Why are people forced to live involuntarily?

M

Mr. Hamtastic

whackawhackado!
Registered Senior Member
I was recently accosted by the psychiatric machine and incarcerated against my will to force me to continue living. While incarcerated I had one of those,'it could be worse' moments. A man with late stage HIV and its assorted accoutremont was also incarcerated for wanting to end his life. He had no control of his bowels could barely speak and ate little. He said,"Haven't I had enough life? This isn't life. This is hell on earth."

Why does he have to live? Why must I? Isn't this blocking my pursuit of happiness? What about other cases? For that matter why must anyone be forced to live against their will?
 
"Because life is sacred"
 
Last edited:
What if tomorrow a new discovery was made that cured him of his disease? If he would have committed suicide he would have never been cured. Hope is a good thing for everyone to have and hold onto.
 
life is sacred? to what or whom?

ct-by the what if line of reasoning what if tomorrow a magic monkey appears and grants me three bananatastic wishes? Hope is good, but is not always available. In hope's abscence-desperation.
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
life is sacred? to what or whom?
Click to expand...
Isn't it part of the Socratic Oath?
Based on religious belief.
Your life isn't your own, it's god's to do with as he will.

ct-by the what if line of reasoning what if tomorrow a magic monkey appears and grants me three bananatastic wishes? Hope is good, but is not always available. In hope's abscence-desperation.
Click to expand...
I agree.
Just because someone else has hope for you doesn't make it any less futile from your point of view.
 
Because your kids deserve more than to have their lives screwed by a parent killing themself
 
All of your responses are appreciated. But I'm looking for the legality. Is it ethical to remove someone's free will? Is there any legal recourse against the state forcing someone to live against their will?
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
All of your responses are appreciated. But I'm looking for the legality. Is it ethical to remove someone's free will? Is there any legal recourse against the state forcing someone to live against their will?
Click to expand...
There is practical recourse. You will succeed if you really want to. I think the present system is OK, frankly. If you try, but you are really demanding attention and are choosing poorly how you go about it, you stand some chance of being stopped. If you really wanna die, then you will succeed later. If the state were able to be 100% effective that would be a different matter. And a scary society that would be given the capabilities they would be using to have that much control.

Right now the state is free to try and intervene. I think it is OK that they have this freedom.
 
Simon-hadn't thought of it that way before. I would suggest that some limits to that intervention should be made. Mostly for the terminally ill. You are right about (at least for me) the successful suicide thing. I have a few fool-proof options available to me. I guess the real question becomes whether the desire to die exists and is greater than the desire to live. This will require further consideration on my part.
 
I still say that the poor bastard that was incarcerated with me doesn't get a fair shake at it. Stuck in the hospital, sedated, wishing for death that's gonna come shortly. I felt awful for the guy. I considered smothering him with a pillow, but he was under close scrutiny, and then I got out.
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
I still say that the poor bastard that was incarcerated with me doesn't get a fair shake at it. Stuck in the hospital, sedated, wishing for death that's gonna come shortly. I felt awful for the guy. I considered smothering him with a pillow, but he was under close scrutiny, and then I got out.
Click to expand...
You know I have to admit I jumped from the title to a response. I did not read the OP. Bad me. I agree with you. That is wrong.
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
Simon-hadn't thought of it that way before. I would suggest that some limits to that intervention should be made. Mostly for the terminally ill. You are right about (at least for me) the successful suicide thing. I have a few fool-proof options available to me. I guess the real question becomes whether the desire to die exists and is greater than the desire to live. This will require further consideration on my part.
Click to expand...
Good, I am glad you got somethign out of my post. I stand by it in many situations, but I do believe in euthenasia and that some people should simply be allowed to kill themselves, even with the aid of friends or family, as troublesome as it all becomes for the courts to decide who.
 
Mr Ham your never going to get anywhere if you mix ethics and the law

there are two seperate issues
1) should people who are terminally ill be forced to live and i agree with you here the answer should be that they should have the right to end it painlessly

2) the mentally ill, as someone who has tried to comit sucide while depressed im glad that i was stoped and i dont think that depression alone should be enough reason for euthanasia because it can be treated. maybe if it couldnt be treated that might be a reason but the disorder itself isnt.
 
Here's my suggestion:the euthanasia box. One for every town of more than 500 people. It's a vacuum-sealed box that lets in carbon monoxide for 30 minutes. After this all atmosphere is removed. Then pure hydrogen is released, and a source of ignition fires. Once total cremation is achieved the remains are vacuum sucked out into a holding tank for waste removal. No one is required to live, mental health facilities could deal with those who want to live without concern for suicide. The health-care system becomes more able to deal with injuries and illnesses where an effective treatment and cure are available. Economies would improve as resources were reallocated. It's a win-win. All it would take is making death an inalienable right.
 
well for starters hydrogen wont burn without O2:p

but secondly how many people "chose" to comit suicide and weeks, months, years latter they thank the person who stoped them?
i know i did and i know you did to

what about someone whos depression is caused by a benine tumor pushing on the mood center of the brain?

depression is much more complicated than a simple desire to die, infact acording to everything i have read and experianced the desire to die is just a desire to make the pain go away. if you can do that chemically then the desire to die goes away
 
O-what age limit? If they can get in the thing and turn it on, that's it.

Asguard-Pure O2 then. Why muddle it all up with why one goes in the box? The box is indifferent, society is simplified.
 
the reason we involentarly detain people is because its not symple

for instance take a pt diognosed with a lethal and highly painful illness
they arnt showing symptoms yet but they start to feel acutly depressed and want to kill themselves BEFORE the diease starts to cause them pain

so they do

now later its descoved that the disease was a mestake or worse a delibrate lie
should that person have been able to kill themselves AND should the person who effectivly killed them be charged with murder?
 
Oli said:
Isn't it part of the Socratic Oath?
Based on religious belief.
Your life isn't your own, it's god's to do with as he will.

I agree.
Just because someone else has hope for you doesn't make it any less futile from your point of view.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of the Socratic Oath? :bugeye: Don't you mean 'Hippocratic'?

And in response to the OP, I think it's abominable that the psychiatric institution forces treatment on people.
 
Asguard-sure it's simple, you're just making it complex. The diagnosed individual still has their right to seek other opinions and treatment. In reality you ultimatly have the choice between having toast or killing yourself. You makes your choices and takes your chances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top