Legalizing Suicide/Assisted Suicide

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

In a medical sense, assuming it is a normal, healthy chicken, it would be conscious. To someone who has never worked with these types of patients, Terry Shaivo probably looked conscious, and to her birth family who had psychological attachments that would allow them to go into denial so they could maintain hope, I understand how they could have interpreted Terry's movements as purposeful - but I do not believe that Terry had any consciousness left in her.

When a mimosa plant is touched, it curls up its leaves immediatly, and does not uncurl them for quite some time. Would you then say that this plant is conscious? If so, how would its ability to react indicate more consciousness than a plant that does not have the structures to react in the same way? Would that, then, mean that it is inhumane to mow a lawn? What about a lawn that has mimosa growing in it?

[Shahrazad]

Eliza,

When a mimosa plant is touched, it curls up its leaves immediatly, and does not uncurl them for quite some time. Would you then say that this plant is conscious? If so, how would its ability to react indicate more consciousness than a plant that does not have the structures to react in the same way? Would that, then, mean that it is inhumane to mow a lawn? What about a lawn that has mimosa growing in it?

For the purposes of this topic, in the downward spectrum of consciousness, I draw the line before we get to plant life, somewhere after animals that have a complex nervous system. So yes, you can mow the mimosas without getting a reaction out of me.

When I was little, I thought those plants were absolutely cool.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Why do you choose that particular spot to draw the line?

[Shahrazad]

I don't know exactly where I draw the line. I actually left it very wide.

I think you need a nervous system to perceive pain as real. Plants don't have one -- end of story.

[sue hindmarsh]

Both suicide and murder arise out of the ignorant belief in the self . As BMcGilly wrote, ignorance is what needs to be eradicated.

I do like BMcGilly's idea about THE FAMILY being responsible for their mad and bad. People go on and on about the importance of the family. Make them be responsible for their own, and then they may become more responsible about what beliefs and values they build their family upon. Place the threat of suffering over their heads and they will be more careful about how they live their lives, for their focus will be squarely upon the consequences.

I also like the tests for prospective parents. It makes perfect sense to ensure that children be given the best possible start in life. But since Society is built on fear, irrationality is key to maintaining that status quo. You can't have rational people raising their young rationally. It'd be the end of the world as we know it!

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Sue, and if it was the family that drove the person mad or bad in the first place - which is often the case - having the family take care of the person only perpetuates the madness and badness. That goes hand in hand with having only rational people raise children so there won't be as many mad or bad people out there.

Yeah, ending the world as we know it in favor of that kind of a world would be an improvement.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Vaguely relevant

[brokenhead]

This may be less vaguely relevant.

I had a friend who was investigating the Hemlock Society (now defunct) on behalf of her sister who had M.S. The sister had been an athlete and by the age of thirty had to have someone spoon feed her.

I noticed a woman at my gym who always seemed to be there and who, by the way she moved about, had some kind of physical condition. Upon befriending her, I discovered that the condition was M.S., and that she always seemed to be there because it was her daily routine to come to the gym twice.

She had been struck by M.S. at an early age, and had become virtually immobile. After many years, she discovered, to the amazement of her doctors, that she was regaining some measure of mobility. Gradually, she began to walk. And these days, she is able to drive herself to the gym twice a day. Her normal routine is to go to the gym, run her errands, then hit the gym again before heading home. She told me that after spending so many years confined to a wheelchair unable to do anything for herself, simply moving became a precious pleasure to her, and she would come to the gym three times a day if her husband would let her.

The other problem with criminalizing suicide is it forbids people from seeking help, if they want to keep their freedom. If you tell a therapist you're planning to commit suicide, they are legally required to report you to the police, who can take you into custody and commit you to a hospital against your will. If you don't want this, you cannot talk to a therapist about it.

The problem is similar to criminalizing drug addiction - you can be imprisoned for seeking help.

Is this true? It doesn't sound right to me. Wouldn't the psychiatrist be breaching doctor/patient confidentiality? That sounds highly legally precarious.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

It's true brokenhead - at least in America.

[BMcGilly07]

You cannot be imprisoned in America for seeking help with drug addiction.

I think what |read| and Elizabeth are trying to say is that if people who are on drugs are caught in a drug-related offense (insofar as buying / possessing with intent to use without any other criminal offense i.e. stealing to pay for a habit, or selling merely for profit) one is likely to be sent to prison instead of simply concentrating on treating the addiction; although now one is more likely to have some sort of rehabilitation attached or even in place of imprisonment. I see rehabilitation for nonviolent drug offenses becoming more of the norm as America fights off it's massive deficits and overspending versus the far costlier option of imprisoning a nonviolent offender.

It makes much more sense to treat addiction versus strict imprisonment, however dealers should face the same if not increased penalties. I don't care where you're from or what color you are, there are plenty of opportunities to make a living in America instead of selling drugs. Legalizing anything beyond marijuana and psychedelics (in controlled environments) would be massively counter-productive due to the highly addictive qualities of hard drugs. If the movement to treat and rehabilitate addiction is coupled with legalizing hard drugs, it would most likely result in a government spending to support addicts which are the result of legalization.

It's just not practical to legalize physically and mentally addictive substances. In my experience, marijuana and psychedelics are hardly addictive, and if they are it is only as a psychological crutch that do not leave one in withdrawals in the absence of these substances.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

|read| said "can be" not "will be." Basically it depends on how the person goes about seeking help. If they disclose to their mental health counselor that they need treatment for addiction, the counselor will not send them to prison. If they call 911, which they might well do when high on a bad trip and suddenly desire treatment, they are likely to end up in legal trouble unless they are a cop. Beyond that, there is also the Marchman Act in Florida, which basically can imprison a person in a mental institution for up to 5 days.

[BMcGilly07]

|read| said "can be" not "will be." Basically it depends on how the person goes about seeking help. If they disclose to their mental health counselor that they need treatment for addiction, the counselor will not send them to prison. If they call 911, which they might well do when high on a bad trip and suddenly desire treatment, they are likely to end up in legal trouble unless they are a cop. Beyond that, there is also the Marchman Act in Florida, which basically can imprison a person in a mental institution for up to 5 days.

I find this interpretation misleading, but yes, if you call 911 which is reserved for emergencies, you're going to get the cops. Calling 911 doesn't jive with my understanding of seeking help with addiction, but I see your point.

Edit: Upon reading the section on the Marchman act, see below the difference between voluntary admission for help versus involuntary:

"A voluntary admission is when a person who wishes to enter treatment for substance abuse applies to a service provider for voluntary admission.

An involuntary admission is when there is good faith reason to believe the person is substance abuse impaired and, because of such impairment, has lost the power of self control with respect to substance use; and either has inflicted, attempted or threatened to inflict, or unless admitted, is likely to inflict physical harm on himself/herself or another; or the person's judgment has been so impaired because of substance abuse that he/she is incapable of appreciating the need for substance abuse services and of making a rational decision in regard to substance abuse services."