Any insight on this would be extremely beneficial to me and I would also really enjoy just plain out references or things to read that hit on these subjects as well. — Anthony Kennedy

Some (of my) insights:

Let's talk suicide
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/367163

Will pessimism eventually lead some people to suicide? https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/441050

Understanding Suicide
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/363201

1. We often say that those who commit suicide are selfish for taking themselves out of others' lives and I wonder if sometimes we are the selfish ones for wanting them to continue living for us? — Anthony Kennedy

Maybe 30 years ago. With how bad mental health has gotten people don't say that anymore I think, as grim as that is. But if it was one or the other I'd say definitely the latter. Saying that someone has to remain in your life otherwise they are selfish implies that you believe others have a duty to suffer much to prevent relatively little suffering on your part which is the epitome of selfishness as far as I'm concerned.

2. If someone has decided to make the rational decision to commit suicide, does people trying to deter them from their rationality take away from their person? — Anthony Kennedy

In as much as someone arguing with someone else on a philosophy forum takes away from their persons. I don't understand how it would. But there is a difference between that and locking them in place so they don't kill themselves.

Saying that someone has to remain in your life otherwise they are selfish implies that you believe others have a duty to suffer much to prevent relatively little suffering on your part which is the epitome of selfishness as far as I'm concerned. — khaled

Stated clearly. This is the other side of the coin which is never perceived.

There are two truths to consider:

1. All living things that commit suicide are humans
2. Some humans are not living things that commit suicide

Maybe there's a third truth but as of this moment I'm not aware of it.

Firstly, there's something about being human that makes suicide an exclusively human affair. The only difference between us and the rest of the living world is our brains, its, let's just say, advanced logical capabilities. That means suicide is, at the very least, a completely rational choice!

Secondly, the only difference between one person and another is their circumstances. This explains why suicide is a rational choice for some (those who kill themselves) and not for others (those who don't kill themselves).

What both these truths imply is there's a disparity in circumstances which provides "good" reasons to take your own life or continue living. What's troubling, assuming suicide is something you're against, is that the reasons are "good" i.e. given the circumstances prevailing [in certain sections of society], the most rational being would prefer to end his/her own life.

1. We often say that those who commit suicide are selfish for taking themselves out of others' lives and I wonder if sometimes we are the selfish ones for wanting them to continue living for us? — Anthony Kennedy

I think it is a useless criticism, often meanspirited. I do think that suicide may be an act of rage, which isn't precisely selfish, but it is aimed at others or the universe or God. But most likely the person was in incredible emotional (and/or physical) pain and this was them wanting that to stop. Perhaps drugs or alcohol added to an impulsive decision. But again to call that selfishness doesn't add much for me.

And I think your point is precisely spot on. It's a guilt trip. Even if you can't stand living, keep going and suffer for me. I certainly understand the feeling someone who is heartbroken might have that the person is selfish, but I think it's both poor psychology and guilt that adds nothing.

2. If someone has decided to make the rational decision to commit suicide, does people trying to deter them from their rationality take away from their person? — Anthony Kennedy

I guess I have felt that if a person wants to die, they will manage. I think that there is little downside and much positive side to trying to intervene with words or actions. If you can stop them, they probably were not sure. They might be high or impulsive or in an extremely painful state that need not go on for years even. Another chance seems to have little downside. And in some sense they 'did it in front of you' and failed to have an effective method.

We often say that those who commit suicide are selfish for taking themselves out of others' lives and I wonder if sometimes we are the selfish ones for wanting them to continue living for us? — Anthony Kennedy

We are. There are selfish suicides, like throwing yourself in front of a bus or train, or blowing your brains out in your kitchen for your partner to find, Hunter S. Thompson stylee. But that aside, wanting someone to suffer to make yourself feel better is undoubtedly, even psychopathically selfish.

If someone has decided to make the rational decision to commit suicide, does people trying to deter them from their rationality take away from their person? — Anthony Kennedy

Yes (euthanasia). But if you know it to be a irrational decision, driven by treatable depression for instance, different story.

I responded individually but make general points that are relevant to others as well

I think it is a useless criticism, often meanspirited. I do think that suicide may be an act of rage, which isn't precisely selfish, but it is aimed at others or the universe or God. — Coben

Useless and mean-spirited? For pointing out that it's absolutely wrong on every level to claim to have a right to others life even if they suffer horribly and want to end it? Meanspirited indeed but the other way 'round. If others demand you to live, but you don't want, and every breath you take is because of others interest and not yours, you are utterly enslaved by them.

2. If someone has decided to make the rational decision to commit suicide, does people trying to deter them from their rationality take away from their person? — Anthony Kennedy

Depends entirely on how it's done.
If someone is about to euthanize themselves and someone else finds out and now calls the cops on them as if they had committed a severe crime, and the cops kidnap them and force them into some cage where they are force-fed mind-altering substances that chemically lobotomize them, then yes, the one calling the cops is responsible (and the cops as well) to what amounts to immense torture and as far as I'm aware even potentially unlimited (!) caging. People in the US even get a 5 figure bill for their own torture thrown at them afterwards.

If on the other hand they have an honest, open minded discussion that both want to partake in, and they then part ways and that's it, I don't see a problem with it. But for the most part it is none of their business (there are a few exemptions*)


*Having made all that clear there are a few exceptions, for example if someone dragged another human into a painful and deadly situation (birthing new victims or severe crimes, both applies the same way - and they are one and the same as far as I'm concerned).
As long as they deliberately caused that problem and now try to avoid their responsibility (small children entirely dependent on them or a severe criminal who wants to avoid punishment) through suicide, in those cases the right die is temporarily suspended.

Yes (euthanasia). But if you know it to be a irrational decision, driven by treatable depression for instance, different story. — Kenosha Kid

All people who want to euthanize themselves do that for ultimately one reason, and one reason only: to avoid and end suffering. This is not only not irrational, it is the most rational thing you could possibly do, in fact everything you do is to stave off any type of suffering, be it hunger, appetite, boredom, the need to urinate or defecate, etc., etc, but in contrast to suicide always only temporary. So it's even an inferior option, though most people are not able to do it because their survival instinct forces them to stay alive against their will.

In most cases this is absolutely obvious, but there are even very strange situations where the same applies, f.e. if someone want's to commit suicide because they fear they get raped by some green aliens if they don't. Now you might say there don't seem to be any aliens, so it appears irrational, but to them they are absolutely real, and being forced to have a mind making up such horrible stuff is painful as well of course, so again it's totally rational to want out of that situation, in both cases even if people like you think it were "treatable". It's none of your business because they have to suffer the consequences and are therefore the ones that decide the matter, period.

There are selfish suicides, like throwing yourself in front of a bus or train, or blowing your brains out in your kitchen for your partner to find, Hunter S. Thompson stylee. But that aside, wanting someone to suffer to make yourself feel better is undoubtedly, even psychopathically selfish. — Kenosha Kid

Agree with psychopathically selfish but have to completely disagree with the first part.
What do you think will happen to the numbers of train-suicides if everyone wouldn't be deliberately deprived of their right to end their suffering. F.e. if you had a pill by you at all times that would immediately euthanize you in a painless and quick way, how many people would instead jump in front of trains? Such a pill already exists by the way, but is very hard to get and deliberately made so, likely so the wageslaves at the bottom of the system don't start to off themselves in droves.

It's an act of absolute desperation, you can't call that "selfish". I don't know from where you are from but the vast majority of people in this world don't have the option to buy a shotgun at wallmart.
Since the risk of surviving an attempt is very problematic as it would leave you in an even way worse state than it was before, and the one before forced you to try to kill yourself already, people have to take methods that have very little risks of failure. Trains seem one of these as far as I'm aware, and nearly all of these desperate acts are completely avoidable if people weren't deliberately deprived of a possibility to end their suffering.

All people who want to euthanize themselves do that for ultimately one reason, and one reason only: to avoid and end suffering. — Zn0n

Yes.

This is not only not irrational, it is the most rational thing you could possibly do, in fact everything you do is to stave off any type of suffering, be it hunger, appetite, boredom, the need to urinate or defecate, etc., etc, but in contrast to suicide always only temporary. — Zn0n

No, now you're conflating two different things. Euthanasia is mercy killing. If you 'euthanise' someone who isn't suffering, it's not euthanasia but murder. Suicide is self-killing. One doesn't have to prove mental fitness to commit suicide. You can kill yourself because of a bad trip.

On which, you're taking an extremely narrow view in which if someone happens to be suffering right now, suicide (assisted or otherwise) is a rational decision. If my car breaks down and it's winter, is it rational to kill myself to avoid being cold? No. It's an unfortunate but temporary problem that a long-term view renders trivial.

The same would go for someone with, say, a perfectly treatable but bad depression. It is only rational to end one's suffering this way if one can rationally deduce things will not get better. If one cannot rationally deduce this because of something like depression, it is not a rational decision: quite the opposite.

What do you think will happen to the numbers of train-suicides if everyone wouldn't be deliberately deprived of their right to end their suffering. F.e. if you had a pill by you at all times that would immediately euthanize you in a painless and quick way, how many people would instead jump in front of trains? — Zn0n

It's a false choice. There are lots of ways to kill yourself. No one for want of a pill must walk to a train track and throw oneself in front of a train. People who do this do so because they want the world to pay. Thompson had acres of land. His suicide was premeditated by decades. Yet he chose to spread his brains across the kitchen wall.

Useless and mean-spirited? For pointing out that it's absolutely wrong on every level to claim to have a right to others life even if they suffer horribly and want to end it? — Zn0n

Unless I am mistaken we are in agreement on this one. I don't think one has the right to expect others to live for us. Potentially a child in relation to a suicidal parent, though even there it is mainly that I would deeply understand the feeling of betrayal rather than thinking it is a right.

1. We often say that those who commit suicide are selfish for taking themselves out of others' lives and I wonder if sometimes we are the selfish ones for wanting them to continue living for us? — Anthony Kennedy

I've always felt this is a guilt trip strategy more than anything given careful thought. I believe it is honestly selfish of us to want another person to continue on when they truly do not want to.

2. If someone has decided to make the rational decision to commit suicide, does people trying to deter them from their rationality take away from their person? — Anthony Kennedy

We could replace the action "commit suicide" with any other X, and I don't think it takes away from the person. People like to challenge other people's conclusions. I think it is healthy because we introduce a perspective that might not have been considered. A person might also believe their decision is rational, but might be found to be irrational if new information is considered.