| > Given the number of failed suicide attempts, not everyone is capable of committing it successfully. Which is actually a good thing if these statistics are correct:
"Approximately 7% (range: 5-11%) of attempters eventually died by suicide, approximately 23% reattempted non-fatally, and 70% had no further attempts."* *https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/survi... > Giving the long-term-suffering an option of a peaceful and painless way out seems much more compassionate Also much cheaper for the state/society/healthcare system (and even their families) than investing into providing additional treatment options > e.g. late-stage cancer. But separate rules could be used for those who clearly have terminal illnesses IMHO that's an entirely different issue, if all the available options were exhausted and the patient is basically guaranteed to die in N weeks/months while simultaneously suffering more and more giving that person the option to end it sooner seems to both reasonable and compassionate. How can such certainty exist when were talking about mental illness? The decision made by this person will surely depend on external factors, e.g. if you're poor, your psychiatrist tells you that they can't help you, you don't have any close family to fallback on etc. are you more or less likely to commit suicide than someone who is suffering from a similarly severe issue but has all of those things? |