Is it a publicity stunt for the band or for the right to die movement?
Both?

What bothers me is it seems they have banned even faked suicides staged for the purposes of raising awareness for the right to die movement. Is free-speech being squelched here?

Source

[ 10-03-2003, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Why? Because YOU don't like it? Don't watch it. I'll bet the contents of my wallet that the assisted suicide statute does not cover what these guys are doing. Now the legislature has to go write it more broadly, so they can make sure and sweep us all into their grasp.

Making suicide illegal is an abuse of my right to own myself. Of course, so is making slavery illegal, now that you mention it. Hmmm.... *ponders where to draw the line of distinction*

Anyway, I support the right to die, and the right to televise it. Actually, considering my past rantings about overpopulation, one could argue the state should PROMOTE, not DISCOURAGE, suicide. If it were truly responsible.

I would have to agree with this 100%.

I severely dislike people who go around determining what is morally and ethically correct for me. I can make that distinction myself without others telling me what is right.

If something another person decides to do does not infringe on the freedoms of others, then they should be allowed to act in a manner they deem appropriate, even if that means taking their own life. If they want to make it viewable for the world to see, there is nothing wrong with that either. Each individual can make their own decision to watch or not to watch.

I've been fed up with government telling me what I can do with myself and my body for sometime now.

<font color="orange"> [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] No doubt about it.

What if the guy signs a waiver stating he wants to die. Is that any different (or even better than) a legal living will?</font>

I also support the right to die in certain situations...but as the headliner for a rock concert? Give me a break! Thats just sick. You want your 14 yr old kid seeing that? I was starting to gain some respect for ya there Timber but you just blew that with your televised suicide, do you actually put ANY thought into what your saying before you post? I could point anyone who wishes to see to a website with lots of suicide pics and video and then lets see how many folks want this as "Headliner" material for a band that your kids are going to go see. Ya its really entertaining to watch someones head explode when the shotgun goes off,

Well, the latest news is the show was delayed because supposedly hackers attacked the server that the webcast was going to be broadcast from. According to bands website it has been postponed until weekend.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20031004_1237.html

IMO some of the posters here are disgusting. You would allow people, young and old, to watch someone commit suicide? :( Allowing people to do a public thing like that is actually condoning those very acts. What kind of society are you promoting: death & destruction OR peace & compassion. I don't know about you, but I choose the latter. ;)

Look, this isn't going out on NBC over the air. It's a webcast. If Grendall can cite me to websites with such death photos, then what's the difference? If one is illegal shouldn't both be.

Ever rented Faces of Death? How is this any different?

As for letting young and old watch it, that is not my, nor YOUR, responsibility to police. For the old, let them make up their own minds. For the young, it's the parents' responsibility -- just like keeping them away from the porno channel or from gory movies (and at young ages -- fake violence in movies is little different from real violence in documentaries).

I am just as disgusted by the notion that these people are doing this as you guys are. But, I'm not about to bend the band members to MY value judgments. I choose not to watch. It's that simple. You, however, choose to enforce your idea of decency. Let's hope you're prepared for the consequences when the notion of what is "decent", as dictated by a moral majority, turns its guns at YOU.

They're doing this in part to support Euthenasia, you know. And, in many parts of the world, there exists a right to die. Perhaps what they're trying to show is that voluntary suicide doesn't look much different than simply going to sleep. Why don't you guys climb down from the high horse for just a moment and simply TRY to see the other side's point of view?

TL...I never said anything about the legalities of the subject. As a matter of fact I did say I support suicide in some cases. My mother in law for example is dying a slow and painfull death as I type from lung cancer. This is where my support comes in. Doesnt mean I want anybody to see it.

As for policing it, as a parent, yes it IS my responsibility.

You seem to be changing your tone a bit considering in your first post you said, and I quote "I support the right to die, and the right to televise it"

Porn is a whole nuther can o worms IMHO. I busted my girlfriends 13 yo boy looking at porn two weeks ago and he got grounded from the puter for a week. Because he was looking at porn? No. Because he lied right to my face when asked if that was what he was doing.

Well, I think the issue wasn't highlighted then, so I spoke generally and not specifically. I mean, there are the things you can only show on cable. This would certainly be one of them -- and only where NC-17 or X rated stuff could be shown, I'd think. As it is, it is a webcast.

My big rant here is about personal freedom. It irks the hell out of me that everytime I get in my car some "command-and-control" freak somewhere smiles inside, knowing I have to strap on a seatbelt I don't want to wear. I mean, I think most facial piercings are disgusting -- perhaps as disgusting as assisted suicide (I'll note I have a pierced ear, btw) when we're talking about 13 eyebrow-studs and such -- but, it's not my place to make them illegal. It is my place to think ill of the person sporting such headgear, but I'm not about to tell them what they can and can't do with their bodies.

However, as I said, I'm still struggling with where to draw the line.
I mean, clearly not EVERYTHING you can do with yourself should be legal. I'm still pondering....

BTW, this is NOT within the assisted suicide law. However, suicide itself is illegal. I think a smart DA would pinch members of the band and charge them with Conspiracy to Commit a Crime or Obstruction of Justice. That's my thought on how the law is meant to deal with the matter. As always, why write new laws when the old ones work fine.

I neither fear nor abhor death. I imagine, if asked, I would bear witness, with as much peace and compassion I could muster, to a persons voluntary discorporation if it was the decision they made to end the terminal pain of their body. Of course since any and all suicide is illegal, my hypothetical choice to bear witness to such an act would probably in and of itself be a crime. But not disgusting or immoral in any way IMHO.

But that is not really the issue in this case. I doubt the suicide broadcast was going to be real in the first place. The real goal was raising awareness for the right to die and giving a local band some national publicity.

I understand where you're coming from. You are attempting to draw a balance between personal morality and the state's right to intervene - and you are arguing on the right of increased freedom over one's own body. It is an admirable position to take.

Having said that, one should also consider that society has already decided upon a moral code of conduct and enshrined it within the law in order to retain a stable society. For example, we do not allow sexual intercourse to take place within a public area and we generally do not authorise street prostitution and public nudity is generally controlled to a few select areas.

Society decides what is acceptable behaviour and legislates accordingly - and no-one has the right to unilaterally ignore the will of the people. Fake a suicide on stage by all means - but don't break the law to make a point: that is not the exercise of free speech, it is the advocation of anarchy.

There are other issues to consider too. I am unaware of the manner in which the suicide was to take place - but I imagine it to be by injection? If you allow it this time, the next act might be slashing wrists or by putting a gun to the 'performers' head. Still a nice idea? Then comes further problems - what if bands begin to offer large secret 'cash payments' for on-stage suicides?
What if people are coerced into suicide?

Society has an obligation to draw a line in the sand that seeks to balance the rights of the individual while protecting the interests of the majority. I believe that allowing euthanasia in private and banning it in public addresses that balance.

Well, skunk, as I said I am still pondering where to draw the line.

However, to turn to your point about allowing broadcasted suicide now leading to payments for suicide later: it is valid. However, the notion of procuring suicide also can come into play in euthenasia in private. Granny is sick, she's bed-ridden -- or hospital-bound and bed-ridden. If euthenasia is legal, won't her decision to be euthenized be driven in part by the OBLIGATION she feels to her family members, whose lives are being disrupted by her illness?

It's when the "right" to die starts to slip down the slope into the "obligation" to die that euthenasia becomes a problem. If her decision is based on anything at all other than her desire to end suffering, then aren't we looking at a coercion issue?

Just a thought.

The victim of suicide is those left behind. Not the person who commits the suicide.

I have had three people I've known commit suicide. One very close to my ex-wife. That suicide in particular was a reactive result of his mothers suicide.

Another was a professional associate of mine that destoryed a number of people close to me. Another was a school friend.

In every case, the victims are those left picking up the pieces after the person has gone. Had I my way, I would raise the friend of my ex-wife and kick his arse.

As such, efforts to make it illegal protects these victims.

It is a mistake to presume we are islands whose actions do not affect those around us.

Additionally do we not owe something back to society? Criminally minded people, perpetually jobless and homeless people are often found to feel like society "owes them" for some reason.

Yet I believe it is the other way around. Were it not for others, you would not have lasted a week on the planet. We owe our very lives to those around us.

Our knowledge and lifestyles come from accumulated knowledge, not self discovery alone. We build our understanding on the understanding of those that have gone before. The more educated we are, the more we owe to others.

I believe great happiness and satisfaction comes from "giving back". The realisation that we are part of a collective, that even a small gesture has powerful repercussions we may never see the effect of.

Suicide therefore is the ultimate insult to everyone around you. The ultimate selfish act. The vocalisation that everything anyone has invested in you means nothing. It can completely devastate a small community, or in Michael Hutchence or Kirk Cobain's cases vast numbers of people.

These are the victims. Those left behind.

We are not islands.

Yorick, I know where you're coming from, but you've just taken away our ownership of self. You've made us the property of the greater society, and in effect the State. Who can now presumably tell us what job we must do, where we will live, how much we can eat, and who we'll marry. It is a slippery slope indeed.

No, just provided parameters. There are limits on what we can do with ourselves. We cannot drink and drive, murder, bash our spouses or kids, lie about our finances and many other things. Limits on personal freedom are what laws are all about.

They are also what relationships are all about. If I want to remain happily married, I need to restrict my personal freedom to sleep with whoever I want, or yell at the slightest provocation. Harmonoius relationship takes that sort of self edditing.

Additionally, relationships make oneself co-owned if you like, with other people. Using the marriage entity, two become one. Both partners have a "share" in the other, for decisions and actions of one directly effect the other. Once you have a child, you lose further freedoms to be a parent.

These are simple realities. We can choose to leave all these things. We can choose to be vagrants and be disconnected from relationship. Choosing to end your life is altogether different.

You do have a point though. I do see your side. On the other extreme, I've seen people become "yes people", feeling that they have to please everyone. Living their life for everyone BUT themself. Tricky business. :( Finding balance is not an easy thing.

[ 10-17-2003, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Yorick

I too see where you are comming from, but I tend to agree with Timber. The examples you cite, murder, spousal abuse, ect, are cases where personal freedoms infringe on another person. I have always been an advocate of my freedom ends where another's begins.

I know how you feel about suicide's victums being those left behind. I had an uncle that did it when he was 22 (I never knew him) and it cast a shadow over my family for decades. But how is suicide any different than any "untimenly" death? Those left behind always have to deal with the shock. Taking away a person's right to die is just selfish of society. To me, medical technology os more to blame. They have come up with many advances that allow the extension of life long after what would considdered natural. It has also removed societies ability to deal with death and dying.

Take the case in Florida right now. There is a woman who has been on life support for a decade now. The huband claims his wife never wanted to be kept alive with extreme measures and has fought many legal battles for the hospital to "pull the plug". Her parents don't want to loose their daughter so they keep fighting to keep her alive. Now they claim that the marriage was bad and that he doesn't have their daughter's intrests at heart. Who is the cruel party here? Who is the selfish one?

Is the person that commits suicide selfish? Or is society?

I have a great uncle dying in the hospital right now. Black lung. The last time he woke up on the respirator, he looked at his granddaughters and said, "Don't you ever let them put me on that machine again." Well, he fell ill recently, and the hospital put him on the machine again. He likely won't come out of it this time, but if he does it's going to be sad anyway -- because he did not want to keep living if a machine had to breathe for him.

How does this make suicide any different? The personal freedom to kill yourself directly impacts another person as I've shown. It can rob a child of a father, a person of their sister, a parent of their child etc etc etc. Suicide victims are those left behind. The effect on others is precisely my point!


Every single person close to the suicider feels to blame. Blame doesn't occur with most other untimely deaths. Everyone feels to blame. This horrible guilt causes some people undoing. It destroys marriages, especially if one spouse blames the other for their childs death.

It also, as I mentioned in my ex-wifes friends case, can lead to other family members doing the same thing. The son killed himself after his mother did. In a person losing a fight against terminal illness, or an accident, the relatives don't have to fight the attack on their own will to live in such a measure. My ex-wife came close to ending her own life. We ended up marrying after that, but that's all another story.


The Florida case is an excellent example. The woman is of value to her parents and those that are fighting to keep her alive. It is highly probable that the woman hasn't the mental faculties to understand what is going on. However, she is of value to them. The husband is another matter. There are questions about how she suffocated the night in question, why he did nothing with the million dollars to rehabilitate her, and that she was speaking of a divorce before her brain damage.

If he doesn't want her in his life, he can divorce her, hand her over to her parents. It's been twelve years. Of course he needs closure, but that's no reason to deprive her parents of hope and her presence.

What of other disabled people who can't feed themselves? Other brain damaged people who have to be fed by humans? She's not on life support, she's on a feeding tube.

People go on about how people "wouldn't want to live in that situation" but an extreme situation can change perspective radically. When I was in hospital with massive blood loss through internal bleeding (lost 50% or more), my life was reduced to challenges such as walking down a hall on my own, or pleasures such as tasting ice. Ones perspective about acceptable levels of survival can radically change given the right circumstances.

In any case if someone fighting for their life really loses the will to live, they often do die. Naturally. The cases of a person dying quite close to their longtime spouse dying are numerous and well documented. Johnny Cash being a recent case in point.

[ 10-17-2003, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

I have written a very personal response to this thread. It contains information I'm uncomfortable posting for all and sundry. PM me if you would like a link.

Hugh

How does this make suicide any different? The personal freedom to kill yourself directly impacts another person as I've shown. It can rob a child of a father, a person of their sister, a parent of their child etc etc etc. Suicide victims are those left behind. The effect on others is precisely my point!</font>[/QUOTE]I understand what you mean, but where do you draw the line? Other things can cause this too. Divorce, choosing of sexual preference, converting to a religion, all of this, and other things, can break families apart. They can all make children lose parents, or parents lose children, etc. But I reserve my right to all of that. I have the right to convert to whatever religion I want, or to be gay if I wish. And I think I have the right to my own body, and do with it what I want, as long as it doesn't do harm to others (harm is difficult to define here [img]tongue.gif[/img] ). If I was in physical pain, and knew that I would never get relief from it, and that I would die because of it, I'd rather end my life than suffer. I'm sure that my family loves me and that they would understand...

But I don't really support of other people deciding who should die and who should live. This should be a completely personal decision. Though assissted suicide should really just be for people who are capable of making the decision (aren't in a coma, under the influence of others, etc.), are terminally ill, and in pain which cannot be relieved (since sometimes medicine against pain doesn't work).

Edit - grammar.

[ 10-18-2003, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

Estrangement is a far cry from death. Reconcilliation is always possible while life exists. Death removes that possibility. How can you compare the two?

The truth of this is relevant to an individual's beliefs.

Some, like I do, believe loved ones can choose to stay spiritually 'close-by' after death and are always 'reachable' in both thought and prayer.

Not that I am trying to bash anyone over the head with my beliefs.

On the topic of planned suicide to end the suffering from terminal phyiscal disease. Family and friends would have time to consider and reconcile before-hand.

[ 10-18-2003, 04:14 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Estrangement is a far cry from death. Reconcilliation is always possible while life exists. Death removes that possibility. How can you compare the two? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, estrangement is different than death, but can be just as traumatic. Or take the case where death occurs natually or accidentally after estrangement. Just as with a suicide, there are unresolved issues.

Reconcilliation is still possible though. It is not the same as two people coming to peace with eachother, but inner peace with yourself. It is the same peace that everyone should strive for when a person is permanatly or semi-permanatly removed from our lives on bad terms. It is the same peace we must acheive in estrangement before true reconilliation.


PS: Let me add that I think this band's gimick was in very poor taste. Suicide is a very personal and traumatic thing, not a public show.

[ 10-18-2003, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

The truth of this is relevant to an individual's beliefs.

Some, like I do, believe loved ones can choose to stay spiritually 'close-by' after death and are always 'reachable' in both thought and prayer.

Not that I am trying to bash anyone over the head with my beliefs.
</font>[/QUOTE]Now that's just being pedantic and presenting a belief-dependent argument. The truth of it is not relevent to a persons beliefs at all. You cannot have a child for example. You cannot cook each others meals, spend nights holding each other in the same bed. After estrangement there is always the possibility such activities could resume with reconcilliation. Death leaves no hope of that.

You are being ridiculous. For what end I know not.

[ 10-18-2003, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

It's not about the relatives and what they want - it's about what the patient/suicide person desires/would want (in the case of a coma). That is all that matters.

When a person dies, then the funeral is entirely for the relatives - and not the deceased.

To look at the issue in any other way is to treat someone as a piece of property - well I have news for everyone: slavery (at least in the west) ended a long time ago...thankfully.

The truth of this is relevant to an individual's beliefs.

Some, like I do, believe loved ones can choose to stay spiritually 'close-by' after death and are always 'reachable' in both thought and prayer.

Not that I am trying to bash anyone over the head with my beliefs.
</font>[/QUOTE]Now that's just being pedantic and presenting a belief-dependent argument. The truth of it is not relevent to a persons beliefs at all. You cannot have a child for example. You cannot cook each others meals, spend nights holding each other in the same bed. After estrangement there is always the possibility such activities could resume with reconcilliation. Death leaves no hope of that.

You are being ridiculous. For what end I know not. </font>[/QUOTE]I dont know how I am being "pedantic" or "ridiculous", but I do know that any discussion of what is and is not possible after death can only come from a beleif perspective. My 'end' here is sharing my belief about after-death, or what I call the "life-after" and that is it, sharing. Not debating and not bashing anyone over the head with it, Just sharing. You share your beleifs all the time Yorick, so I find it hard to understand why you are taking me to task for sharing mine. Oh well.

I am talking about my beliefs concerning death and reconcilliation and I qualified my post as such. I expect to be treated with respect. I expect not to be called ridiculous or pedantic (interesting choice of words there BTW) I expect everyone discuss the topics, and not take jabs at other each other or call each other names. Thats the rules of the forum and if it keeps up I will call for a moderater to lock the thread or administer justice as they see fit. Play nice and play fair. Be respectful or go away.

Now back to the discussion...

Of course an individual in the life-after cannot engage in any of the temporal activities listed, unless of course one has a belief in purposful reincarnation. Then estranged lovers, parents and children could indeed possibly "meet" again and share in the fruits of the physical.

But I was not talking about having physical activities together as a possibility, I was talking about the possibility of making reconcilliation: an emotional or spiritual "act".

I think, I believe, reconciliation after estrangement is possible after death.

[ 10-18-2003, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

I disagree 100% with everything in this post. Including that slavery is gone from the west. Every heard of DEBT Skunk? Debt is the slavery of the west.

As I said, suicide is ALL about the effect on those left behind. They are the victims of that act of pure selfishness.

The truth of this is relevant to an individual's beliefs.

Some, like I do, believe loved ones can choose to stay spiritually 'close-by' after death and are always 'reachable' in both thought and prayer.

Not that I am trying to bash anyone over the head with my beliefs.
</font>[/QUOTE]Now that's just being pedantic and presenting a belief-dependent argument. The truth of it is not relevent to a persons beliefs at all. You cannot have a child for example. You cannot cook each others meals, spend nights holding each other in the same bed. After estrangement there is always the possibility such activities could resume with reconcilliation. Death leaves no hope of that.

You are being ridiculous. For what end I know not. </font>[/QUOTE]I dont know how I am being "pedantic" or "ridiculous", but I do know that any discussion of what is and is not possible after death can only come from a beleif perspective. My 'end' here is sharing my belief about after-death, or what I call the "life-after" and that is it, sharing. Not debating and not bashing anyone over the head with it, Just sharing. You share your beleifs all the time Yorick, so I find it hard to understand why you are taking me to task for sharing mine. Oh well.

I am talking about my beliefs concerning death and reconcilliation and I qualified my post as such. I expect to be treated with respect. I expect not to be called ridiculous or pedantic (interesting choice of words there BTW) I expect everyone discuss the topics, and not take jabs at other each other or call each other names. Thats the rules of the forum and if it keeps up I will call for a moderater to lock the thread or administer justice as they see fit. Play nice and play fair. Be respectful or go away.

Now back to the discussion...

Of course an individual in the life-after cannot engage in any of the temporal activities listed, unless of course one has a belief in purposful reincarnation. Then estranged lovers, parents and children could indeed possibly "meet" again and share in the fruits of the physical.

But I was not talking about having physical activities together as a possibility, I was talking about the possibility of making reconcilliation: an emotional or spiritual "act".

I think, I believe, reconciliation after estrangement is possible after death. </font>[/QUOTE]If proof of self is self awareness, and life is a collection of memories, then reincarnation is irrelevent to the discussion. The person does not exist in the same body, and has no memory of the past, so whether or not they keep the same soul, are for all intents and purposes a different person during their time on this planet. The truth of the matter may be different, but all we know is NOW, and NOW all that is past is memory. Without memory, nothing has happened. One's reality is limited to ones perspective, so for all intents and purposes, reincarnation - true or false - does not provide the reconcilliation I am describing. Death is the ultimate seperator.

Harsh? Of course. You can't wrap death in cotton wool. It is by embracing and accepting the reality of death, that we gain greater realisation and appreciation of life itself. All we have is this moment. The next is no certainty.

I see where you are coming from, Yorick.

I was just offering a different perspective on reconcilliation for consideration.

I agree, Death is the ultimate physical separator.

Chewie, you handled that well. Yorick, if I'd been Chewie I'd have hit "report post" and tried to at least get you a yellow card for the "you are being ridiculous" bit -- it could very well have been viewed as an insult to his religion. I took it that way.

Anyway, I find myself at an impasse with your belief on this issue. Like the "smoking thread" issues, you are limiting the rights of an autonomous person based on the wants and desires of those around him. Some things in life happen and hurt our feelings. This should not be enough of a reason to shackle the rights of free people. Just because what you do makes me feel bad, it does not give me the right to limit what you do -- not without more, real, tangible harm done directly to me by you. Sorry, but for me, liberty trumps most of the "feelings" notions.

Freedom and liberty again?

You advocate one freedom over another, that's all Timber. Freedom to DO over freedom FROM something. I am in this case arguing for peoples freedom FROM the effects of suicide. You are arguing for someones freedom to DO harm to others.

Both are freedoms. What is more beneficial to society? What creates more balanced individuals?

Should someone be protected from themself? Given the seasonal nature of suicide tendencies and their temporarity, I think so.

I have physically prevented someone from carrying out a suicide. Three times actually. Physically intervened in their attempt, which would have been sucessfull each time had I not. Did I impinge on their freedom? Absolutely. Did I step all over their right to die? Absolutely.

Are they alive, creating art, loving life and enjoying the planet to this day as a result? YES YES YES.

I have no apologies for keeping that person free from themself.

Another person I couselled during a suicidal season that lasted quite a while. While I didn't have to physically intervene, I used everything I had mentally to prevent, to intervene and to restrict the persons self destructive action.

Again, they are alive and well, with an abandance of experiences behind them as a result.

Walking in my shoes has given me the values and perspectives I have. The three sucessful suicides I mentioned earlier and seeing the catastrophic effects, and the prevention of these other two I've mentioned gives me clear and present experiences for founding my P.O.V. that a simple debate on the internet won't come close to shifting.

Suggesting that someone is being ridiculous or being pedantic is not actually namecalling, nor is it an insult to his religion. I was referring to his line of argument as my last post to him elaborated. His religious beliefs on the matter of afterlife were irrelevant to the discussion.

I have belief in life after death myself. I have belief that we may be "reconcilled in heaven". That is totally beside the point I was making about death however.

Why make that sort of comment anyway? It simply seems like it's inciteful of you. Oh... is "inciteful" namecalling now? Like "ridiculous" and "pedantic" I'm referring to the specific post, not the character of the person... but does that mean anything anymore?

No, I wasn't trying to incite you. Look, you saw his religion as irrelevant -- that is not necessarily the case. Depending on his beliefs, it could very well be relevant. And, I think he explained how it was. Compare your comments to those I made when I accidently insulted you by saying things about speaking in tongues.

Anyway, here's an example:
If I believed someone could fully support family/friends after death, if I believed their spirit infused everyone around them in such a way that they actually aided them more, spiritually and physically, than during life, then that belief would be completely relevant to the topic at hand, and would directly refute your point that a suicide leaves a "void" in the lives of those who know the person.

Let's look at it from an entirely different perspective.
In British law-making, the legislature adheres to the principle that unforceable laws are pointless - hence the reason why suicide was decriminalised (it's hard to punish a dead person) but remains an offence to assist someone.

When someone desires to end his/her own life - the stage is already set: it is virtually impossible to prevent that person from committing the act without (inhumanely) locking them up in a paddded room - where their lives continue in increased agony.

As Billy Connelly quipped on the subject of the Catholic 'Rhythm Method' of birth control:
What?! At the point of ejaculation whip it out?! Father, at the point of ejaculation, wild horses wouldn't make my a*** go in the opposite direction!"

If you criminalise suicide, if you make it illegal to commit suicide, you force that person to 'go underground'. Rather than risk discovery and 'imprisonment', that person will tell no-one of his plans.

This means that someone has to 'discover' the body. This means that relatives will never get to say 'Goodbye' or understand or get to ask 'Why?'. They will just get a sudden withdrawl of that person's life: out of the blue. It may also mean that the act of suicide may endanger others (jumping off a building, in front of a truck etc.)

So, in actual fact, I would argue that a legalised form of suicide is actually kinder on the relatives than a society that forbids it in all circumstances.

[ 10-20-2003, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

Suicide is the ultimate in selfish acts; however, it is also selfish in nature to keep someone here against their will. So who are you to tell someone that your needs are greater than theirs, especially when it pertains to their life.

You are comparing apples and oranges here. Slavery takes away your ability to make decisions that alter the course of your life, while, debt is a choice you made at one time. One is a ramification of your decision making, while the other is forced upon you.

By restricting a personal freedom, you give another protection from the after-effects associated with suicides. You are not bestowing any form of freedom at all; rather you are taking away a freedom for your own benefit.

When you start restricting personal freedoms based upon the psychological impact it may have upon another, you open a door best left closed. Anything could be construed as emotional damage, and the minute you start placing barriers in effect to stop these stimulants, you take away free will.

Someone who feels blame after another commits suicide has a choice. They choose to feel that guilt. Feelings of emptiness associated with the loss of a loved one are normal, but a healthy individual, in mind and body, innately understands that they need to move on and resume life. Any who do not need to seek help.

You may want to catch up on current news Skunk, slavery is alive and well in the West