for criminal purposes. If it falls into the wrong hands, it could cause problems. The problems are not worth the number of people it would save. Why don't they just make counciling readily available to everybody.
Well, I can see how this might be a good idea in some cases, such as people that have incurable diseases that cause them pain, but when I think of somebody that wants to commit suicide, I think of them not wanting their action to be "alright" with everybody else. As if they want their deaths to hurt the people that have hurt them (pushed them to the point of committing suicide). In this aspect, I think that people that commit suicide don't want other people to know about it before they do it, and don't want anybody else involved. I geuss that I look at suicide as the last thing a person ever does, so it seems like it would be a highly personal moment, in which case they wouldn't want anybody else involved, especially somebody they didn't know, i.e. a counsellor.
That's a good point that I've considered. I mean, you'd really have to protect a pill like that and I think you're right - there's no real way to ensure 100 percent safety with something like that. But I'm more thinking of just a moral level, without the realistic consequences of a pill like this.
Hmmm... this is a very interesting idea Moegreche. I have thought that those who are terminally sick should have the right to end it if they want to. It makes not sense to keep someone around when they are in pain, and do not want to be there. As far as using it as some sort of program for suicidal people, I can't really see that happening.
If other people can choose whether or not people on life-support live or die, fully conscious people can make their own decisions about life for themselves. Anything else is just wrong. Why give some people the power to kill someone defenseless, but make other people live against their own will?
Very well said Devoidless, and I cannot disagree. Why should someone else have the power to say when you can live in die, when you do not? Interesting.
