someone who suffers from suicidal tendencies as a result of mental illness is in no capacity to make these decisions, they're as incapable of making actual decisions as a minor, probably more so and should be institutionalized.
The right to self-determination derives from an assumption of someone being in a clear state of mind, that's why we have plenty of conditions under which we withdraw that right.
How wonderfully tautological this is: those with suicidal tendencies are deemed incapable of making the choice due to "mental illness". How can you tell if they're mentally ill? You look for symptoms of course, symptoms like "they have suicidal tendencies".
no, it's not tautological at all. There are categories of suicide that are clearly defensible, like euthanasia for end of life patients who have made the decision that any quality of life is irredeemably lost, for example.
But the 38 year old husband, the subject of the article, who was in an unstable mental state to the point where his wife felt threatened and left for the safety of their children was certainly not in command of his mental faculties.
Someone who is schizophrenic and bipolar and experiences a psychotic break after drastically changing their medication regimen is not in a sound state of mind, and they would be the first to admit it once their condition improves.
Ok then: if the 38yo husband took his increasingly unaffordable meds of choice and told you in a period of lucidity that he wants to die rather than suffer a lifetime of violent psychosis, drug-induced delirium and likely debt, or as you might call it "any quality of life is irredeemably lost", would you let him? Do you have another excuse for why he still cannot make that choice for himself, why he will never be able to make that choice for himself?
First you said they can't do it because they're mentally incapable of making the choice, now you're discussing whether a suicide is "clearly defensible". It doesn't matter if a suicide is "clearly defensible" or not. People don't have to defend their choices to you. That's the point of having the freedom to choose.
The article mentions that the man preferred treatment and his choice of meds from private insurance that eventually ran out. I know the UK has a public health system, that was the system that he died in.
But why doesn't "not being in command of one's mental faculties" qualify as a valid reason to want to end one's life? If that is ongoing, and unlikely to ever improve, I can well imagine wanting to off myself, rather than continue within that nightmare.
The right to self-determination derives from an assumption of someone being in a clear state of mind, that's why we have plenty of conditions under which we withdraw that right.