My reply on that thread:
>"We all have an obligation to keep each other safe, particularly those who pose a danger to themselves or others. And for what it's worth, I can involve myself in anybody's business I like."
Except we permit many things that cause
someone harm because as a society we value individual liberty. Do we forcibly confiscate cigarette packs from chronic smokers? Seize alcohol from chronic drinkers? Hell most states do not require you to wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle. There's a litany of choices we allow that cause harm to ones self in society because we value individual liberty or so we believe.
Mental illness =/= mental incompetence or incapacity. Could mental illness impact capacity? Absolutely, especially with psychotic disorders. But the fundamental fact is that the majority of the mentally ill do not lack mental incapacity. Here's a meta-analysis that proves my point:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17906238/
These people were institutionalized for either posing danger to themselves or others. So to categorize the entirety of the mentally ill as "vulnerable" and unable to make such a decision is factually wrong.
Assisted-suicide for severe chronic mental illnesses is permitted in Belgium, Switzerland and the Netherlands. Around 60-70 people a year receive it for this reason alone in the NL (I'm not sure about the stats in Belgium or Switzerland). Canada will also allow this starting in 2023:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ma...-mental-illness-maid-assisted-death-1.6021717
And a lot of these cases involve young adults. A 24 year old with chronic mental illness was permitted to die in Belgium:
Whilst a 29-year old was also permitted in the NL:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/17/assisted-dying-euthanasia-netherlands
The majority of people on SS deal with chronic mental illnesses that had plagued them all their lives with histories of attempts and being locked up in wards. Granted there are some who join because of recent life stressors (loss of a job, divorce from a wife, gf just broke up with you, etc). But again, these absolutely do not represent a majority of people. Encouraging someone to commit suicide is a bannable offense on the site. The people mentioned in the article all chose to kill themselves of their own volition and SN is not a method you can choose to end yourself impulsively. You need prior preparation of other drugs, wait a certain time and consume an specific amount of the substance that has to be measured. Then you need to wait a certain time before death takes affect allowing someone to easily call 911 (sn overdoses can be reversed if EMTs get there in time) Those people all went through that process and they still chose to go through with it.
So please save the whole "muh vulnerable children!!" or portraying the site as being infested with predators that get off to watching people kill themselves. This issue, site and suicide is far, far more nuanced than the article makes it out to be. The fact that NYT won't even allow moderated comments speaks volumes about how one-sided this article is. There is absolutely no good-faith here.
