I think the question is does that fact that I created a sand castle because I wanted to result in any kind of 'meaning' or 'purpose' to the sand castle's existence? Arguably no. It is merely the result of an action I took.



Tremendous safeguards would be necessary, and perhaps this is one of those philosophical questions where the answer is relatively easy on paper (ie. people ought have the right to end their conscious existence, and it can be a sign of compassion that we assist people in that process to reduce the pain and impact on o thers) but much more dicey when actually applied and utilized in the real world.

your life is your life, you do what you want. if you want to kill yourself do it, its your own choice, if you take someone else to kill you it mean you dont associated your mental with the physical, in this kind of act, your mental choice must be associated with YOUR the physical act.

if you want to do it but you cant have an access to do it, its another problem.

in my opinion, if you cant do it for some reason ( no hand ect..) that mean you cant die by suicide( physically you cant do it). So no if you can not kill yourself BY yourself, you will loos your life honor. its too simple to take a pills...

but it seems to be a fashion ,young people are almost 100% for assisted suicide...cause they are assisted generation.

we can compare with animal medical suicide, there is two group of people, group 1 who will never give pills to say good bye to their animals (even if he suffer) and group 2 who will take a choice for the animals and decide to kill it. in all case, its the life of the animal , who can have the right to take a decision for it?

the right to ask for it is somthing different from the right to assist and to do it.

If you want to kill yourself you probably already have the means to do so. I don't see it as imperative on anybody to assist you in the act.

Usually that means one will need to be found, such as a loved one coming home to find their loved one hanging, head shot open, etc. May be a good deal of harm reduction for people to not have to see that.

Nobody in their right mind proposes a legally enforceable entitlement against individuals, be it doctors, social workers or law enforcement, to actively assist you in your suicide in spite of their moral reservations.
The debate is about whether the government should step out of the way of physicians who voluntarily want to assist people with their suicide.

The most far-reaching demand I have heard so far (and only from European countries) is that people who meet certain conditions (like a proof of terminal illness, soundness of mind) should be entitled to receive the necessary pills to commit a safe, clean and painless suicide from public sources.




Also, you're disregarding more situations than you realize. For example ALS patients, the quadriplegic or people who are already in the hospital when they are told that they suffer from late stage cancer and only have a few (miserable) weeks to live. Wanting to kill oneself, but being unable to do so, is not thaaaat uncommon.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 30 2023 04:56pm

if you are not terminally ill, you can always bounce back

instead of offering ways to die.....how about offering reasons to live

however a lot of terminally ill people suffer way too much, there should be a way out

He specifically was excluding medical situations. I'm already totally on board with medically assisted suicide.

That could be a factor, but weigh it against the harm reduction in *no ones dies*. That's an awfully high hurdle to compare other harms.

maybe it was accidental ? some atheists/antitheists like to claim there is no such thing as free will

Depends how you define harm. The increase due to ease of access would be defined as harm by a lot of people.