Prevention of suicide: torture?

So here in UK if a person is believed to be mentally 'unstable' and is at risk of harming themselves, particularly if there's a risk of suicide, then that person can be 'sectioned' under the Mental Health Act which means that they can be locked away for their own 'protection'.

So I have two questions:
1) if a person wants to end their life is that really 'abnormal' and
2) if you force someone to stay alive against their will - if, for example, they find their life miserable and an endless source of suffering or if they're in paihates that torture?

Discuss :)

I'll chime in on this:

if a person wants to end their life is that really 'abnormal'

Well, I'd say the "wanting" to isn't particularly abnormal. I suspect most have flirted that idea from time to time, just like we flirt around with other dangerous and self-destructive ideas. I mean, I know that here have been times when I wanted to wallop a co-worker on the nose. . . But what is abnormal, about this and about suicide, is the actual following through or attempting to follow through on that idea. And by "abnormal", I really just mean rare or infrequent.


if you force someone to stay alive against their will - if, for example, they find their life miserable and an endless source of suffering or if they're in paihates that torture?

Tougher question -- One that I'm not sure how to answer exactly. I'll first say that I think it's phrased a little melodramatically -- an "endless source of suffering" seems a little bit too much. But I get where you're going with this. But to be definitive, I'd have to say "no"; it's not torture. Having to read Charles Dickens. . .now that's torture. . . (hehe. . .kidding. . . . sorta). My reasoning first lies with my pick at the word "endless"; neither I nor the sufferer have any idea how long their existential pain is going to last. Sometimes it goes a way. Sometimes it takes long time; sometimes not as long. And second the purpose of keepers-alive is one of healing and help, whether it be through medication, counseling, or taking him or her fishing. . . .And "intent" matters a lot to me here -- I make my seven year old "suffer" everyday by making her do her math. She cries. She yells. She throws pencils. But I keep on torturin' her because my intent is to help, even to help her overcome her anxiety of math.

But I'm sure there are more intelligent, logical arguments on this topic than mine here.

It is a difficult question.

I think there is a big difference between someone committing themselves and being forced into a hospital. Let's rule out any threat to other people besides the individual in question, because that is a whole other matter.

When it comes to family members or close friends committing a potential suicide to an hospital, I tend to feel that this is selfishness on their parts. They are looking at this person from their eyes, from their world view, and have no conception of what this individual is going through. So, yes, it is unintentional torture in that sense.

I think urging someone to seek help is the proper way to go about it, not forcing them.

The idea of "endless suffering" may seem melodramatic but I don't think it is. Depression (which I'd argue all who would attempt suicide suffer from to some degree) is a spiral that could seem endless. The thought that every day will be like today: that there is nothing to look forward to: that despite people's bland reassurance of "it will get better, I promise" you know it wont'.....all this can seem endless until you physically end it.

I think that on principle everyone has the right to end his/her own life. So I would never call suicide "abnormal". (It's only this claim of a naturalness that life should be seen as a wonderful gift that gives the wish to end it an abnormal touch - but I don't agree with this naturalness).

There is only one restriction: when there are other people (e.g. familiy members) who would suffer from this suicide one mustn't kill him/herself (without their approval).

The problem is that most people who commit suicide or try to commit it aren't doing this on the basis of rational thinking - it's often more a sudden irrational act. In these cases it may be helpful and justified to keep them alive against their will, because it seems probable that they will change their opinion/"come to their right senses" again.

When someone is suffering from a deadly disease (cancer etc.) and has to endure immense pain then it may seem cruel to force him/her staying alive for a few more months at all cost.

When I read "torture" I have to think of Guantanamo an stuff like that. And I am not sure if the forced prevention from suicide is a similar thing... hmm, really tough question.

Well, I think that all of life is precious. Suicide has always seemed strange to me.

However...

If you were to look up the funny, fantasy writer, Terry Pratchett, he believes wholeheartedly in being able to take one's life, and fights for the right to do so, due to discovering that he had acquired early onset Alzheimer's. He wants to end his life when his mind is irretrievable, and who can blame him? Something more terrifying than death is, perhaps, losing one's personality, mind and self.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia.org

In August 2007 Pratchett was misdiagnosed as having had a minor stroke in 2004 or 2005 that was believed to have damaged the right side of his brain. While his motor skills had been affected, the observed damage had not impaired his ability to write.[31] On 11 December 2007, Pratchett posted online that he had been newly diagnosed with a very rare form of early-onset Alzheimer's disease, which he said "lay behind this year's phantom 'stroke'." He has a rare form of the disease called posterior cortical atrophy, in which areas at the back of the brain begin to shrink and shrivel.[14] Describing it as an 'embuggerance' in a radio interview, Pratchett appealed to people to "keep things cheerful", and proclaimed that "we are taking it fairly philosophically down here and possibly with a mild optimism."[39] Leading the way, Pratchett stated that he feels he has time for "at least a few more books yet", and added that while he understands the impulse to ask 'is there anything I can do?', in this particular case he will only entertain such offers from "very high-end experts in brain chemistry."[39] Discussing his diagnosis at the Bath Literature Festival in early 2008, Pratchett revealed that he now found it too difficult to write dedications when signing books.[40]

---

He manages to write his novels even now, though he has great difficulty, through spoken-word.

Self-murder is beautiful if well-thought out and done uniquely and poetically. Hanging after writing a poem is good, but suffocating one's self with her or his unpublished manuscript is better. Burning one's self for the cause of others is the best. If you haven't done anything good in your life, end it to do good and many will notice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

1) if a person wants to end their life is that really 'abnormal' and
2) if you force someone to stay alive against their will - if, for example, they find their life miserable and an endless source of suffering or if they're in paihates that torture?

Discuss :)

---

This is an interesting topic and these are interesting questions. I am of the opinion that a person should have the right to end his or her own life. Thus, while I agree with The Comedian that it is deviant (or abnormal) in that it is rare or deviates from the norm (statistically speaking), I do not think that it is 'abnormal' in the sense that suicide, sacrifice, etc have existed since the beginning of time and occurs in all cultures and societies. Whether it occurs in the animal kingdom, I am not sure... though you do hear stories about dogs, for example, that experience such an acute form of depression (after being abandoned by their owners, or owners dying) that they stop eating and soon die thereafter... I don't know if animals have the same level of consciousness, however, to purposefully take their own lives.

As for your second question, I am not sure whether it would qualify as 'torture.' Since I have never had such an intense feeling as being utterlly hopeless and wanting to kill myself, I cannot really fathom what it would be like to live like that every single day. It surely is some type of psychological suffering... I would sooner say, however, that it is the violation of a person's human rights (as I noted earlier).

On the other hand, the state, of course, has a duty to protect citizens from one another, but does it have a duty to protect citizens from themselves?
To take a more banal example... should the wearing of a seat belt in a car be required and enforced? It is in many countries... but does it infringe on personal freedoms? or is it a way to protect citizens?

I'm still mulling this one over... (but I do stand firm on the fact that people should be able to commit suicide if they so wish, just as I also think assisted suicide should not be a crime... in cases of euthanasia, for example.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

Self-murder is beautiful if well-thought out and done uniquely and poetically. Hanging after writing a poem is good, but suffocating one's self with her or his unpublished manuscript is better. Burning one's self for the cause of others is the best. If you haven't done anything good in your life, end it to do good and many will notice.

---

is this a quote?
or did you just write it up just now?

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

So here in UK if a person is believed to be mentally 'unstable' and is at risk of harming themselves, particularly if there's a risk of suicide, then that person can be 'sectioned' under the Mental Health Act which means that they can be locked away for their own 'protection'

---

.
This is very intricate because the clue is in ''is believed to be unstable''. This means one is not sure/certain, not enough evidence, and therefore locking anyone away on the basis of a belief is in my eyes wrong/illegal.
Unless there is concrete evidence that a person is 'unstable' then the law is breaking the law.
If one is at risk of harming themselves then the law and society is obliged/underobligation by law to provide medication and assistance to them until they are able to stabilise. Locking them away is my opinion illegal.

Quote:

---

So I have two questions:
1) if a person wants to end their life is that really 'abnormal' and

---

No it is not. It is a nervous breakdown,a very accute one, and has nothing to do with being abnormal.

Quote:

---

2)
if you force someone to stay alive against their will - if, for example, they find their life miserable and an endless source of suffering or if they're in paihates that torture?

---

I don't understand the word 'paihates'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

is this a quote?
or did you just write it up just now?

---

not a quote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

not a quote.

---

Did you write it yourself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Did you write it yourself?

---

There's nothing special to it. Yes, I did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

Self-murder is beautiful if well-thought out and done uniquely and poetically. Hanging after writing a poem is good, but suffocating one's self with her or his unpublished manuscript is better. Burning one's self for the cause of others is the best. If you haven't done anything good in your life, end it to do good and many will notice.

---

Sylvia Plath with her head in a gas oven before the kids got out of bed?

There are certainly ways to do it that seem more "poetic" than others. I was at a subway station, about to get on a train, and there was a jumper - so naturally the trains were stopped. There was a large group of university students who became very irate that they were now going to be late for an exam.....

It's only poetic from the perspective of those who look for it. The reality is that the person is in pain. That pain is transferred to the people who loved and cared for them. I don't see the poetry in that.

It should be a power in the family doctor by simple contract. If they want to morphine OD in bed that is between them. I don't want the government involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamCrackers

It should be a power in the family doctor by simple contract. If they want to morphine OD in bed that is between them. I don't want the government involved.

---

What's the minimum age allowed on this idea?

Suicide prevention is kindness not torture. I struggle with thoughts of suicide. If it were not for steps taken by other people to help stop me from acting on them I might not be here. Its not torture. Its rational charity.

I would think that if one is contemplating suicide it may be due to a temporary state of mind, or that of depression. In that case, it's a very permanent solution for a temporary problem. If it can be sure that one cannot recover from mental illness, then how can the person (who is mentally ill.....not of sound mind) be deemed able to make such a decision? And how can anyone else be able to make such a decision for them?

1.) Hesse answered this question pretty good in Steppenwolf. Suicide is the escape hatch. It's always there in a fundamental way, one could always 'pull the chute.' Religion isn't a deterrent for the most postmodern of us, the most godless- but a healthy dose of skepticism should put natural science in a certain context. The wisest of us will say we don't know what's on the metaphorical other side of the great abyss by whatever means we happen to cross it.

2.) If a person is caught in a moment of passion, and you have sufficient reason to think strong emotions are temporarily altering their judgment, then intervention might be warranted. But if someone wants to take their own life, that seems as fundamental a right as one can have.




Discussed.







J

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

It's only poetic from the perspective of those who look for it. The reality is that the person is in pain. That pain is transferred to the people who loved and cared for them. I don't see the poetry in that.

---

I agree. There is no need to romanticize suicide. It is not poetic.

I also think Darcy88's comment that suicide prevention is a kindness, not a torture and BienvenuJDC's observation that suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem both make sense. Some people may only need a correct medical diagnosis and proper treatment. Others may just need a change in perspective.

Miyako73's claim that "burning one's self for the cause of others is the best" I find questionable. I realize there have been many recent Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire in India and Tibet for political reasons. These suicides will be all that is remembered after the politics has been long forgotten and like bad karma they will haunt Buddhism. Religions need to show us how to live, not how to die.

Bien makes a good point about a very permanent solution for a short term problem. But how can we differentiate weather it is a short term agony or a long term one?

Many people are showing an image of death as unwanted and ugly, yet the happiness we have in our world, all the freedoms and human rights and liberties which we enjoy, we are usurping this rich harvest because before us thousands of men before us were willing to die for freedom and human rights. So there is a hypocrisy in lamenting the uselessness of the monks burning themselves when the only reason we live free lives is because our ancestors willingly died so that we could have what we have today. Thankful no one applied the mentality of such fear of death before, otherwise only 1/10 os us on the forum would have had education and freedom and wealth in our lives, most of us would be still living like feudal slaves.

I know what I am talking about is not technically suicide, but it is important to remember that death is not so bad, and it is because so many men in the best did not bow before it and were not fearful of it that we lead such good lives today. To quote Manfred's final words before death - "Old man! It is not so difficult to die"

I'll kill myself if and when I want to. I'm not going to suffer old age ailments and senility. If someone has a problem with that, it's not my problem. I suppose the trick to the thing is not telling anyone who has the ability to hospitalize you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

I'll kill myself if and when I want to. I'm not going to suffer old age ailments and senility. If someone has a problem with that, it's not my problem. I suppose the trick to the thing is not telling anyone who has the ability to hospitalize you.

---

This is one area that I can understand. What pains me is when young people resort to suicide because they can't cope with short lived circumstances. Also when parents commit suicide without thinking about the responsibility they have to their children (talking about young children).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

So I have two questions:
1) if a person wants to end their life is that really 'abnormal' and
2) if you force someone to stay alive against their will - if, for example, they find their life miserable and an endless source of suffering or if they're in paihates that torture?

---

In answer to the first question, I would have to agree with most that it is abnormal in the sense that it is not the norm. Having thoughts of suicide are quite common I believe. Everyone has a bad day/month/year that just leaves them feeling that it would be so much easier to just end it all. The anomaly is in the people that actually do it. The reason I say this is that it goes against all survival instincts to commit suicide. You have to override your basic survival instinct or have a weak drive for survival to begin with. That is an abnormality in the individual. This is why, I believe, that successful suicides are relatively rare in comparison to the amount of people who think about it.

As for forcing someone to stay alive against their will... Mostly I would say that this is impossible. The people threatening to kill themselves or "trying" to commit suicide are crying out for someone to help them cope. The people who truly wish to die just quietly make it happen. These are the people who you wake up and hear they put a shotgun round through their head. These are not the people cutting their wrists the wrong way or trying to overdose on pills after they sent a goodbye e-mail to their boyfriend. People who wish to die simply do. They don't make mistakes, and they don't stop to think about who they would leave behind or who will be hurt. Most people don't really want to die, they want to try to die and have someone save them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

I'll kill myself if and when I want to. I'm not going to suffer old age ailments and senility. If someone has a problem with that, it's not my problem. I suppose the trick to the thing is not telling anyone who has the ability to hospitalize you.

---

...but you just told us Varenne;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

I'll kill myself if and when I want to. I'm not going to suffer old age ailments and senility. If someone has a problem with that, it's not my problem. I suppose the trick to the thing is not telling anyone who has the ability to hospitalize you.

---

I doubt you'll have many tricks up your sleeve by the time you're senile anyway since you'll be incompetent in your thinking process. You'll be so busy babbling about how you just had coffee with your dead relatives, planning your own suicide without anyone knowing will be a mission impossible. The other thing to factor is the error of assumption that you will have the same mentality then that you have now. Of course you might, but I highly doubt it.

I think that there's absolutely nothing wrong with non existence. The dead can't be harmed. Furthermore, I don't think any amount of happiness can outweigh serious suffering, even when it's only temporary suffering. Thinking about suicide is really a sane thing to do.

The way society currently handles the issue is terrible and leads to a lot of unnecessary suffering. You're not "rescuing" people who truly want to kill themselves, you're causing them suffering. And those who attempt suicide because they want to be rescued? Well they wouldn't do that if people wouldn't rescue those who attempt suicide in the first place. The fact that chemicals that induce a painfree, quick death are almost impossible to get also causes a lot of pain to those who kill themselves and those who might witness it or find the bodies. And lastly, think of all the lives that can be saved if the large amount of people who commit suicide could donate their organs. The people who are saved actually want to live, after all.

The really messed up thing about the whole issue is that suicide is often selfish because it leaves people back who suffer from it, and because a person can do a lot of good in a lifetime, at least if they put their mind to it.
No one was asked whether they want to live, you're thrown in there, and when you're unhappy, you can't really get out without being unethical. That's why I'll never have children.

Suicide is tragic in oh so many ways. The poetics may be defined as: selfish, honorable, dishonorable, escape, demons, insanity, a "momentary lapse of reason" (snagged from a Pink Floyd album name but otherwise not related I believe), terror, and more. I cannot see the beauty in it.

Suicide has tangled my life in its weave in many different ways. I've twice been on suicide watches (both are still alive: one after 30 years in good health; another after 6-years of on again off again struggle, but still making a difference for the good in the world); friends who have related their stories of grief and luck; one where perhaps no one could have intervened - when my sister committed suicide: and others.

Preventing suicide has so many shades of gray. Arbitrarily throwing one into an institution might be a kindness in the way that one might get the proper health care to help one become "healed" in a manner that one might be able to overcome whatever drove them to attempt suicide (if the institution was hardwired into helping and not closeting their patients) and continue with a long a fruitful life.

Life is so precious. No one knows what might be if one were rational enough to take pause to reflect. Where one is not rational - perhaps no intervention may be possible if they can't get the necessary treatment. For those who are selfish, I dunno. I have heard of those who were stopped at one time only to succeed later - at least they had the chance to reflect before the consummation of the act.

I, my two brothers, my Mother, my other sister, my nieces and nephew, and my sister's grandchildren, and my sister's husband (who had just opened the front door when my sister committed her act) remember holidays, birthdays, etc. with grief thrown into the mix. I know my sister wasn't being selfish on her part - she was under medication for depression which might even have contributed to a momentary lapse, and very possibly under a delusion which held her in terror. My nieces rarely go a week without posting on FB that they miss their Mom. I'd rather to be able to visit her, even in an institution - but perhaps that's just me being selfish.

Enduring nobly to the end;

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack of Hearts

1.) Hesse answered this question pretty good in Steppenwolf. Suicide is the escape hatch. It's always there in a fundamental way, one could always 'pull the chute.' Religion isn't a deterrent for the most postmodern of us, the most godless- but a healthy dose of skepticism should put natural science in a certain context. The wisest of us will say we don't know what's on the metaphorical other side of the great abyss by whatever means we happen to cross it.

2.) If a person is caught in a moment of passion, and you have sufficient reason to think strong emotions are temporarily altering their judgment, then intervention might be warranted. But if someone wants to take their own life, that seems as fundamental a right as one can have.


Discussed.







J

---

Its shouldn't be a fundamental right. It ruins lives, not just the life of the one taking their own life. It should only be legal in cases where treatment is not possible. I can't stand this attitude. Hesse thought that way because he was probably suffering from some form of bipolar or other mental disorder.

Suicide is irrational. Its often relatively healthy and well off people who consider and/or attempt it. I fully support forced hospitalization, forced medication, when there is a risk of suicide. But I also support euthanasia in cases where pain and suffering are chronic and the low quality of life is impossible to mend.

It should be a legal right, because people are going to kill themselves whether it's illegal or not. If it's illegal, all that means is that family of the person who kills themselves doesn't get the life insurance money, so not only are they devistated by grief they're also crippled financially by funeral costs, and they're screwed if the person who killed themselves was their provider. So yeah, making suicide illegal is stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

It should be a legal right, because people are going to kill themselves whether it's illegal or not. If it's illegal, all that means is that family of the person who kills themselves doesn't get the life insurance money, so not only are they devistated by grief they're also crippled financially by funeral costs, and they're screwed if the person who killed themselves was their provider. So yeah, making suicide illegal is stupid.

---

You are right. Even if this post wasn't directed at me, my wording in my last post was stupid.

Suicide should be legal, but I think that health care professionals and family members should have a legal mandate to do everything within their power to prevent it. I am not really up to date on the legal issues. I just know that if someone is a threat to themselves or others they can be involuntarily committed. I am okay with this. As someone who has mental health issues I support this wholeheartedly.

People with mental health issues often reject help when it is offered. Sometimes it has to be forced. Its never been forced on me but there were times when it almost was and I honestly wish it had been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonywalt

...but you just told us Varenne;)

---

Heh. That's true, Tony. I'll just have to hope that none of you report me to crazy houses. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

I doubt you'll have many tricks up your sleeve by the time you're senile anyway since you'll be incompetent in your thinking process. You'll be so busy babbling about how you just had coffee with your dead relatives, planning your own suicide without anyone knowing will be a mission impossible. The other thing to factor is the error of assumption that you will have the same mentality then that you have now. Of course you might, but I highly doubt it.

---

Very good points, Delta. It's likely that I'll finish up before the age of 50. I'll make arrangements for family to live comfortably. I never should have been here. People in the real world tend to view me as being quite delightful, but out of place, because I am. Everything seems false to me; the very fabric of reality.

No, I plan to go, sincerely and in the full sanity of which I am healthfully equipped. If this brings anyone to sadness, rest assured that I am comforted that we will all be dead in 100 years or less. Not long at all. I will have a rich human experience before I fade to black. I will do everything that I want to do, unless some hideous accident should befall me before I am able. Either way, I am resigned.

.......

I was sectioned last week under the Mental Health Act as an involuntary patient. It was a brutal affair. Fortunately, I was able to put up a forceful argument and get the psychiatrist to discharge me otherwise I could rot anywhere up to 27 days before my legal rights would be considered. If the psychiatrist doesn't want to see an involuntary patient, he can wait a whole 27 days and then see them on the 28th day to honour their legal right then and not be considered abusive under the law. There is no other avenue except the psychiatrist once you have been sectioned.

I hope both of you are OK, Delta40 and Darcy88. You might want to try writing stories about your experiences. I think they would be interesting to read.

One can still be rather healthy at 50, Varenne Rodin.

I hope Darcy and Delta are really OK. I always think about the onlitters who, like everyone, have their own challenges. I'm never completely sure why issues involving mental health feature so high with creative minds, but there's a common thread of extreme sensitivity.

On a selfish note - it can be distressing for me to hear from talented, important and vital onlitters speak about something that causes a hell of a lot of pain for a giant circle of people affected.

With all the confusion, disappointment, and at times unfullfillment - life to me is beautiful, sometimes I have to go out and grab happiness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I hope both of you are OK, Delta40 and Darcy88. You might want to try writing stories about your experiences. I think they would be interesting to read.

One can still be rather healthy at 50, Varenne Rodin.

---

The point is to go before life isn't worth living, YesNo.

To the others, those are frightening stories. I won't ever permit myself to be cornered and caught by anyone.

Quote:

---

I never should have been here.

---

I disagree with you and I am pretty sure just about everyone feels the same way.

I know there is constant discussion about mental illness and creativity. I read one piece of research but it was totally flawed since the mean IQ of the participants was 105 and none of them had a diagnosis of mental illness so I didn't see it's relevance at all. The other issue was that they were all students.