"Chemical suicides, popular in Japan, Are increasing in the U.S." is an article in The New York Times. Erica Goode said that the number of people who suicide by using chemical suicides are increase, and most of the time it has the result in injuries of polices, neighborhoods, fire fighters and emergency workers, due to the exposed to gas. Even though, most of suicide victims try to warn the police by using the sign, but it still couldn't help. “Suicide is generally intended for one victim, said Richard Perrin, under sheriff of the Lake County Sheriff’s Department, who was at the scene of the suicide in Michigan. Whereas this form of suicide has the potential to affect many, whether it be intended or unintended, and that’s what makes it so dangerous.”(¶16)
Suicide is the worst thing, and it even worst when your suicide effect to others well being. However, I disagree with all method of suicide, because this is not the way to solve your problem. If we talk by using Buddhism, suicide is a sin. You must not do that. I was always wonder , when I saw the suicide news on TV or newspaper, what did they think? Are their problems that serious? When I face with problem, I personally think that there must be the others who face with the problem like me, while the others can solve it, why couldn't I? Or when I feel depress, I always talk with myself that I can pass it, someday it will gone away, no one gonna be happy forever or sorrowful forever, because this is life. This is our life which our parents give to us, so we must take care and keep our life going on, not just give up easily. So all you need to do is be patient and looking for the solution, perhaps the solution might be right there in front of you.
__________
References
This was in teh news recently from another perspective when the BBC broadcast a pro-euthanasia film by Sir Terry Pratchett, who although still healthy and sharp has long insisted that he has the right to choose to die before his Alzheimer's disease robs him of all human dignity. The broadcast brought out some strong reactions from both sides, although a majority of British now favour legalising assisted suicide, at least under some circumstances.
ReplyDeleteSir Terry has written many very humorous books addressing serious issues, including science, philosophy, history, religion, technology and so on, and lots of fun politics, in an intelligent but light-hearted manner complete with wonderfully fantastic settings. I love his Discworld novels - not sure how many there are, but I have about 20 now. I hope he still has a few more in him. If you are looking for some intelligent and challenging, but fun, reading, I recommend one of Sir Terry's numerous offerings.
See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13758286
Also from June 14, 2011 on the BBC News, is "Assisted Suicide and Sir Terry Pratchett" at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13768354, where the comments from readers are also worth a look.
ReplyDeleteOn Terry Pratchett's Discworld series, I'd been looking around for book1 since last year and none was available in Thailand. There was a teacher here at AUA suggested that I read it because it would suit my preference and it's also somewhat challenging for a student at our level. Anyway, my point is I just saw 2 copies of book1 at B2S CentralWorld last month. I was going to buy it but I have unfinished books waiting at home, so ..... :(
ReplyDeleteAnyone interested, go to B2S CTW, because I tried Kinokuniya and Asiabooks and they only have book5 or something.
On suicides, I agree with Nan that as a Bhuddhist, suicides are the darkest, most devilish, sin ones could commit. But look at it, minus religious aspect, I kind of wonder. Choosing when and how you would die, shouldn't it be a basic right of human? Legally speaking, it's not illegal to kill yourself. Attempting suicide is also not illegal, there would be no punishment.
ReplyDeleteBut attempting suicide and missed, then the effect occured on someone else, then, you go striaght to jail.
On euthanasia, personally, I think that's encouraging physicians to perform sinful actions. Shouldn't be legal. If we want to legaliaze it, make it as passive as possible for the people who're supposed to assist.
After I read Roong's comment, there is one question come in my mind. I need to tell you firt that I personally don't good at law, because it's very complicated, I don't like it, that's why I wanna ask your opinion. If the suicides cause the dangerour effects to others, for example, one people was suicided by gas and after that it caused a really big explosion which killed police and others, could this suicides count as illegal as it effected others?
ReplyDeleteSorry, my comment is a bit unclear.
ReplyDeleteSuicide in itself is not illegal. But if you can foresee that what you intend to do could harm others, for example, you attempt to kill yourself with poisonous fume in a close room but you can forsee that it might leak into the room next to you and kill a baby who might lying around there, you go to jail immediatly if the baby dies or hurted. When I said you missed, I mean you missed so you're still alive to serve jail sentences but if you die, then you die. hahaha
But how far could we predict "foresee", what is foreseeable, that's a purely legal question :)
Since I used to write an essay on euthanasia last term, I do agree with Roong that it shouldn't be legal because it cannot see any benefits to the person who is about to be in assist killing.
ReplyDeleteOn Nan's post, it's about one's suicide effect to other lives whether it be intended or not. Of course, it seems to be very very dangerous. What Nan and Roong discuss that if someone suicides by gas or chemical and it leaks to harm other people, I think that person should go to the jail.
Another situation, a man tries to kill himself by shooting but his mother grabs his gun in time. Unfortunately, his father, who has a heart disease, shocks and dies by heart attack. Because he is the cause of the death of his father, does he have to go to the jail??
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really like Roong's words " if you die, then you die" haha.
ReplyDeleteMin:
ReplyDeleteIn criminal law, there is no crime when there is no intention. For a man who decides to kill himself, he has no intention whatsoever to kill or hurt anyone else. Then, if the result of his failed suicide is the death of someone else, he's not guilty for intending to kill that poor victim.
Nevertheless, if it is foreseeable to some certain extent, it can be considered intentionally murder, which is quite complicated for a judge to decide. If it is not foreseeable but it can be seen as an accident happened because the killer was careless. That is unintentionally killing and it's also a crime, but a less serious one.
In your example, a lawyer must also apply it to a principle called, cause and action, or something similar I couldn't remember exactly. The thing is in criminal law, you wouldn't be guilty in the result of your action which is unpredictable or out of ordinary. If the one who died with heart-attack is someone the man doesn't know, that is not predictable and he sure is not guilty. But the death man was his father, the son must be more careful, in this case it is debatable whether the son is guilty for killing his own father or not. For me I would say at the worst case it would be unintentionally killing because he had no intention of killing in the first place, even though it is predictable (coz he knows his dad had a disease) there is no way he would be guilty for intentionally murder.
I feel like I'm taking a law exam here. Next time ask easy questions please, Min.
I'll put it this way, if the guy wanna kill himself but the bullet missed him and hit his dad instead .. his dad died ... there're three ways to go
ReplyDelete1. Intentionally killing the dad, by missing (intention of killing transferred from one victim to another) = not the case because he had zero intention to be transferred .. intended to kill himself does not count
2. Intentionally killing the dad because it is foreseeable = might be the case if it is proved that the dad was hanging around very close to the scene and the guy shot the gun knowing that it might hit the dad but didn't care if it does
3. Unintentionally killing the dad = also very likely, it depends on the fact .. fooling around with a gun full of bullets can be considered careless behavior already .... for a clearer example, think of driving under influence or driving way too fast .. those are careless behavior, if you end up crashing the car and your passengers died, that's unintentionally killing
But when the dad died of heart attack .. it might be a bit different .. However, if we assume the son knows exactly about how serious the disease was, the application of the law should not be different from what I suggested it should be if the dad died because of a bullet.
Umm, Thank you very much, Roong
ReplyDeleteWhen I read your comment, I feel like I'm in a court actually. 555
Good night