To be clear, I'm not talking about the sort of "suicide prevention" that involves raising awareness about mental health and providing resources to those seeking help. The vast majority of us will agree that increasing human happiness is desirable, and I am no contrarian. When I refer to suicide prevention, I am referencing processes which actively prevent an individual from committing suicide, particularly involuntary commitment.
As the title implies, this post will discuss suicide and mental illness, so if you are especially sensitive to or offended by such material, I would advise against reading further.
When a loved one expresses a desire or a plan to commit suicide, it is natural to feel scared, upset, angry, betrayed, helpless, or disturbed. Most of you will offer a helping hand and a shoulder to cry on, suggest accessible mental health resources, or remind them of the beauty of life and all the people who love them. For many of you, such superficial countermeasures are simply not enough. Platitudes, positive thinking, and promises of happy futures certainly won't hurt, but mindfulness isn't going to reverse such a severe deficit in the will to live. Your loved one, this person who you love so dearly, is profoundly ill, their desire a perversion of the human psyche; as they are so obviously incapable of reason, mere words cannot ensure their continued presence to your satisfaction. You may be so afraid, so distraught, so desperate, that you will do whatever it takes to give them a chance at life.
You will do whatever it takes to stop them.
Such a response is understandable, socially respectable, a clear display of your loyalty and passion, and, above all, selfish.
The vast majority of us will agree that torture for the sake of torture is unacceptable. Sure, our theoretical sadistic perpetrator finds it incredibly gratifying, but his urges and pleasures do not give him the right to inflict suffering upon non-consenting victims. Even if multiple perpetrators act as a group, even if this group claims their moral philosophy or personal values or religion permits them to torment outsiders, we still maintain the victim's individual rights and condemn the perpetrators. Many of you would not allow an animal to be treated in this manner. The fact remains that no amount of emotional gratification or distress permits you to inflict suffering upon or violate the bodily autonomy of another conscious being.
So, why is encouraged, even mandatory, to force an individual who is suffering, who seeks to end their suffering, to continue to live? Why is it encouraged, even mandatory, to detain them, to forcefully imprison them and drug them until they repeat the correct platitudes and complete the correct actions and convince you, really persuade you, that they think the right way? When you forcefully extend the life of a suicidal individual, you inflict suffering upon them because it feels good, no different than our theoretical sadistic except in social palatability. Your noble intentions, your emotional gratification and alleviation of all that unpleasant fear and helplessness and distress, does not give you any right to infringe upon your loved one's rights.
There are numerous objections to permitting suicide; I will list some of the most common below.
The fourth objection is not difficult to refute; your moral philosophy, personal values, and religion do not give you the right to infringe upon the freedoms of others. Even if you personally disagree, aligning yourself with theocratic regimes that subjugate women and our theoretical cult of sadistic tormentors, the laws of the United States (and most other democratic nations) do not. To the three religious members of LessWrong, I am a practicing Christian myself, and accordingly do not aim to promote sin or offend the religious, though I am happy to debate the permissibility of suicide in the comments. The third objection is similarly trivial; one's emotional gratification and dependence upon an individual does not entitle them to infringe upon the freedoms of that individual. Even if you personally disagree, aligning yourself with regimes that permit slavery for economic gain or enforce "socially harmonious" behavior at the expense of individual expression, the laws of the United States (and most other democratic nations) do not.
The second objection may be rejected on the basis that suicidal individuals are not incompetent nor beyond reason. While a few individuals may impulsively decide to commit suicide, the decision is a calculated and well-planned for many others; besides, intense emotions do not exclude those who experience them from autonomy and responsibility. The notion that perverse or unnatural desires are proof of incompetence and therefore justification for protective custody is not legally recognized; homosexuals, for instance, are not regarded as incompetent by the laws of the United States (or most other democratic nations), and are free to do as they please.
The first objection relies upon the notion that suicide is an irreversible decision which many come to regret, as evidenced by suicide attempt survivors who do not reattempt. Unfortunately, this argument suffers from the most literal form of survivorship bias; those who are less committed to dying, and thus more likely to regret a suicide attempt, will use less lethal methods, while those who are more committed to dying, and thus less likely to regret a suicide attempt, will use more lethal methods. Accordingly, surveys, which are obviously limited to those who survived suicide attempts, will record a much higher proportion of those who would regret a suicide attempt. Further, the regretfulness of suicide attempt survivors is largely irrelevant to the legality of suicide prevention; the role of the government is to protect individual rights and act within the interests of its citizens, not to force citizens to follow a certain ideal, no matter how well-intentioned. At the time of the attempt, the suicidal individual is fully understanding and accepting of the consequences of their actions, and preventing a process they have consented to infringes upon their personal freedoms.
My central argument, as implied by the title, is that suicide prevention ought to be illegal. It is not difficult or costly to execute; simply reduce the criteria for involuntary commitment and mandatory reporting to "immediate risk of danger to others", and enforce the law accordingly. The majority of the following section will focus upon specific cases.
Medically Assisted Intentional Death
MAID is a process in which a mentally competent and terminally ill patient seeks a medically-induced death. In some jurisdictions, the eligibility of MAID is expanded to those with grievous and incurable medical conditions. Introducing the assistance of a physician or the presence of a painful or fatal medical condition does not negate the arguments above; motivation and method do not negate the autonomy of the individual who chooses to end their life.
Coercion
When an individual is pressured to commit suicide, particularly by those in a position of authority, they have not made the decision to end their life autonomously. In such cases, the victim should not be punished; rather, the perpetrator and their influence ought to be separated from the victim, by force if necessary. Precedent for prosecuting suicide coercion has already been established; following the death of Conrad Roy, in which Roy's girlfriend Michelle Carter coerced Roy into committing suicide, Carter was convicted of involuntary manslaughter.
Minors and the Legally Incompetent
The largest gray area exists around minors and the legally incompetent; while it is obvious that such individuals cannot consent to MAID or other forms of assisted suicide, whether they ought to be actively confined when attempting suicide is more difficult to answer, as such individuals lack complete autonomy but retain some personal freedoms. In this particular situation, their legal guardian's obligations to protect their well-being override any such freedoms, so suicide prevention ought to be permitted.
When you are suicidal, it is natural to be hesitant to tell your loved ones. You know they will feel scared, upset, angry, betrayed, helpless, or disturbed, and you would never cause them such distress unless you trusted them dearly and believed they could change your situation. You hope they will offer a helping hand and a shoulder to cry on, suggest accessible mental health resources, or remind you of the beauty of life and all the people who love you; at the end of the day, you don't want to die, just to escape. Unfortunately, for many of your loved ones, providing the support you desperately need is simply not enough. They will not understand the pain you are in, will not listen to the reasons you have decided to end your life. Your loved one, this person who you love so dearly, will simply think you profoundly ill, your desire a perversion of the human psyche; as they so obviously consider you incapable of reason, nothing you could ever say will matter more than the continued presence of the image of you they have constructed. They will be so afraid, so distraught, so desperate, that they will do whatever it takes to keep you alive, even at the expense of you and your community.
Mental health professionals are no better; breathe the word "suicide" in their presence and you'll be whisked away to some institution, where you'll be closely monitored and likely drugged for an indefinite period of time. Such a scenario would burden your loved ones and tarnish any reputation of yours that remained. Your loved ones deserve better.
You decide not to tell anyone and get it over with.
By prohibiting suicide prevention, the stigma surrounding suicide ideation is reduced. The afflicted can speak to their loved ones and be honest with mental health professionals without risk of imprisonment, and are empowered to seek treatment on their own terms. Further, should an individual decide to end their life, they may seek the least painful and most effective means without fear of discovery. Suicide prevention infringes upon individual rights and incentivises those who suffer from suicidal ideation to hide their condition until it is too late. Do not allow emotional gratification to override your loved one's well-being; give them the autonomy to make the correct decision for themselves, and provide your support for them regardless of their choice.