CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should Suicide be a Constitutional Right?
The 'right' in question should not be limited to the terminally ill. It should be extended to depressed individuals as well as people who just simply do not wish to live.
However, induced suicide should be disallowed. Furthermore, there should be regulations such as brief evaluations to guarantee they are making this choice on their own volition. But, if they indeed are making such a choice on their own volition they should be freely allowed to go through with this decision no matter how absurd one thinks the reason is.
The thing about suicide is that there is no urgency attached to it. It can be postponed indefinitely, or just thought about until you die naturally of old age.
This is more of a technical statement-it almost dismisses the point of most suicides. Moreover, this applies to a non-suicidal person. For people who are suicidal, there is an urgency attached to it.
i think i'll tend towards this side, but i'll try put as much as i can on the table
this imposing stance that people should be kept alive against their will is ugly, even with its justification of saving lives. and the idea that suicide is selfish is raw at best.
however suicide is typically an impulsive choice, usually carried out on the day it is decided they want to die. i believe there should be passable barriers to those opting for suicide, as a sort of confirmation. then there are the reasons behind suicide. different issues have a subjective and irregular impact from person to person so it can be difficult to justify the reasoning behind suicide.
anyway, it's best for everyone if the conflicted simply has their problems solved. obviously that isn't always applicable, but the ideal solution to suicide is removing the cause.
suicide should be a right, but there should be several limiters in place and perhaps a free service committed to resolving (usually) domestic issues and providing support. sure, such services exist currently to talk about issues, but none are commonly used or even thought about, which is probably what needs to change.
there are cases i have seen where the victim actually exhibits severe irrational, uninitiated and unavoidable depression for decades. this seems to be solely genetic though.
lastly, suicide is very easy to consider a mental illness, as it is highly illogical. as it against what would seem to be our biological purpose, but also with regard to the future, virtually all cases of depression or abuse etc are finite problems with distinct expiration dates. also even partially melancholic suicidals will have at the very least periods of calm and eventually, once in a new situation, perhaps even happiness in general
That expiration date can be chosen. Would you want somebody to waste away their life by suffering endlessly for decades? Or, would you rather them take a peaceful exit never worrying about 'would-ifs' ever again?
you replied to my post, but referenced nothing other than the topic of your debate. am i correct in assuming you want a more direct answer?
That expiration date can be chosen.
i agree with this, but suicide is a choice you make once and once chosen there are no comebacks. given the gravity of this, it should be a decision likely to be made by all versions of yourself throughout your potential life so as to spare yourself from impulse. there are more issues too, which i mentioned in the post which you so-obviously read.
Would you want somebody to waste away their life by suffering endlessly for decades?
who's to say someone's suffering will last this long? give me context so i can try and give you something back.
Or, would you rather them take a peaceful exit never worrying about 'would-ifs' ever again?
what-if's are an almost inevitable consequence of thought. keep to your reality or suck it up and it won't be a problem.
who's to say someone's suffering will last this long? give me context so i can try and give you something back.
Say someone has been depressed for 20 years with no signs of getting better. Should they waste away an extra x years thriving on 'hope'?
Or, say someone has been suffering with cancer. They spend a ton of money trying to get rid of their problem but it just keeps coming back with more force.
"[..] it should be a decision likely to be made by all versions of yourself throughout your potential life so as to spare yourself from impulse."
You are invoking your ought and ought-not's in others' life decisions. I explicitly stated that the person had to be perfectly rational (i.e. not high on drugs, delusional, or ill-informed about their situation). I will also note that even in your happy state your are 'not all versions of yourself'. Essentially, you are, technically, never 'all versions of yourself'.
what-if's are an almost inevitable consequence of thought
The 'what-ifs' I am referring to is the alleviation of their problems (e.g. what if after this round of expensive chemotherapy I will get better, even thought the chances are 1%?). Not the 'general' most obvious 'what-ifs'.
You seem to be ill-suited for this topic as your decisions are stemming from your current cognitive state (sort of like a rich person saying that "poor people should just get over it be happy and relax."). You are also neglecting the philosophical viewpoint- which, sadly, this topic has become one even though suicide is a natural decision.
if someone were depressed for 20 years, and had made active attempts at changing their situation, then i'd say the same thing to them as i would say to someone in the same situation for one year, which is to decide for themselves. freely. i am not against people killing themselves and consider it more of a right of freedom, but think it should be gravely considered with a variety of different perspectives. if they can be happy at the very least 10% of the time, or maybe some other arbitrary figure, then perhaps they should consider it more. i think the question of whether to kill oneself should be presented at the peak of their happiness, so as to be sure. the reason for this bias is that death is final. also, i wouldn't consider it 'hope'. i don't think hope has very much to do with becoming happy, but more rather with maintaining being happy against unhappiness.
the second scenario is a little more dire, as there would be less hope as cancer virtually always reoccurs and there is a great financial pressure in postponing a even more than usually inevitable death. i would say the same as in the first scenario, but would guess the outcome to be death over a short period one way or another regardless of choice. my mother actually died this way 2 or 3 years ago, first iteration.
You are invoking your ought and ought-not's in others' life decisions
it's merely my suggestion. i wouldn't necessarily have it my way, but i'd take it as a start for development.
I explicitly stated that the person had to be perfectly rational
i'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but if it is in reference to what i called 'impulse', it wasn't quite what i meant. i was trying to point out that emotions have a massive impact on your decisions. i think decisions should be reprocessed with a calm mind, perhaps even while assessing the level of emotion affecting them.
I will also note that even in your happy state your are 'not all versions of yourself'
of course
Essentially, you are, technically, never 'all versions of yourself'.
of course, but i think it can be important to bring awareness to this factor. in a certain, rather abstract mindframe, killing yourself in the past will obviously remove you from any potential future, and can be said to be the murder of yourself. i'll try not to take this idea too seriously, but killing yourself (whom your future or emotionally induced portions of yourself will likely have no say in) is quite similar to murder in the sense that future you may not agree with you. obviously you can't exactly have a conference with all these 'sub-personalities' in the present or these perhaps more developed personalities from the future. however it would be a great thing to at least consider this heavy choice with a neutral mind (which i am trying to say unsuccessfully, that neutral is a culmination of the perspective and wisdom of your past, present and future selves along with all their emotional counterparts)
You seem to be ill-suited for this topic as your decisions are stemming from your current cognitive state
i love the way you think. it's too bad we know nothing about each other. anyway, couldn't agree more on a general level, but i have a little more experience with depression than you'd think. i spent the most part of 4 years depressed (funnily enough with little relation to my mother's death) and it was indescribably horrible in retrospect. every day was met with meaningless melancholy. i considered suicide on countless occasions. despite the aftermath however, you are largely correct. i write this in a stable state of mind where i do not consider suicide on a daily basis.
You are also neglecting the philosophical viewpoint- which, sadly, this topic has become one even though suicide is a natural decision.
i'm afraid i'm not entirely sure what you mean by this.
if you're saying what i think you are, then i disagree, as i think the way you live is fundamental to the question of whether you should die
So have you arranged for your euthanasia, or do you plan on just dying forever as long as you can until you wake up on Hell remembering that I tried to tell you God loves you and you could have been saved from Hell?
you are using fallacy of circular reasoning supporting the love of death in favor of existence in Hell over trusting God. If you stop doing it, I'll ignore you.
At this point this debate is a tie, as it should be. There MUST be a dividing line. If it is to end "actual" suffering, then, yes. If it is to end imagined suffering, like, "I just can't take life anymore!" No.
NO ONE should have to suffer pain or being a near vegetable. THAT should be un-Constitutional!
If I would have been given the job to make law,I would certainly make a RIGHT TO SUICIDE.If we have right to live then we should have a right to die but with a suicide note so if there is any criminal offense with the help of this right it can be avoided.Criminal Offense in a sense that if some one tortures and force some one to suicide it can be avoided.As from my side it should be a constitutional right.
people should be allowed to avoid the pain and suffering that they wish to escape by committing suicide. no one should be forced to live through the constant pain that a terminal illness or mental disorder brings
If you are dying and on your way to Hell for eternal death in unending fire, there is no need to rush it with suicide...and there is certainly no need for suicide to be a constitutional right since any coward or fool can end their life easily enough any time they want to. If you want assisted suicide, you can find some crazy dopehead who will be happy to shoot you execution style to take the money out of your hand
God loves you. Don't do it. You can be saved from Hell and have eternal life now and know it without doubt, and that will get you through any hard times of this world.
The right to do with one's life what one will is arguably already secured under constitutional rights pertaining to liberty which are secured in most constitutions. Presumably this ought to extend to a right to commit suicide, and the matter is question of legal interpretation rather than necessitating an entire constitutional amendment.
Moreover, I would contend that the point is moot; not having the right is hardly going to stop one if their mind is set to the task.
"Suicide" is, technically, not secured under the constitution- it would be classified as a "right to die" which could mean a variety of things- most of which are illegal in most states (like PAS, passive euthanasia, euthanasia, etc.). Your phraseology is what is flawed- 'freedom of speech' is a secured constitutional right- but one with limitations.
I think you misunderstood my point. Constitutions rarely enumerate every right specifically, not only because doing so is unfeasible but because it is unnecessary. The right to liberty can readily be construed to include the right to die, without any need for an actual constitutional amendment to add the right specifically. I understand that current interpretations may exclude the right to die, but that does not mean that the law cannot be reinterpreted as has been done numerous times before. Again, the matter is better resolved through such reinterpretation than through constitutional amendment.
Interpreting the constitution that way is illegal in most states (or in all states if the reason for suicide is not 'terminal illness'). So while I understand your point, you seem to neglect the legal perspective.
I'm suggesting the same way they sort of specified 'gay rights' in the constitution, they should do the same for 'rights' in terms of death.
That is strictly on account of current legal language, much as used to be the case with same sex marriage. Gay rights were never passed as constitutional amendments, but were subsequently included under the equal protection clause of the pre-existing Fourteenth Amendment which overrode state legal practices.
Gay rights were never passed as constitutional amendments, but were subsequently included under the equal protection clause of the pre-existing Fourteenth Amendment which overrode state legal practices.
As should be the same with suicidal practices (such as PAS) so as to override state legal practices. Just as same sex marriage was legal in some states but not all, PAS is legal in one state (Ohio) but should be legal in all.
That was my original argument. I think you may be confused about what constitutes a "constitutional right" (i.e. a right specifically enumerated in the Constitution or its amendments) and what constitutes a general law (i.e. not specifically enumerated in the Constitution but still accountable to those rights which are enumerated).
This is like the stupidest debate ever!! If you want to commit suicide, go ahead! No one will charge you or fine you for being dead! There is no point in getting permission to die! If you get permission, how willing there be a difference from people who just commit suicide without permission?? Please do think of better debates than these crappy debates!!
Joel, there's no way anyone can stop a person who really wants to die. The personal rights comes in having access to a humane way to die - like a euthanasia pill, etc. sure you can blow your brains out, but that's pretty sad if that's the only option.
Suicide is the taking of one's own life. This should be illegal as we are taking about lives here. Although it is your decision to take your own life, not only you will be affected but many people around you , especially your loved ones will be affected.
