• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should a person be allowed to commit suicide?

Should the state allow people to commit suicide?


  • Total voters
    39
yet in a fit of temporary insanity, contrary to your own personal beliefs you decide to kill yourself in the heat of the moment
After the state saves your life, you are grateful becuase it was only a temporary weakness you had not desire to make it a permanent solution

is it still wrong?

I think that's the most common scenario regarding suicide, actually. A desire to make the pain stop as opposed to a desire toactually die, which to me is why we should work to assist suicidal with the former while trying to prevent the latter. Suicide is, after all, "a permanent solution to a temporary problem."
 
I think that's the most common scenario regarding suicide, actually. A desire to make the pain stop as opposed to a desire toactually die, which to me is why we should work to assist suicidal with the former while trying to prevent the latter. Suicide is, after all, "a permanent solution to a temporary problem."

With the thousands of possibuilitys that exist as to why a person would want to kill themselfs how do you know it's "a permanent solution to a temporary problem."

What about a paraplegic who does not want to live paralyzed.

An 80 year old man who has no family.

A drug addict who has lost everything and is looking at prison for at least 20 years.

Not all problems are temporary.
 
Last edited:
Just to get it straight, by attempting to stop him/her you would be violating his/her right to end his/her life.
Correct?

No. By attempting to persuade him/her to not commit suicide is in no way a violation of his/her right. My attempts may not be successful. Ultimately, it is their life, and they can choose to end it. The state shouldn't intervene with legal action.
 
I voted no. Been there with loved ones, and it is not a fun thing to go through.
 
I don't see how the legality of it is really a factor. They're dead... WTF you gonna do? Punish their corpse?
The conversation is an outgrowth of a drug-legalization thread. Should the state recognize the right of a person to take illicit, harmful drugs that will eventually lead to his death?
 
For me it depends on the situation. If they have a mental problem, like extreme depression, then they should be stopped. They are not in their right mind.

However, if a person has a terminal disease/virus then I would not even try to stop them. And don't believe that they should be stopped. After all we put horses down for having a broken leg. Surely we can basically give the same consideration to a terminally ill person asking for it.

Another type of person that I would not stop from killing themselves are those that for no reason at all just decided to kill themselves. If they are that pathetic then who am I to stop Darwin's law?

One other type of person that I would even help terminating is a murderer or rapist. Weather they wanted to die or not.... ;)
 
I believe that it should be a persons right to do anything to themselves that they wish as long as it does not involve anyone else, this includes suicide. But I do feel alot of people that commit suicide never fully consider what their death will do to those that care for them and are acting in a selfish manner.

And about a friend that wants to commit suicide. That depends on the situation. I wouldnt necessarily try to talk them out of it just because they were my friend. If I felt that they would almost certainly have a very unhappy and ****ty life, I may think they would be better off dead.
 
The conversation is an outgrowth of a drug-legalization thread. Should the state recognize the right of a person to take illicit, harmful drugs that will eventually lead to his death?

No. Because drugs can cause more pain for others than just the user. Including lives other than the users.
 
The conversation is an outgrowth of a drug-legalization thread. Should the state recognize the right of a person to take illicit, harmful drugs that will eventually lead to his death?

Really separate arguments.

A person who commits suicide is dead.

A person who regularly consumes large doses of harmful drugs often spends many years varying between useless and outright dangerous before becoming dead.

It's like the difference between a suicide and a suicide bomber, in slow motion.
 
No. Because drugs can cause more pain for others than just the user. Including lives other than the users.
Drugs do not cause anything to happen to people who do not ingest them. Perhaps the people who do ingest the drugs cause pain, but that is the responsibility of those people, not of the drugs.
 
Really separate arguments.

A person who commits suicide is dead.

A person who regularly consumes large doses of harmful drugs often spends many years varying between useless and outright dangerous before becoming dead.

It's like the difference between a suicide and a suicide bomber, in slow motion.
Unless I'm mistaken, the ultimate rationale for drug laws in this country is that they keep people from killing themselves with drugs. If that is indeed the case, the two arguments are inextricably linked.
 
Pretty sure the rationale is closer to keeping people from crippling themselves with drugs. After all, that's expensive and a pain in the ass to clean up. Killing yourself with drugs, at worst, requires a steam cleaner.
 
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh good for you (christian bale)

1 saved out of how many suicides that year?????????????????

yeah, that is what i thought
Are you trying to appeal to numbers?
For real?
We are talking on whether the state should let people kill themselves or whether it should simply stay away even when it can intervene.

Oh, and in response to all of the question marks in your post:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
You would make a good politician, you're good at evading questions. If you won't answer my previous question then please answer this one, would you rather have a person be in a mental institute their whole live or let them end their life if they were depressed for a very long time? This isn't a trick question I just want to know your opinion and where you stand on this issue.

Sorry for delay in answering. Was tired and had to go to bed.

Here is my answer. The idea that anyone would be forced to live their whole life in a mental institution is to my mind a sin. I would not be surprised that someone treated in this manner would want to commit suicide.

The problem lies with the help. There is no reason that someone needs to continue living in such depression. We do have the ability to help people.

I have already said that the issue of whether the person ends their life or not is not in my hands. I would not help someone to kill themselves because I know that healing is possible.

I personally would have nothing to do with putting anyone into any mental institution against their will.

I believe in helping people towards self empowerment.

Hence your example points to a failure of our mental health systems caused no doubt by lack of funds and quality of help. That is where change should be directed.
 
With the thousands of possibuilitys that exist as to why a person would want to kill themselfs how do you know it's "a permanent solution to a temporary problem."

What about a paraplegic who does not want to live paralyzed.

An 80 year old man who has no family.

A drug addict who has lost everything and is looking at prison for at least 20 years.

Not all problems are temporary.

I was responding specifically to a post regarding treatent-resistance depression, not any other factor that might bring someone to want to end their life.

I've stated before that I support euthanasia, so after counselling and being made aware of the services avaliable to him, if the man in the first example wished to end his life, I would support him. I would absolutely not support the latter two decisions. The UK has plenty of organisations that provide outreach to the elderly, many of them run by the government: befriending services, programs to help the elderly stay active and make new friends. Loneliness is a problem that can be dealt with by far less radical means than suicide.

As for your second example, I have friends and relatives whose lives have been torn apart by addiction, so I do sympathise. There needs to be far more access to rehabilation programs in the UK. There are programs avaliable, but the waiting lists are often horrendously long. Saying that, access is expanding all the time, and our Social Service departments are only too eager to assist addicts in getting off drugs and supporting them as they attempt to rebuild their lives.

I quite frankly really don't understand the reasoning behind your points, AT ALL. The answer to someone feelingas though their life is not worth living shouldn't be "Okay, go kill yourself", but "How can we help? What can we do as a society to solve these problems with you?"

We as a society have a duty of care to one another, and the idea that we should sanction suicide as opposed to fufilling this duty seems macabre.
 
I struggle with this one.

I believe in "self-ownership" as a political and economic principle. Nor do I believe that it is GovCo's job to safeguard people from their own stupidity or poor choices, at least in general.

OTOH I believe that life is precious and that most suicides are overreacting to circumstances or depression.

Yes, I'd try to intervene if someone I cared about was trying to commit suicide.

I'd also try to intervene if a loved one was ruining their life with drugs (or booze).

Do I want the state to make suicide, drugs or booze illegal? The former pair already are, of course, but...

To be fully consistent we'd need to make alcoholism a crime also, since it is a self-destructive behavior. Also smoking, and overeating, and and and...

I don't like that line of progression... but I'll admit I don't have a good answer to this question.
 
Do I want the state to make suicide, drugs or booze illegal? The former pair already are, of course, but...

To be fully consistent we'd need to make alcoholism a crime also, since it is a self-destructive behavior. Also smoking, and overeating, and and and...

I don't like that line of progression... but I'll admit I don't have a good answer to this question.
A person that drink alcohol or smokes a cigarette is not doing it because he wants to die.
A person that hangs himself up or jumps off the roof of a tall building pretty much does it in order to end his life.
 
Suicide is an extremely selfish and cowardly act.

That said, how is it supposed to be punished? The death penalty?

Punishing attempted suicide will only encourage suicide attempts to be more successful.
 
Suicide is an extremely selfish and cowardly act.

That said, how is it supposed to be punished? The death penalty?

Punishing attempted suicide will only encourage suicide attempts to be more successful.
I challenge you to show where did I speak about anyone getting punished.

So many voters here have seemed to take the assumption that the state would punish the person for trying to commit suicide.
The poll was about whether the state should allow people to suicide or not.
Should it let people kill themselves or intervene when it can.
 
I think terminally ill patients should have the legal ability to end their suffering.
 
A person that drink alcohol or smokes a cigarette is not doing it because he wants to die.
A person that hangs himself up or jumps off the roof of a tall building pretty much does it in order to end his life.

Yet, you've been comparing it to drug abuse, haven't you?
 
And what about the common person?

Suicide is against common human nature. It is a gray area to me, one that I have thought about very much. I would think that most people, who have no terminal illness, suffer from either depression, or some other mental disorder, thus with treatment thay would not choose suicide. So, I would not legalize suicide for common people. Only those with terminal illness.
 
Back
Top Bottom