Life insurance contracts are are generally written so that they don’t pay in case of suicide. Some policies used to have exceptions that they did pay if the suicide was the result of insanity (I handled one of those cases a long time ago). My understanding is that many policies now cover suicide if it occurs more than two years after the inception of the policy.

It is also my understanding (though I haven’t done much looking) that suicide is not a crime in most states, though assisting a suicide is. If anyone has a good link on this topics it would be appreciated.

Suicide is not illegal (according to wikipedia, but Erich, you may want to vouch for that being a lawyer). I know police can put you in protective custody, but you can’t get prosecuted for attempted or successful suicide. However, are we talking about how the surviving family could be denied life insurance? If that’s the case, then that is the business policy of private companies and not a legal issue. If it were legislated that insurance must be provided to suicide victims, then premiums would likely become too high for most to afford. I suppose if legislation clearly outlined the necessary conditions for suicide then insurance companies could just create revised actuary tables. Do people really foresee life insurance being a sustaining business with this in place?

Here I go playing counterpoint again, but the thing I can’t reconcile is, though “my body, my choice” sounds like a flawless statement, I’m trying to reconcile that with, “no man/woman lives unto themselves.”

Bottom line, people commit suicide because they find life not worth living. They believe it is because of pain or the horror of exiting unexpectedly, but really the issue is that they find their present suffering to be unredeemable and meaningless. If it were legal (i.e., legislation required inheritance and insurance payouts), it seems like the necessary legal condition should not be health related, but “does the individual find life worth living,” for isn’t this the only reason people choose it?

But I suppose I’m very off-topic. I’ll just take a moment to echo your recognition of alternative papers. Sure, much of the content amounts sleazy escort ads and stoner send-ups, but the freedom of the format sometimes allows for interesting unconventional work. My favorite is Seattle’s The Stranger, which regularly posts decent, biting little articles of wide variety (their featured articles are here).

I don’t really agree with Jerry’s prediction regarding the future. I think we can all learn to steal in non-violent ways. Our financial institutions are doing a pretty good job of it already, come to think of it.

In my mind, true liberty must necessarily involve the right to make even bad decisions. Not that suicide is necessarily always a bad decision. I especially think that we should look at treatment-resistant depression as very similar to a debilitating medical condition where suicide is often a more tolerable response.

Does incurable mental anquish differ much from endless physical suffering? Or, should that difference concern noninvolved parties? I think that the choice should always lie with individuals.

As for the end-of-the-world, shooting-your-neighbor situation, I think I’d stay for the party. I’m inclined to find a hellish (but very interesting) situation far more compelling than a non-existence of nothing at all.
I always say this when given the scenario of a meteor heading straight for the earth, as well- I’d rather live and see the painful fireworks than die and face oblivion just a pinch sooner. But I respect those who’d like to opt out.

The US is quite happy (it seems) to assist others to die - but only if they are ‘bad’. Capital punishment may not be meted out with the same gleeful abandon as in years past, but it is still part of the American mindset.

Your former co-worker simply extends that mindset to scenarios where he, knowing himself to be ’sane’ and ‘lawful’, protects himself and his family by meting capital punishment upon those who are bad.

As discussed on other threads, this makes it extremely difficult for those of a strongly conservative or right-wing mindset to embrace any view of ‘assisted death’ that does not include punishment.

In their ideology, suicide is simply wrong. Post-hoc justifications for why it is wrong are simply that - justifications. They will not change their minds, despite the glaring contradiction of their stance.

Personally, I want the choice to check out when I feel ready - if I’m in extreme pain, if the prognosis is extremely poor. By that point, I think I’d rather resources were used to improve health outcomes for younger people still able to make significant contributions, instead of being wasted upon another few days or weeks for me.

I understand the fiscal and legal challenges my family would face if I took such a course. They would receive no insurance benefits, so I better make sure my mortgage is paid off, and there are sufficient investments to ensure their comfort. I had also better make sure there is nothing to indicate that my death is assisted - otherwise someone could be tried for murder, or manslaughter.

If I commit suicide - if I check out - I want it to be me, myself, and I. No other involvement. No collateral damage. Planned and understood beforehand, so that my family and friends are ready for the change. And I’d like it to be legal.

(I think I’d like to have my wake before I die - then simply go to bed and not wake up)