Prevention of suicide: torture?

[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'.

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

[The Comedian]

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.

[Charles Darnay]

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.

[loe]

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.

[BookBeauty]

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.

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.

[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.

[PoeticPassions]

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.)

[cacian]

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?

[cacian]

[QUOTE]

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.

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.

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'.

[miyako73]

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

not a quote.

[cacian]

not a quote.

Did you write it yourself?

[miyako73]

Did you write it yourself?

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

[Delta40]

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?

[Charles Darnay]

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.....

[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.