Should suicide be legal?

Suicide is the act of intentionally causing one's own death. Following the debate about euthanasia, should suicide be legal as well? Do we own our own lives so completely that we have a right to end them? Or do we owe certain obligations to our communities and thus we should stay alive even when we may want to die?

Pro

 * Some people just don't want to live. No specific mental issues, they just don't want to live, especially with the way society is.
 * In a free society, people should have the right to do what they want with their lives as long as they don't hurt others. Suicide can be what a rational adult chooses for him/herself. No State should have title over one's life. Taking away such choices is patronizing and dehumanizing.
 * Suicide does hurt others. Maybe not physically, but the emotional and social costs of losing a loved one to suicide are huge.
 * This is solely because the conditions we set for life as something of utmost value has created an emotional link that runs deeper than mere care; its a socially constructed concept. Similarly, the fear of death is so greatly exaggerated that the anxiety of and actually confronting it warps those emotions even further. This is to say that a large portion of that emotional pain and despair are not about the person in question or the issues they aim to escape from, but rather the potential they have with the person in grief and with the deceased, which many wouldn't argue against being a purely selfish desire. If we lived in a modern society where both life and death are held in equal and balanced regard, the concept of suicide would more than likely be less seen as taboo, and therefore the emotions regarding the action and aftermath would not be as impactful.
 * So should someone else continue to suffer to keep other people happy?
 * Just like others aren't responsible for our happiness, those who commit suicide are not responsible for how others feel about it. Don't keep empty people alive for your own selfish needs.
 * While that is partially true, on a moral level, we should not be prioritizing more the wellbeing of the relatives of a potential suicide over the potential suicide itself, because no individual provides informed consent to being born, so no individual is under any obligation to remain alive for the emotional benefit of others.
 * Many other life events cause emotional harm but are not illegal. For example, a son cutting off all contact with their parents for life (this can be as traumatizing as death). Or, negligent parenting leading to children developing psychological issues like extreme attention seeking behavior (which can lead to school shootings) are not illegal either.
 * Even if a person dies naturally, it will still cause emotional harm to others. The cause of death might be a secondary issue.
 * You are working under the assumption that everyone belongs to a "tribe" and has people that care for them.
 * Some people will care even though they are not related or as close. For example, for some, it would be upsetting to hear news about your neighbour's death and the reason of it might hurt you even more, maybe you would question yourself that you should have noticed that they seem a little off or that you would have done at least try something to prevent that. Even if you do not care enough, the thought would have strike across your head at least once.
 * Perhaps it would be upsetting, but the legal right to choose trumps others' feelings about whatever choice is made.
 * Helping adults seek help for a severe mental illness is not patronizing. Suicide is not simply a "decision", it is murder. And while it should not be criminalized like regular murder, it should not be supported or promoted by the law.
 * You are taking a life of someone with out their promises
 * Suicide is a decision, and not murder. Murder is the killing of another person from a person
 * Helping adults who need help is not patronizing. It is the forcing of "help" which dehumanizes; forced psychiatric "help" is not help when an adult is actively declining such services. Might such "help" be what psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Szasz refereed to as cruel compassion in his book "Cruel Compassion"?
 * Whether or not to engage in suicide is ultimately a personal decision. Suicide should not be promoted, however, it should not be prohibited through state sanctioned psychiatric coercion, force, and confinement. Voluntary/consensual psychiatry should remain legal. Nonconsensual psychiatry should be illegal.
 * Nonconsensual psychiatry is necessary in some cases, legalizing suicide should not automatically mean all nonconsentual psychiatry is unethical. For example, if someone is not self-injurious, but unable to bathe or clothe themself, should they be committed to a psychiatric care facility by the state or allowed to rot simply because it is "without consent"?
 * It is technically impossible to enforce a law against suicide, so as suicide is virtually legal, it should be also legally legal.
 * But it is possible to punish those who attempt suicide and fail.
 * Punishing someone who attempted suicide and failed would the most cruel and Sadistic act a government could perform, they already don't want to live because of the horrible conditions of their lives and you want them to be FORCED to continue living in even worse conditions? That would only prove their decision to commit suicide to be justified.
 * Forcing someone to live an unwished life is equivalent to torture, so punishment to failure suicide is unhuman, beside useless.
 * However, at the time of the suicide the person might be too overwhelmed in their emotions to think straight, this might let them sit through life to properly think if this is what they actually want.
 * If the person however has any idea or wish to not exist, why should they be swayed against that if it is a conclusion?
 * So if we do follow this, allow them to “sit and think” as you mention, and they still decide that they want suicide, would they then be permitted to take their life?
 * Maybe so, but you should also allow the possibility that they were not overwhelmed and were thinking straight. Just because they want to make a decision you disagree with, does not mean they are automatically invalid in their opinion.
 * We do not know what happens after death. It could be better after death for one who commits suicide. By prohibiting suicide we are imposing implicit theological (and Judeo-Christian) beliefs on others. Prohibitions on suicide impose the implicit theological belief that death is a worse consequences than life, and this imposition is morally incorrect.
 * The ambiguity of what happens after suicide is not a sound argument for why suicide should be legal.
 * The fact we don't allow suicide because of fantasy religious beliefs is not an argument for it not being legal. Who has the right to tell another what to do with their life?
 * Precisely since we don't know what happens next, we can just wait and see until later—there is no rush to die now, since anyone who would commit suicide will die of some other cause anyway.
 * For people in crippling pain where they have no life why force them to suffer, that is cruel sadistic and vile
 * Forcing adults to wait is dehumanizing and robbing them of personal responsibility and freedom. We should use persuasion and kindness to entice adults to remain alive, not coercion.
 * "Just wait" is not feasible for someone suffering from mental anguish or any other sickness making life unbearable.
 * Suicide can be seen as a form of migration. Prohibiting suicide is like a nation stating that its citizens cannot leave its borders.
 * Suicide and migration are totally different concepts. For example, migration is impermanent and reversible, while suicide is permanent.
 * It is unacceptable to force any being with self awareness to live in despair and despondence just because it's the majority opinion that it's not okay to take oneself out of existence.
 * Well technically we don’t know that for sure, we don’t know if reincarnation is a possibility after death, also in many situations a person can be forced to stay in a country against their will
 * If I make an active choice of leaving the country I was born in settle abroad without the intentions of coming back. The foreign state is ok to take me in, can my country of origin stop me from doing so or would it be morally correct?
 * Sure you can have the intention of never coming back; however, you can change your mind in the future. With suicide, you cannot change your mind. Once you make that decision, it is permanent.
 * Sick people —especially mentally ill ones— have no right to force their illness on someone else by having children. Those opposed to suicide need to support euthanasia at a minimum.
 * This argument assumes that mentally ill people have only two options (both implies dying): commits suicide, or must be euthanized . Still, this argument should go to another debate, not in this one about suicide. I have created that new debate at Should mentally ill people be allowed to have children?
 * As one who is mentally ill with many varying degrees of issues, I feel it is no different than having someone financially incapable of supporting their children a part of this question. Anyone who cannot be a provider, caregiver, and guiding force in a new person's life shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. Although the American aspect rewards those who reproduce constantly regardless of means or mentality. Welfare is for the common good right?
 * Suicides can help to solve overcrowding problems. One suicide is one less person who will not have children.
 * If people think this way, some people will sacrifice themselves just for the sake of others and the world, this would create another problem.
 * I agree with the first post. Population and overcrowding are issues that somehow are ignored, but are becoming far more relevant. If one is truly in control of said life, why can't one choose to not exist? It is not a viable solution to force the suffering to live indefinitely just to support the emotionally and financially hungry.
 * People sacrifice themselves for others all of the time in non-suicidal capacities. Professionally people can join the military, or it can be as simple as pushing somebody out of the way of a train.
 * Overcrowding is not created by an increase in population, thus, would not be solved by suicide. Overcrowding is a result of increasing population density due to perception of efficiency and preference. It can be solved through technological and educational advancement. Earth is huge.
 * And resources are finite, I don't know off the top of my head how much of my taxes go towards wasteful causes like keeping innocent people in jail, feeding generational welfare recipients, or keeping folks alive that just don't want to be here. That money can't be spent better? I would rather it go to repainting lines on the road than wasted on forcing someone to be alive in any circumstance.
 * Just because overcrowding isn't caused by a lack of suicide doesn't mean it couldn't be alleviated by suicides. This only makes logical sense. Another example of this logic: depression in many cases isn't caused by a serotonin deficiency, but medications that increase serotonin do alleviate depression.
 * Earth is not huge, land is very limited in fact. True, increase in population is also due to longer lifespans, but especially people in the third world continue to have lots of children of which more and more immigrate into Western first world nations, artificially increasing the otherwise naturally decreasing populations.
 * The third world growing population is not because they commit suicide to little, but because of the historical socioeconomic backwardness (most of which is due to western countries).
 * If a person commits suicide because he/she is depressed, he/she will not negatively influence other people any more.
 * This argument is insensitive to people suffering from mental illnesses like depression. A person suffering from depression already deals with a lot of guilt. Such statements can inhibit any recovery they have a chance at making. No one wants to "negatively influence" or hurt anyone else. It is not valid to support the suicide of someone suffering from depression just so that there might be lesser "negative influence" to deal with. In fact, we should learn to support others better, whether it is in their right to continue living, or not. But not to burden or force them with either decision.
 * That depends on the situation. Hitler was very obviously capable of suicide. I'm not a phychologist but had he ate that bullet a few years sooner...
 * ….Another political figure head would have been selected in his place to lead what was a steadily growing Nazi party, feeding on the resentment and anger of a post-ww1 Germany.
 * This argument is insensitive to people suffering from mental illnesses like depression. A person suffering from depression already deals with a lot of guilt. Such statements can inhibit any recovery they have a chance at making. No one wants to "negatively influence" or hurt anyone else. It is not valid to support the suicide of someone suffering from depression just so that there might be lesser "negative influence" to deal with. In fact, we should learn to support others better, whether it is in their right to continue living, or not. But not to burden or force them with either decision.
 * In addition to the fact that suicide should be legal, places where one can be euthanized should be legal and available too. First, this stops a lot of trauma of those 'victims' that find their loved ones whom have committed suicide. Second, it stops botched attempts which add even more trauma to the true individual.
 * Although suicide and euthanasia are highly related, there is a separated debate for euthanasia. Please find it in Should voluntary euthanasia be legal?
 * There should and shouldn't be a separate debate for euthanasia. All aspects of control and true freedom of one's life shouldn't be under any restrictions due to other's opinions and influence. If you feel that this world is not for you, than feel no regrets or pressure although the selfish majority may want you to.

Con

 * Suicide creates an emotional toll beyond simply the person who is suffering the cause of suicidal ideation. It can create feelings of survivor's remorse and intense mourning and trauma for those who are close to this individual. Any possible form of discouragement should be seen as a positive step.
 * So basically put... Don't control your own life because it affects others..? Isn't that a primarily selfish argument?
 * Any death can cause mourning and trauma for those close to the person that dies. The person does not owe their presence to anyone. This can be seen with how absent parents are not always penalized by the law (they may only be required to offer financial support, and may even lose the ability to provide physical support to their child. This can cause trauma for the family but the law doesn’t explicitly prohibit it).
 * If suicide were legal, the person would likely be able to say “goodbye” and explain themselves or answer any questions others have beforehand (without getting dragged away to a hospital). This would likely lessen the emotional anguish felt by family/friends/acquaintances etc.
 * Suicide is already legal in most of the world, but this is not what happens in reality.
 * Criminalisation of suicide creates a greater emotional toll. It makes it harder for the person struggling to reach out and get help. if they go through with the act the loved ones have to deal with them being known as a criminal. If the suicidal person fails, their loved ones have to see them get punished or hide what they know out of fear.
 * Emotional toll is not a logical criterion for the illegality of suicide because the origin of one's own emotion is entirely caused by and within the self, through the perceptions and relationships one has of and with self, logic and reality.
 * Formerly a transphobic objection
 * Although the emotional toll to others exists, the right of an adult to end their own life is more important than the feelings of other adults who were not able to persuade other adults to not engage in suicide.
 * Suicide is usually a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Since most suicides are a product of mental illness and mental illnesses can be transitory, treated, or even cured, then we should discourage people from killing themselves as a way of addressing mental illness.
 * Mental illnesses are a social construct and are not real illnesses, they are "metaphorical" illnesses. The idea of mental illness is often used as a method of labeling, infantilizing and invalidating an adult's decision. There is no objective means of medical diagnosis for some of the mental conditions described in the . They are diagnosed using verbal interviews and subjective judgement.
 * Many mental illnesses are caused by aberrant pathology that can be detected.
 * To say that mental illness is a social construct and not a medical reality is to ignore and invalidate the entire psychiatric, psychological, and neurological communities. As for many other illnesses, mental illness is not some arbitrary classification decided on by asking someone how they feel on a whim, but rather by observing patterns in mood, behavior, and thought over an extended period of time.
 * This is an . Authorities have been wrong many times in the past. Other arguments are needed.
 * This is an . Just because this argument is able to categorize something as a logical fallacy does not mean it is untrue. It was not shown any evidence at all that the psychiatric and other mental scientists who believe, based on the evidence they have seen, that mental illness is an objective thing are incorrect.
 * There is no consensus on the diagnostic labelling of psychology. Many in the scientific community view the term "mental illness" as an inappropriate metaphor for what they believe to be emotional or societal problems, and not legitimate illnesses.
 * But there is consensus on the diagnostic labelling of traumatic brain injuries, and physical damage to your brain has a high risk of suicide.  Physical damage to the brain is not an "emotional" or "societal" problem.
 * Mental illnesses are real, objective, and highly prevalent throughout the world. The most common are depression and anxiety, but also posttraumatic stress disorder, schizophrenia, conduct disorder, bipolar disorder, and drug addiction.
 * Just because something ought to be discouraged does not mean it should be illegal. Many things are illegal and this ends up harming people, for instance laws against drugs end up harming drug addicts by criminalizing and punishing them, rather than treating their disease. If mental illness is truly an illness than it ought to be treated, just like any other illness, and not criminalized through illegality.
 * Suicide is not only a permanent solution to a temporary problem, it's a permanent solution to all problems, forever.
 * I believe that that is the point.
 * Sometimes it’s not a temporary problem, people can’t control the situation that they are born in. Abusive households, poverty, sickness, and why should someone be forced to work that much harder just to live a bearable  life that they didn’t consent to live in the first place. This is like the equivalent of forced labor.
 * This statement minimizes the pain of one who is suicidal, it shows the lack of understanding of the pain a suicidal person is enduring and increases their isolation. It legitimizes suicide as an option to permanently end one's pain. It can cause more harm than good to say this to a suicidal person.
 * To assume how a person would feel after being told suicide is a viable option is irrational, because all people are different, and perceive the world and it's contents in different ways.
 * If a person is in debt, the act of committing suicide would lead to unpaid debts, this would ultimately hurt someone else financially.
 * The person will probably do it anyways even if there not legally allowed to
 * The creditor could also be hurt financially by the debtor dying prematurely or otherwise being rendered incapable of paying their debt. That is a risk that the creditor takes on when lending them funds in the first place. And, mitigating those risks is the specific role of insurance companies.