Should we kill someone if he is suffering totally?

A person who is caught in fire, 95% burns. He asks for a gun.

Should you give it to him?

Living today, he is not married, blind, stayed in indoors oftenly.
rejected by society.

There’s lot’s of restrictions in life and if you think about it most of them revolve around pleasures. There are some restrictions on suicide and drug abuse, but those are about keeping people from causing pain.

However, there are few rules about allowing people that are in serious physical pain to remain that way. So, if a condition has no solution then it seems a natural thing to provide the most complete end.

Everyone is born with the right to kill themself, IMO.

Yes. But that would be missing the point.


Please elaborate, LA.

Well, that we are free to do whatever we wish, I mean surely we are free to kill ourselves. But taking life even our own has consequences. We have a lot of opportunities for dying, only one for living. There must be a reason for this. So what might seem compassionate i.e. help end a suffereing man’s pain, might infact harm him more in the longrun. Compassion isn’t blind.


I agree with your former assertions, but not the latter. The meaning you see is like shapes in the clouds- you’re assigning it, not discovering it. Humans are pattern seeking animals, and I think coincidence and random chance unnerves us.

I think the beginning of wisdom is to let go of our need for ‘reasons’ and just accept that the universe is.

Note: I don’t generally endorse suicide. To spout the old cliche, most of the time it’s a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Yet, when the problem isn’t temporary and the pain is bad enough, I can understand it. I’ve experienced pain that I am sure I couldn’t endure permanently- I shudder to imagine true pain eg lung or oral cancer, etc.

To insist someone live on in mortal agony to assuage our own squeamishness seems not only extravagent, but vindictive, IMOHO.

I understand what you say Phaedrus. But not killing another human being, doesn’t mean we’re squirmish.


I thought the issue was allowing another to kill himself, not killing him ourselves. That was the original question. As much as we may not agree with it, I think we must respect someone’s right to die. A person owns nothing if not his own life, and no one has a greater claim to it than he does. As Schopenhauer says, to expect one to live on as a machine for others to use when he no longer wishes to live for himself is an extravagent expectation.

That said, I am not a fan of suicide. While you live there are always options. As you say, there’s plenty of time to be dead but a short time in which to be alive.

The problem is in the wording of the opening statement. Equating letting another choose with killing precludes most choices as few would be willing to kill another human.

Suicide is like all other decisions. All carry consequences, both positive and negative. To suggest that I should make that decision for another puts me in a position of playing God. I don’t have to agree with their decision, but that doesn’t give me the right to intervene. We all define what is life individually and for ourselves. The beginning and ending of it is our choice and belongs to no other.

In light of this, pain has nothing to do with it. I need no rationalization for letting others make their own decisions, any more than I would expect them to interfere with any decision I might make for myself.

There are good reasons to not suicide and good reasons for suicide. I suppose if you are in total physical agony and will always be in such away, You sanity will be severely challenged and your ability to learn would severely diminish. Your ability to do anything would severely diminish. you will become helpless and dependent. for the rest of your life here. I can see and understand wanting to die, but, I think at that point, it would have passed beyond wanting to die it would become a need to die. You would need to die to end your dead end life, for your sanity sake, I suppose. This type of suicide seems more about preserving then ending.

What about ceremonial suicide, in which the ghost is empowered and purified upon exit? Or stored somewhere for empowerment?

Nay, that’s “evil magick”.

I would not give him the gun.

He would have to ask someone else … or get his own gun.

Would I stand guard to keep him alive?

That depends.

What I would not do is kill him myself so I don’t have to feel his pain.

That would be selfish on my part.

But if he was in agony, I would not just sit there and listen to him, as that would teach me to detatch to an unhealthy degree.

I would instead sedate him, to sleep if necessary, and hope for better the next day.

A gun would be a messy way to do it. And in purely seflish terms, I ain’t gonna give anyone my gun, complete with my prints, for them to off themselves. I’d suggest they get their own gun or better still, use pills, etc.

I see the confusion now- the title of the thread suggest we kill the person suffering. The text of the opening post asks if we’d help them or allow them. My bad, as they say in the vernacular.

Since you cannot give him the gun.

Will you promote his sucide attempt, if he is suffering in life?

It’s a hard decision. My compassion would want to help him, but I’d have to decide how best to do that. Sometimes death is probably the lesser of evils.

Why would you ask for help in killing yourself? Why would he be incapable of grabbing a gun and doing the dirty deed himself? My reply would, of course, be for him to not get me unnecessarily involved in his self pity.

How would a quadraplegic kill themselves? Maybe like Maggie in Million Dollar Baby, but I’d think at a certain level of physical disfunction you might need assistance.

Meh, didn’t say he was immobile. Even if he was, it’s self pity. “Suffering” is no excuse not to live life to its fullest.