Discussion Legalize and extend assisted suicide, voluntary euthanasia, and right to die to those with 'homicidal urges'

[TAW122]

Note: Although I have mentioned that any reason is valid for CTB in past threads, my point still stands. This thread will not change my stance nor gatekeep on those who CTB for their own reason(s) (or lack of a reason).

In fact, this thread is to raise the idea that if we simply allowed assisted suicide, voluntary euthanasia, right to die as an "option" for those who are a threat towards others and society itself, then it would solve many problems. Many problems would be solved would include preventing (future) damage (both unintentional and intentional), as well as allowing the person to find peace. This is a win-win situation because it prevents (potential) future harm to future victims and also puts to rest someone who wishes to go peacefully. In another thread that I posted recently about another tragedy is a good example of what happens in a country or jurisdiction that lacks the voluntary euthanasia and similar laws on the books.

Current death with dignity laws:
As it currently exists in the US (as well as many countries around the world), death with dignity, right to die laws are only for those who are terminally ill, within six months or less to live (in other words, death within 6 months or less), have multiple hoops and bureaucratic steps to cross (including having multiple physicians and mental evaluations from psychologists and what not), have to self-administer as well as being a resident of that particular state (except in Oregon which recently removed it's residency requirement); which of course are very narrow requirements that only very few people can qualify for. In other words, one cannot be too sick to qualify (lacking the physical capability to self-administer), but sick enough to qualify (terminally ill with 6 months or less to live). Just for the record, I'm not speaking for countries such as Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, and Canada, to name a few. Those countries are FAR ahead of the US as well as many other countries in the world.

The consequence of prohibition and prevention of CTB, lack of the right to die:
In our current system, with such narrow criteria and no "true" right to die on one's own terms (let alone a peaceful, dignified death as even prolifers are trying to limit accessibility to even barbaric means), we see people desperately try to leave only to fail, end up institutionalized against their will, locked up and detained against their will, forced treatment that they never consented to (don't get me started with the 'implied consent' bullshit). Those are just people who don't go to harm others, but themselves. As a result of that, they either try again (which will likely fail) and continue to suffer or until they succeed, but dying very painfully, violently, and undignified, leaving a mess for those who are around. Then there are people who are angry enough to take others with them or cause harm to others, which is horrible in itself, and if we only had a way to allow death with dignity not just for the terminally ill, but also for those who are suffering (non-terminally) continuously, even through a serious vetting process, we would at least have the ability to relieve their pain as well as prevent harm towards others who otherwise may wish to live.

TAW122's proposal to include 'homicidal urges' as a valid criteria for right to die:
As mentioned before, all reasons (or lack thereof) are valid for CTB, however, my proposal is that we allow people who may wish to harm others the right to die (before they harm others) as that would prevent harm to others (unwilling participants) and also grant the wish of the suffering individual. Too many advocates of mental health fail to realize that death is a remedy to problems and that sometimes, forcing people who don't wish to be around can do more harm not only to the individual, but also to others (especially those who were never a part of the individual's problems). In our current system, both suicidal and homicidal urges are treated like emergencies and the individual is locked up against their will for their safety as well as others. Then they are treated against their will, have a record on their background as a result of the stay (especially if they went to court), and of course, heavily billed for such horrible treatement against their will (at least in the US).

However, if we allowed voluntary euthanasia for people who not only wish to die, but also those who would have harmed others, we can prevent a lot of harm towards others as well as respecting the individual's wishes if they really wish to die. Additionally, I would add that there would be a condition in which the prospective perpetrator be able to surrender before their heinous act, go through a waiting period, and not commit crimes or horrible actions against others before being granted their right. Why this criteria and condition? This is to disincentivize people from abusing the system or using 'death' as an easy way out of committing horrible crimes and acts against others. In fact, having this condition as a requirement to access voluntary euthanasia as a result of homicidal urges will incentivize people to behave and do well so that they do not abuse the system as well as help them know that they have that right and is automatically granted (provided they don't do anything to lose that right, such as harming others or committing heinous acts against others). Other ancillary benefits is that perhaps even just having the right (not just on paper or in theory, but actually in practice and implemented in society) will alleviate the existential dread of sentience and give people an option to leave this hellish existence, even if they need to wait a bit, be evaluated to be mentally sound, and given every chance to change their mind (if they still persist until their final moment, then they proceed to a peaceful, dignified death).

What are your thoughts on this idea? @RainAndSadness @Forever Sleep @FuneralCry

 

[SilentSadness]

That sounds great, unfortunately it wouldn't grant me access. I guess I would have to murder someone to qualify.

 

[CTB Dream]

Vry undrstnd life thermo mean ppl trap sufferia pain no able exit no able do any this make hurt kill other etc, if peace mthod this exit loop no suffer slf no suffer othr

 

[Lost in a Dream]

That sounds great, unfortunately it wouldn't grant me access. I guess I would have to murder someone to qualify.

Nah, you just have to say that you want to murder someone, without actually doing it. Then they could offer you the euthanasia before it happens. I'd totally take that option if I could.

 

[TAW122]

@SilentSadness Pretty much what @Lost in a Dream said and I will elaborate with an example so that it will make more sense.

This hypothetical example is as follows: Say that you have lived a shitty life, suffered immensely, and want to get back at society. You hate society and want to do whatever it takes to bring it down, even if you end up dying in the process (regardless of whether you have taken any or fail to). But! before you do that, it's just thoughts in your mind and you are tormented with it and you have those urges... However in this hypothetical society, instead of being locked up against your will, further marginalized and victimized, ostracized and ousted more, a professional would offer the option of voluntary euthanasia, provided that you go through a waiting period, confirm that you wish to die, and sign an agreement/contract that you will not harm others. After all that, you are then granted the right to die. You (already inherently) have the right to die by default as one of the basic rights a citizen in this hypothetical society.

Given this "hypothetical society" your rights, freedom, civil liberties, and dignity, bodily autonomy are intact. You are granted the right after going through the basic process (request, evaluation, waiting period, confirmation, and finalization with every opportunity to change your mind at any point/stage during the process). You will always have this right unless you do something that would result in suspension/forfeiture of this right (e.g. becoming a felon, committing heinous enough crime(s), or just waiving the right (not that you would, but for sake of discussion purposes)).

Nah, you just have to say that you want to murder someone, without actually doing it. Then they could offer you the euthanasia before it happens. I'd totally take that option if I could.

I would actually be in support of this idea, and in practice, one would be required to surrender any means of harm towards others and to ensure that they don't harm others, but even if they aren't immediately granted the right on the spot, they would (later) be granted it after some time (waiting period). This seems like a winning situation to me because at the end, even if there was some roadblock and resistance initially (during evaluation and trying to contain the threat), there is a clear endpoint (after x amount of months or time) and also guarantee of the right (as long as said person doesn't do something to forfeit their (default given) right to die.).

Additionally (and only speaking for myself), I would have no issue with this if it was reality for me, as long as I'm guaranteed the right at the end (fixed endpoint), no moving goalposts, excuses, if, ands, or buts. This means that if it were me, and I were to go through a waiting period (could be weeks or months, I can wait), go through a battery of tests to prove competency (knowing what my decision entails and proving that I know it is a permanent decision, etc.), and then after all that, confirm my decision, and finally when the very day comes, waive any appeal or reconsideration and then just go through peacefully... I can't speak for other people, but again, personally, for me, I would go through that to be granted a guaranteed peaceful and dignified exit, without any (real) harm to others and no longer suffer.

 

[sorrowful]

agreed, one of the reasons i want to ctb is the extreme homicidal urges along with hearing voices telling me to do so i have talked about this to many people no medication helps i am afraid of myselfl sometimes and i wish i had the choice of an easy exit.

i feel as if i should of not been born but that is too late and my only other option is to find a way out as fast as possible. ppl see me as non-human for this, so i can only see myself as the same. being trapped here is horrible

 

[maybemonday]

I would like this. I get really overwhelming intrusive thoughts about hurting people. I don't want to hurt anyone but I'm scared I will. I just want out

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think the idea has a lot of merit- help someone suffering end their life before they hurt other people.

I guess it is how it would be put into practice that I struggle with. It's interesting that you talked about waiting periods. I agree that this would be an important barrier to anyone who may be wishing to commit suicide impulsively.

Still- I would add to this that during this period- that person ought to be OFFERED support- therapy, meds- whatever. Definitely not have it forced on them and definitely not make it a condition to receive assisted suicide ultimately. I believe- so long as the person is mentally competent- they ought to have the right of autonomy. BUT- as a society- I think we ought to at least offer support to those who are struggling.

And- herein lies the problem... Just how effective is therapy? If it's someone who purely has suicidal thoughts and the treatment doesn't work for them- the period ends and they kill themselves. If it's someone with homicidal/sadistic thoughts- what if the treatment 'works' only to delay those urges. What if- later on- the desire to hurt others superseeds their desire to hurt themselves? Will it not become tempting for healthcare providers to nudge the more problematic patients towards suicide? Will it get to a stage where they try harder to 'save' some lives over others?

I guess the main problem I have is WHY? WHY do people want to kill themselves? WHY do people have the desire to hurt and even kill others? Maybe it's just plain lazy to say they're all crazy and criminally minded. (Some likely are- no doubt psychopaths but perhaps not all.) If we simply just weed out the people who don't fit in this society- nothing is addressed.

Is it ALWAYS the people at fault- or- is it society that has made them that way? I understand the compassion behind allowing deeply unhappy people to leave this life. Still- when does life become this unchanging exclusive club that- if you don't like it- you can just quit?

 

[TAW122]

I think the idea has a lot of merit- help someone suffering end their life before they hurt other people.

I guess it is how it would be put into practice that I struggle with. It's interesting that you talked about waiting periods. I agree that this would be an important barrier to anyone who may be wishing to commit suicide impulsively.

Still- I would add to this that during this period- that person ought to be OFFERED support- therapy, meds- whatever. Definitely not have it forced on them and definitely not make it a condition to receive assisted suicide ultimately. I believe- so long as the person is mentally competent- they ought to have the right of autonomy. BUT- as a society- I think we ought to at least offer support to those who are struggling.

And- herein lies the problem... Just how effective is therapy? If it's someone who purely has suicidal thoughts and the treatment doesn't work for them- the period ends and they kill themselves. If it's someone with homicidal/sadistic thoughts- what if the treatment 'works' only to delay those urges. What if- later on- the desire to hurt others superseeds their desire to hurt themselves? Will it not become tempting for healthcare providers to nudge the more problematic patients towards suicide? Will it get to a stage where they try harder to 'save' some lives over others?

I guess the main problem I have is WHY? WHY do people want to kill themselves? WHY do people have the desire to hurt and even kill others? Maybe it's just plain lazy to say they're all crazy and criminally minded. (Some likely are- no doubt psychopaths but perhaps not all.) If we simply just weed out the people who don't fit in this society- nothing is addressed.

Is it ALWAYS the people at fault- or- is it society that has made them that way? I understand the compassion behind allowing deeply unhappy people to leave this life. Still- when does life become this unchanging exclusive club that- if you don't like it- you can just quit?

You make very good points, and to elaborate on what I mean, yes, the implementation would be tricky, but I believe it can be done. By following what Canada's MAiD does as well as other countries in Europe (Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland), I could come up with a system that is effective at addressing both societal issues while also keeping the rights of others intact. It could be as simple as just modeling our own right to die laws to that of Canada's and those European nations' laws, then with that, add advance directives and similar medical/legal documents to it and then we can have a very effective system that allows people who don't want to be around to be able to have the (real) option to check out, while still respecting their rights, dignity, and personal bodily autonomy. Sure it's not perfect and I'm sure there are things to work out, but this will be a start.

To address your questions, I don't think therapy is that effective especially if it doesn't address the individual's problems and/or change societal problems that cause said individual to want to CTB. By therapy I mean both talk therapy, medication, and all kinds of therapies. Some problems just cannot be solved and this is why it is important to have the right to die exist as an ACTUAL option; not just reserved for those who are terminally ill and/or severely ill, disabled, and with poor prognosis.

Regarding those whose homicidal urges are only delayed and later becomes more dangerous, yes while the risk of nudging the patient to CTB, an alternative would be that if the patient is found to be mentally competent (of sound mind) and understands his/her actions, then the criminal justice system would come into play, just as it is. Furthermore, instead of jail/prison time (I assume the person has made threats), the person has the choice between voluntary death or involuntary commitment with treatment for their homicidal urges and thoughts (as a result of potential harm to others and to protect others from harm). I also do recall mentioning that if the said person does something that results in suspension or forfeiture of their right, then the current usual laws still apply. To keep things simple, I will presume that said person likely made threats of harm towards others, therefore in this hypothetical example (in this reply), it would already constitute a crime, thus the criminal justice system would be involved, and their right to die would be suspended until otherwise restored after they have paid their debt. Keep in mind, just because I'm in favor of a right to die, a right being given at default, it can be taken away if they abuse the system, do something that would disqualify or suspend their right (including committing certain crimes). So there is at least that check and balance intact. As for the ones who just snap and what not, it would be hard to legislate it, so while I don't have a good answer (for now), I know that the current system and method to handle those cases would still apply (for now). I guess the take away is that "as long as said person is not a harm to others and only to themselves, they are always granted the right to die, but as soon as they do something that would disqualify, forfeit, or suspend their right, then it gets murky."

I do get that society should do better to address the problems that drive others to want to CTB or harm others. However, sometimes if society fails to change, then the bare minimum that it should do is to allow an avenue of peaceful, dignified exit to those who are perpetually suffering to no end (until natural causes or other cause of death), or at least not impede an individual from CTB'ing.

Why do people want to CTB, let alone harm others? The first part is easier to answer because it is more about escaping pain and suffering for most of them, but of course, there are others who want to CTB for personal and philosophical reasons too. As for why others wish to harm others, like you mentioned, some are just evil, psychopathic people, and others, well anger and vengeance (I can strongly relate to the latter and understand it).

Sure, just simply allowing unhappy people to leave this life, existence alone wouldn't solve the problems that plague society, but allowing this right for everyone is the best policy because this reduces the amount of violence that others could potentially cause others by giving them something to lose (their inherent right to die) as well as an out if and should other means to alleviate suffering or make life worth living for them fail. This is not to say that we (as a society) ignore the problems that plague society, we can do both. I believe that we can grant people who truly wish to leave this world an exit and out, but at the same work towards making the world a place where people are more willing to stick around and live life. Of course, they still have the right to no exist if they choose to, but if we better the conditions, then those who want to stay will stay, those who are on the fence may (likely) choose to stay, and those who just don't want to stay (for whatever reason) have the option to just go instead of causing harm or negatively impacting others.

 

[Time&Regret]

I feel assisted suicide laws are only allowed or considered for people the state has determined to be a drain on it, without any benefit what so ever. This is why you see euthanasia laws in socialized Healthcare systems (Europe, Canada, etc). Why pay for a terminally ill person's pricey medical treatment if they want to check out early? Saves tax money. Homicidal ideation may not fly as a reason. If they don't follow the ideas, then they're gonna continue being a productive member of society. If they do, one to multiple less people for society to take care of, a new cause for politicians to champion (gun control, mental health, etc) and if they live a new person to perpetuate the prison industrial complex.

 

[DonTellMeToStayAlive]

Note: Although I have mentioned that any reason is valid for CTB in past threads, my point still stands. This thread will not change my stance nor gatekeep on those who CTB for their own reason(s) (or lack of a reason).

In fact, this thread is to raise the idea that if we simply allowed assisted suicide, voluntary euthanasia, right to die as an "option" for those who are a threat towards others and society itself, then it would solve many problems. Many problems would be solved would include preventing (future) damage (both unintentional and intentional), as well as allowing the person to find peace. This is a win-win situation because it prevents (potential) future harm to future victims and also puts to rest someone who wishes to go peacefully. In another thread that I posted recently about another tragedy is a good example of what happens in a country or jurisdiction that lacks the voluntary euthanasia and similar laws on the books.

Current death with dignity laws:
As it currently exists in the US (as well as many countries around the world), death with dignity, right to die laws are only for those who are terminally ill, within six months or less to live (in other words, death within 6 months or less), have multiple hoops and bureaucratic steps to cross (including having multiple physicians and mental evaluations from psychologists and what not), have to self-administer as well as being a resident of that particular state (except in Oregon which recently removed it's residency requirement); which of course are very narrow requirements that only very few people can qualify for. In other words, one cannot be too sick to qualify (lacking the physical capability to self-administer), but sick enough to qualify (terminally ill with 6 months or less to live). Just for the record, I'm not speaking for countries such as Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, and Canada, to name a few. Those countries are FAR ahead of the US as well as many other countries in the world.

The consequence of prohibition and prevention of CTB, lack of the right to die:
In our current system, with such narrow criteria and no "true" right to die on one's own terms (let alone a peaceful, dignified death as even prolifers are trying to limit accessibility to even barbaric means), we see people desperately try to leave only to fail, end up institutionalized against their will, locked up and detained against their will, forced treatment that they never consented to (don't get me started with the 'implied consent' bullshit). Those are just people who don't go to harm others, but themselves. As a result of that, they either try again (which will likely fail) and continue to suffer or until they succeed, but dying very painfully, violently, and undignified, leaving a mess for those who are around. Then there are people who are angry enough to take others with them or cause harm to others, which is horrible in itself, and if we only had a way to allow death with dignity not just for the terminally ill, but also for those who are suffering (non-terminally) continuously, even through a serious vetting process, we would at least have the ability to relieve their pain as well as prevent harm towards others who otherwise may wish to live.

TAW122's proposal to include 'homicidal urges' as a valid criteria for right to die:
As mentioned before, all reasons (or lack thereof) are valid for CTB, however, my proposal is that we allow people who may wish to harm others the right to die (before they harm others) as that would prevent harm to others (unwilling participants) and also grant the wish of the suffering individual. Too many advocates of mental health fail to realize that death is a remedy to problems and that sometimes, forcing people who don't wish to be around can do more harm not only to the individual, but also to others (especially those who were never a part of the individual's problems). In our current system, both suicidal and homicidal urges are treated like emergencies and the individual is locked up against their will for their safety as well as others. Then they are treated against their will, have a record on their background as a result of the stay (especially if they went to court), and of course, heavily billed for such horrible treatement against their will (at least in the US).

However, if we allowed voluntary euthanasia for people who not only wish to die, but also those who would have harmed others, we can prevent a lot of harm towards others as well as respecting the individual's wishes if they really wish to die. Additionally, I would add that there would be a condition in which the prospective perpetrator be able to surrender before their heinous act, go through a waiting period, and not commit crimes or horrible actions against others before being granted their right. Why this criteria and condition? This is to disincentivize people from abusing the system or using 'death' as an easy way out of committing horrible crimes and acts against others. In fact, having this condition as a requirement to access voluntary euthanasia as a result of homicidal urges will incentivize people to behave and do well so that they do not abuse the system as well as help them know that they have that right and is automatically granted (provided they don't do anything to lose that right, such as harming others or committing heinous acts against others). Other ancillary benefits is that perhaps even just having the right (not just on paper or in theory, but actually in practice and implemented in society) will alleviate the existential dread of sentience and give people an option to leave this hellish existence, even if they need to wait a bit, be evaluated to be mentally sound, and given every chance to change their mind (if they still persist until their final moment, then they proceed to a peaceful, dignified death).

What are your thoughts on this idea? @RainAndSadness @Forever Sleep @FuneralCry

Very interesting. I have been thinking of something on similar lines myself for a while. If I get the energy to read through, I'll try to respond.