This obviously derailed my life and my sisters and my dad for many years. I have some skepticism about if/how assisted death would have been better but I suspect it would have been. I imagine (perhaps wrongly) we would have been able to say goodbye and give her a peaceful end. Maybe have counseling leading up to and through it?

I'll respectfully skip the 1-4 specifics. I just believe that people who want to die should be allowed to do so peacefully, and no one who objects should be obligated to help. With the hundreds of millions of guns in the US, violent suicide is widely available here, the debate is more about if a peaceful death is available and I think it should be within thoughtful constraints. Those that disagree with me are entitled to their opinions though.

2. Yes. Same as above.

3. Yes. Same as above.

4. I don't think I understand the question.

Reminds me of that documentary I watched about a police officer that was working on that bridge, not sure which, in CA I believe, who have seen a lot of people jump and die. The few that survived (and who were badly hurt result of the jump) explained that as soon as they threw themselves in the void they immediately regretted doing it, and later on, in the hospital, with broken bones everywhere they were happy to have survived it and were pretty much cured of their death wish.

Life is so full of unexpected turns.

You have no way to know that “our experience of life is always changing.”

It doesn’t always get better. Sometimes it keeps getting worse! Sometimes it stays equally awful!

What’s true for you and the people you’ve heard talk about it isn’t necessarily true for everyone. Maybe the people who died on the bridge would’ve hated surviving?

The experience we have is always changing, even if our material condition stay the same. That's what I mean here.

> Maybe the people who died on the bridge would’ve hated surviving?

Sure, at that moment, but what about 3 days later, or 3 months, who can tell?

So, my argument here is in life, nothing is permanent, while death is.

Your argument is based only on your own experience and what you’ve chosen to hear from others.

Can you acknowledge the possibility that for some people the miserable experience of their life is permanent?

So if the experience is changing and you are equally suffering, you are not learning with life, that's a mistake that lots of people do. Suicide is not a solution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRs-DlYmws4

That particular police officer they were interviewing was a pretty old guy, who spent many decades working on that bridge and so have seen it all.

It was a good 5 years ago, maybe even more, so my memory is a bit hazy.

You think they’re going to show people who survived a suicide attempt saying, “dang, really upset I didn’t die.”?

3) This is the most important case. If you can't rely on someone else to put you out of your misery when you're incapable, then you have to do it yourself before it's actually necessary, while you still have the ability. Otherwise you risk being trapped in agony for the remainder of your life. That's a cruel gamble, betting on the probability, duration, and pain of your own sow death, vs how much worthwhile life you're potentially giving up. It's also very unreliable as there are all sorts of things that can take you from fine to permanent agony in an instant. I don't see why appearance would matter.

4) If capable, you should do it yourself. If incapable, someone should be allowed to assist. Assistance should always be from a qualified professional who has no conflicts of interest to keep the line between assisted suicide an murder as clear as possible.

3. Yes; though only conditions that result in a loss of mental capability or communication should be part of an advance request. Reason: an advance will reduce the standard of investigation required by the professional to "do they meet the conditions of their advance directive", but at the time the directive is made it is unlikely that the person is a valid suicide candidate, so fewer checks and balances can be in place.

2. There should be no white or blacklist to assisted suicide. The person should only have to meet certain criteria along the lines of - they have tried to live with their reason, they have no realistic positive treatment options, etc.

1. As 2

The overarching reason is that your life is your own. But this is tempered by the fact that people are all limited in experience and knowledge, and as a society we should act to help each other make the most out of it.

This is why, despite being wildly in favour of assisted dying and suicide in my own country, I am a lot less keen to see my unrestricted flavour in other countries, countries who do not look after the other members of their society; countries who have debtors prisons and predatory medicine are places where open suicide laws will be used to escape the hell of their tormentors instead of overthrowing it.

If death is medically certain and the person is only trying to escape a painful death this would be a hindrance. In this scenario it feels hard to have any due process unless you decide it beforehand. When my father in law died he didn’t want morphine because he was correctly assuming it would kill him. At one point though he was willing to make that trade off though. He would not have wanted this before he was really trying to hang on even through the pain until he wasn’t. In such cases I feel you should have a right to pain management even if it jeopardizes your life. But in this situation where you are deteriorating in the hospital a legal System style procedure would not help you at all.

2. Yes. And yes mental illness like depression should qualify (See below). But mental illnesses where person is extremely disillusioned should not.

3. Yes. Appearance sure, it is their life.

4. Sure, see below.

However, I think person who is committing suicide still has responsibilities to society including not causing emotional harm to their loved ones, not leaving a mess behind for others to clean up etc. As a society, we should establish guidelines for suicide. I like Hindu practice of suicide called [Prayopavesa][1].

Prayopavesa is basically slow suicide by fasting to death. This may take days or weeks. This solves the big problem of people changing their mind after pulling the trigger or jumping off the ledge. If at any point suicidal person changes their mind, they can start eating.

Also if a person is disciplined enough to fast for days, we can trust that person has emotional maturity to make such a big decision. In other forms of assisted suicide like injecting drugs, an emotional person may sign up with a service, then they might even go through extensive paperwork. I personally end up doing things like sky diving just because I signed up to do them while drunk. I didn't want to do it later, but felt ashamed asking for refund. I imagine, emotionally unstable person may go through paperwork even when they are having second thoughts.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayopavesa

2. See 1.

3. When cognitive function is damaged severely, the person cannot make decisions on their own, including decisions on whether they should live or die.

4. All voluntary interactions are fine.

2. No — I don’t need to have a chronic illness to know that I hate my life and would rather die painlessly. Mental illness is not always treatable. If someone wants to die that opportunity should be available to them.

3. Don’t understand your question here.

4. No. Killing yourself usually leaves somebody else a mess to clean up, both literally and mentally. Plus I’m not skilled at killing myself and there’s a good chance I would fuck it up. If it’s a legal service, somebody will take my money to do it and that option should be available.

Mental illness is a different kettle of fish. I supported taking Terry Shivo of the equipment that kept her alive.

4 - I expect when I would want to go, I would not have the physical capability to do it.

In some cases it's not really a choice between life vs death. The choice is a speedy death or a slow torturous death where they let you die of dehydration. Generally I think it's good to be legal, edge cases and what-if's aside. There are already negative "what-ifs" under the status quo, such as people being left to die of dehydration. Even pet dogs get a more merciful death.

I think selecting a method and location that doesn't cause a burden on those left behind is important.

And I could see legal grey areas when it comes to those found to be mentally unsound, and those who might be late stage pregnant.

But in general when possible, we shouldn't tell others how to live or die.

Assisted dying should be a function of healthcare. I like the way we have set it up in the Netherlands, there are strict guidelines, there is oversight and it's process to make an informed decision.