6 ms·

Man, what. Psychiatrists have to commit you if they think you're an immediate danger to yourself. I'm sure shitty ones do it in situations where they shouldn't,

• sneak 5y ago
  Suicide is a human right. Interfering with someone's basic right to self-determination is absolutely despicable, no matter how ill the person is.
  • tapan_jk 5y ago
    Cannot agree more. Just like many other acts which are punished today, but should be rather dealt with by showing support, self harm should definitely be taken off the list of acts that are treated like a crime. I can only guess, but it feels like the current approach only makes things worse for those who are already suffering.
  • mensetmanusman 5y ago
    What if that self-determination is a fleeting thought?
    • blitzar 5y ago
      Plea insanity as a defense?
  • jolux 5y ago
    It's not quite as simple as that. One of the reasons the suicide rate is so high in the US is because of how easy it is to access firearms. This suggests that peoples' propensity to commit suicide is at least somewhat dependent on their environment. Given that, do you want to make their environment more or less likely to cause them to commit suicide? I'm in the latter category. As for the concern about basic rights, I fundamentally agree. For some people, perhaps, they will never get better and in those cases we should have a path to assisted suicide. In all cases, we should do our best to help suicidal people, who are ultimately suffering a lot. I don't think most people who are suicidal want to specifically die more than they want an end to their suffering, to which they see no realistic alternative other than death (which I assure you remains quite scary even when you're really depressed.) I think giving them an escape other than death is morally obligatory and humane, where it's possible.
    • bregma 5y ago
      The suicide by gun rate is higher in the USA. Not the overall suicide rate. It's just as easy to off yourself using transport (CO, intentional crash, jumper), ligature strangulation (bedsheets, scarf, belt), exsanguination, or overdose of almost anything and all of those things are widely available all around the world.
    • Aerroon 5y ago
      >One of the reasons the suicide rate is so high in the US is because of how easy it is to access firearms. Is this actually true? I know it's said quite often, but there are countries with much much higher suicide rates where firearms aren't nearly as ubiquitous. Eg Lithuania.
      • xdfgh1112 5y ago
        Or Japan...
        • bildung 5y ago
          Japan has a bit lower rates than the US. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.SUIC.P5?most_recent_value_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.SUIC.P5?most_rec... In general one usually gets more meaningful results when a) comparing geographically and/or culturally similar countries for things like these. E.G the UK has half the mortality rate of the US, Canada and the EU have 2/3 of the US rate. And b) compare trends, not single values. E.G. US rates are rising (which I as a layman would interpret as speaking against the firearms thesis), while the rates of Lithuana and Japan are falling.
      • DanBC 5y ago
        > I know it's said quite often, but there are countries with much much higher suicide rates where firearms aren't nearly as ubiquitous. Eg Lithuania. The rates in the US are high because of access to guns. It's well understood in public health that easy access to means and methods is one of the factors driving high rates of death. The rates in Lithuania are high because of a number of other factors -- high alcohol misuse probably being important. Also, there are plenty of guns in Lithuania, and firearms are one of the most frequently used methods.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • Barrin92 5y ago
    someone who suffers from suicidal tendencies as a result of mental illness is in no capacity to make these decisions, they're as incapable of making actual decisions as a minor, probably more so and should be institutionalized. The right to self-determination derives from an assumption of someone being in a clear state of mind, that's why we have plenty of conditions under which we withdraw that right.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • themacguffinman 5y ago
      How wonderfully tautological this is: those with suicidal tendencies are deemed incapable of making the choice due to "mental illness". How can you tell if they're mentally ill? You look for symptoms of course, symptoms like "they have suicidal tendencies".
      • tremon 5y ago
        Sounds like a catch-22.
      • Barrin92 5y ago
        no, it's not tautological at all. There are categories of suicide that are clearly defensible, like euthanasia for end of life patients who have made the decision that any quality of life is irredeemably lost, for example. But the 38 year old husband, the subject of the article, who was in an unstable mental state to the point where his wife felt threatened and left for the safety of their children was certainly not in command of his mental faculties. Someone who is schizophrenic and bipolar and experiences a psychotic break after drastically changing their medication regimen is not in a sound state of mind, and they would be the first to admit it once their condition improves.
        • deleted 5y ago
          [deleted]
        • 5y ago
  • tsimionescu 5y ago
    You have no idea what you're talking about. I actually agree that suicide/euthanasia is a human right, but one that can only legally come about after careful rational deliberation and seeking medical counseling. Most people who commit suicide are mentally ill, often barely aware of what it actually means and what will be the consequences at the time of the act.
  • strken 5y ago
    I agree with this in the abstract, but someone's right to self-determination isn't being infringed if 99% of the time they don't want to do something and you stop them from doing it in the 1%. This is particularly true if they call you during the bad 1% and directly ask you to stop them from doing the thing.
    • themacguffinman 5y ago
      Uh yes it is being infringed. If I steal money from you against your will that one time, would you be okay with it on account of the fact that you willingly gave me money 99 other times? I've never heard of rights being only applicable 99% of the time.
      • strken 5y ago
        That's not a good analogy, because if I steal money off you today, you'll be angry with me tomorrow, and indefinitely into the future. You are against me stealing from you 100% of the time. Consider instead the case where you're a recovering gambling addict who's asked me to make sure you don't gamble again. One night I find you in the pokies room, so I take your wallet and tell you I'll give it back tomorrow morning. I agree that this is theft and possibly morally wrong; however, I don't agree that it breaches your right to self-determination, since most of the time you seem pretty determined not to gamble.
        • themacguffinman 5y ago
          So if someone consistently tells you that they want to die, if they consistently get angry at you and authorities for intervening, you're saying that you'll support their right to self-determination?
          • strken 5y ago
            Yes. If someone demonstrates a consistent determination to die, when asked at random times, and over a long enough time period to rule out episodic mental health issues, and they've made appropriate arrangements for their family, I don't think they should be stopped from killing themselves. I disagree with the claim that many suicides are like that, I don't think the suicide from the article was like that, and the word "consistently" is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
  • dehugger 5y ago
    In light of this idiotic take ("interfering is absolutely despicable no matter how I'll") I feel like I should share my own experiences with frequent suicidal impulses, and how thankful I am that someone was there and willing to help me, on many occasions. I'm bipolar, and when I was untreated I would frequently (as on every other day) spend hours locked in a doom-spiral of self hatred, incapable of breaking myself out of it. I could recognize what was going on at some level, and that if I were pulled out of the spiral I would be fine, but in the moment trying to escape that pain seemed to only have one solution, even if I knew I normally wouldn't want to die. I would basically have to try and hold myself together long enough for my wife to find me and help me back to sanity. Each time I got a little closer to failing. Getting access to medication was life changing. I am enterally thankful she took away deadly instruments, encouraged me to find reasons to live and recover, and ultimately seek treatment. Whereas you would have just left me to irrevocably take my own life in response to temporary problem that had a medical solution readily available.
    • lamalic 5y ago
      Hi friend. Fellow bipolar here. I don't want to really type up my stories, but I can relate. Glad to see you're doing better now, me too. :)
    • sneak 5y ago
      > Whereas you would have just left me to irrevocably take my own life in response to temporary problem that had a medical solution readily available. For the record, I never wrote, said, or claimed that, and your claim is inaccurate. Please refrain from making false claims about me.
• Tuna-Fish 5y ago
  It mostly depends on the state. The fundamental problem there is that plenty of people have won lawsuits against hospitals/doctors when their loved one mentioned suicide in some way, was not involuntarily committed and then proceeded to kill themself. The amounts involved in those lawsuits tend to be high. In contrast, very few people have won lawsuits against hospitals/doctors who involuntarily committed them when they probably shouldn't have been, and even if they do, the monetary harm that they can recoup is probably pretty small. This results in very perverse incentives for the institution. In your case either the people involved in your care had a very high personal risk tolerance, or it happened in a state where there is less precedent on handing over megabucks to the families of people who commit suicide.
  • estaseuropano 5y ago
    A true US problem: you get sued for X, therefore that is the outcome avoided at all cost. Bad policy, bad legal system, Bad effects for everyone.