Thread: Is Depression a real illness?

Originally Posted by Capulet

That's why, if someone says they're depressed we suggest they get help, but if they say they're so depressed they're going to kill themself, we intervene. That's "prior intent".

No it's not. "Prior intent" must be concurrent with the act itself, not a mental state or decision prior to the act.

Originally Posted by Capulet

Society has deemed any human that wants to willfully terminate their life because they're feeling down to be not of sound mind. Sounds like sound criteria to me.

"Society" cannot "deem" anything. Society is not a thing. Society is a word used to describe the process of human interaction, meaning it cannot act because there is no IT of which to act. People act. People perform actions. People deem things. And people have a wide range of varying opinions and preferences, especially on suicide. You prefer to stop people from killing themselves. Someone else might prefer to kill themselves. Your preferences are not inherently more valid to override theirs, and you have no authority to stop them. Quite the contrary since it is their life they are living. If anyone has the right to end their lives, it's them. Saying the "law" decides whether that's true or not is a cop-out (no pun intended), since the law is arbitrary and sometimes does not match social consensus.

Originally Posted by Man From Mars

No it's not. "Prior intent" must be concurrent with the act itself, not a mental state or decision prior to the act.

Ummm, intent is all mental. That's why, if your intent was not to kill, you are charged with manslaughter instead of murder. The act is exactly the same except for the mental state of the person committing the act. If someone is intending to kill themself, we don't wait until they've acted on it and then imprison them for... life? Society intervenes and they get put into the mental health system for help.

Originally Posted by Man From Mars

"Society" cannot "deem" anything. Society is not a thing. Society is a word used to describe the process of human interaction, meaning it cannot act because there is no IT of which to act. People act. People perform actions. People deem things. And people have a wide range of varying opinions and preferences, especially on suicide. You prefer to stop people from killing themselves. Someone else might prefer to kill themselves. Your preferences are not inherently more valid to override theirs, and you have no authority to stop them. Quite the contrary since it is their life they are living. If anyone has the right to end their lives, it's them. Saying the "law" decides whether that's true or not is a cop-out (no pun intended), since the law is arbitrary and sometimes does not match social consensus.

Alright, we can play the semantics game: People, who are members of society voted in by other people, who are also members of the same society, enact laws that reflect the views of the people in the society. You are right that if anyone has a right to end their life, it would be the individual, but the individual doesn't have the right to end their life. That's cut-in-stone hard law right now.

I know you're not concerned with the laws you don't think are right, but you can't cherry pick which ones you're going to follow. You want individuals to have the right to end their life, someone wants the right to rape your mother and steal your dog; neither one of those things are going to be legal barring some law changing.

If you want to live in lawful society, and reap the rewards that brings, then you have to be an upstanding member of that lawful society. If you disagree then I suggest you campaign to get the law changed, but follow it until then. Otherwise, on what moral authority can you request anyone else respect your claimed rights, such as the ability to terminate your life on whim?

The only rights anyone ever has are those they can enforce, or they convince society to enforce in community. I suggest if you're going to kill yourself you keep it quiet and do it right the first time, because you might have to wait a long time for a second chance.

Originally Posted by Amber Leaf

I thnk if you're brain is dis-eased then you have no choice in your actions. Where do people stand on that one?

I say that if your brain is dis-eased, then your choices will be just as dis-eased.

The idea of sticking depressed people in jails seems quite amusing to me. If someone already hates their life, then it's not going to do all that much good to lock them up.

I've had depression, but I can't quite say whether I think it counts as an illness or not. It just is, in some ways. If you lose a foot and you're bleeding profusely, then that isn't an illness, it's just a rather large cause for concern. Depressed people generally have lost something or other, and bleed happiness and energy till eventually both become absent. I recomend bandages.

Originally Posted by Capulet

Ummm, intent is all mental. That's why, if your intent was not to kill, you are charged with manslaughter instead of murder. The act is exactly the same except for the mental state of the person committing the act. If someone is intending to kill themself, we don't wait until they've acted on it and then imprison them for... life? Society intervenes and they get put into the mental health system for help.

I've bolded key words for your convenience. Did you take the time to look up what intent means in regards to the law? Also, "society" does not intervene. As I said before, society is not a physical being, it is a mental concept. It cannot act and therefore cannot not "intervene". People intervene. But based on what grounds and what authority are entirely different issues.

Originally Posted by Capulet

Alright, we can play the semantics game: People, who are members of society voted in by other people, who are also members of the same society, enact laws that reflect the views of the people in the society. You are right that if anyone has a right to end their life, it would be the individual, but the individual doesn't have the right to end their life. That's cut-in-stone hard law right now.

And yet they do not, at least not always. Depending on what you mean by "rights", yes a person DOES have the right to kill themselves. The law however conflicts with that just like it conflicts with the right someone has to ingest a certain substance. Rights (if you believe we do have rights) are not granted by laws.

Originally Posted by Capulet

I know you're not concerned with the laws you don't think are right, but you can't cherry pick which ones you're going to follow.

And you don't. Have you ever gone over the speed limit? Once, ever? Everyone picks which laws they're going to follow. Do you know what the laws say in your area? Each one? Do you even know how many you're violating? Ignorance of the law is no excuse. People go on with their lives in accordance with risk/rewards, costs/benefits, social consensus, preferences, values, and sometimes (though rarely) the law.

Originally Posted by Capulet

You want individuals to have the right to end their life, someone wants the right to rape your mother and steal your dog; neither one of those things are going to be legal barring some law changing.

There is a GIANT difference between initiating force on others and doing that very same action to yourself. Mutilating someone else's body is assault, doing it to yourself is body art. Poisoning someone's drink is attempted murder, poisoning your own is just getting drunk. Groping someone else is sexual assault, groping yourself is foreplay. There is a monumental difference between forceful action done to another person and an action you do to yourself. You can do pretty much anything you want to yourself without repercussions because you have a "right" to choose what happens to your life and a "right" to decide your future. In EVERY instance this is uncontested, EXCEPT for suicide. Why? "Oh because it affects other people!" Well so does divorce, and drinking, and bungee jumping, and eating trans fats, and not seeing the doctor. The justification is just not there to make suicide the exception. Second, I never said I wanted people to end their lives. I just don't believe anyone else has the right to stop them through force.

Originally Posted by Capulet

Otherwise, on what moral authority can you request anyone else respect your claimed rights, such as the ability to terminate your life on whim?

Because it's my life, for one. Nobody owns me. No one else has a claim on my life but me, so who has authority over my life but me? I mean it's such an obvious concept. A person can divorce their family, sell all their things, and disappear into the world to never return without the state coming in and forcing them back into the cubicle. They would effectively be dead to the ones around them, and yet despite the protests from those people, nobody actually stops that person.

The laws against suicide don't actually stop it. If someone wants to kill themselves they'll do it with or without the state's permission. Do you really think that forcing a person suffering from depression into treatment is really going to help them, or do you think it'll make them feel even more hopeless? Do you think that taking away someone's autonomy is really going to make them feel better about their life? Heck, if I wanted to end my life because I didn't see it worth living and people put me in an institution against my will, I'd see life as even less worth it.

Originally Posted by Man From Mars

I've bolded key words for your convenience. Did you take the time to look up what intent means in regards to the law? Also, "society" does not intervene. As I said before, society is not a physical being, it is a mental concept. It cannot act and therefore cannot not "intervene". People intervene. But based on what grounds and what authority are entirely different issues.

Yes, I have looked up what intent means, thanks for checking.

Are you really going to be boorishly pedantic about the word society? If you're trying to make a point, it's failing horribly (unless your point is to seem boorishly pedantic.)

"Society doesn't intervene, people employed in institutions set up by officials on behalf of the citizens of society do." Ok.

Originally Posted by Man From Mars

And yet they do not, at least not always. Depending on what you mean by "rights", yes a person DOES have the right to kill themselves. The law however conflicts with that just like it conflicts with the right someone has to ingest a certain substance. Rights (if you believe we do have rights) are not granted by laws.

Looking at a quick list of human rights, I see "right to live" and "freedom from harm". "Right to kill yourself" doesn't seem to appear on the list. Strange.

Rights are protected by laws. The rights to life and freedom from harm are safeguarded by taking those who have been deemed at sufficient risk to themselves into protective medical custody until they are well.

Originally Posted by Man From Mars

And you don't. Have you ever gone over the speed limit? Once, ever? Everyone picks which laws they're going to follow. Do you know what the laws say in your area? Each one? Do you even know how many you're violating? Ignorance of the law is no excuse. People go on with their lives in accordance with risk/rewards, costs/benefits, social consensus, preferences, values, and sometimes (though rarely) the law.

"Your honour, I understand that rape is a serious offence, but didn't I see you jaywalking the other day? How dare you stand in judgment of me! I demand to be exonerated (and free to go rape again) until everyone follows every law."

Your final statement is decent though. If you try to kill yourself and fail, or express believable intent, you're going to live with the risk/cost of attempting to do so.

I'm curious what you mean by social consensus though? Society is not a physical being and can't come to a concensus, groups of people do.

Originally Posted by Man From Mars

There is a GIANT difference between initiating force on others and doing that very same action to yourself. Mutilating someone else's body is assault, doing it to yourself is body art. Poisoning someone's drink is attempted murder, poisoning your own is just getting drunk. Groping someone else is sexual assault, groping yourself is foreplay. There is a monumental difference between forceful action done to another person and an action you do to yourself. You can do pretty much anything you want to yourself without repercussions because you have a "right" to choose what happens to your life and a "right" to decide your future.

Clearly there isn't, or we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?

Your arguments are a little silly here. If you started mutilating yourself you would be taken away and placed under observation. Drinking is a legal activity, drinking rat poison is not. If you started drinking rat poison you would be taken away and placed under observation. As for the rape, we have decided that right to freedom from violence is a basic human right, just like the right to life. The right to death is not recognized. I put forward your arbitrary treatment of the right to life is as valid as someone else's arbitrary treatment of the right to freedom from violence. The laws protect these rights, sometimes even against yourself.

Originally Posted by Man From Mars

Because it's my life, for one. Nobody owns me. No one else has a claim on my life but me, so who has authority over my life but me? I mean it's such an obvious concept.

It is a pretty obvious concept. Life is so precious you'd have to be out of your mind to want to give it up. Since you're out of your mind, we restrict your rights until you're back in your right mind and capable of making proper decisions again. Simple!

Originally Posted by Man From Mars

The laws against suicide don't actually stop it.

Your argument would invalidate any attempt at law enforcement. The laws against rape don't actually stop it completely either, but they enable law enforcement to prevent it when they see it.

Originally Posted by Capulet

Life is so precious you'd have to be out of your mind to want to give it up. Since you're out of your mind, we restrict your rights until you're back in your right mind and capable of making proper decisions again. Simple!

Not so simple. As in my case, it was a power play by a therapist (who's going to listen to a nut job, after all?). In cases of terminal illnesses, people have the right to refuse treatment, or to have a document in place to have the machines shut off (intent). Monks have burned themselves alive as a political protest/statement - no one said they were out of their minds.

If someone acts in haste, or rashly because of an immediate crisis, I could see stopping them or intervening. But for those who have made a rational decision, based on their beliefs, their lives, their pain, no one has the right to intervene, because it's mostly their own fears or beliefs acting (that "Life is so precious you'd have to be out of your mind to want to give it up" for example. It may be precious to you - but to someone in constant pain - mental or physical - it's living hell.)

I don't live my life dependent on other people's value or beliefs - I have my own. I don't intend to die dependent on some stranger's view of the 'right way' to die, either.

Originally Posted by shadowwalker

Not so simple. As in my case, it was a power play by a therapist (who's going to listen to a nut job, after all?). In cases of terminal illnesses, people have the right to refuse treatment, or to have a document in place to have the machines shut off (intent). Monks have burned themselves alive as a political protest/statement - no one said they were out of their minds.

If someone acts in haste, or rashly because of an immediate crisis, I could see stopping them or intervening. But for those who have made a rational decision, based on their beliefs, their lives, their pain, no one has the right to intervene, because it's mostly their own fears or beliefs acting (that "Life is so precious you'd have to be out of your mind to want to give it up" for example. It may be precious to you - but to someone in constant pain - mental or physical - it's living hell.)

I don't live my life dependent on other people's value or beliefs - I have my own. I don't intend to die dependent on some stranger's view of the 'right way' to die, either.

The concept itself is simple. And, like most simple concepts, when you throw a complex situation like yours at it things can get twisted. But your therapist twisting the law to their end doesn't invalidate the underlying concept, it just shows that it can be abused like most anything else out there.

The situations you've put forward aren't people committing suicide, but requesting that nature be allowed to take their course without machines extending it. Turning off a respirator is not the same as tying the noose for someone. But, to address a more grey situation: I believe one has the right to refuse a blood transfusion, even if it means they'll die. Could some consider it suicide? Perhaps. I don't. Like you said, nothing is ever as simple as we'd like it to be.

But what is simple for me is the belief that suicide attempts based off of depression are not the act of a well mind. We've strayed far afield to different scenarios, but for the purposes of what the OP was discussing it has to be pretty clear: if depression is a mental illness, and someone is suffering from it, it's our obligation to see them to health. Suicidal thoughts and attempts are seen as a sign of depression, and attempts to commit suicide should be prevented, and the person making the attempt put under medical supervision until we can determine their mental state and treat as required.

Originally Posted by Capulet

The concept itself is simple. And, like most simple concepts, when you throw a complex situation like yours at it things can get twisted. But your therapist twisting the law to their end doesn't invalidate the underlying concept, it just shows that it can be abused like most anything else out there.

The situations you've put forward aren't people committing suicide, but requesting that nature be allowed to take their course without machines extending it. Turning off a respirator is not the same as tying the noose for someone. But, to address a more grey situation: I believe one has the right to refuse a blood transfusion, even if it means they'll die. Could some consider it suicide? Perhaps. I don't. Like you said, nothing is ever as simple as we'd like it to be.

But what is simple for me is the belief that suicide attempts based off of depression are not the act of a well mind. We've strayed far afield to different scenarios, but for the purposes of what the OP was discussing it has to be pretty clear: if depression is a mental illness, and someone is suffering from it, it's our obligation to see them to health. Suicidal thoughts and attempts are seen as a sign of depression, and attempts to commit suicide should be prevented, and the person making the attempt put under medical supervision until we can determine their mental state and treat as required.

I believe that any decision that shortens one's lifespan when alternatives are available is suicide. I also know (as I mentioned earlier) that having a mental illness does not mean one cannot think rationally, and can make the rational decision that living with the constant threat of severe depression returning is not worth it. There is no cure for depression. It can go into 'remission', or one can learn how to cope with its constant presence at various levels - but it will always be there. If one decides, during one of those remission periods, that they do not want to go through that hell again, and again, and again - they should have that right, despite what other people may think of it.

Originally Posted by shadowwalker

I believe that any decision that shortens one's lifespan when alternatives are available is suicide. I also know (as I mentioned earlier) that having a mental illness does not mean one cannot think rationally, and can make the rational decision that living with the constant threat of severe depression returning is not worth it. There is no cure for depression. It can go into 'remission', or one can learn how to cope with its constant presence at various levels - but it will always be there. If one decides, during one of those remission periods, that they do not want to go through that hell again, and again, and again - they should have that right, despite what other people may think of it.

I can understand your position, but it's where we're going to have to differ. I know my position draws a different line on rights than some would like, but that's the way societies work. We all come together as individuals to decide what will be our communal rules for living, and I can only contribute my voice and live under the laws we all come to. I'm fortunate that the laws currently reflect my position, and feel sympathetic to those whose views are not mainstream.

I would hate to lose a friend because they didn't want to live under the shadow of their IBS, or gingivitis was too heavy a burden.

Originally Posted by Capulet

I would hate to lose a friend because they didn't want to live under the shadow of their IBS, or gingivitis was too heavy a burden.

That remark really cheapens what people with clinical depression go through. Definitely puts a brighter light on your earlier comments.

Originally Posted by shadowwalker

That remark really cheapens what people with clinical depression go through. Definitely puts a brighter light on your earlier comments.

Oh, so the right to suicide is reserved for the chronically depressed? How dare you insinuate that the pain of someone with IBS is any less than that of someone with depression. If it's a right, it's a right everyone has. If I'm 16 and my first girlfriend breaks up with me, my parents should provide me the OD of sleeping pills on demand. If I decide it's easier to kill myself than come out of the closet, my decision should be sacred and validated by everyone.

Welcome to the world of grey.

Originally Posted by Capulet

Yes, I have looked up what intent means, thanks for checking.

Okay, so then you concede that intent is a part of actions and not a mental assumption?

Originally Posted by Capulet

Are you really going to be boorishly pedantic about the word society? If you're trying to make a point, it's failing horribly (unless your point is to seem boorishly pedantic.)

I'm not being pedantic. If you're going to use terms, use them correctly. I'm pointing out that you're ascribing qualities to a word that has no such qualities. You're making an argument based around such imaginary qualities, so the argument therefore fails. The word society is thrown around far too often by people who don't know what the term actually means as supposed de facto justification. They are wrong. Yes, people designated by an institution, created by people who had some popularity contest done to elect them, stop people from doing X. That does not justify their action, nor does it justify that their position is the mentally stable one.

Originally Posted by Capulet

Looking at a quick list of human rights, I see "right to live" and "freedom from harm". "Right to kill yourself" doesn't seem to appear on the list. Strange. Rights are protected by laws. The rights to life and freedom from harm are safeguarded by taking those who have been deemed at sufficient risk to themselves into protective medical custody until they are well.

There is a list of rights? Where and by who's definition? If one has the right to their life, then by extension they have the right to end it. They are literally the SAME THING. And I really think you need to look up what freedom from harm entails and how voluntary actions coincide with it.

Originally Posted by Capulet

I'm curious what you mean by social consensus though? Society is not a physical being and can't come to a concensus, groups of people do.

Social, does NOT mean society. Correct, society cannot come to a consensus, but a group of people in sufficient numbers, a critical mass of opinion if you will, makes a social consensus. That social consensus is NOT akin to the law. Rather, it regulates certain behavior by group dynamics. Why don't men wear pink dresses? Nobody is stopping them. There's no law against it. But wait, reactions from people around them negatively reinforce that behavior. Ah, so that's it. Coming to the issue of suicide, social consensus looks down harshly on suicide. That is why most people abhor it, would never do it themselves, and try to stop others from doing it. However that is a far cry from a central authority deeming it "wrong" from on-high, and thus forcing people against their will by threat of violence to not do it, especially when that person has the highest claim on their lives in the first place.

Originally Posted by Capulet

Your arguments are a little silly here. If you started mutilating yourself you would be taken away and placed under observation.

Putting a ring through your ear is mutilating your body. Does that mean we take everyone person away who has an ear ring, nose ring, stomach piercing, and tattoo? No. The right to life means that we have the right to do with our life the way we see fit as long as it does not infringe on the right to life of others. The freedom from harm means harm coming from other people is invalid, or unacceptable, however VOLUNTARY acts that we consensually allow to us or that we do to ourselves do NOT apply. The difference between rape and sex relies on consent. The difference between kidnapping and a camping tip relies on consent. The difference between assault and giving a paying customer a tattoo relies on consent. Similarly, Suicide is a voluntary act taken by one person on themselves, thus giving themselves consent. The how and the why that leads to that conclusion should be regarded just like any other action: irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Capulet

As for the rape, we have decided that right to freedom from violence is a basic human right, just like the right to life. The right to death is not recognized. I put forward your arbitrary treatment of the right to life is as valid as someone else's arbitrary treatment of the right to freedom from violence. The laws protect these rights, sometimes even against yourself.

But you're contradicting yourself by saying we do have a right to life, yet then we don't have the right to continue or not continue that life as we please. The authorities coming in and stopping someone from living their life, however short that person desires, breaks their right to life.

Originally Posted by Capulet

It is a pretty obvious concept. Life is so precious you'd have to be out of your mind to want to give it up. Since you're out of your mind, we restrict your rights until you're back in your right mind and capable of making proper decisions again. Simple!

And now we've come full circle. Life deemed so precious by your standard, but other people do not share that opinion. Saying that we restrict rights because they don't match our opinion ASSUMES that your opinion is the correct one. Your opinion and your values are fine for you, but you trying to superimpose them onto everyone else is an overarching act, which, though not shockingly, breaks someone else's right to life by preventing them from living that life by their own values and opinions. It is your position which take someone else's view of their own life and infringes upon it.

Originally Posted by Capulet

Your argument would invalidate any attempt at law enforcement.

Whether you know it or not, you've stumbled onto something here, a whole new rabbit hole of sorts, but that is a completely different topic.

Originally Posted by Man From Mars

I'm not being pedantic. If you're going to use terms, use them correctly. I'm pointing out that you're ascribing qualities to a word that has no such qualities. You're making an argument based around such imaginary qualities, so the argument therefore fails. The word society is thrown around far too often by people who don't know what the term actually means as supposed de facto justification. They are wrong. Yes, people designated by an institution, created by people who had some popularity contest done to elect them, stop people from doing X. That does not justify their action, nor does it justify that their position is the mentally stable one.

Society - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Clearly the definition of "society" is attached to a group of people, and they share common beliefs, custom, and law. When "society" takes action, through social norming or straight up law enforcement, they are not some imaginary concept, but a group of people. A group living together, pooling resources, and governing themselves through a democratic fellowship, one that any of them could leave at any time if they disagree with the rules, that does have justification for their actions, and set their own concept of mental stability.

Originally Posted by Man From Mars

There is a list of rights? Where and by who's definition? If one has the right to their life, then by extension they have the right to end it. They are literally the SAME THING. And I really think you need to look up what freedom from harm entails and how voluntary actions coincide with it.

Well, the ones I quoted were from the United Nations. You can choose to dispute them as a source of authority on the subject. But if you do and provide no alternative source of authority I submit even the "right to life" we could have agreed on goes back out the window, and we're back to "you have whatever rights you can enforce." If so, then the state has the right to hold you and medically treat you for your suicidal tendencies because they can enforce it.

The right to life doesn't by extension grant you the right to end it, it only grants protection from others ending it. I would put forward that the protection extends to protection from yourself ending it as well.

Originally Posted by Man From Mars

Social, does NOT mean society. Correct, society cannot come to a consensus, but a group of people in sufficient numbers, a critical mass of opinion if you will, makes a social consensus. That social consensus is NOT akin to the law. Rather, it regulates certain behavior by group dynamics. Why don't men wear pink dresses? Nobody is stopping them. There's no law against it. But wait, reactions from people around them negatively reinforce that behavior. Ah, so that's it. Coming to the issue of suicide, social consensus looks down harshly on suicide. That is why most people abhor it, would never do it themselves, and try to stop others from doing it. However that is a far cry from a central authority deeming it "wrong" from on-high, and thus forcing people against their will by threat of violence to not do it, especially when that person has the highest claim on their lives in the first place.

Why not just say concensus then? If "social concensus", or the will of society as evidenced through their collective behaviour, and the law enforce the same position, what does that tell you? That your opinion is not shared, has been voted out in the "big popularity contest" and is a done deal. This should be a moot point though, since if you succeed in your suicide attempt you escape any repercusion. The only person that needs fear are the incompetent, right?

Originally Posted by Man From Mars

Putting a ring through your ear is mutilating your body... Similarly, Suicide is a voluntary act taken by one person on themselves, thus giving themselves consent.

No, it is not. Mutilate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary. You might as well say "I holocausted my ear with a hoop today."

By law, anyone seriously contemplating suicide is not deemed of sound mind, and thus cannot form consent. This is the heart of the argument of course, and one I think nobody on either side will budge from. You would have to remove from law the ability for the state to intervent on behalf of those who are mentally ill. Imagine the effect on all sorts of mentally ill people if we removed from law the obligation of the state to care for them. It'd be a great step forward for any eugenics fans.

Originally Posted by Man From Mars

And now we've come full circle. Life deemed so precious by your standard, but other people do not share that opinion. Saying that we restrict rights because they don't match our opinion ASSUMES that your opinion is the correct one. Your opinion and your values are fine for you, but you trying to superimpose them onto everyone else is an overarching act, which, though not shockingly, breaks someone else's right to life by preventing them from living that life by their own values and opinions. It is your position which take someone else's view of their own life and infringes upon it...Whether you know it or not, you've stumbled onto something here, a whole new rabbit hole of sorts, but that is a completely different topic.

I know exactly what I said, and the ramifications of it. We are all held accountable under the law because it's the cost of living in a free, democratic society. Without law we get to a "the only rights you have are the ones you can enforce" feudal life. The "you keep what you kill" necromonger society of the Riddick universe, if you're a scifi fan. I do have my own standards, and people should believe their opinion is right, or they should chane it. Do my opinions always match those of society? No. Do I follow the rules of society to the best of my ability? Yes.

And to answer your earlier question, I do sometimes speed. And whenever I've been caught speeding I've paid my ticket. I accept that taking actions in society will sometimes cause repercussions. The repercussion for convincing someone you actually intend to commit suicide, or have made the attempt (which is pretty convincing). The repercussion is you get sent to a mental hospital and treated until you no longer seem suicidal.

I do this, submit so, because I would rather live with some laws that I disagree with but can tolerate, than to live in a lawless society. Can I leave? Sure. Do I want to? No. I've done the math, this existence is better than the alternative for me.

Originally Posted by Capulet

Oh, so the right to suicide is reserved for the chronically depressed? How dare you insinuate that the pain of someone with IBS is any less than that of someone with depression. If it's a right, it's a right everyone has. If I'm 16 and my first girlfriend breaks up with me, my parents should provide me the OD of sleeping pills on demand. If I decide it's easier to kill myself than come out of the closet, my decision should be sacred and validated by everyone.

Welcome to the world of grey.

As I have stated before, if someone is acting rashly based on a crisis - such as the girlfriend bit - then intervention is warranted. But to include IBS and gingivitis is showing how little you understand the all-encompassing pain of clinical depression. It's as diminishing as those who tell us to just 'man up'.