Suicide pills for troubled teens. [Archive]

redstar2000

7th October 2003, 08:55

Ah, another "I know what's best for others" thread.

I don't think very many people kill themselves over "life's little bumps"...it's more that they perceive past, present and future as nothing but bumps.

Often, they are quite right about that.

One of the messages of capitalist ideology is that you should "persevere" and "overcome all obstacles"--unless you want to be a "loser".

Every edition of every Sunday newspaper has at least once such story: "Tony Turd was born face down in a bucket of shit and today runs his own successful business".

For every suck-cess story, there are a million failure stories...some of them appear in other pages of that newspaper...the section called "police reports" is instructive.

I can think of many life situations in which suicide would be a rational option...including long-term crippling disabilities, chronic and painful (though not necessarily terminal) illnesses, and, most difficult to measure, a sense of utter futility...that life is shit and that there's nothing that can be done about that.

To offer such people an easy and painless death might well be an act of kindness.

And therefore, I support it.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Ian

7th October 2003, 09:06

I'd like to know your reasoning behind that claim that crime would fall, in Australia the suicide rate (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/BE00331A0C387533CA2569DE0024ED5B?Open&Highlight=0,suicide) is rising, yet almost all types of crime are also rising, seems a bit strange to say that a pill will make crime go away.

Kapitan Andrey

7th October 2003, 09:34

hjkgh

Kapitan Andrey

7th October 2003, 09:35

Damn! This is idiotism!!! :angry:

Stupid idea!!! :angry:

Dhul Fiqar

7th October 2003, 11:37

One thing that everyone seems to be missing is that these pills would make murder just as easy as suicide.

--- G.

redstar2000

7th October 2003, 18:07

One thing that everyone seems to be missing is that these pills would make murder just as easy as suicide.

Murder is easy. It's disposing of the corpse before someone notices that's the hard job.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Dhul Fiqar

7th October 2003, 18:14

Exactly - and providing people with an access to the means to murder remotely is thus a pretty big step.

I realize poisons are available - and can be used to the same effect - but we are talking about making a 100% effective pill that is guaranteed to fucking kill you no matter what. Put it in someone's coffee grinder, put it in someone's drink, put it wherever a person is likely to eventually consume it. Tada. Perfect murder - no body to dispose of because you are nowhere near the scene and these pills are freely available to all angst-ridden teens - so who is to say who the hell did it?

Dunno - making death more easily attainable is not the loftiest goal I can think of. I totally agree that suicide should be a legal option - but there are already plenty of good ways to kill oneself that do not involve putting lethal chemicals in the hands of kids...

--- G.

Silent Eye

7th October 2003, 20:17

I think agree with dyermaker on this.

However it should be moderated heavily. Age would be one deciding issue, and reason would as well. "I got dumped by my girlfriend" or "i lost the baseball game" are NOT reasons worth using.

Loknar

7th October 2003, 21:26

Life is a ***** plain and simple. Allowing someone to kill them selves because it gets too hard sometimes is crazy.

Dhul Fiqar

7th October 2003, 22:51

I believe I have been on record saying this before - but I fully support assisted suicide being legal but I think psychological counceling should be mandatory before the event takes place - a lot of people do not really want to die when they think about it. And of course some age restrictions should apply.

--- G.

Dhul Fiqar

7th October 2003, 22:56

Oh, and btw I think it might be better if this was something that was done by a qualified professional after a last meal in a beautiful and calming environment (death can be traumatic even for suicidal people - I believe everyone deserves as pleasant a death as possible). It should not be done in some bathroom at the whim of the holder of a pill, imho.

--- G.

Regicidal Insomniac

8th October 2003, 01:18

If you could buy such a thing, I'd be dead by now.

I used to be quite the depressed kid, and I was often a few inches, or a few seconds away from suicide. If there was an over-the-counter pill I could have bought to make it easier, you bet I would have taken it. And right now I am damn glad I never did, because things are getting a whole lot better, and I bet half my friends would be dead, too. Because, believe me, us teenagers are very impulsive. While you're giving us suicide pills you might as well hand us shotguns to shoot out whoever we don't like at school. Cause we will do it, and you'll get kids dropping like flies either way.

apathy maybe

8th October 2003, 01:52

Ok then so we have clinics where a troubled person goes to them.

They talk to a councillor; they sign a piece of paper, if they still want to do it, they go into the room and boom. That’s it.
They of course have to be 18 or 21 or something but it would be any easy answer to the problem. If someone is going to kill themselves over any small thing then they are unstable and it would be a good thing for the gene pool if they did remove themselves from it.

Depressed teens will just take one at the slightest bump of the road of life, seeing it as an easy way out, whereas slitting your wrists or hanging yourself takes a bit of courage.

If you provided people with a means to end their own lives, many people would take advantage just because they fail a test, get laid off, spill their milk, or stain their favourite shirt. People take a lot of unimportant or easily fixable things so seriously.

However it should be moderated heavily. Age would be one deciding issue, and reason would as well. "I got dumped by my girlfriend" or "i lost the baseball game" are NOT reasons worth using.

This is the idea of the scheme. Any reason that someone things is a good reason for them is a good reason.

Plus it would make people look after their children more. Let them spend a bit more time with them teaching them that things like loosing a game are not things to worry about.

What we have is a population which is getting and keeping the bad genes. Glasses enable someone to see who with out them wouldn't. In the hunter-gather society if you couldn't see you didn't eat. But now ...
Either way if someone is likely to kill themselves and really wants to and they just have to go down the street to a centre, is it such a bad thing? Ignoring it's horrible. Because I think that abortion is horrible.

This by the way is not the same as abortion. Abortion the child doesn't get a say, but a suicide does get a say.

Rastafari

8th October 2003, 02:43

As interesting as this is to propose, it obviously has its downfalls. I am certainly not against the idea in the case of people older than 50 or 60, but Teenagers? Teenagers are emotional minefields anyway, and you'd not weed out the bad population, but the whole population!

It would weed unbalanced people out of the gene pool. Now picking up on this last point, if all those who were going to kill themseleves over any small matter did so then it would be great for natural selection. we could well end up with the most stable population ever. Non violent crime would go down (no matter what the society), violent crime would go down, murder would go down.

Social Darwinism=Nazism.

I'm sorry apathy maybe, this is TOO extreme and scary for me to deal with.
but I still encourage you not to be an insect.

Regicidal Insomniac

8th October 2003, 02:51

It would weed unbalanced people out of the gene pool.

Weirded out... :blink:

Rastafari

8th October 2003, 02:56

Originally posted by Regicidal [email protected] 7 2003, 10:51 PM

It would weed unbalanced people out of the gene pool.

Weirded out... :blink:
and besides, how much of mental instability is hereditary. I know some things are, but not all of them. I don't think Agoraphobia is, but serious mental conditions have been noticed to be.

But regardless, it'd take a long time before these "infirmities" would be completely gone.

then we'd become an artless society. What would the cultural world be like without Salvador Dali, Kurt Cobain (no shitty Grunge Rock!), and many other who I am too tired to post about?

It would be a little less crazy, thats what

Henrybird

8th October 2003, 02:58

Suicide pills? That's the cwaziest thing I ever heard.

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th October 2003, 03:01

I agree with Dhul Fiqar on this one.

Assisted suicide is fine, but such a pill will result in many un-wanted murders.

Regicidal Insomniac

8th October 2003, 03:02

Great point. Where would we be without wonderful sociopaths like Vincent Van Gogh, or Edgar Allen Poe? A little crazy here and there is perfectly healthy. :)

commie kg

8th October 2003, 04:16

Totally against the idea of suicide pills. What if you took one, and then realized "oh shit, I don't want to die!"

People should just have access to counseling and other forms of mental help.

Rastafari

8th October 2003, 04:37

Originally posted by commie [email protected] 8 2003, 12:16 AM
Totally against the idea of suicide pills. What if you took one, and then realized "oh shit, I don't want to die!"

People should just have access to counseling and other forms of mental help.
that is so funny!

synthesis

8th October 2003, 05:43

Originally posted by commie [email protected] 8 2003, 04:16 AM
Totally against the idea of suicide pills. What if you took one, and then realized "oh shit, I don't want to die!"
Uh, that could happen even without the above suggestion :blink:

BuyOurEverything

8th October 2003, 06:03

I do agree with redstar somewhat. Any person has a right to kill themselves for any reason they see fit. Nobody else can tell them what is or isn't a "good enough" reason. Having said that though, I think readily available suicide pills are a bad idea. It would be too impulsive. Having to actually plan your own death gives you a chance to think it over.

Guest1

8th October 2003, 06:56

did you ever think this might expand the problem of a sense of directionlessness in life for the general population? we already have to deal with the rediculous hamsterwheel of capitalism, we don't need friends and family dropping dead all over the place. everyone would be tempted to do it.

I say fuck it, don't allow it for those who are just depressed. I believe in euthenasia, but only for those with terminal illness or those who have reached a certain age (retirement age?). before that, it would be harmful. it is their right to do it, also our right not to make it easier.

no pill though, lethal injection, preceded by hours under the influence of the drug of choice of the patient. I would go 12 hours LSD, then a quick painless death by leathal injection.

that way, it's not street ready, and it carries alot more weight. the person can also change their mind after their journey into their own psyche. :P

Regicidal Insomniac

8th October 2003, 23:40

I think we should go ahead with the idea of suicide pills actually. Except they'd be placebos. Then if anyone (I bet most would) regrets the decision to take their life, it wont be too late. They can call the number the number on the side of the box and get some help. Then everyone will be happy....

... Tralalala...

Firestorm

9th October 2003, 00:32

Sick, sick, and sick! What the hell is this post trying to teach here?! Hey...go ahead kill yourself...its okay. I had a friend who ended his life by shooting himself in the head with his dads 375 H&H big bore magnum rifle....he was in need of serious help, and it didn't help when his girlfriend phoned him up and told him to "just do it, your worthless!"

KAABOOM! ...and his head exploded like a melon. I lost a good friend that day.

Dhul Fiqar

9th October 2003, 00:38

My very best friend in the entire world killed himself - I cannot describe how close we were. There is not a day I do not think of him. In fact I dream of him several times a month - the first couple of years it was every night.

So believe me - you are not alone in losing a good friend to suicide - that does not mean one has to take any given position on the issue of suicide in general. In fact I regret my friend's decision every day - and I am not afraid to cry when I think of the path he took. But I have never doubted the fact that it was HIS decision to make - and I really had no right to do anything but do my very best totalk him out of it, which did not work...

RIP Goggi :(

--- G.

redstar2000

9th October 2003, 01:30

I'm really sorry to hear about your friend, Dhul. I've never been close to anyone who has actually done it--talked about it, yes; done it, no.

I hope you don't torment yourself about "if only I had done XXXXX, then..."

On the topic generally, I don't see why these pills should simply be available on request to anyone under 40. But, as I indicated in my earlier post, I would make exceptions.

What of a teenager who has suffered crippling, life-long injuries in an automobile accident? Or hideous disfigurement? Is it fair or humane to sentence them to 50 or so years of unutterably bleak existence if they request a painless end?

It's all well and good to say that we'll give hope to the hopeless (a happy pill, perhaps)...and they'll change their minds.

Sometimes the happy pills don't work...or they work a little bit--raising one from extreme depression to just ordinary depression...where every day of life is a dreary ordeal that only sleep relieves.

It's really a tough call.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

elijahcraig

9th October 2003, 03:10

Sounds like Soma without the trip.

Rastafari

9th October 2003, 04:13

I don't think I'm feeling OK.

but thats exactly what I thought when I read it. Scary, indeed

commie kg

9th October 2003, 05:41

Dhul, I know how it is. Last year, two of my good freinds killed themselves, and another died in a skateboarding accident this year. It sucks. I'm becoming an expert on memorial services. :(

The worst part is, one of my freinds who did commit suicide did it because of the post-9/11 prejudices he was experiencing as a Muslim. :(

apathy maybe

19th April 2007, 01:23

Bumpity bump. (This thread is from 2003 for those who didn't notice.)

So, to give some back ground on this, it came from a short science fiction story where an entire 'race' of aliens implemented a method of where anyone could kill themselves by pressing two fingers on the back of their neck. It only worked if that person did it, not anyone else.

Anyway, I still think the idea of having suicide clinics is a good idea. Pretty much for the reasons I've already mentioned. If someone wanted to kill themselves, they can goto a clinic, get counseling and if they still want to, then they can go ahead into the next room and take a pill (or whatever).

What do the present lot of people think of the idea?

Qwerty Dvorak

19th April 2007, 01:28

Society cannot be seen to be endorsing suicide in any way, shape or form bar euthanasia.

which doctor

19th April 2007, 02:50

Pow R. Toc H.

19th April 2007, 03:10

Yeah, I think it would be a bad idea. A really really really bad idea. Many people at some time in life consider suicide. If it was just as easy as, take a pill and go to sleep, more fucking people would do it. The reason more people dont commit suicide is because it takes fucking balls to go through with. Jumping off a building, slitting your wrists, hanging yourself, overdosing on pills, they all take balls to go through with. Suicide is irrational. It should never ever be endorsed under any circumstances.

Political_Chucky

19th April 2007, 03:42

Originally posted by Dhul [email protected] 07, 2003 09:14 am
Exactly - and providing people with an access to the means to murder remotely is thus a pretty big step.

I realize poisons are available - and can be used to the same effect - but we are talking about making a 100% effective pill that is guaranteed to fucking kill you no matter what. Put it in someone's coffee grinder, put it in someone's drink, put it wherever a person is likely to eventually consume it. Tada. Perfect murder - no body to dispose of because you are nowhere near the scene and these pills are freely available to all angst-ridden teens - so who is to say who the hell did it?

Dunno - making death more easily attainable is not the loftiest goal I can think of. I totally agree that suicide should be a legal option - but there are already plenty of good ways to kill oneself that do not involve putting lethal chemicals in the hands of kids...

--- G.
I actually support this...even how much controversy it would create. But I think we should reform this idea. Suicide pills....not such a great idea...but a system in which suicide is in your grasp... not so much. I didn't read on from this post so forgive me if i'm repeating anything. But I agree with the point it would be easier to murder, but how about like place to commit suicide, controlled suicide. No prescription because I mean.....do you really need more then one pill? :lol: It would probably be better to have a "suicide center," have maybe some psychiatrists there that you could talk to if you want to make sure this is what you really want to do. If it is, then thats when your able to do it, under supervision. The technique should be as painless as possible. It also prevents a mess from happening,( gun shots, slit wrists, ect) not that its more important, but it does save the trouble. It sounds kinda messed up, but its the persons body and they can do what they want. Teens however is too extreme I think. I think this should be regulated at least till your 21, when hormones are not an issue and your mind is as straight as its going to be. Basically, you'll be at the peak of your life. But as with drugs, it should be educated also that maybe people who wish to commit suicide early in life are glad that they didn't(not sure if this is true, but if it is, then yea).

This kinda reminds me of Futurama with the suicide boths.

Fascist-Hunter

19th April 2007, 03:42

It's really not that hard to kill yourself.
People who fail at suicide simply didn't try hard enough, often meaning that they really didn't want to die, but wanted to be noticed so they can get help.

this is a lie. maybe you will see the day when you realize that the human body is much stronger than some people want it to be.

Suicide is irrational. It should never ever be endorsed under any circumstances.

I just remember that when I started the suicide techniques thread in D.I.Y. one year ago many comrades said stupid things like that.

why is it irrational? why should one be forced to stay alive?
I personally think that all those people who oppose suicide are no revolutionaries; they are somehow still under the influence of the irrationalism of christianiaty.

I have recently read a book about this topic. The authors made a survey, where they found that in a group of 100 doctors 80% were for the death penalty. When they asked the same group if they were for assisted suicide, only 10% agreed to that.

strange, isn't it? even on this board people had no problems talking about killing other people. but when it comes to the last taboo in our "modern" society nearly everyone behaves like the pope.

VeratheFastest

19th April 2007, 04:02

I can see suicide being a viable and honorable option especially if the future is bleak. If death is an inevitability, it is better to spare the pain of torture and prolonging the inevitable.
It can also be the greatest display of loyalty towards family, party, the state, whatever you believe in.

pusher robot

19th April 2007, 05:47

It's a challenging topic for sure. I abhor suicides, and I think the vast majority are senseless wastes, acts of cowardice committed by the extremely selfish.

But -

It IS their life; their responsibility, for the good - and the bad. I suppose I'd grant the right to do it, and retain the right to judge them harshly.

colonelguppy

19th April 2007, 06:14

their are an infinite number of ways to end your life, i don't see how trying to restrict one will make any difference.

RGacky3

19th April 2007, 06:26

All of you think back 3 years from now, were you the same person you were? Are your concerns the same concerns?

Suicide should never be promoted.

Political_Chucky

19th April 2007, 06:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 09:26 pm
All of you think back 3 years from now, were you the same person you were? Are your concerns the same concerns?

Suicide should never be promoted.
No one is promoting suicide. No one is saying," Go out and kill yourself." But we are promoting self-choice. Why should anyone stop you from doing what you want to do? No matter how painful, no matter how horrific it may seem to you, if I truly wanted to kill myself(which I don't), why should you tell me what I can or can not do? I think organized suicide would be a hell of a lot better then someone choosing to kill themselves out of the blue in their room. As long as it isn't hurting anyone else, whats the problem?

higgs629

19th April 2007, 07:59

Warning this post deals with a very specific part of Apathy Maybe's suicide pill argument, by relating a long and boring personal story (no it isn't depressing). To those who are interested in the debate upon whether suicide pills should be legal or not, you will not find important points here.

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 07, 2003 05:52 pm
What we have is a population which is getting and keeping the bad genes. Glasses enable someone to see who with out them wouldn't. In the hunter-gather society if you couldn't see you didn't eat. But now ...
Either way if someone is likely to kill themselves and really wants to and they just have to go down the street to a centre, is it such a bad thing? Ignoring it's horrible. Because I think that abortion is horrible.

Be extremely careful considering the effects of natural selection and evolution on society.

It smells of eugenics, and will take you way closer than you want to be to fascism. I know this only because I was at one point a Fascist, though I would have been insulted if you had informed me. The reason I had converted from communism to fascism (it's been a long road to capitalism =-) ) was because of my quasi-expertise at the time in evolutionary biology. I enjoyed thought experiments of creating the ideal society, and upon applying my evolutionary expertise to my communist beliefs, I realized that if communism did what I wanted, and always provided everyone with their needs, there would no longer be natural selection (I also felt sexual selection would be negligable because people would look beyond the body and focus on the mind :rolleyes: ). If there was no natural selection...gulp...most animals become blind in only a few generations after they move into caves, because natural selection against blindness stops. I thought, not only blindness in a few generations, but total decay of humanity just generations after my communist vision was finally achieved! This led me to design thousands of little laws that communist worker-councils should pass, and spiraled me into fascism. (Never of the gas chamber sort mind you). But endless little rules chipping away at freedom, it was a necessary evil as I saw it, because future generations depended on the survival of a good genome, I also figured it would "only" be necessary until total genetic engineering was invented. But, the breeding-laws, the eating-laws, extra needs not being fulfilled if the extra need was due to genetic deficiency. I was mentally describing a society where the genetically superior would rule over a slave class of the genetically inferior, a society that was set up not by virtue of one's actual ability but rather by virtue of one's potential! When the totality of what I was thinking finally hit me, I was disgusted. I spent the next year or so trying to discover the error in my logic, which I eventually did and this led me to become the free-marketeer that I am today. What I am now is of course not the point, and believing in communism will not turn you into a fascist one day. The point of this tale is that it is very dangerous to think that you can set up society, to set up incentives in a way to achieve the greater good, and warning bells should go off when you start to think about "weeding out" genetic problems. I'm sure you know how not to fall too far, and that most of the members in this forum would keep you in line anyway. I am just warning you that there can be great temptation to fascism, and you probably will think your ideas are just enlightened, or realistic so you must think very, very carefully about any time you think that something should be done for a "genetic" benefit, or even if the "genetic" benefit is not the primary benefit but simply a secondary one (as it supposedly is in this case), think very carefully about your premises, because an error in any of them will betray you.

PS. I just want to disclaim that I am no longer a fascist, I haven't been for years now, and my beliefs are instead directly opposed to fascism, I am currently a Libertarian Minarchist and I do not in any way believe in or support any sort of racial, sexual, homophobic, or genetic discrimination. I do feel I understand fascism in a way that few people do, not just in its impersonal attrocities, which it commited through the 20th century, but it has a personal familiarity, and I have a personal hatred of it. Obviously, my knowledge is not as personal as someone who lived in a fascist country, but more so than someone who read about a fascist country. What I mean is, I understand the precise nature of its evil, though I have never had it practiced upon me.

Idola Mentis

19th April 2007, 12:25

First, here's the suicide hotlines (http://suicidehotlines.com/). Anyone here feels like being a fool, go there first.

It would weed unbalanced people out of the gene pool. Now picking up on this last point, if all those who were going to kill themseleves over any small matter did so then it would be great for natural selection.

Why are you talking from the position of nazi eugenics? Is that your political and scientific position?

I think I'll leave off commenting on the rest of your post until I know if I'm talking to an anarchist or to a nazi.

apathy maybe

19th April 2007, 12:27

I have never thought that eugenics (... this word isn't clear, but I hope that people understand what I mean) was a good thing. I still don't.

The original purpose of the thread was to open the idea of having "suicide centres" or "suicide pills" freely available. (And I remember another SF story where this is the case...) It wasn't about the genetic aspect at all.

The genetic aspect is however, something to think about. If all the depressed people kill themselves (not the state or someone else, and not the state or society interfering in their lives what so ever), then there will be less depressed people. Simple micro evolution.

However, it always has to be the choice of the individual, and that is something I have always thought, and will continue to think. So, while I appreciate your story, I won't travel that path (and hopefully others won't either). (And now of course it is time for you to understand the next step in your political 'evolution', anarchism. :P)

apathy maybe

19th April 2007, 12:30

Idola Mentis: "Why are you talking from the position of nazi eugenics? Is that your political and scientific position?"

As I said just after you posted, I've never supported the compulsory sterilisation of people, or the killing of them by the state. I am an anarchist, I support freedom. And that includes the freedom to kill ones self if one so desires (your body, your choice...). That is my political position.

My scientific position is also simple. Evolution happens.

Edit: I should make clear, I am not advocating suicide. I am simply saying that people are going to kill themselves anyway, and so why not make it painless and quick for them?

(Edit: And your hotlines aren't too crash hot. They are only for Yank land. What about other countries if you are so concerned?)

Idola Mentis

19th April 2007, 12:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:34 am
No one is promoting suicide. No one is saying," Go out and kill yourself." But we are promoting self-choice. Why should anyone stop you from doing what you want to do? No matter how painful, no matter how horrific it may seem to you, if I truly wanted to kill myself(which I don't), why should you tell me what I can or can not do? I think organized suicide would be a hell of a lot better then someone choosing to kill themselves out of the blue in their room. As long as it isn't hurting anyone else, whats the problem?
Providing i a cyanide pill to a chronically depressed person isn't encouraging suicide? Actions convey information and function as statements just as much as words do.

Why should I stop you from committing suicide? Because it's the ultimate selfishness. If nothing else, every human being is a titanic investment. It's taken years and years of resources, attention, labour to grow even the most broken, rambling bum on the street. You don't get to just slip away and leave someone else to clean up the mess.

A death always hurts someone else in some way, because a human being isn't an island, it''s part of a whole. It's not your decision, just like it's not your decision who else gets to live or die. We have a right to life, and what sustains it, but we don't have a right to death.

apathy maybe

19th April 2007, 12:40

Fuck off we don't have a right to death. Fuck with that sort of statement I think you should be restricted.

My body. My choice.

You and everybody else who wants to tell me what to do with my body can get fucked.

I'll fuck whom I please, I'll smoke what I please, I'll put whatever I want into my body. And you can get fucked if you try and tell me differently. And in the same line of thought, if I want to kill myself, you can't tell me not to.

Yes death hurts others, but everybody dies, sometime. And while I think that people who want to kill themselves should to talk to a councillor or someone else, I'm not going to force them to.

Idola Mentis

19th April 2007, 12:47

(The hotlines are the top google. Figures. Someone got a link to an international one?)

The thing I took issue with is not the coercive aspect of eugenics (you can probably have eugenics without coercion), but that your are drawing your arguments from the tenets of the "science" of eugenics. You appear to believe that evolution equals social darwinism, a position I thought was confined to fascists.

I think that to be able to form informed opinions on these issues, you need to aquire a much more nuanced knowledge of psychology, the philosophy of knowledge, will, freedom and of evolutionary biology. As it is, from what you've said so far, you appear to lag about 60 years behind our current understanding of these issues. I'm impressed that you can hold onto an anarchist view while believing in the scientific theories which legitimized the holocaust.

Idola Mentis

19th April 2007, 12:56

You vawe restriction around in a debate? Then fuck you too. Let's talk when you've untangled your panties.

apathy maybe

19th April 2007, 14:35

You obviously misunderstand my position on the matter, regardless it isn't relevant to the debate (which is whether we should have suicide centres or whatever).

And, if you are supportive of telling me, or anyone else, what we can or can't do with our own bodies, then I've got no problem with saying that you aren't a comrade, and that I think you should be restricted. If that isn't your position, then I apologies, but it damn well seems like it from here.

Idola Mentis

19th April 2007, 15:21

I misunderstood? You appear to be arguing for the right to die using arguments formed on a utilitarian basis, drawing on "facts" arrived at by promoters of eugenics, implying that the practice of voluntary eugenics would be a good thing. You've since implied that you are also supporting your argument as an extension of your belief in complete personal freedom of action. Is this incorrect?

I find eugenics, "voluntary" or coercieve to be unethical. Coercive, I guess we don't need to discuss, since we're in agreement. But since I disagree with the findings of the imperialist pre-war researchers, and their fascist successors, I find voluntary eugenics a futile exercise too. Even if their findings were not dangerous garbage and wishful thinking, I would not agree that implementing such a system would be ethical, and even if it could be defendend, I would disagree that suicide could be part of a voluntary eugenics program.

Being suicidal is usually a disorder, an illness which must be treated, not indulged, just like any other thing that would kill you. One thing is making avialable to people whose disease will certainly kill them a way to escape the pain. Another thing entirely is letting people with a mental problem, usually severe depression, to kill themselves. We do not let people with anorexia starve themselves to death, do we?

I assume your idea of personal freedom is not as rudimentary as it appears from your posts here. If you want to keep a civil discussion, you should not threaten your opponents with external coercion.

People are exerting influence on each other all the time, intentionally or not. Freedom is not absolute license to do anything you bloody well like. Freedom is to be able to participate in identifying and shaping these influences, fragmenting, controlling and reducing to a minimum the limitations on our behaviour.

By killing yourself, you are not just acting on yourself; you are inflicting a complex and extended set of consequences on all the people around you. If you do not recognize that they have a part in your decision, and disregard their opinion on the matter, aren't you coercing them? And what sort of person except another suicidal would support your decision to kill yourself? If nothing else, the guy who has to clean up after your evacuated bowel would probably rather you'd kept on living.

During the eugenics programs of the previous century, people did "volunteer" for sterilization. They did it to achieve perks in the institutions they were confined to, in hope of being released, or for money. Since these volunteers had no appreciation of the greater picture, was usually desperately poor, mentally ill, brutalized, drugged or confined to an institution for a prolonged period, the use of the term "voluntary" becomes a grotesque distortion.

We shape our communities to provide us with a number of options in life. Not all options can be accommodated for everyone within a given matrix of needs. Normalizing suicide as an general option for anyone who decides they need it, rather than a desperate escape in the most extreme circumstances is not freedom; it's putting pressure on sick people to lay their head on the chopping block for our convenience.

pusher robot

19th April 2007, 16:17

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 19, 2007 11:40 am
Fuck off we don't have a right to death. Fuck with that sort of statement I think you should be restricted.

My body. My choice.

You and everybody else who wants to tell me what to do with my body can get fucked.

I'll fuck whom I please, I'll smoke what I please, I'll put whatever I want into my body. And you can get fucked if you try and tell me differently. And in the same line of thought, if I want to kill myself, you can't tell me not to.

Yes death hurts others, but everybody dies, sometime. And while I think that people who want to kill themselves should to talk to a councillor or someone else, I'm not going to force them to.

My body. My choice.

You and everybody else who wants to tell me what to do with my body can get fucked.

I must point out that this principle is antithetical to the ideologies of most of the people on this board, who see no problem whatsoever in imposing affirmative duties and obligations upon every member of society.

How on Earth can you reconcile your statement with "from each according to his ability..."? I find this truly confounding.

Kwisatz Haderach

19th April 2007, 16:50

Originally posted by apathy maybe+April 19, 2007 01:27 pm--> (apathy maybe @ April 19, 2007 01:27 pm) The genetic aspect is however, something to think about. If all the depressed people kill themselves (not the state or someone else, and not the state or society interfering in their lives what so ever), then there will be less depressed people. Simple micro evolution. [/b]
Warning: Evolution only works on GENETIC traits.

Thus, evolution could only reduce the number of depressed people if depression was genetic (which it isn't).

apathy maybe
I should make clear, I am not advocating suicide. I am simply saying that people are going to kill themselves anyway, and so why not make it painless and quick for them?
It's the "quick" part that bothers me. People make mistakes, they regret them later and they try to fix them. But if you make a mistake when deciding to commit suicide, there's no second chance, no way to regret it later. So, if you're going to make suicide available to people, it should not, under any circumstances, be available on the spur of the moment. People need to be damn well sure of what they want before they go ahead with it. This means that mandatory counselling and a waiting period should be enforced.

pusher robot

19th April 2007, 18:37

To clarify my previous point: if a person is capable of contributing to a community and kills himself instead, is he not violating the imperative of "from each according to his ability?" He has the ability to contribute, and chooses not to for reasons that are entirely selfish.

apathy maybe

19th April 2007, 20:17

Ah, but I don't subscribe to "from each... to each...", so it doesn't matter to me.

More to the point, even most people who do subscribe to it (that I have talked to), interpret it in a non-coercive manner. That is, if you do not want to work, then you cannot, because it is against your ability.

Edric O: I can't argue about genetics, because I'm not a geneticist. So I'll leave that one alone. Besides, it was only ever a side issue and not the main issue (which is that people should have the right to kill themselves).

And yes people make mistakes, but once they are dead, they aren't going to be worrying about whether or not they should or shouldn't have killed themselves. So, it doesn't matter. (I'm arguing strictly from the position that death is the final end point for a person here, if you have another position, good for you. But I don't honestly care.)

ichneumon

19th April 2007, 20:29

there are in fact people who are morbidly depressed, who do not respond to medication, and will live lives fulled with nothing but suffering. scientific studies show that depressed persons are MORE accurate at guesses and memory tests - they are not irrational. then again, our society defines children as mentally incompetent.

the real issue is whether to socially condone suicide, or to what degree. suicide is always possible - you don't need magic pills.

imho, giving suicide pills to teenagers is a crime.

higgs629

19th April 2007, 20:29

Originally posted by Idola Mentis+April 19, 2007 04:36 am--> (Idola Mentis @ April 19, 2007 04:36 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 06:34 am
No one is promoting suicide. No one is saying," Go out and kill yourself." But we are promoting self-choice. Why should anyone stop you from doing what you want to do? No matter how painful, no matter how horrific it may seem to you, if I truly wanted to kill myself(which I don't), why should you tell me what I can or can not do? I think organized suicide would be a hell of a lot better then someone choosing to kill themselves out of the blue in their room. As long as it isn't hurting anyone else, whats the problem?
Providing i a cyanide pill to a chronically depressed person isn't encouraging suicide? Actions convey information and function as statements just as much as words do.

Why should I stop you from committing suicide? Because it's the ultimate selfishness. If nothing else, every human being is a titanic investment. It's taken years and years of resources, attention, labour to grow even the most broken, rambling bum on the street. You don't get to just slip away and leave someone else to clean up the mess.

A death always hurts someone else in some way, because a human being isn't an island, it''s part of a whole. It's not your decision, just like it's not your decision who else gets to live or die. We have a right to life, and what sustains it, but we don't have a right to death. [/b]
How can you have the right to life when you don't have the right to end it? I think you are claiming that you have the right to live but not the right to life.

Pawn Power

19th April 2007, 21:44

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 18, 2007 07:23 pm
Bumpity bump. (This thread is from 2003 for those who didn't notice.)

So, to give some back ground on this, it came from a short science fiction story where an entire 'race' of aliens implemented a method of where anyone could kill themselves by pressing two fingers on the back of their neck. It only worked if that person did it, not anyone else.

Anyway, I still think the idea of having suicide clinics is a good idea. Pretty much for the reasons I've already mentioned. If someone wanted to kill themselves, they can goto a clinic, get counseling and if they still want to, then they can go ahead into the next room and take a pill (or whatever).

What do the present lot of people think of the idea?
Vonnegut also wrote a short story titled, Welcome to Monkey House, which our future hypothetical society offered suicide centers.

Political_Chucky

19th April 2007, 23:32

Wtf are you talking about? No one is trying to Purify society or improve the human race by offering suicide pills or any other means of self-destruction. Regardless of what anyone said on this forum, I do know that no one said we are forcing or attempting to create a perfect society by promoting suicide. It can be comparable to drug use. No one really tells anyone to go out and smoke or drink. But what do you know? Drinking causes liver disease and brain cell loss, and Smoking causes cancer. Yet its the persons own choice.

Why should I stop you from committing suicide? Because it's the ultimate selfishness. If nothing else, every human being is a titanic investment. It's taken years and years of resources, attention, labour to grow even the most broken, rambling bum on the street. You don't get to just slip away and leave someone else to clean up the mess.

What titanic investment has it costed you? What I think everyone is arguing here is an organized way to do it. I don't think anyone here is promting the idea of suicide, because we aren't. But if one wants to, how is it selfish for themselves to do it, when YOU'RE telling someone they can't? And besides, the only people who would clean the mess would be the people running system for the suicide system.

A death always hurts someone else in some way, because a human being isn't an island, it''s part of a whole. It's not your decision, just like it's not your decision who else gets to live or die. We have a right to life, and what sustains it, but we don't have a right to death.

Yet now its your desicion to say I couldn't kill myself now? Once again, I don't encourage anyone to go off and kill themselves, but choice is something that should not be taken away from any human being as long as its doing no harm to anyone else. Yes, grief may sucumb close friends or family, but that is really their problem. If you feel anyone would have selfishness in this act, you are the one who is selfish as you don't care what they other person really wants. Anyone elses "feelings" are irrelevent to what you want to do. If I wanna get a tattoo, but my mom doesn't want me to....to bad. I'm a grown man. If I want to smoke some bud, fuck off, because this is my body. If I want to kill myself, too bad, you can't do anything about it. And because we all die one day, what is the problem?

If your an athiest, you agree that there really is no point to living. We live on earth to breed and to stay alive...but we will die. If one wants to end it early, then whats the harm? Nothing after this anyways. Sounds messed up, but I can't tell anyone want to do with their lives as long as they aren't hurting me or any other person.

Also, if your a christian or whatever religion you happen to be, then you also believe in freedom of choice, and if the person does commit a wrong doing, they will be punished in hell then rising to heaven with 101 virgins or however many it is.

20th April 2007, 00:05

If you believe in personal freedom and autonomy than you must believe that everyone has a right to do what they wish to their own bodies including destroying them. From a social-libertarian perspective we must reject all attempts to use *force* to prevent suicide, and all laws allowing for the psychiatric imprisonment of people who wish to use their bodies for purposes that society deems inappropriate, such as ending their lives, should be abolished.

However, it does not follow that people should then be *provided* with suicide pills. The fact is that everyone not imprisoned or paralyzed has the ability to kill themselves in a variety of ways without any help, so theres no obligation to facilitate it as they can do it for themselves.

Providing suicide pills would be a bad idea for practical reasons, in that its a bad idea to have easily available painless and deadly poison as it can be used as a murder weapon or mistakenly ingested.

t_wolves_fan

21st April 2007, 15:40

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 07, 2003 02:36 am
What do people think of having compleatly free access to the means to kill oneself?

We already do. They're called freeways, bridges, or buses.

his may involve selling or handing out suicide pills, or having places where those sick of life can go to get counciling and if they still want to go through with it a death machine of some description.

Some reasons for this include,
Some of these people are going to commite sucicde anyway,
It would weed unbalanced people out of the gene pool. Now picking up on this last point, if all those who were going to kill themseleves over any small matter did so then it would be great for natural selection. we could well end up with the most stable population ever. Non violent crime would go down (no matter what the society), violent crime would go down, murder would go down.

What are your thoughts on this, is it a good idea and should we implement it in our post-capitalist society, even in our current society?

I can only assume you're referring to Virginia Tech. The sad fact is, ending one's own life is not always the only motivation for the act. The desire for revenge is going to exist in any society.

Capitalist Lawyer

21st April 2007, 17:48

Perhaps if they stopped reading atheist literature every day while doing drugs, getting tattoos and hanging out with people who don't give a crap about them unless they "score another bag" then they wouldn't be so troubled now would they?

bloody_capitalist_sham

21st April 2007, 17:54

What would be better is like a pill that gives you amnesia of all stuff apart from language and other needed stuff.

That would be much better.

Jazzratt

21st April 2007, 17:56

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 21, 2007 04:48 pm
Perhaps if they stopped reading atheist literature every day while doing drugs, getting tattoos and hanging out with people who don't give a crap about them unless they "score another bag" then they wouldn't be so troubled now would they?
Firstly that's a bit of a straw-teen don't you think? Secondly atheism is generally life affirming - after all if you have nothing after you die you may as well live as best you can while alive. Depending on the drug a lot of habitual drug users are less likely to consider suicide, of course a lot may do because of social stigmas around addictions to certain drugs or possibly the effects of the drugs themselves (alcohol for example). Attributing being suicidal to having a tattoo is just ridiculous and I think you know that. Well yes, having friends that don't give a shit for you would lead you to become depressed, regardless of whether or not it was because they failed to score drugs or because they don't own enough shiny things.

Generally what causes "troubled teens" is the alienation of capitalism and consumer culture.

Personally I think anyone who genuinely wants to die should be provided with a guaranteed method - most other types of suicide are open to failure so possibly having a doctor administer a painless but effective poison would be best.

Pow R. Toc H.

22nd April 2007, 06:21

I dont think that the very few rational people who decide to commit suicide need any help in doing so. I think the whole fucking idea of opening up sucide clinics is fucking retarded. Most people who try or think about committing suicide are thinking irrationally and in all likelyhood do not really wish to die. And anyway wouldnt it be admitting total failure if a society built clinics to help people rid themselves of how horrible their lifes are? Wouldnt it be better to build clinics to prevent suicide?

Fascist-Hunter

22nd April 2007, 06:59

What about those who were sent to jail and now have a record, which is a social stigma? They will never get the chance to get a good job. They will have to struggle for the rest of their lives because of this.

In a communist society, people won't have problems like this, because there will be no stigmatizing anymore. But there is still going to be this group of people with uncurable, painful diseases or personal problems. Just imagine a person that loves another person. Now person A gets to know that person B does not want to be together with him or her. person A decdes that he does not want to live without him or her. Should this person not have the right to die?

and in all likelyhood do not really wish to die

This is not true. Sucicide is not irrational.
There might be some people who do not want to die and just want attention from others, but there is also a huge group of people who really try hard and it doesn't work.
Jumping off a high building will not necessarily kill you; there have been people in the past who survived that.
Cutting your wrists is fucking painful and also doesn't work - thats why so many of those who want attention from others are choosing this way.
Firearms work well - but are unavailable in most european countries.
Same goes for sleeping pills that can kill. As far as I know they can be bought over the counter in parts of Asia, in Russia or the USA. But not in Europe.

Tommy-K

22nd April 2007, 15:26

I think there should be more emphasis on counselling those who are suicidal rather than offering them ways out.

Isn't it a bit like soft eugenics if you just offer depressed people suicide pills to remove depressive traits from the gene pool?

I think assisted suicide for those who are terminally ill and in agonising pain should be legal. Suicide pills might be an idea as an absolute last resort for those with chronic depression to the point that they are suicidal, but I don't think they should be handed out carelessly. A lot of life's problems can be sorted out, even if it takes lots of counselling.

Eleutherios

22nd April 2007, 16:27

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 19, 2007 11:27 am
The genetic aspect is however, something to think about. If all the depressed people kill themselves (not the state or someone else, and not the state or society interfering in their lives what so ever), then there will be less depressed people. Simple micro evolution.
I agree that people should have the right to commit suicide if they want to, but I don't agree at all with this statement.

First of all, as has already been mentioned, depression is not genetic. I will admit to having contemplated suicide within the past few weeks. Maybe I do have an unstable personality, but my parents and grandparents seem to be psychologically normal people. The same could be said of most people I know who have contemplated suicide.

My depression came from specific circumstances in my own personal life—being broke, being lonely, being sexless, nearly flunking out of college, spending my whole day trapped in a routine that seems to get me fucking nowhere, etc. I suspect that the same is true for most other depressed people; their depression has a lot more to do with the situation of their lives and not the genetically determined structure of their brains.

Even in a civilized population with modern medical technology, natural selection will quickly weed out a gene that makes its host significantly more likely to commit suicide over any little thing. I don't think the widespread presence of such genes is a serious problem for our society, nor will it ever be.

Let's say when I contemplated suicide a couple weeks ago that I actually went through with it. Would there be fewer depressed people in the world, as you claim? Certainly not. My family would be devastated, as would my friends. They would all probably be depressed by now, with serious emotional trauma. I highly doubt that their depression would be outweighed by the potential depression I might create if I stay alive and decide to have children and somehow pass on some of my depression to them.

Pow R. Toc H.

22nd April 2007, 16:30

Originally posted by Fascist-[email protected] 22, 2007 05:59 am

and in all likelyhood do not really wish to die

This is not true. Sucicide is not irrational.
There might be some people who do not want to die and just want attention from others, but there is also a huge group of people who really try hard and it doesn't work.
Jumping off a high building will not necessarily kill you; there have been people in the past who survived that.
Cutting your wrists is fucking painful and also doesn't work - thats why so many of those who want attention from others are choosing this way.
Firearms work well - but are unavailable in most european countries.
Same goes for sleeping pills that can kill. As far as I know they can be bought over the counter in parts of Asia, in Russia or the USA. But not in Europe.
If this is the case than how come almost all people who try and commit suicide are clinically depressed? Or how come half are abusing substances? Im almost 100 percent sure that if you are depressed and abusing drugs, you are not thinking rationally. Can you honestly sit there and tell me that you think all the teens who committ suicide really want to die? Depression causes irrational thoughts and activities like suicide and drug abuse.

Let me give you an example of why suicide clinics would be a bad idea:

Anne decides to do speed for the first time. She really likes it, but when it comes to the come down she becomes severly depressed. She decides that it would be easier to end her life than to continue with the comedown, so what does she do? She goes to the clinic.

Now, does she really want to die? Or is she thinking irrationaly?

apathy maybe

23rd April 2007, 09:41

If she goes into a suicide booth and then follows through with it, I think we can say she wanted to kill herself. How else are we to judge a person's wants and needs except from their actions and spoken desires?

Pow R. Toc H.

23rd April 2007, 16:56

But is she under the influence of a mind-altering drug and is not thinking rationally. It is not ok to let people decide to end their lives when they are not thinking rationally.

Zero

23rd April 2007, 20:51

If a child decides that it is his/her time to check himself/herself out, then it is his/her time to check himself/herself out. Though such a procedure should require a bit of precaution, as suicide pills germinating through society would pose a lot of eminent risks. Injection would be a much more efficient method with fewer externalities.

Originally posted by "Pow R. Toc H."+--> ("Pow R. Toc H.") But is she under the influence of a mind-altering drug and is not thinking rationally. It is not ok to let people decide to end their lives when they are not thinking rationally.[/b]And it is rational in a free society to allow you to think for her?

"Pow R. Toc H."
Anne decides to do speed for the first time. She really likes it, but when it comes to the come down she becomes severly depressed. She decides that it would be easier to end her life than to continue with the comedown, so what does she do? She goes to the clinic.

Now, does she really want to die? Or is she thinking irrationaly?By providing a suicide booth you are providing a means to an end. Not encouraging such an end.

pusher robot

23rd April 2007, 21:49

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 23, 2007 08:41 am
If she goes into a suicide booth and then follows through with it, I think we can say she wanted to kill herself. How else are we to judge a person's wants and needs except from their actions and spoken desires?
I am constantly hearing that in a post-revolutionary society will be socially conditioned to have different wants and desires that are compatible with a cooperative society. Why is this subject no different? What is the objection to socially conditioning people to not want to kill themselves?

Fascist-Hunter

24th April 2007, 11:17

I am constantly hearing that in a post-revolutionary society will be socially conditioned to have different wants and desires that are compatible with a cooperative society. Why is this subject no different? What is the objection to socially conditioning people to not want to kill themselves?

Conditioning people towards the idea of a cooperative society is done for their own benefit. In this society there won't be any social stigmas anymore, which means that everyone can enjoy life.

But even in this society there is going to be a tiny minority which still feels unhappy especially those who lost their partners or people who are suffering extreme pain from diseases - so they have the right to die, not for the benefit of society (like those who believe in eugenics might think) but for their own benefit

Idola Mentis

24th April 2007, 12:53

Trouble there is who gets to define what a benefit is. Me, I consider that it is a benefit to a human being to be alive. When you're dead, you're beyond benefit.

BurnTheOliveTree

24th April 2007, 13:24

If a child decides that it is his/her time to check himself/herself out, then it is his/her time to check himself/herself out.

Not at all. Adolescence entails a lot of highs and lows in your mood, and during the lows you forget that the highs even exist, and view your whole life as a massive failure. Many would want to kill themselves, briefly, during those moments, and it would be an irrational want.

Giving them the means to end their own life on the basis of an irrationality (Which they would admit, when their mood stabilises) would be just awful. It's exploiting, quite brutally, a weakness in our character, and does not serve any beneficial end.

I hardly think that adolescent depression is genetic defection, the vast majority experience it to some degree. It is not a matter of 'weeding' them, it's a matter of making allowances for them and having some fucking compassion.

-Alex

pusher robot

24th April 2007, 15:06

Originally posted by Fascist-[email protected] 24, 2007 10:17 am

I am constantly hearing that in a post-revolutionary society will be socially conditioned to have different wants and desires that are compatible with a cooperative society. Why is this subject no different? What is the objection to socially conditioning people to not want to kill themselves?

Conditioning people towards the idea of a cooperative society is done for their own benefit. In this society there won't be any social stigmas anymore, which means that everyone can enjoy life.

But even in this society there is going to be a tiny minority which still feels unhappy especially those who lost their partners or people who are suffering extreme pain from diseases - so they have the right to die, not for the benefit of society (like those who believe in eugenics might think) but for their own benefit
In all other aspects, people are to be conditioned not to act selfishly at the expense of the community. Why should suicide be different? It is a selfish act - as you admitted - and it hurts the community.

BurnTheOliveTree

24th April 2007, 19:41

Well an age restriction would be an improvement, certainly.

I generally just don't think that suicide should be considered a legitimate, normal choice to make. I don't think it should be banned, per se, but I don't think we should help anyone who wants to go through with it.

Obviously there's no scientific way to measure this, but I'd bet that the vast majority of suicides are "heat of the moment" as opposed to planned, calm, rational decisions.

In that case, when the 'moment' has subsided, the person in question will be relieved that it is not easy to kill yourself.

If it's a planned, calm, rational suicide, you don't need the pills to do it.

-Alex

Qwerty Dvorak

24th April 2007, 23:54

It's a long thread so I haven't read through it all, but has anyone thought to mention that if we endorsed the self-termination of the more disgruntled, unhappy members of society, then social problems would never be dealt with, because instead of making these problems known to the community, the victims of said problems would simply kill themselves off?

Zero

25th April 2007, 00:54

Yes, that's been said.

Fascist-Hunter

25th April 2007, 05:06

Trouble there is who gets to define what a benefit is. Me, I consider that it is a benefit to a human being to be alive. When you're dead, you're beyond benefit.

Ok, then take "for their own good" instead of "for their own benefit".

In all other aspects, people are to be conditioned not to act selfishly at the expense of the community. Why should suicide be different? It is a selfish act - as you admitted - and it hurts the community.

I think that some guys on this board would agree with you on that statement - however, the idea is a humanistic idea and not necessarily a revolutionary idea. I think that the post-revolutionary society is going to understand the importance of assisted suicide in certain cases. It won't really hurt the community since it is just a tiny minority that suffers from uncurable diseases. In fact the relatives will feel much more pain if the person is kept alive against his will and has to suffer.

I hardly think that adolescent depression is genetic defection, the vast majority experience it to some degree. It is not a matter of 'weeding' them, it's a matter of making allowances for them and having some fucking compassion.

It is no question of genetic defection. If it is defection or a "diseaese" that has been "aquired" during your lifetime doesn't even matter. The point is that there are people whose depressions cannot be healed, even though they are a tiny minority among those who are suffering from depressions.

If it's a planned, calm, rational suicide, you don't need the pills to do it.

As I said before: This might be possible in the USA, where you can get guns. It is next to impossible for people in Europe.
But I do agree with you about the age restriction, since all teenagers have problems during their adolescence.

It's a long thread so I haven't read through it all, but has anyone thought to mention that if we endorsed the self-termination of the more disgruntled, unhappy members of society, then social problems would never be dealt with, because instead of making these problems known to the community, the victims of said problems would simply kill themselves off?

I have already stated that even in a communist society, where you won't find social stigmas anymore, there will be some people who suffer from uncurable diseases, no matter if the are of physical or psychic kind.

BurnTheOliveTree

25th April 2007, 20:32

It is no question of genetic defection. If it is defection or a "diseaese" that has been "aquired" during your lifetime doesn't even matter. The point is that there are people whose depressions cannot be healed, even though they are a tiny minority among those who are suffering from depressions.

Well, I'm sceptical that depression is ever totally beyond cure. I'm no medical expert of course, and if that's the case, then I wouldn't judge them for cutting their losses, so to speak. Since these instances would be extremely rare (If even existent) then suicide or euthansia could be privately arranged. There needn't be this full on advertisment of suicide by publicly giving away or selling pills.

This might be possible in the USA, where you can get guns. It is next to impossible for people in Europe.

If it's honestly a calm and rational decision, throwing yourself off a cliff is always an option. The trauma would kill you so fast that you would barely feel pain. It takes a perverse courage to do so, but if your life's a guaranteed misery, you'd do it. Or cutting into your Aorta or another major blood vessel. Again, it needs a warped bravery, but if it's pre-meditated, and continuing to live would be worse than a painful death, then they'd go through with it.

What about people with terminal illnesses with no hope for a cure?

Well, then the whole issue changes. If they are inevitably going to die in the reasonably near future, and are in pain or simply wish not to live to the end, euthanasia is a perfectly acceptable act.

-Alex

wtfm8lol

25th April 2007, 20:35

Well, then the whole issue changes. If they are inevitably going to die in the reasonably near future, and are in pain or simply wish not to live to the end, euthanasia is a perfectly acceptable act.

would it change if they weren't going to inevitably die but it was likely and they didn't want to continue fighting?

BurnTheOliveTree

25th April 2007, 20:46

Yes, it changes. Only when death is almost certain should euthanasia be directly offered to the sufferer.

If death were merely likely, and the sufferer was in pain, they should be allowed to request it.

If the sufferer is not in significant pain, they should not be allowed to die. It is simply always a bad choice unless suffering is continous and signigicant.

-Alex

BurnTheOliveTree

25th April 2007, 20:49

An additional benefit of offering euthanasia to those who are inevitably going to die soon is that it frees up medical resources for those who actually have a chance.

There was a big example of this in the british media around a year ago I think, "Baby MB' was in constant and significant pain, and could not live without a life support machine. His family refused to let the doctors end it's life, which is frankly unethical, given that they are potentially damaging the quality of medical care that could be given to patients with a chance of survival.

-Alex

luxemburg89

25th April 2007, 22:49

I think there should be more emphasis on counselling those who are suicidal rather than offering them ways out.

i think that pretty much sums up the attitude that needs to be taken.

Orange Juche

26th April 2007, 01:31

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 06, 2003 10:36 pm
It would weed unbalanced people out of the gene pool.
Its kind of sick to put it that way. I'm not sure what I think of the idea (though I think we should do our best to save these people, rather than kill them off), but showing a paradigm of pro-instituted eugenics is Hitlerian as opposed to any liberation theory.

BurnTheOliveTree

26th April 2007, 07:28

Did Baby MB parents finally let the docs end its life?

The court ruled that the doctors had to submit to the family. The baby died even with the life support machine in the end, after a few days.

There was a load of ridiculous emotional tributes to it, and the family were saying they were glad it had a few more days of happiness. I couldn't believe it. :angry:

-Alex

Fascist-Hunter

26th April 2007, 23:21

If it's honestly a calm and rational decision, throwing yourself off a cliff is always an option. The trauma would kill you so fast that you would barely feel pain. It takes a perverse courage to do so, but if your life's a guaranteed misery, you'd do it. Or cutting into your Aorta or another major blood vessel. Again, it needs a warped bravery, but if it's pre-meditated, and continuing to live would be worse than a painful death, then they'd go through with it.

What about those who can't even move?
And what about those who jump off a cliff and survive? Just imagine you jumped off a building and wake up in a even more miserable position than before?????

BurnTheOliveTree

27th April 2007, 06:25

What about those who can't even move?

If they literally are just stuck in one spot then it's a different matter. Most would have an electric wheelchair or something.

And what about those who jump off a cliff and survive? Just imagine you jumped off a building and wake up in a even more miserable position than before?????

Make it a high one. It isn't difficult, frankly.

-Alex

Red Tung

28th April 2007, 01:30

It's a challenging topic for sure. I abhor suicides, and I think the vast majority are senseless wastes, acts of cowardice committed by the extremely selfish.

So, how is it selfish and cowardly to commit suicide? For almost every single person living in a urban environment, they need to depend on that urban environment to function as a life support system in order to survive. But, with every materially productive activity runned on the basis of gaining an advantage from accumulating surplus from which the inverse position of accumulating debt is all but inevitable for the majority of the "losers". How are the "losers" going to deal with participating in an economy in which they are shut out of? Suicide is entirely a rational choice in such a situation.

It IS their life; their responsibility, for the good - and the bad. I suppose I'd grant the right to do it, and retain the right to judge them harshly.

:lol: And, what does it matter? They're dead. Judgement is irrelevant.

Question everything

28th April 2007, 01:34

Originally posted by Fascist-[email protected] 26, 2007 10:21 pm

If it's honestly a calm and rational decision, throwing yourself off a cliff is always an option. The trauma would kill you so fast that you would barely feel pain. It takes a perverse courage to do so, but if your life's a guaranteed misery, you'd do it. Or cutting into your Aorta or another major blood vessel. Again, it needs a warped bravery, but if it's pre-meditated, and continuing to live would be worse than a painful death, then they'd go through with it.

What about those who can't even move?
And what about those who jump off a cliff and survive? Just imagine you jumped off a building and wake up in a even more miserable position than before?????
Meh... I got a better Idea, Suicide Pills avaible for Troubled Teens but only after they jump of a cliff... It makes much more sense. <_<

Nathan_Morrison

28th April 2007, 10:57

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 07, 2003 02:36 am
What do people think of having compleatly free access to the means to kill oneself?
This may involve selling or handing out suicide pills, or having places where those sick of life can go to get counciling and if they still want to go through with it a death machine of some description.

Some reasons for this include,
Some of these people are going to commite sucicde anyway,
It would weed unbalanced people out of the gene pool. Now picking up on this last point, if all those who were going to kill themseleves over any small matter did so then it would be great for natural selection. we could well end up with the most stable population ever. Non violent crime would go down (no matter what the society), violent crime would go down, murder would go down.

What are your thoughts on this, is it a good idea and should we implement it in our post-capitalist society, even in our current society?
Weed unbalanced people out of the gene pool what the hell!

My self i would say that this is a bad idea as most teens go through a phase of being 'depressed' and would just take that option at the littlest provocation, where as slitting your wrists or throat or hanging yourself takes more balls then taking a pill. Thus meaning less people have the balls to do it.

Herman

28th April 2007, 12:28

And, what does it matter? They're dead. Judgement is irrelevant.

Suicide is illegal! If you kill yourself, you will be fined or, if the death was particularly painful, sent to jail.

Fascist-Hunter

28th April 2007, 13:30

Meh... I got a better Idea, Suicide Pills avaible for Troubled Teens but only after they jump of a cliff... It makes much more sense. dry.gif

Sorry, I don't understand that.

Suicide is illegal! If you kill yourself, you will be fined or, if the death was particularly painful, sent to jail.

What? Where is suicide illegal?

If they literally are just stuck in one spot then it's a different matter. Most would have an electric wheelchair or something.

Maybe some people would like to die peacefully, in dignity and without fear O.O ?

BurnTheOliveTree

28th April 2007, 16:13

It doesn't matter especially how you die though, does it?

After the fact, you'll have no memory, no consciousness, no nothing. The circumstances of your death will be meaningless.

But really we're getting off the issue here. We've digressed onto people who can't move and who haven't got the balls to carry through their desire of death properly. This is a real minority.

-Alex

Fascist-Hunter

29th April 2007, 08:56

It doesn't matter especially how you die though, does it?

It doesn't matter for yourself (well, for some people it does matter), but it does in case matter to the people who find you - especially to your relatives.

This is a real minority.
Yes, that's what I said, but the problem remains the same.

BurnTheOliveTree

29th April 2007, 10:39

Okay, in the case of these specific minorities, pills could be arranged privately.

They shouldn't be on the shelf next to calpol, any road.

-Alex

Question everything

29th April 2007, 19:42

Originally posted by Fascist-[email protected] 28, 2007 12:30 pm

Meh... I got a better Idea, Suicide Pills avaible for Troubled Teens but only after they jump of a cliff... It makes much more sense. dry.gif

Sorry, I don't understand that.
Some body was suggested that troubled teens, rather than simply taking a pill should jump of a cliff, then somebody esle complained that if they survived they'd have it even worse than before. So I said (somewhat sarcastically) that if the Jump of the cliff and survive they should be given a suicide pill.

Komet

5th May 2007, 04:16

In a free society, all can perform victimless actions (own/practice/protect with a firearm, do drugs, commit suicide).

Creating a tool for suicide carries no moral dilemmas, anyway. A tool is neutral.

Freedom is being able to do what you want without restricting the freedoms of others.

To ban a tool for suicide would be to restrict people's freedom(s). Besides, legal suicide options have existed in several places throughout history without any real issue.

Comrade_Scott

6th May 2007, 05:07

good plan, soon well be getting rid of child safe caps. the pills are a bad idea because then everyone will kill themselves when they fail an exam or get dumped, it benefits no one and a bunch of the generation will be dead, so no to the pills

Political_Chucky

6th May 2007, 05:24

Originally posted by [email protected]ay 05, 2007 08:07 pm
good plan, soon well be getting rid of child safe caps. the pills are a bad idea because then everyone will kill themselves when they fail an exam or get dumped, it benefits no one and a bunch of the generation will be dead, so no to the pills
Ahh come on man, thats bullshit. Lets actually think rational here and determine what would set-off a person to commit suicide. And no, i'm not talking about teenagers and their wild hormones when dealing with break ups. I very much doubt that the percentage of a person over the age of, lets say, 21 killing themselves over an exam will really lead them to commit suicide. Sure there are exceptions, but we all have the ability to kill ourselves now(guns, electrical appliance in water, standing on roof with umbrella during lightning storm) and our "generations" are just fine. I think what everyone here is proposing is a reasonable and formal way to commit suicide. As Komet put it, its a neutral tool. Its up to you how to use it.

Lenin II

6th May 2007, 05:59

We already have birth control, abortion and euthenasia. What more do we need? Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery?"

graffic

6th May 2007, 12:02

Ridiculous idea. Teenagers have mad mood swings, one minute your high as a kite the next your feeling suicidial.

Maybe for Elderly people who are going to die soon. But actually no - assited suicide is horrible, there is no need for it.

Capitalist Lawyer

6th May 2007, 17:46

Secondly atheism is generally life affirming - after all if you have nothing after you die you may as well live as best you can while alive.

Depends on what you mean by "live as best as you can"?

f course a lot may do because of social stigmas around addictions to certain drugs or possibly the effects of the drugs themselves (alcohol for example).

There's a reason for that social stigma regarding drug use.

It's a stupid act that signifies weakness.

"Wahhh....life sucks and I need to snort cocaine and smoke pot in order to feel good."

Attributing being suicidal to having a tattoo is just ridiculous and I think you know that.

That was bit of a stretch but I think it's fair game to say that people who get tattoos aren't very mentally stable.

What exactly compels someone to get a tattoo?

It's completely stupid and a waste of time. And most people walking the streets are rational people, which may explain why most people walking around don't see the need to get a tattoo.

Generally what causes "troubled teens" is the alienation of capitalism and consumer culture.

I thought mental illness was a disease?

Is cancer and HIV a result of capitalism and consumer culture?

Jazzratt

6th May 2007, 18:38

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 06, 2007 04:46 pm

Secondly atheism is generally life affirming - after all if you have nothing after you die you may as well live as best you can while alive.

Depends on what you mean by "live as best as you can"?
Enjoy yourself as much as possible? Achieve what you wish to achieve as there is no other time in which you can do it and there is no magical fairyland waiting for you.

f course a lot may do because of social stigmas around addictions to certain drugs or possibly the effects of the drugs themselves (alcohol for example).

There's a reason for that social stigma regarding drug use.
It tends to stem from ignorance of drug effects, puritan government controls and a misunderstanding of effects and reasons.

It's a stupid act that signifies weakness.

"Wahhh....life sucks and I need to snort cocaine and smoke pot in order to feel good."
So doing something in order to enjoy yourself is a weakness? SO what about computer games, they are a form of escapism.
"Wahh...life sucks and I need to play a computer game or go for a jog to feel better"
Prick.

Attributing being suicidal to having a tattoo is just ridiculous and I think you know that.

That was bit of a stretch but I think it's fair game to say that people who get tattoos aren't very mentally stable.
:lol: Holy shit. Do you happen to have safety scissors and special three sided spazz pens at your legal practice? Stupid fucking spackerel.

What exactly compels someone to get a tattoo?
Aesthetics usually.

It's completely stupid and a waste of time.
So is a fuckload of other things. Also you are making an argument from personal aesthetics. I personally feeling that getting, say, my hair cut is a stupid waste of time but I don't have the chutzpa that you have in such abundance as to claim that haircuts in general are a stupid waste of time.

And most people walking the streets are rational people, which may explain why most people walking around don't see the need to get a tattoo.
An irrelevant appeal to popularity.

I thought mental illness was a disease?

Is cancer and HIV a result of capitalism and consumer culture?
You don't understand disease development clearly. While physical diseases may be caused by pathogens (viruses and the like), mental diseases come from a variety of sources, but there is no such thing as a "schizotypal virus" or the "depression bug" - these mental illness can be tripped by all kinds of things, suicidal depression can definitely spring from the fact that someone is alienated. Clearly this is not the sole reason but it is certainly a factor, especially among the workers.

Capitalist Lawyer

6th May 2007, 19:13

Enjoy yourself as much as possible? Achieve what you wish to achieve as there is no other time in which you can do it and there is no magical fairyland waiting for you.

Great!

I'll quit my job, drive across country and buy a statue of Mickey Mantle that is completely made out of white chocolate.

Then, I'll knock up a few *****es, smoke some mean green and tell the man "fuck you".

What exactly do you mean by "enjoying yourself"?

It tends to stem from ignorance of drug effects, puritan government controls and a misunderstanding of effects and reasons.

I don't have a problem with a very moder consumption of drugs like marijuana and cocaine and just a glass of beer every now and then isn't bad, but if you have to rely on them to get you through life, then you're dumbass who deserves shit.

So doing something in order to enjoy yourself is a weakness?

If you need to do it every day, then yeah. You're weak.

Holy shit. Do you happen to have safety scissors and special three sided spazz pens at your legal practice? Stupid fucking spackerel.

Yeah, I know...I'm a square.

Aesthetics usually.

Paint a fucking picture for crying out loud!

And I don't call a grim reaper smashing someone's head in on the left side of your body to be very inspiring or aesthetically important.

So is a fuckload of other things.

True but none of them are as stupid as some self-important punk who thinks he's "different and cool" and expresses it by getting a tattoo of his last name on his back.

Also you are making an argument from personal aesthetics. I personally feeling that getting, say, my hair cut is a stupid waste of time but I don't have the chutzpa that you have in such abundance as to claim that haircuts in general are a stupid waste of time.

Haircuts aren't a waste of time but getting a mohawk is.

I knew a guy who had a mohawk while in college and in about one year, he realized what a stupid ass he was.

graffic

6th May 2007, 19:22

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 06, 2007 06:13 pm
Haircuts aren't a waste of time but getting a mohawk is.

I knew a guy who had a mohawk while in college and in about one year, he realized what a stupid ass he was.
What is your point, maybe it is a waste of time - but why does that matter to you?

Political_Chucky

6th May 2007, 19:29

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 06, 2007 10:13 am

Enjoy yourself as much as possible? Achieve what you wish to achieve as there is no other time in which you can do it and there is no magical fairyland waiting for you.

Great!

I'll quit my job, drive across country and buy a statue of Mickey Mantle that is completely made out of white chocolate.

Then, I'll knock up a few *****es, smoke some mean green and tell the man "fuck you".

What exactly do you mean by "enjoying yourself"?
sounds like good time to me haha. ;)

Jazzratt

7th May 2007, 01:36

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 06, 2007 06:13 pm

Enjoy yourself as much as possible? Achieve what you wish to achieve as there is no other time in which you can do it and there is no magical fairyland waiting for you.

Great!

I'll quit my job, drive across country and buy a statue of Mickey Mantle that is completely made out of white chocolate.

Then, I'll knock up a few *****es, smoke some mean green and tell the man "fuck you".

What exactly do you mean by "enjoying yourself"?
Exactly what you described. Please, aside from describing how entirely aesthetically unappealing it is, describe what is wrong with this. Unless you're blowing smoke out of your arse.

It tends to stem from ignorance of drug effects, puritan government controls and a misunderstanding of effects and reasons.

I don't have a problem with a very moder consumption of drugs like marijuana and cocaine and just a glass of beer every now and then isn't bad, but if you have to rely on them to get you through life, then you're dumbass who deserves shit.
That's your opinion and therefore means fuck all.

So doing something in order to enjoy yourself is a weakness?

If you need to do it every day, then yeah. You're weak.
Fucking straw man. Fuck off.

Holy shit. Do you happen to have safety scissors and special three sided spazz pens at your legal practice? Stupid fucking spackerel.

Yeah, I know...I'm a square.
The implication was that you're a fucking retard, not a square.

Aesthetics usually.

Paint a fucking picture for crying out loud!

And I don't call a grim reaper smashing someone's head in on the left side of your body to be very inspiring or aesthetically important.
Who gives a shit what you call aesthetically important?

So is a fuckload of other things.

True but none of them are as stupid as some self-important punk who thinks he's "different and cool" and expresses it by getting a tattoo of his last name on his back.
Who gives a shit what you consider? You can't govern a whole system on what you think is worthwhile? Retard.

Also you are making an argument from personal aesthetics. I personally feeling that getting, say, my hair cut is a stupid waste of time but I don't have the chutzpa that you have in such abundance as to claim that haircuts in general are a stupid waste of time.

Haircuts aren't a waste of time but getting a mohawk is.

I knew a guy who had a mohawk while in college and in about one year, he realized what a stupid ass he was.
What you think of mohawks is unimportant. You know that, I know that - why bring it up, unless you happen to be an utter vegetable.

liche123

10th May 2007, 04:39

Some reasons for this include,
Some of these people are going to commite sucicde anyway,
It would weed unbalanced people out of the gene pool. Now picking up on this last point, if all those who were going to kill themseleves over any small matter did so then it would be great for natural selection. we could well end up with the most stable population ever. Non violent crime would go down (no matter what the society), violent crime would go down, murder would go down.

Every society on planet earth actively tells, teaches, and instructs it's children that in the grand scheme of things, their individual lives are of no importance or value. All children are maliciously brainwashed into accepting the notion that their purpose in being alive, is to accept, obey and to serve the doctrine and dictates of the society into which they are born and reside, as slaves. These lie-based societal acts of mass emotional genocide are the reason why many more human beings murder themselves, via an act that society has given the label of "suicide", than murder other human beings, and it is the reason why the vast majority of citizen-slaves deliberately choose to abuse and hurt themselves, and shorten their own lifespans, in thousands of different ways, including smoking, overeating, drinking alcohol, consuming drugs, etc... So-called "diseases" such as anorexia, depression, ritualistic self-cutting, and the like, are in fact nothing more than natural, appropriate reflections of the self-hatred and personal worthlessness that all societies choose to instill within the core emotional realities of their child-slaves

apathy maybe

10th May 2007, 10:55

An interview between Philip Nitschke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip+Nitschke) and the National Review @ http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogator...ory060501.shtml (http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory060501.shtml)

"... if we believe that there is a right to life, then we must accept that people have a right to dispose of that life whenever they want."

"... if suicide is legal, then advising, counseling, or assisting people to carry out this legal act should also be legal."

Many people I meet and argue with believe that human life is sacred. I do not. I believe the so-called "sacredness" of human life has been responsible for most of the wars, genocidal crimes, and global environmental and ecological disasters that we as a species have experienced. If you believe that your body belongs to God and that to cut short a life is a crime against God then you will clearly not agree with my thoughts on this issue. I do not mind people holding these beliefs and suffering as much as they wish as they die. For them, redemptive suffering may well pry open heaven's door that little bit wider, and if that is their belief they are welcome to it, but I strongly object to having those views shoved down my neck. I want my belief — that human life is not sacred — accorded the same respect.

And an alternative view, http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comm...smith112602.asp (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-smith112602.asp)

red_orchestra

14th May 2007, 01:25

Sounds like some idea out of Fascist state - a pill to get rid of the weak and powerless...
BAD BAD BAD IDEA---

apathy maybe

14th May 2007, 08:42

What the fuck are you blathering on about?

Ignoring the comments in this thread from 2003, the debate has moved on. It is now about the freedom aspect. Should people be free to kill themselves if they wish (and if you say no, you are a reactionary fuck who should be restricted...)? And, should the means to an easy death be easily accessible to whomever wishes to kill themselves?

How is that even slightly fascistic? Who mentioned the weak or powerless?

Even assuming that you know what you are talking about, please explain your comments rather then simply spurt them out.

Question everything

15th May 2007, 21:40

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 14, 2007 07:42 am
What the fuck are you blathering on about?

Ignoring the comments in this thread from 2003, the debate has moved on. It is now about the freedom aspect. Should people be free to kill themselves if they wish (and if you say no, you are a reactionary fuck who should be restricted...)? And, should the means to an easy death be easily accessible to whomever wishes to kill themselves?

How is that even slightly fascistic? Who mentioned the weak or powerless?

Even assuming that you know what you are talking about, please explain your comments rather then simply spurt them out.
It is better that we allow them to kill themselves, if we don't then the world would be full of Emos *shudders*

Lenin II

30th May 2007, 19:04

Originally posted by Question everything+May 15, 2007 08:40 pm--> (Question everything @ May 15, 2007 08:40 pm)
apathy [email protected] 14, 2007 07:42 am
What the fuck are you blathering on about?

Ignoring the comments in this thread from 2003, the debate has moved on. It is now about the freedom aspect. Should people be free to kill themselves if they wish (and if you say no, you are a reactionary fuck who should be restricted...)? And, should the means to an easy death be easily accessible to whomever wishes to kill themselves?

How is that even slightly fascistic? Who mentioned the weak or powerless?

Even assuming that you know what you are talking about, please explain your comments rather then simply spurt them out.
It is better that we allow them to kill themselves, if we don't then the world would be full of Emos *shudders* [/b]
Damn, that's a good point, actually.
You don't know how annoying scenester emos are until you've lived in Atlanta. They are everywhere. They're annoying, self-centered, they smoke like chimneys, they have shitty hair, they're just plain mean, lord, I could go on.
Maybe it's social Darwinism to weed those fuckers out? Think about it...a world without Fall Out Boy!

Herman

31st May 2007, 00:42

They're annoying, self-centered, they smoke like chimneys, they have shitty hair, they're just plain mean, lord, I could go on.

And they wear really tight pants. Don't forget that!

Lark

2nd June 2007, 02:44

This is an interesting topic and I've not made my mind up on it yet.

In principle I agree with personal freedom but if this were to take place there could be misery heaped on misery and more deaths, in the end I think the worst element in society, the hardest and most unfeeling would survive while the rest died off.

krankrank

25th June 2007, 04:18

WHO and how turns the lethal-threat-over-everybody into a interiorized-hope-of-HEALTH-and-improvement-of-the-system, thus: WHO and how turns extermination into motivation?

A hint: did ever exist any other kind of DOCTORS and THERAPIES than the above mentioned?

Just some hints else about the real context:
Under capitalism people are constrained to sell themeselves, working out in favour of the monetary interests and needs of the system, against their own needs, thus under conditions that permanently injure the body of the people, conditions which kill the people, proof: growing illness, e.g. growing boredom up to “sui”cide (=homicide), respectively answered with growing murderous reactions, from euphemism up to euthaNAZI.

People doesn’t feel motivated at all, but fears to be killed, to be rejected and abandoned as a sick one, as a broken one. People doesn’t feel motivated to sell themselves, working in order to earn a wage, in a process which corrupts and kills their own bodies, nor people want to runnig away from respective illness, running away to the doctor and paying for therapies in order to return permanently-and-“healthily” “motivated” to those lethal conditions up to death, but people feels forced to do that because if they don’t do that in that way, then also they risk their own life, be it due hunger and misery but always due isolation and terrorism.

That’s the secret and the material-soul of any motivation in the ruling reality and the substance of the money: broken-life.

Increment of MONEY, compulsory internalized in everybody as the desire of the supreme VALUE so-called HEALTH, that is the violent-dead-soul motivating and animating the system AGAINST everybody’s urgent necessity of truly life, thus against the living-soul of the people, which could not become manifest but as ILLNESS.

Under these ILL-circumstances which all-share-in-COMMON, for sure people doesn’t have to worry about a future communism, but if here and now indeed remains anybody, be it supposedly only one single body, be it temporary, who still needs to be motivated -and the emergence of a respective question involving that word is nothing else, but also nothing less, than a symptom- then really still exists around, the conditions and THE OTHERS responsibles of breaking and killing not only the so-called willingness to live but indeed the UNITY, thus the whole life of everybody. Therefore, what remains to DO is not any therapy against the affected ones with their questions, neither with academic discussions about the psycological or sociological thus economical aspects of the “motivation”; BUT what remains urgently to do is true COLLECTIVE ACTIONS, be it eMOTIONal ones, but collective PRACTICAL REVOLUTIONARY ACTIONS BASED ON COMMON ILLNESS actions to turn this question AGAINST the system and the respective MEDICAL IMPOSERS of the common ALIENation, in order to defend and reanimate the life, the truly willingness to live, the decisive determination to abolish the real dead-and-unwilling-conditions, thus to create the common HUMAN SPECIES which is lacking everywhere.

Those who are bore to death, questioning tedious or be it motivating questions, have the right. Precisely, if boredom is as heavy as inquisitive, then exactly that is the germ-force that is able and ready to be turned into a force against the system.
Thus: turn illness into a weapon, into a revolutionary weapon for knowledge and change.

Instead of running away from illness, thus running away from the other patients,
better: illnesses UNITE PRO ILLNESS.

For example see: The secret of illness is human species (http://www.spkpfh.de/human%20species.htm) at www.spkpfh.de (http://www.spkpfh.de/)