Mikey wrote:However, I get the gist of what you're asking (I also get that you're continuing to refine your question and will probably do so until you can't help but get the answer you want.)
In the broad and rather obvious sense that the answer I want is one that reveals what you think about the issue I'm interested in, yes, I'll refine the question until I get the answer I want.
To sum up, based on what I think you're trying to get rather than the letter of your question - nope. If there is no palliative medical use for suicide, then the desire for such is itself an indication of a need for psychiatric care.
I'm not sure if I agree or not, frankly. I had fairly settled thoughts on people ending their life before I hit that statistic, but the idea I always had in mind was the one everyone talks about, of people suffering. And one of the points I mentioned was the one raised a couple of times in the documentary - that for some diseases, you really can't wait until it's actually destroying their quality of life because by then they can't make the decision any more. So you have relatively healthy people killing themselves well before they have to. That, I can also get and accept.
But people killing themselves because they're basically fed up with life... I'd not considered that. I honestly am not at all sure what to make of it. I'm gonna ramble a bit with my thoughts thus far.
On the one hand, as a core idea I tend to think that the state shouldn't restrict people's freedom without compelling reason. Even with mentally unbalanced people the law here is that we can only restrict their freedom if they are a danger to themselves or others. But there's the rub - if you want to commit suicide then you're obviously a danger to yourself by definition.
But the question is, what if you're a danger to yourself but NOT crazy? People do dangerous things all the time - extreme sports and whatnot - but we don't stop them because it's a danger to them. But taking a risk of injury or death isn't really like a certainty of death.
So it seems to me that the deciding issue here is, can a sane person want to kill themselves? (And that was what I intended to ask in the first question by the way, I just mistyped it. hence the 'refined" one.) I genuinely don't know. It seems to me that it's a dangerous path to go down to have the state say to people "If you believe X then you are by definition insane and your rights should be restricted," pretty much no matter what X might be.
There have been two occasions in my life when, if I'd had a glass of poison right there in front of me, I might very well have drank it. I suppose most people have such moments at one time or another. I got over it, and I'm glad I did... but I'm not sure I have the right to tell other people that I think that they will get over it too and therefore they must do as I say. In the end, who owns your life if not you?
I just don't know what to think. I'll have to mull it over more.
I'm very glad I watched the documentary, though.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...