The only time assisted suicide is moral is when it's the person's choice, and when the person is going to die soon anyway. It takes the cruelty and pain out of death.

It's NOT moral when it's used for mentally ill or depressed people to commit suicide.

Dear Bren,

<<How many people would support the assisted suicide of a distraught jilted young lover?>>

That's an irrelevant question: of course there would be very few of those and of course I wouldn't be among them, supporting that (assisted or otherwise) suicide of that young lover.

The correct question is not about "supporting" but about "interfering with without permission" - which neither myself nor anyone else may morally do.

If there are people who wish to receive help in stopping them from committing suicide if/when they ever become a disappointed lover, bankrupt, divorced or fail-an-exam, etc. then let them sign a contract to that effect in advance, with whoever they want to stop them in those cases, be that the government, another person, or any other group of people they authorise.

Dear Mollie,

I agree that suicide, assisted or otherwise, is immoral.
This however does not grant states a legitimate right to stop it from happening anyway and to lock up those involved.

Dear Yuyutsu

The article states as follows:

"There is no better indication of individual freedom than the ability to decide what to do with our own body. If the law prevents us from making free choices about it then we are not really free at all; our bodies belong to the State...........But there is a catch. The law says we are only permitted to die by our own hand, without assistance.......... The denial of the right to die at a time of our choosing can result in a lingering, painful death. It can also compel people to end their lives earlier than they would prefer, to escape the risk that they will become incapable of doing it for themselves. Legalisation of assisted suicide is long overdue in Australia".

While most of those supporting assisted suicide only support the concept in the case of the terminally ill, my reading of the article is that it goes much further. The author seems to advocate extreme libertarianism to the point that not only does he believe that everybody has the right to commit suicide, but he also seems to support the right of third parties to assist any suicide (not just for the seriously ill).

A key problem with suicide is that there is no going back and it is impossible to enforce a "cooling-off" period. While I concede that one can make an arguable case for assisting the terminally ill to end their lives, I can see no public interest or other reason for contemplating assisted suicide in other circumstances

"How many people would support the assisted suicide of a distraught jilted young lover? What about a desire for suicide on the part of some students who failed their exams or people who just suffered a financial catastrophe or a traumatic divorce?"

Interesting question.

It depends on what you mean by support. I'll use the word 'safe' below to indicate means that produce the intended outcome - death of the person trying to suicide but which mitigate the controllable factors as much as possible.

I'd support it on the basis of being the least harmful of the options. I'd support options that bring with them some certainty, have a requirement for some a clear decision and don't place others at risk or leave a mess for others to deal.

Most of the DIY options available to the public carry with them a number of very ugly aspects beyond the suicide itself.
- a risk that it only partly works leaving the person who intended to end their life alive but badly injured in some way
- a risk that the means chosen will harm others. Jumping under a bus or train does massive harm to the drivers involved as well as those who may witness it or have to clean up the mess. Running a car into a semi places the semi drivers life does similar and places the drivers life at serious risk as well
- swimming out to sea quite likely means a search for the body and possibly the searchers risking their own lives

This is not a situation where suicide does not exist under current laws and adding support for controlled 'safe' options would not introduce suicide as a new thing.

It might reduce the unintended side effects of the means currently available to most people, it would with some safeguards in place make suicide more accessible to some who currently have no viable means to end their own lives when has become intolerable through being incapacitated.

R0bert

It's not easy, no doubt there is some risk of people being coached into a decision to end their own lives who would not otherwise make that decision (and I have little doubt that happens now).

The onus is on those arguing against access to 'safe' means of suicide that it actually makes any of the issues they raise in protest worse.

R0bert

Hi Yuyutsu,

I did not say suicide is immoral. It's NOT immoral. A lot of mentally ill people attempt suicide, and it's NOT their fault.

If a mentally ill person wants suicide, it IS immoral to assist. If a person has a terminal condition and that person wants suicide, it's NOT immoral to assist.

If any person commits suicide, for whatever reason, that person is not guilty of an immoral act.