Advocacy Groups Suspend Use of 'Suicide Capsule' (apnews.com) 89
doc1623 writes: Advocacy groups behind a so-called suicide capsule said Sunday they have suspended the process of taking applications to use it -- which numbered over 370 last month -- as a criminal investigation into its first use in Switzerland is completed. The president of Switzerland-based The Last Resort, Florian Willet, is being held in pretrial detention, said the group and Exit International, an affiliate founded in Australia over a quarter century ago. Swiss police arrested Willet and several other people following the death of an unidentified 64-year-old woman from the U.S. Midwest who on Sept. 23 became the first person to use the device, known as the "Sarco," in a forest in the northern Schaffhausen region near the German border. Others initially detained were released from custody, authorities have said.
Too bad. It looked very promising. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
But then who will pick the cotton if the lower 99% decide to reroll?
Re: (Score:1)
The FU2 visa program was reinstated with slightly better conditions and a new name.
Re:Too bad. It looked very promising. (Score:4, Informative)
That is not what is happening here. Exit has been operating for years in Switzerland. As far as I understand the issue it's the fact that the procedure around this capsule is new, has not been approved yet and still they went ahead and used it.
Re:Too bad. It looked very promising. (Score:4, Informative)
That is not what is happening here. Exit has been operating for years in Switzerland. As far as I understand the issue it's the fact that the procedure around this capsule is new, has not been approved yet and still they went ahead and used it.
The Swiss laws on the procedure are pretty straight forward without much room for confusion.
There are only two requirements for assisted suicide
1) The person takes his or her life with no "external assistance" and
2) Those who help the person die do not do so for "any self-serving motive."
The capsule procedure is the user inside presses a button. This fills it with nitrogen gas.
The capsule has to be sealed to keep the gas in, with the user inside with the button, and anyone else outside unable to reach said button.
Providing access to the device is no different than providing a knife or pill or any other tool to said person. That doesn't fall under "assistance"
The issue at hand must be #2 to be any form of legit complaint or concern.
(That or it is simply an invalid complaint)
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess that means doctors cannot take money (whether state sponsored or otherwise) because of 2, which makes the entire business-model a bit weird. The number 1 is a bit weird, not sure if you translated it correctly, because assisted suicide is by definition external assistance.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the point is that the final decision is left in the hands of the person whose life is ending. If in the capsule he or she changes their mind and just wants to lay there enjoying the view for a while then nothing more happens. The button doesn't get pushed, the capsule doesn't flood with ... nitrogen, I think it was, and they go on living. No one else on the outside makes the final decision for them.
Re:Too bad. It looked very promising. (Score:4, Informative)
The number 1 is a bit weird, not sure if you translated it correctly, because assisted suicide is by definition external assistance.
It is not by definition extremal assistance.
Maybe in a german language dictionary it is defined that way (or french or italian or.. however many official languages they have now) but that definition is irrelevant.
Only the LEGAL definition in the law matters here.
The legal definition only addresses the act that ends a persons life.
You can hand them a shot, you can not assist in administering it.
You can hand them a pill, you can not assist in putting it in their mouth.
You can hand them a knife, you can not stab them.
Here, it is pushing the button. You can not push it for them.
Now to be very clear here, the article states the company president was the one and only person present at the time this unknown woman used the capsule.
It is his claims alone that everything went according to this plan.
I see no claims being made that anyone thinks he did assist or anything like that, yet to be clear, there are no detailed public claims yet. It's still under investigation.
I doubt the president is lying about the technical process. It makes no sense to do so.
The entire design of the capsule is to follow the letter and spirit of the law, and there is no technical reason such a design shouldn't work (aka putting a button inside that a person can press is not some impossibility we haven't solved)
So I guess that means doctors cannot take money (whether state sponsored or otherwise) because of 2, which makes the entire business-model a bit weird.
That is why #2 seems to highly likely to be the issue.
Unlike #1 that I said was very clear, #2 at least to be seems less clear.
As you say, does accepting money count? Did they accept money?
I have no idea, it doesn't say.
Odd business model indeed.
In Switzerland they already legally exclude providing the method.
For example pharmacies can sell opioids, and manufacturing plants can make synthetic ones.
A doctor can prescribe, and some can purchase, such medications to be provided to a patient.
It can be handed over to the patient for the purpose of the patent using it to end their life.
This has all been set in law long ago.
Nothing with this capsule is any different to established legal means to provide the method.
They simply can not provide the assistance to use it.
Re:Too bad. It looked very promising. (Score:4, Insightful)
Governments should not be in the business of forcing people to continue to live against their will.
This is the problem with modern governance. Government seems to believe they own citizens from birth, and citizens must be forced to complete the correct set of steps before being allowed to die. And some of those steps include shoveling off to a retirement home where your funds can be bled dry before you are allowed to expire painfully and slowly. This is the program. Deviation from the program is frowned upon.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Governments should not be in the business of forcing women to give birth, especially when they've been raped. And yet, here we are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Too bad. It looked very promising. (Score:2)
It should be legal to kill yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
After some review from medical professionals, it should be legal.
My cat had severe cancer and was suffering. We were able to kill her without a second thought and it was what was best. My mother-in-law had to go to "hospice" and starve herself to death while suffering from internal bleeding in her lungs from stage 4 lung cancer. It was brutal, traumatic, and 100% unnecessary. My grandfather had to do the same.
Why do humans like suffering so much?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It should be legal to kill yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. We don't expect die-hard fans of Lord of the Rings or Star Wars to decie how everyone should live, so why should we think otherwise of fans of ancient fantasy books?
Re:It should be legal to kill yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
It is almost like there is this thing call society and this is how it works.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Respectfully, I don't agree that it is the wrong word. Self termination is whitewashing/politically correct culture - nothing wrong with using it, but you're implying you can't own what you're saying or are squeamish about it. The OP may have used "kill" to indicate they have come to terms with reality, and they deserve our respect for this. Killing and death is scary stuff.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Okay, but the nominally atheist Chinese and nominally Hindu Indian governments also ban assisted suicide. I feel as though your model lacks predictive power.
Certainly, the Old Testament prohibition of suicide has had some effect on policy (especially in more unhinged places like the US), but I think it's a bit reductionist to boil it down to unthinking religious absolutism.
Re:It should be legal to kill yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
Because most Western governments are staffed by Christians, the alleged followers of Jesus.
In the US definitely, but I don't think that's the only factor elsewhere.
At a high level, the role of the government and the medical profession is to protect life, so there's a lot of resistance to deviate from that principal.
And there's also practical considerations, the inevitable court battles started by family members [calgaryherald.com], the question of whether to give the option to children or people with dementia, and just where to draw the line with various illnesses.
I think it's just an area that politicians are reluctant to wade into.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And the lord said thou shall not kill or aid an abet the death of another soul however much they experience torment and suffering. Let people who create suicide pills be cast into the pits of hell for their support of this travesty. But guns are okay.
Re: (Score:2)
Some have suggested the translation would be better as "Thou shalt not murder".
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of the sentence pretty strongly suggests "kill" is the intention, at least in the context of this story. The reason for translating it as "murder" is the OPs "but guns are okay" part. I.e. all the god-sponsored killing in the bible is cool because it's not murder if god or the government said it's okay, and also if it's someone you don't know ringing your doorbell.
Re: (Score:2)
The word 'kill' in English also would cover animal slaughter and the like, and I don't think the God of the Israelites was advocating for a vegetarian lifestyle. It's imperfect however you look at it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the God of the Israelites was advocating for a vegetarian lifestyle.
Going without bacon or seafood would make me want to kill myself.
Re:It should be legal to kill yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
Assisted suicide is banned in the Western civilisation since the Hippocratic Oath, 4 centuries before any Christians.
Re: (Score:3)
I suggest you read up on how Cato the Younger died, and was celebrated for doing so, before you start attributing an anti-assisted suicide viewpoint to the Classical era. "Do no harm" is possible to interpret in a way that doesn't invalidate such things.
Re: (Score:2)
Do not resuscitate orders are quite common. Shouldn't those also bring forth some sort of ethical debate? With a DNR order and in this specific situation the Suicide Capsule, the doctor was present but took no action either way. One option simply gives the patient the ability to control their destiny.
Re:It should be legal to kill yourself (Score:5, Interesting)
The issue is one of potential. Death erases any and all potential. Be it societal or personal.
It's basically the same basic principle as with the death penalty. You cannot undo it. As is often the case, thresholds are very fluid and waters are murky... if someone is suffering from a terminal disease and there is no hope that this person could ever conceivably enjoy life again.... ...well, what does that mean? I have been having trouble enjoying life for the last 20 to 30 years but I finally managed to turn the trend into a positive direction. So if I had offed myself five years ago, my current's self would be rather pissed with that hypothetical past self.
There have been people during history who have achieved unbelievable things under extremely trying conditions. Chances are, these people wanted to give up at some point. What if they had?
In short, suicide is very much against most, if not all, our basic instincts. Therefore if someone wishes to do it, I wager chances are it's to a large degree a mental thing that could be changed.
I for one would not want to be involved in helping someone end that potential.
Disclaimer: I did not win the genetic lottery. I am suffering from a list of things and I have had several years at a time where I had regular thoughts of suicide and I have called a helpline even.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue is one of potential. Death erases any and all potential. Be it societal or personal.
It's basically the same basic principle as with the death penalty. You cannot undo it. As is often the case, thresholds are very fluid and waters are murky... if someone is suffering from a terminal disease and there is no hope that this person could ever conceivably enjoy life again.... ...well, what does that mean? I have been having trouble enjoying life for the last 20 to 30 years but I finally managed to turn the trend into a positive direction. So if I had offed myself five years ago, my current's self would be rather pissed with that hypothetical past self.
There have been people during history who have achieved unbelievable things under extremely trying conditions. Chances are, these people wanted to give up at some point. What if they had?
In short, suicide is very much against most, if not all, our basic instincts. Therefore if someone wishes to do it, I wager chances are it's to a large degree a mental thing that could be changed.
I for one would not want to be involved in helping someone end that potential.
Disclaimer: I did not win the genetic lottery. I am suffering from a list of things and I have had several years at a time where I had regular thoughts of suicide and I have called a helpline even.
We either need a society that gives us *SOME* option for helping care for our basic mental health, or we need to allow people to self-terminate. This idea that you need to suffer forever / until 'natural' death, or have to hook yourself into medical machines to force life into your barely breathing corpse in some cases, without any form of support beyond, "We'll keep ya alive, rest is up to you," isn't a boon to humans. It's a punishment. Suffer, suffer, suffer some more. Just don't die. Dying is naughty. T
Re: It should be legal to kill yourself (Score:1)
Why can't you use persuasion instead of the law?
May I say that I too have suffered deppression ever since I can remember, and wish I had had the guts to end it all back when I first thought seriously of suicide at eight, and 52 years later I have no reason to change my mind?
Can you imagine how much pain and suffering I could have saved myself and the poor people who've had to put up with me for all these wasted years?
Re: It should be legal to kill yourself (Score:5, Interesting)
In my examples, my grandfather did kill himself. Via starvation on hospice care. It didn't have to be that way. They could have made it painless. There was no other outcome. No one was curing stage 4 cancers in the next 2 months. All they did was make him suffer for the medicare money.
Re: It should be legal to kill yourself (Score:2)
Yes, killing for profit is a privilege reserved for the state.
Re: (Score:2)
Right and we have already seen people in their 20s! Seek assisted suicide for depression. That isn't someone who we should help die, that is someone we should help! Then you have all the issues of guilt/family/etc that might lead someone to feel pressured to end their life who does not really want to because they believe rightly or wrongly they are seen as a burden. This is before we get into outright malicious and greedy thinking which might have certain people pressured to end it all so someone can inher
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why the decision needs to be more than the individual's decision. It needs a medical board to determine that there is no path to a cure, no way to cure the suffering, and the illness is untreatable for the near term (the expected life of the patient).
Slippery slopes exist in every decision we make. Not one decision isn't a slippery slope. Strong controls to reduce suffering should be in place. No one should die in terror and pain simply because doctors are not allowed to help.
Re: It should be legal to kill yourself (Score:3)
"Just imagine the inhumane shit show that will come about when people become accustomed to seeing life as something you just throw away when you are finished with it."
Yes, we would wind up with the death penalty, and military misadventures for profit. Er, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
In the cases I described, the doctors had given up. There was no cure. Death was assured, painful, and would not come quick. Quality of life is reduced to a hospital bed, constant drip of opioids that do nothing and suffering.
I'd rather a quick painless death than that. That was torture, plain and simple. That was the government tourturing people so the healthcare system could make money on the backs of it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
HINT: It's because we live in a society in which a significant portion believe in a fairy tale, which proclaims that humans are the only animals special enough to not be allowed to terminate the lives of themselves or others, except for particular circumstances (such as government-sanction executions, and war) that those same believers will resort to mental gymnastics to avoid questioning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Assissted suicide is legal in Switzerland. It has effectively been so since 1942 apparently.
The ruling class makes life unbearable (Score:1)
The risk is that if suicide is normalized people who come to realize that there's nothing left but endless toil in a tiny, filthy apartment with periodic bouts of homelessness and constant stress and hunger will just say "screw this noise, I'm otta here".
China has suicide nets, but the rest of the world just makes it a crime.
Neither country tries to make life worth living for everyone because, well, what good is being rich if nobody is poor?
Re: It should be legal to kill yourself (Score:2)
"Not sure where you were that your grandparents didn't get any palliative care"
Probably Mother Teresa
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I guess being slightly out of it while still moaning in pain waiting for that machine to let you push the button again is "pallative care". I truely hope you never experience it.
NO amount of drugs stops the pain of terminal cancers.
Re: (Score:2)
NO amount of drugs stops the pain of terminal cancers.
It's very true and very sad. They don't spend their final weeks in a euphoric half-asleep haze. It seems what you said about medical organizations benefiting monetarily for keeping you alive a little longer is true as well. There should be some point at which assisted death is allowed. Maybe not for otherwise healthy people (who need better options offered to them), but for people who are currently suffering with no hope of recovery.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, I always have second thoughts about the animals I put to sleep. At the same time, it's my perception they were suffering and not going to get better. But doubts always linger.
For humans, assuming we have the mental capacity to make the call, no one involved will have second thoughts.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
After some review from medical professionals, it should be legal.
My cat had severe cancer and was suffering. We were able to kill her without a second thought and it was what was best. My mother-in-law had to go to "hospice" and starve herself to death while suffering from internal bleeding in her lungs from stage 4 lung cancer. It was brutal, traumatic, and 100% unnecessary. My grandfather had to do the same.
Why do humans like suffering so much?
Honestly, I wonder if our practise of euthanizing pets has more to do with our suffering than theirs. There certainly are people with terminal illnesses who choose to end things early, but I think most hold on till the end. If pets were capable of an informed choice I suspect they would come to the same conclusion.
I hope I'm not making anyone feel guilty for euthanizing, it is a terrible quality of life for the pet, and watching them suffer is awful for the owner. I just mean to point out that we're using v
Re: (Score:3)
I'd like to think my cat was thinking "This is fine" while shitting blood, being unable to walk out of the litter box, and resperating blood. I doubt it though. I could have just let her sit there in shit and blood until she passed naturally though. I'm just not a monster.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to think my cat was thinking "This is fine" while shitting blood, being unable to walk out of the litter box, and resperating blood. I doubt it though. I could have just let her sit there in shit and blood until she passed naturally though. I'm just not a monster.
As I said I wasn't trying to make you feel guilty nor imply what you did was wrong. But I think it's true that most humans would have chosen to live as long as possible (even if their quality of life was really miserable).
There's reason we believe it's right and ethical to impose euthanasia on pets but not humans.
Re: (Score:2)
I could deal with physical constraints as long as my mind is still relatively sharp... but if my brain is mush and I need supervision like a toddler that just learned to walk... that's not a life for me. I'd rather not have my life savings be wasted in such a manner.
Re: (Score:2)
It is legal to kill yourself. You aren't prosecuted for 'unlawful attempted suicide' if you fail and survive. What illegal (in many places) is for others to provide assistance in the suicide.
Re: (Score:2)
The people who need it the most often lack the means to execute. When you are dying of cancer and barely able to move, but still lucid, you have no options but the help of others.
That's hospice. It's inhumane and it's how most of us will die.
Re: (Score:1)
Try saying publicly that you are going to exercise your legal right to suicide and see how fast you will end up in the mental ward under 24-hour surveillance.
Re: (Score:1)
After some review from medical professionals, it should be legal.
My cat had severe cancer and was suffering. We were able to kill her without a second thought and it was what was best. My mother-in-law had to go to "hospice" and starve herself to death while suffering from internal bleeding in her lungs from stage 4 lung cancer. It was brutal, traumatic, and 100% unnecessary. My grandfather had to do the same.
Why do humans like suffering so much?
The problem, of course, is that the promised protections always get eroded afterwards.
Suicide is not allowed (Score:2, Troll)
Because in our current form of government, you have a debt to society to repay which is immediately placed over your head when you are born.
1. The State (apologies to Larry Niven) expects their cut in taxes over your lifetime.
2. The capitalists expect their cut in the form of your labor to make their profits. They have paid to have laws enacted to ensure this continues to happen.
Therefore, you have 2 choices:
1. Live to work
2. Live a vagrant life
Suicide reduces the rate of return on the governments "Investme
Re: Suicide is not allowed (Score:1)
Haven't they criminalized homelessness too?
Diminished Capacity... (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of us seem to feel that governments should not be deciding this for us...
But we can all have this discussion now while we're of sound mind and body and argue both sides.
The problem is when someone chooses suicide, they are often in a diminished capacity, whether due to depression, ongoing pain, cult membership, ... Making suicide easy will affect those who are vulnerable from the diminished capacity.
In addition, in for-profit medicine and insurance, offering suicide will often be much cheaper than offering care. For folks that could recover but require a lot of time and expense, there's a profit motive to suggest suicide as a possibility. And, given the diminished capacity argument, promoting suicide as a solution is a lot easier.
From the government angle, legalizing suicide will allow for unscrupulous folks to take advantage of others in ways it is impossible to reverse.
Re: Diminished Capacity... (Score:1)
What if you let people post uncensored suicide ideation and monitored it so you could use your words to fight their impaired thoughts? Or is it too exhausting to lie that much?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You can't complain that greedy for-profit medicine tries to squeeze every single cent out of you, and that for-profit medicine will persuade you to take cheap suicide pill, at the same time. Please choose one.
Just got a look at a picture of it. (Score:5, Funny)
That'd be a very hard capsule to swallow.
Re: (Score:2)
[Face palm]
Re: Just got a look at a picture of it. (Score:2)
Good news! It's a suppository!
Re: Just got a look at a picture of it. (Score:2)
I suppose undertaking the effort use it shows you're committed. Or should be.
In Alabama, soon in jail near you... (Score:1)
Children of Men (Score:3)
From "Children of Men"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Children of Men (Score:2)
Suicide kits in "On the Beach", too.
BTW - OTB is one of Patton Oswalt's "Worst Science Fiction Movies".
So as a MSTie, it became a must-watch for me. It's not THAT bad. I've certainly seen worse. Just looks like a product of its time.
Be careful what you wish for (Score:2)
It has to be tightly controlled or you get people offing themselves because they are temporarily depressed and could be helped, someone insists their spouse, who is unresponsive, wanted to die in this condition. Their 3rd spouse to insist on this so far...
So it's still the Japanese way (Score:2)
Rent a small utility vehicle with an enclosed back.
Put a mattress in there, a bottle of scotch and light the char-coal grill.
no universal medical care = death sentence 4 many (Score:2)
Should we use this in the U.S.? (Score:2)
My political ideology has changed, but even before I was against the death period on ethical grounds e.g. the 8th amendment, I found that it is financially irresponsible i.e. it cost more than a life sentence does. This was for a paper in high school (too long ago). The more callous among us might want to forgo appeals to alleviate some of the financial burden on our society, but that's not likely to happen.
The reason I use the 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual) is because of the paralytic that's used. In t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
look like its a dead end for (Score:2)