"At the heart of this issue is the belief that everyone should have the right to die on their own terms: when, where, and how they want..." Honest question, looking for insight on your stance here. Given that you have worded this as a universal right for "everyone," would you bar timely lifesaving intervention if:
- A 12-year-old, angry at his parents, swallows a bottle of Tylenol
- a 15-year-old announces on her website that since her boyfriend has dumped her, she intends to hang herself
- a talented but moody college-age artist, having informed his art instructor that he considers suicide an art form, jumps off a bridge and is seen flailing wildly in the water
- a middle-aged woman is found in her apartment bleeding badly from apparently self-inflicted wounds
- a a man suffering from untreated depression, leaves a suicide note and is found, alive but drunk, lying on a snowdrift in sub-zero weather
- a woman takes an overdose of a prescription med because she is upset of her teenagers' disrespect
- a paraplegic musician is found just as he's backed his wheelchair to the head of a stairway: he says he intends to wheel backwards and break his neck.
Should anyone intervene, by your principles? Why or why not?
The only situation justifying interference is when A owes B, say, $100, and wants to get out without paying the debt first. It has absolutely nothing to do with intended A's suicide, and everything to do with the obligations A still owes.