Suicide - The non-believers view

Zombrex

Inspired by the suicide thread on the Christian forum (of which I'm currently banned from, FYI don't mention that Jesus' death was in fact an act of suicide ), and because of the recent news that the actual suicide rate in Ireland may be higher than previously thought, I was curious about the how us atheists feel about suicide.

I personally find it doubtful that there is an afterlife, so I would take the position that suicide is basically it, the end

So what ever mental health problems someone is going through simply existing, even in a very depressed state, is better than not existing.

On the other hand I have trouble with the idea that it should be taught that suicide is a crime or immoral action. It is certainly horrible for the family and friends one leaves behind, but a person who, for mental health reasons, wants to end their life needs help rather than scolding.

There is also the issue of suicide for a purpose.

I think most people would agree that someone who kills themselves because they are really unhappy and want to find some way to stop their depression, need help.

But history is full of examples of "blood sacrifice", people who either kill themselves or allow their own death, for the purposes of a greater cause. In fact it is hard to think of a Star Trek episode that doesn't in some way involve this theme.

Is death for a purpose acceptable? If so who defines this, and would you stop someone from killing themselves if they believed it was for a valid purpose but you didn't?

A recent example I can think of was the man in Spain (I think) who set himself on fire to protest that the courts refused him visitation rights for his child (probably with good reason). It is hard to gauge whether this man was mentally unstable or just really really believed in his cause. He might be denounced, but then people may also praise the Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire to protest war or oppression.

Personally I think a person a live is of more use than a person dead, but it certainly does gain wide spread notice for a cause. Would people here stop someone doing that?

Naikon

It really depends on the circumstances.
For example, a terminally ill cancer patient requesting assisted suicide should be an option provided all non palliative care has been exhausted.
With regards to someone suffering from a serious mental illness, it's fair to say that the individual should be presented with all options available to them, and provided the alternatives have also been exhausted, a person should have the right to end their own life.

The state and church should have no involvment in this matter tbh.
I don't see a major problem, although I admit the decision is a tough one.
Personally if I ever recieved a very poor prognoses, I would encounter no moral barrier to counter my own death.

Zombrex

Naikon wrote: »

With regards to someone suffering from a serious mental illness, it's fair to say that the individual should be presented with all options available to them, and provided the alternatives have also been exhausted, a person should have the right to end their own life.

Well I think the argument is that a person suffering from serious mental illness isn't in the position to determine rationally if they want to die. I understand your point though, who are we to tell a dying patient in pain that they can kill themselves but not a mentally ill patient in pain.

Pompey Magnus

As I am also banned from the Christianity forum I will move my argument over here. As I said on their forum, and still maintain, when a person provokes the authorities into executing them and turns down a last minute chance to save their life they are basically committing suicide by proxy.

Anyways a couple of weeks ago I was at the Catholic funeral for a young neighbour of mine who committed suicide and, whilst I do think it was a nice mass and the priest is a nice guy who comforted the family and was straight up their house when the body was found, in the back of my mind I kept think of what remained unsaid, the actual Catholic teaching of what punishment will be dished out come Judgement Day. Dante, who has been praised for his description of the afterlife by the Catholic Church, places those who commit suicide in the 7th Circle of Hell (for a comparison, heretics and atheists like myself can expect to go to the 6th circle of Hell, the City of Dis).

In my opinion euthanasia for terminally ill patients certainly should be an option. We wouldn't allow a dog to suffer a painful death yet insist on it for a human in similar circumstances, it is verging on the barbaric.

lostexpectation

Wicknight wrote: »

So what ever mental health problems someone is going through simply existing, even in a very depressed state, is better than not existing.

most suicidal people think that it will be better for them and others for them to be dead. that's the purpose

Zombrex

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

In my opinion euthanasia for terminally ill patients certainly should be an option. We wouldn't allow a dog to suffer a painful death yet insist on it for a human in similar circumstances, it is verging on the barbaric.

I vibe I'm getting is that it is important that the person understand what they are doing. Letting a delusioned mentally ill person kill themselves not on, letting a sick in pain person kill themselves is ok.

I would agree some what with that, though it is difficult to judge whether a person does fully understand what they are doing (even before matters are confused with supernatural belief).

Zombrex

lostexpectation wrote: »

most suicidal people think that it will be better for them and others for them to be dead. that's the purpose

Sorry, I should have made that sentence clearer, that is my personal view. No matter how depressed I could be I would still consider that better than not existing. Others of course may disagree. I would be interested in whether a depressed suicidal person thinks about what happens to them, or is it simply the here and now, they want something to change.

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

No matter how depressed I could be I would still consider that better than not existing.

tbh I don't think that's a call anyone could make until they've suffered what some people have.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

tbh I don't think that's a call anyone could make until they've suffered what some people have.

Possibly. I didn't mean to belittle what people can go through, its not that I feel I would be any stronger than them. Its simply that death terrifies me. In some ways being so depressed that you no longer feared death would be a form of comfort from that.

eoin5

On the issue of suicide for a purpose youd have to admit its a very powerful tool. Suicide bombers as we know are extremely effective at killing people and people on hunger strikes have helped change the world by doing so.

Is it acceptable? My 2c: Anything that is dangerous to other people obviously isnt. For everything else it depends on if the person has or has not been brainwashed into doing so. If its their own choice its sad but then who are we to stop them. If it became the status quo then we might have a problem but I dont think theres any fear of that.

Hivemind187

My libertarian politics make me say "you want to kill yourself? Sure, enjoy, just dont damage anyone else in the process" .

Knowing a lot of depressed people and one or two who have tried (and a couple who sadly succeeded) I have to say that those persons who are suffering from a mental health disorder from which they see suicide as the only escape is, in my opinion, not too far removed from say, suffering with motor-neurone disease or terminal pancreatic cancer or anyone of a thousand other afflictions. The pan may be emotional, but it is as real is a tumour to them.

Often times the prescribed medication doesnt work. Fluoxitine (prozac) and its cousins like Ciprager, Seroxat etc for exaple are only effective in something like half of the patients they are given to, and even then only mildly unless it is an extreme case.

"Mental illness" to most suggests that these people are in some way impaired mentally. That they are sub-normal. that they are not capable of making decisions for themselves. That, is total and utter cods.

There are, however, exceptions. Unfortunately so many of them that it is difficult to make generalisations.

I have to go with it being the choice of the individual. That perhaps it is right to intervene in some situations, but in others it isnt.

Lastly, the big issue is that if someone is intent on doing it, they will find a way.

- Does being an Atheist have an effect on whether I would chug a bottle of painkillers? I suppose the idea of ceasing to exist bothers me, it is my personal curiosity about "tomorow" that would stop me.

Wicknight and Depeche : Well done.

OK-Cancel-Apply

I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with killing yourself. The morality lies in the situation you're leaving behind. It's not right to kill yourself and leave others to pick up the pieces of your life, or to kill yourself and leave kids without their parent. Of course, I wouldn't speak too harshly of anybody who commits suicide, as you have to be pretty damn low to do it.

Like too many other Irish people, this subject is not far away from my life.

stereoroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Inspired by the suicide thread on the Christian forum (of which I'm currently banned from, FYI don't mention that Jesus' death was in fact an act of suicide )

I've heard it described as "suicide-by-cop", as it would be called today. As you say - not considered polite on a Christianity forum.

This kind of question falls under my general attitude: "Ethics, not Morals". If you're dead, you'd be past caring about anything, so it would come down to the impact suicide would have on those left behind. There will always be someone who has to deal with the mess, strangers such as Garda officers, funeral directors, or whatever. If you have family who would genuinely care - as opposed to a selfish concern about the impact on them - you'd have to think about that too.

Me, I haven't seriously considered suicide, but then I do have a black sense of humour. With the world going to the proverbial hell in a handbasket as I write, far exceeding my darkest misanthropic speculations, I'm actually interested in seeing just what happens in the next few decades. :cool:

Zombrex

stereoroid wrote: »

I've heard it described as "suicide-by-cop", as it would be called today.

It is quite common, the wikipedia article on it describe a study that found up to 50% of all police shootings were suicide-by-cop (though I suppose that is a difficult thing to measure)

stereoroid wrote: »

If you have family who would genuinely care - as opposed to a selfish concern about the impact on them - you'd have to think about that too.

I must say I do think it is a horrible horrible thing to do to ones family. Any families I know who have had to deal with a suicide are devastated. I suppose though it is difficult to think of others when trapped in a deep depression.

stereoroid

Wicknight wrote: »

I must say I do think it is a horrible horrible thing to do to ones family. Any families I know who have had to deal with a suicide are devastated. I suppose though it is difficult to think of others when trapped in a deep depression.

Agreed - but I also think the reaction of the parents, after the suicide, sometimes betrays a wilful ignorance of what their child was going through.

I see reports where the parents say things like "how could he/she do that to us!". or "how could he/she be so selfish?" That is, concerned with themselves first, even in such circumstances. IMHO: If you're a parent, imagining (for any reason) your child committing suicide, and your primary concern is for the impact on you... that's a warning sign right there, and you need a boot up the backside for such selfishness. :mad:

Call Me Jimmy

Wicknight wrote: »

Sorry, I should have made that sentence clearer, that is my personal view. No matter how depressed I could be I would still consider that better than not existing. Others of course may disagree. I would be interested in whether a depressed suicidal person thinks about what happens to them, or is it simply the here and now, they want something to change.

You can bet your house on it that a depressed suicidal person thinks about what happens to them.
As a non-believer, I believe (:P) that it's like losing consiousness, as soon as you do there's nothing. I want to say that everything is black but not even that, because you dont exist :P A better way of putting it for me is, when you die, nothing exists...
Whether you die for a noble cause, to escape pain, or just by accident etc. I think it's the exact same result.

If you were set on fire, and it was burning your skin off, and you were absolutely certain it wasn't going to be put out, would you jump off a cliff? Surely not existing is better than that?

Pompey Magnus

stereoroid wrote: »

I see reports where the parents say things like "how could he/she do that to us!". or "how could he/she be so selfish?" That is, concerned with themselves first, even in such circumstances. IMHO: If you're a parent, imagining (for any reason) your child committing suicide, and your primary concern is for the impact on you... that's a warning sign right there, and you need a boot up the backside for such selfishness. :mad:

I was discussing euthanasia with a friend of mine. He is very Christian and very much against the idea but something he said struck me, we were discussing the situation of a very ill parent who was dying a painful death, I suggested that if the parent wanted an end to their suffering they should get every bit of support from their family if it really what they wanted. He completely disagreed and said that it would be a selfish act on their part and theu should consider their family who would want to spend as much time with them as possible. I could not agree with this and to me this seems far more selfish, in other words the dying person should continue to suffer against their will for the sake of their family.

Rev Hellfire

Its seems that the topic of euthanasia and suicide are linked in the minds of the good citizens for this forum. The difference in my mind is that with the later it is typically one individual (excluding suicide packs) who participates in the act, while with the other medical assistance is typically give.

I'm curious as to whether people feel it is appropriate for doctors to be activity involved in the termination of life from a policy basis. As it stands now doctors can take an non-interventionist approach when dealing with the terminally ill or profoundly disabled. Keeping someone comforatble while not attempting to actively 'save' them.

I'd be against euthanasia, not because of the act itself but for the possibility of 'feature creep'; its not a long distance removed from eugenics imho.

pH

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Its seems that the topic of euthanasia and suicide are linked in the minds of the good citizens for this forum. The difference in my mind is that with the later it is typically one individual (excluding suicide packs) who participates in the act, while with the other medical assistance is typically give.

I'm curious as to whether people feel it is appropriate for doctors to be activity involved in the termination of life from a policy basis. As it stands now doctors can take an non-interventionist approach when dealing with the terminally ill or profoundly disabled. Keeping someone comforatble while not attempting to actively 'save' them.

I'd be against euthanasia, not because of the act itself but for the possibility of 'feature creep'; its not a long distance removed from eugenics imho.

The problem with slippery slope/feature creep arguments is that they can be applied to anything and everything. Why isn't the non-interventionist approach subject to feature-creep - how terminally ill? how profoundly disabled? Once we allow doctors to just keep these people comfortable, you could argue that the criteria would be constantly expanded to included others we won't try and save.

Rev Hellfire

pH wrote: »

The problem with slippery slope/feature creep arguments is that they can be applied to anything and everything. Why isn't the non-interventionist approach subject to feature-creep - how terminally ill? how profoundly disabled? Once we allow doctors to just keep these people comfortable, you could argue that the criteria would be constantly expanded to included others we won't try and save.

You're absolutely right the slippery slope can be applied to anything, but that does not make it an invalid concern. One notable difference with non-intervention compared to euthanasia is that the outcome favoured is not guaranteed, sometimes you get the outcome you may not wish. It makes for an important distinction in my view.

lostexpectation

anybody see that french women who went to court for an assited suicide was rejected and then killed herself this week anyway, she had this horrible tumour on the front of her head.

iUseVi

yeah lostexpectation, I saw that too. I have to say I did feel for her. Personally I would be in favour of euthanasia in such an extreme case at least. It is after all her life and her choice.

I would make a distinction between that and suicide though. There is clearly a difference between:
dying with what dignity you have left, with your loving family surrounding you, and suicide.