[vikramkr]

You can do whatever you want to yourself. You can't hurt/encourage others, and the data may be no good, but certainly you have informed consent if you're the only subject

[OJFord]

That's not actually true though is it, suicide is illegal in many jurisdictions. Not just self- euthanisation towards the end of life anyway (which is more controversial/media-discussed) but any form.

[vikramkr]

The context of that comment is a parent comment asking about medical self experimentation. You're also not allowed to administer scheduled substances to yourself in many jurisdictions and plenty of other things like that but that's not what I was replying to.

[cogman10]

You actually are allow to administer all sorts of scheduled substances to yourself. You aren't allowed to posses those substances.

The laws that do target someone for being in an altered mental state are mostly about being that way in public.

[sonotathrowaway]

You’re confusing legality with ethics, which are not the same thing.

[OJFord]

I most certainly am not, but I wasn't aware that it was repealed in the UK (the legal system I'm most familiar with): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_Act_1961

[recursive]

What could possibly be the purpose of such a law?

[gpm]

To give the authorities a reason to intervene. Which in turn is justified by most people who fail to commit suicide being happy, in retrospect, that they failed.

There's probably also a crowd who want it to be illegal because they view suicide as a sin, though personally I think that justification for a law seems like a violation of religious freedoms.

[recursive]

Can "the authorities" intervene prior to a crime they believe is going to be committed? The supreme court has roundly rejected prior restraint. [1]

[1]: https://youtu.be/pn-kxUEySy0?t=54

[tredre3]

> Which in turn is justified by most people who fail to commit suicide being happy, in retrospect, that they failed.

If true, that sounds like survivorship bias (literally). Those who aren't happy about the failure will just try again and won't be counted in the statistics.

[maronato]

Dead people don’t pay taxes

/s

[alexey-salmin]

In which jurisdictions the suicide itself (not assistance or encouraging) is illegal? I can only think of some deeply religious societies.

[unmole]

It was illegal in India till 2017.

[TheSkyHasEyes]

> You can do whatever you want to yourself.

No you can't. Maybe in your country.

For ex, it's suicide is illegal where I live. Yeah.

[alexey-salmin]

Where do you live?

[hoorible]

> you can do whatever you want to yourself.

Uh, women would like a word.

[fwip]

The argument against abortion is that the fetus is a separate person, and thus is not something you do "to yourself."

[hoorible]

Uh yeah I don’t think anyone needs to have “the argument” explained. I have yet to see an explanation for why it deserves any merit though.

[fwip]

I'm pro-choice, but I think that it's not an unreasonable stance if you believe that the fetus is an alive human being with intrinsic worth, or a soul. (Souls aren't real, but >75% of Americans believe in them.)

[hoorible]

None of that is a refutation of what I said though, since I reject the notion that belief in the existence of the soul can be used as justification for stripping a person of their bodily autonomy.

If we found out cancer cells had souls tomorrow, exactly no one would be screaming “but their souls!” at folks walking into a cancer clinic.

[fwip]

"since I reject the notion ..."

Well, that's a you problem. The rest of us make decisions based on what we believe, not on what you believe.

[akimbostrawman]

you put an adults bodily autonomy over a innocent babies life.

I would hope most people have enough self awareness to not compare a foreign hostile disease that does nothing but kill its host to a human life.