the right to commit suicide is not a RIGHT! - everyone should understand this!

[WM_in_MO]

Stop feeding the trolls.

 

[Ender]

OK- in plain language:

Yes, you have the right to kill yourself but I also have the right to save you.

Don't like it? Then don't try suicide when I'm around.

 

[TheTexan]

OK- in plain language:

Yes, you have the right to kill yourself but I also have the right to save you.

Don't like it? Then don't try suicide when I'm around.

Do you have a right to involuntarily commit someone to a mental institution to make sure they don't kill themself?

 

[Ender]

Do you have a right to involuntarily commit someone to a mental institution to make sure they don't kill themself?

Your words not mine.

I'll just save your life.

 

[TheTexan]

Your words not mine.

I'll just save your life.

You didn't answer the question. If you feel it's necessary to involuntarily commit me, to save my life, do you feel that you have a right to do so?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Stop feeding the trolls.

This^^

 

[Ender]

You didn't answer the question. If you feel it's necessary to involuntarily commit me, to save my life, do you feel that you have a right to do so?

I said I'd save you. It is YOU who are speaking of being committed- never entered my keyboard.

 

[TheTexan]

I said I'd save you. It is YOU who are speaking of being committed- never entered my keyboard.

You gave a vague answer. I was simply clarifying.

So, if you use force against me to save me from killing myself, and it's clear that I will kill myself as soon as I get the chance, what do you do? Do you forcefully detain me for as long as it takes? Or after I tell you in no uncertain terms to "leave me the fuck alone so I can kill myself", do you leave?

 

[Christian Liberty]

To repeat my stance again for discussion:

Suicide is not truly a right, because it is immoral. I believe I've stated this before, although perhaps not in this thread. There is sometimes a right to be free of interference while doing something immoral, but there is never actually a right to do something immoral. (You could reword this to say that there is a legal right to commit some immoral actions, but never a moral right.)

To take your own life, at least in ordinary circumstances, is murder of self. You don't have a right to do that, but nonetheless, victimizing yourself should not be illegal. You could also word this as saying you have a legal right to kill yourself, but not a moral right.

Nobody truly has a right to stop you from doing it, but I still will, and most other people will too. Rightfully so, in my opinion, at least under normal circumstances.

Now, assuming this is done, does the ex-suicidal person have a right to sue you? Well, a certain poster, who's name I cannot for the life of me remember, mentions an unusual situation where life insurance covers suicide, and a person intends to kill himself in order to get life insurance to save a dying relative. The person is saved and the relative dies. Now that the relative is dead, there's no incentive to commit suicide, so the ex-suicidal person sues, but does not commit suicide.

In this particular bizarre situation, there's no apparent contradiction between the person's desire to kill himself in the past, his desire to gain recourse from being prevented from doing so, and the fact that he now wants to live. So I believe he can legitimately sue in this case.

However, in an ordinary scenario, the ex-suicidal person no longer wanting to kill himself PROVES that he is grateful to the person who saved his life. If he really felt his rights were violated by somebody saving his life, he would try to kill himself again. To me, the fact that he does not proves that he didn't really want to kill himself to begin with, so I think a reasonable jury would see a logical error in the ex-suicidal man's thinking and so would throw out the case against the "hero" or whatever you want to call him.

Theoretically, if the suicidal man remains suicidal after being saved, and DOES kill himself, I can imagine the relatives of the person being allowed to sue: but in all honestly, I seriously doubt they'd do so. Most people don't want their family members to kill themselves, and most people would commend a person who tries to stop them from doing so.

That's the position I take. I think it stands up to logical analysis and libertarian principles.

 

[Christian Liberty]

To repeat my stance again for discussion:

Suicide is not truly a right, because it is immoral. I believe I've stated this before, although perhaps not in this thread. There is sometimes a right to be free of interference while doing something immoral, but there is never actually a right to do something immoral. (You could reword this to say that there is a legal right to commit some immoral actions, but never a moral right.)

To take your own life, at least in ordinary circumstances, is murder of self. You don't have a right to do that, but nonetheless, victimizing yourself should not be illegal. You could also word this as saying you have a legal right to kill yourself, but not a moral right.

Nobody truly has a right to stop you from doing it, but I still will, and most other people will too. Rightfully so, in my opinion, at least under normal circumstances.

Now, assuming this is done, does the ex-suicidal person have a right to sue you? Well, a certain poster, who's name I cannot for the life of me remember, mentions an unusual situation where life insurance covers suicide, and a person intends to kill himself in order to get life insurance to save a dying relative. The person is saved and the relative dies. Now that the relative is dead, there's no incentive to commit suicide, so the ex-suicidal person sues, but does not commit suicide.

In this particular bizarre situation, there's no apparent contradiction between the person's desire to kill himself in the past, his desire to gain recourse from being prevented from doing so, and the fact that he now wants to live. So I believe he can legitimately sue in this case.

However, in an ordinary scenario, the ex-suicidal person no longer wanting to kill himself PROVES that he is grateful to the person who saved his life. If he really felt his rights were violated by somebody saving his life, he would try to kill himself again. To me, the fact that he does not proves that he didn't really want to kill himself to begin with, so I think a reasonable jury would see a logical error in the ex-suicidal man's thinking and so would throw out the case against the "hero" or whatever you want to call him.

Theoretically, if the suicidal man remains suicidal after being saved, and DOES kill himself, I can imagine the relatives of the person being allowed to sue: but in all honestly, I seriously doubt they'd do so. Most people don't want their family members to kill themselves, and most people would commend a person who tries to stop them from doing so.

That's the position I take. I think it stands up to logical analysis and libertarian principles.

I'll note that I did assume the suicide takes place on public property. I acknowledge that if a private property owner created "suicide haven" it might be possible that the "hero" is still punished, but for tresspassing not for saving the person's life.

You gave a vague answer. I was simply clarifying.

So, if you use force against me to save me from killing myself, and it's clear that I will kill myself as soon as I get the chance, what do you do? Do you forcefully detain me for as long as it takes? Or after I tell you in no uncertain terms to "leave me the fuck alone so I can kill myself", do you leave?

I guess I see a difference between short term detention, for instance, to wait until a drunk suicidal person gets sober, and long term detention.

In the former case, I'd probably take the same stance that I took above in my long post. No its not technically "Legal" but if the person doesn't kill himself later, he can't rightfully sue since he is showing by his actions that he is grateful for the technically illegal interference.

Long term detention, on the other hand, is a lot more like kidnapping.

I don't know where to draw the line. Certainly, just saying "I'm not going to let you jump off this particular public bridge, and I'm going to stay here (Where I legally have a right to be) and stop you if you try" is not long term detention.

on the other hand, locking someone indefinitely in a mental institution IS long term detention.

Where the line is, I don't really know. Its a continuum problem that juries will have to figure out. I'd personally say short term detention is measured in seconds, minutes, or hours, while long term detention is measured in days, weeks, or months, but that's just a gut feeling with no real basis. Juries would have to work it out.

 

[Ender]

You gave a vague answer. I was simply clarifying.

So, if you use force against me to save me from killing myself, and it's clear that I will kill myself as soon as I get the chance, what do you do? Do you forcefully detain me for as long as it takes? Or after I tell you in no uncertain terms to "leave me the fuck alone so I can kill myself", do you leave?

Simple solution- make sure you are alone.

 

[TheTexan]

Long term detention, on the other hand, is a lot more like kidnapping.

I don't know where to draw the line. Certainly, just saying "I'm not going to let you jump off this particular public bridge, and I'm going to stay here (Where I legally have a right to be) and stop you if you try" is not long term detention.

on the other hand, locking someone indefinitely in a mental institution IS long term detention.

Where the line is, I don't really know. Its a continuum problem that juries will have to figure out. I'd personally say short term detention is measured in seconds, minutes, or hours, while long term detention is measured in days, weeks, or months, but that's just a gut feeling with no real basis. Juries would have to work it out.

Exactly, it's an arbitrary distinction. And once you get into the realm of arbitrary distinctions, the "right" to invade and control your personal life, only expands, until eventually (as today), you can be thrown into an institution on the mere testimony of a single person who chose to call the cops on you. Or, as is getting more common, just a simple facebook post JOKING about suicide.

It's better to keep it simple. You have ZERO right to use force against me if I am not infringing upon your rights.

 

[TheTexan]

Simple solution- make sure you are alone.

That's fine, but again, once you accept that it's ok to use force against someone to save them from themselves, you end up with the stupid shit we have today where people get committed over facebook posts.

 

[Ender]

That's fine, but again, once you accept that it's ok to use force against someone to save them from themselves, you end up with the stupid shit we have today where people get committed over facebook posts.

I never mention force or Facebook- that's you assuming.

 

[TheTexan]

I never mention force or Facebook- that's you assuming.

If you aren't using force, but just using your words to try to save someone from killing themself, then we're cool.

As long as you don't believe you have a right to use force to stop someone from committing suicide, we are in perfect agreement.

 

[Carlybee]

Do you have a right to involuntarily commit someone to a mental institution to make sure they don't kill themself?

My brother killed himself. I wish I would have had the opportunity to try and save him but I wasn't there when it happened. In retrospect I would have gotten a court order to get him some help....HOWEVER and this is a big however....given the state of psychiatry these days and the proliferation of prescribing meds that could possibly do even more damage, it probably would do nothing more than prolong the inevitable. Once someone becomes so hopeless that they have made that decision, it is very hard to reverse course and "save" them. Once someone reaches that point...they have been thinking about it a long time..years even. Unless it is a momentary act of passion, it's something that has built up over a lifetime in most cases.

 

[Alex Libman]

This thread goes on for this many pages?? Huh?

Self-ownership.

End of thread.

 

[DamianTV]

I don't get your point. Do Rights exist where there are no people? Freedom is unlimited until confronted with another's Rights, or until violated. No people = no Rights.
1 person = inviolate will. 2 people (or more)= the need for boundaries. Either all men are equal or they are not. Equality = Rights, inequality = no Rights. Understand, that Rights exist ONLY in context to the law.

Rights exist because WE exist, not because the Law exists. Jefferson had something to say about the existence of Rights and the Law as well:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within limits drawn around us
by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law", because law is
often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

-Thomas Jefferson

 

[I<3Liberty]

Could we change this to a right to dignified death? Like you could totally (with informed consent from the patient) just sedate him/her to unconsciousness and remove life support. The patient would die peacefully without the physician assisting. Win/Win. Debate done?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Could we change this to a right to dignified death? Like you could totally (with informed consent from the patient) just sedate him/her to unconsciousness and remove life support. The patient would die peacefully without the physician assisting. Win/Win. Debate done?

I really don't see how euthanasia is even up for debate.

Preventing a friend from committing suicide is one thing, that is debatable to a point, but if someone is in debilitating pain or terminally ill and wishes to go peacefully who the hell is the State to tell them no?

Make them suffer while the DEA simultaneously makes it harder and harder to receive the pain medication needed even going so far as to downright restrict certain drugs.

The medical system is ass backwards.