Meiwes, cannibalism, consent

[Pure]

Cannibalism; consent.

I see this had a brief go-round in the cafe, but I saw no good discussion of the 'consent' problem. Let's assume the 'victim' consented to be eaten. Indeed, since it wasn't all at once, the victim maybe could have 'bailed.'

Is the alleged murderer entitled to a defense based on consent? The law, a present, refuses to recognize 'consent where there is grave bodily harm or death. Is that a bad law? Should Meiwes be prosecuted at all, if consent is proven?

=====

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3258226.stm

Frenzy builds for German 'cannibal' trial

By Ray Furlong
BBC correspondent in Berlin



Meiwes' case has grabbed attention because of the legal difficulties it creates


Germans have been both repulsed and irresistibly attracted by the story of Armin Meiwes, this country's first recorded cannibal, ever since the news broke about his unique and bizarre alleged crime. And the excitement in the media has increased in the final days leading up to the trial which is due to begin on Wednesday.

Perhaps the biggest scoop fell to Die Welt am Sonntag newspaper which, incredibly, claimed to have gained an interview with Mr Meiwes himself. "I have intense and positive memories of Bernd [the victim]," he was quoted as saying by the paper. "And I don't need to have anyone else inside me."
In a further spine-chilling comment, he was cited as saying: "I have his face permanently before me. That's the sign of a friendly relationship." The defence's line will be that the victim wanted to be treated like this, that it was his own wish to be killed.

The paper also reported that he received many visitors and went for a walk for an hour a day, as he awaited his judgement. Meanwhile, a German television station ran an interview with a former girlfriend of the victim - who said she had no inkling of his wish to be eaten. "We had a normal sex life," she said. "Bernd would never have allowed himself to be killed... it was murder."

Artur Kreuzer, one of Germany's leading criminal psychologists, has a ready explanation for the wave of interest in the case. "We thought there was a strong taboo against cannibalism. It was reality in tribes, in former stages of human development," he says. "But now we see that this taboo is weaker than we thought."

Legal difficulties The case has also grabbed attention because of the legal difficulties it encompasses - cannibalism is not on the German law books and the apparent willingness of the victim to die is an added complication. Meiwes reportedly taped the entire grisly event on video recorder


"The defence's line will be that the victim wanted to be treated like this, that it was his own wish to be killed," says Berlin lawyer Felix Hardenberg. "Therefore they'll try to get the defendant a lighter sentence - a maximum of five years, with the chance that he'll be let out after three years on probation."

Of course, the prosecution will argue that Mr Meiwes deserves a life sentence on the grounds that he is just too dangerous to ever be released, and anything less would certainly cause a huge scandal. 'Memoirs' So the case will be closely watched, the courtroom packed with journalists. And among the "highlights" will be the two-hour video that Mr Meiwes took of the whole thing on his camcorder.

===
http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,2763,1099477,00.html
Victim of cannibal agreed to be eaten

Luke Harding in Berlin
Thursday December 4, 2003
The Guardian

To the family next door, Armin Meiwes seemed the perfect neighbour. He mowed their lawn, repaired their car and even invited them round for dinner. Other residents in the small German town of Rotenburg also believed there was nothing odd about the 42-year-old computer expert, whose light burned late into the night inside his creaking mansion. Yesterday, however, Meiwes appeared in court charged with killing - and then frying and eating - another man.

In one of the most extraordinary trials in German criminal history, the self-confessed cannibal admitted that he had met a 43-year-old Berlin engineer, Bernd Brandes, after advertising on the internet, and had chopped him up and eaten him. It was, he said, something he had wanted to do for a long time. "I always had the fantasy and in the end I fulfilled it," Meiwes told the court on the first day of his trial for murder in the nearby city of Kassel.

Yesterday German prosecutors described how Meiwes had fantasised about killing and devouring someone, including his classmates, from the age of eight. The desire grew stronger after the death of his mother in 1999, prosecutor Marcus Köhler said. In March 2001 Meiwes advertised on the internet for a "young well-built man, who wanted to be eaten". Brandes replied.

On the evening of March 9, the two men went up to the bedroom in Meiwes' rambling timbered farmhouse. Mr Brandes swallowed 20 sleeping tablets and half a bottle of schnapps before Meiwes cut off Brandes' penis, with his agreement, and fried it for both of them to eat. Brandes - by this stage bleeding heavily - then took a bath, while Meiwes read a Star Trek novel.

In the early hours of the morning, he finished off his victim by stabbing him in the neck with a large kitchen knife, kissing him first. The cannibal then chopped Mr Brandes into pieces and put several bits of him in his freezer, next to a takeaway pizza, and buried the skull in his garden.

Over the next few weeks, he defrosted and cooked parts of Mr Brandes in olive oil and garlic, eventually consuming 20kg of human flesh before police finally turned up at his door. "With every bite, my memory of him grew stronger," he said. Behind bars, Meiwes told detectives that he had consumed his victim with a bottle of South African red wine, had got out his best cutlery and decorated his dinner table with candles. He tasted of pork, he added.

The unprecedented case has proved problematic for German lawyers who discovered that cannibalism is not illegal in Germany. Instead, they have charged Meiwes with murder for the purposes of sexual pleasure and with "disturbing the peace of the dead".

The accused, however, has a unique defence: that his victim actually agreed to be killed and eaten. Crucial to the case is a gruesome videotape made by Meiwes of the entire evening, during which Brandes apparently makes clear his consent. Before setting off on his one-way journey to Rotenburg, Brandes was, outwardly at least, a successful, financially secure professional, with a live-in girlfriend.

The girlfriend, Bettina L, told German TV that she had enjoyed a healthy sex life with Brandes but they had split up after he revealed that he also liked men. In fact, prosecutors said yesterday, Brandes was suffering from a severe psychiatric disorder and "a strong desire for self-destruction". After killing Brandes, the German cannibal met five other men who responded to his internet advert, including one from London. He did not, however, kill them.

In July 2001 a student stumbled on Meiwes' chat-room and alerted the German authorities, who arrested him last December. Yesterday Meiwes told the court that he had felt lonely and neglected as a child after his father walked out on the family. He had fantasised about having a blond "younger brother", who he could keep forever by "consuming him".

If convicted, Meiwes faces life in prison. A verdict is due early next year. The cannibal's defence team, however, say that Meiwes is guilty at worst of 'killing on demand', which is punishable by five years in jail. In his pre-trial interview, the cannibal said that after eating Brandes he felt much better and more stable.

 

[catalina_francisco]

In life there are boundaries set which should not be broken. The taking of a human life is one of those boundaries. The cannibalism part is irrelevant IMO; it is symptom of a depraved mind and not the main discussion point.

The question you are asking is consent important when it concerns a murder, I might consider it relevant when we are talking here about helping someone, for example euthanasia (legal in the Netherlands and some parts of Europe). But in this specific case consent is irrelevant. There has been a taking of someone’s life, a life that has been taken without the need to be taken.

Some argue that consensuality does not mean a wildcard to do whatever you want. I can find myself agreeing to things like consensual polygamy or consensual sadomasochism or consensual sex all fine with me, but consent is not a magic word which makes everything correct.

Consent is the most important right we have; it gives us freedom, freedom is a right that has been fought over for centuries. Without freedom and consent we would not have democracies. But there need to be safeguards built into consent and there are. Modern society accepts that insanity temporal or not influences our right to have consent. IMHO if an individual decides to give up his life so his flesh can be consumed by another then insanity has to be part of the decision taking. When insanity becomes part of the consensuality, the consent becomes irrelevant.

It may seem that if people were running around doing what they wanted, society would run amok. Wouldn't this lead to all sorts of immorality? No. The need to be social, to interact—to be part of a society—takes care of that, but government and the law have the responsibility to make sure that one individual by exercising their right to consent does not trespass another’s right of consent and it does have the obligation to protect those that can not protect themselves, children, the weak of society and the ones with mental problems.

Francisco.

 

[Pure]

Well, Francisco, how about a 'consent' (contract) arrangement, where upon entering the service of mistress X, the male slave, being not under coercion and free of mental disease, agrees to hand over to her, his testicles, preserved in a bottle?

How about just one (that would preserve the ability to have kids and keep hormone levels in a somewhat normal range)?

Happy New Year, my friend, and to Ms Catalina too.

'pure'

 

[Pure]

From the Guardian article:

//Before setting off on his one-way journey to Rotenburg, Brandes was, outwardly at least, a successful, financially secure professional, with a live-in girlfriend.

The girlfriend, Bettina L, told German TV that she had enjoyed a healthy sex life with Brandes but they had split up after he revealed that he also liked men. In fact, prosecutors said yesterday, Brandes was suffering from a severe psychiatric disorder and "a strong desire for self-destruction". //

This is to say, there is no known prior evidence of Brandes have a mental disease, as you suggest.

F: [society]it does have the obligation to protect those that can not protect themselves, children, the weak of society and the ones with mental problems.

The prosecutors move is not unlike the shrinks who want to say every would-be suicide is depressed (and hence should be restrained in a mental hospital if necessary) : They say, "Well, I don't see any other symptoms, but the desire to kill oneself could only come from depression, so s/he's depressed."

J.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I tend to think of myself as a very broadminded person, and I have been thinking if there would be circumstances under which I could condone killing another purely for sexual pleasure.

I have been thinking on circumstances under which I could condone another person sacrificing their life purely for sexual pleasure, and I cannot.

You bring up the fact that there is no proof of the victim having any mental problems. The fact is that there does not need to be, in our western history there have been many instances where so called normal people have gone overboard without there being any signals beforehand.

The deed of someone is often used to help diagnose a mental state, there being no apparent symptoms beforehand is not irrelevant but also it is not conclusive.

Francisco.

 

[bridgeburner]

Anyone here familiar with the Terry Gilliam film Brazil ? If you haven't seen it this will be a Spoiler so consider yourself warned.

A lot of people thought this film was horribly depressing - or at the very least had an unhappy ending. What could be worse, they thought, than being tortured into insanity and hallucinating a better world that in reality didn't exist? My response is what could be better than an abiding fantasy world that completely blocks out one's awareness of a horrid reality?

Their problem was that they were still in their own heads looking at disaster. The audience is sad for itself because they don't get what they want. I don't see how anyone could be sad for the hero, though, as far as he knows he got exactly what he wanted. He's not sad or disappointed. He's deliriously happy.

The common assumption is that only people who hate their lives would consider suicide. Why do we never consider that someone who is fully satisfied might choose to end his life rather than continue a life that holds no more surprises or no greater happiness than he has already acheived?

We don't find it odd when really old people make this choice. Or when the severely disabled make this choice. What seems to bother us is when young, healthy, successful people make this choice.-----Actually nobody is willing to admit that any young, healthy successful person would do this. I'm sure someone will come along and say "This never happens which proves that Berndt was insane or depressed."

What if he was just "done"?

We assume that a young person's death is a horrible tragedy because they might've lived to grow old and have progeny and they might have had more happiness or success or sex or whatever because those are things we want for ourselves. They're things that most people want. We consider it insane not to want at least some, if not all, of these things.

But what if he wasn't destined to grow old or successful or prolific or happy or more satisfied? What if the moment before his death Berendt had reached the pinnacle of his existence? What if he had lived and had a horrible life afterward?

Who's to say? Nobody.

This is not a knock at life in general, but only to point out that we're outraged and offended by the loss of a mere possibility that isn't ours to be outraged about. If Berndt chose this, isn't it in the realm of possibility that he chose it fully informed and fully willing and fully in charge of his mental faculties? Doesn't he have a right to that little bit of autonomy over himself?

Now, it's possible that he wasn't sane when he made his decision, but I don't think it can be automatically assumed.

Plenty of people would say that a man is insane who wants his lover to tie him up and whip him, or electically shock him, or pierce him, or brand him etc. Does the mere desire for these things negate someone's right to grant or withold consent?

Meiwes is a more likely candidate for the asylum, but at the same time he did not go out and kill someone who expressed a desire to continue living. He didn't go on a rampage or a violent spree and he has already stated that he has no interest in doing this again. He's nutty, but he may be a largely harmless nut.

Honestly, I can't say, but I find the situation interesting.


-B (who rambles 'round and 'round and 'round)

 

[Sadie_Maso]

bridgeburner, that was a great post.

I'm pretty pro-choice on suicide (I'd consider this a suicide, albeit in a very unusual way; as for Meiwes, the ethical arguments for/against suicide are also applicable to anyone who "helps"). So this is mostly devil's advocate.
One can argue that a person's life does not belong to him/her alone. It is community property, the property of everyone affected by the person's presence or absence. Yes, this to some extent limits our freedom of self-direction, but what kind of world would it be if people felt no responsibility towards others? If we did not feel mutual responsibility towards one another, there'd be no reason to not commit acts like theft, rape, murder, and our own freedom might be more greatly limited by that threat; thus, the responsibility is in some senses largely self-interested. (Hobbes is a good example here)

Also, a community would not be able to function if large numbers of people committed suicide (regardless of the form it took), both for the potential lost in them and the demoralizing effect it would have on others. (so basically, if we want to get super-pretentious, think Kant's categorical imperative: it doesn't work here)


Those would probably be the reasons to argue that suicide/assisting suicide (with or without unusual perversions) would be wrong. In these arguments, consent doesn't particularly matter (and I'm pretty much assuming consent by using "suicide" instead of "murder").

 

[ChasingShadowsX]

This is pretty sick dude

 

[Pure]

Hi Chasing,

Your judgments about "sick" in the area of sex would be more convincing if you weren't publicly posting pics of yourself fingering your butt and so on**:



Loosening myself up with a finger

Attachment: finger.jpg

"Fingering Butt"

https://forum.literotica.com/atta...&postid=6896177
----

Someone requsted some cumshots so I had a session and this is what I came with (get it?) hehe!

Hope you enjoy.

Attachment: lickitup1.jpg



https://forum.literotica.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=6925512

-----
Stay tuned, just bought myself a dildo and gstring, might take some photos of those maybe not the gstring, some ppl arent into that kinda thing, but dildo for sure!

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=214478&perpage=25&pagenumber=3

----

**None of this is to deny your hot body, of course, or your rights to display it.

 

[catalina_francisco]

More than 90% of people who commit suicide suffered from a significant psychiatric illness at their time of death. Of course this leaves 10 % however statistically speaking we can safely assume that anyone who commits an act of suicide has a mental problem. But that is not the end of it, one’s life is of course one’s property but the effects of one person’s actions are not limited to that person alone.

In cases were there is a high attention from media, the danger exists of copy catting. If Meiwes gets away with it what is to stop him from doing it again, and again and again. And what if he can not find any more willing victims will he then try to eat up his unwilling neighbour?

By killing yourself you are also hurting and deserting friends and family. The actions of an individual do not only effect himself, they effect everyone around him especially friends and family. Taking your own life or in this case giving it to someone else to be taken is a selfish act which does not take into account the effect it has on the surrounding, friends, family and society. Next to that statistics proof that if you take your own life you are having depressions and are mentally unstable.

Like I have said before, we all have the right to give or deny consent, however it is the duty of our government to make sure we do not trespass another’s right of consent and protect those that can not protect themselves, the children, the weak of society and the ones with mental problems.

Francisco.

Sources:
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research/suifact.cfm
http://www.mentalhealth.org/suicideprevention/fivews.asp
http://www.save.org/basics/qna.html

 

[bridgeburner]

Sadie,

I can agree with you about a person's obligations to family and friends --- particularly if there are children or other dependants involved, but as far as a societal obligation I'm not willing to go that far. Yes, we do have societal obligations while we live, but that doesn't extend to prolonging my life if I'm ready to die.

This isn't an all or nothing situation. I don't have either obligation to myself or obligation to others. I have both and they must be weighed and balanced against one another. Choosing one obligation over another in one situation doesn't mean I will or must always choose similarly. Frex 99.9% of the time I choose to obey traffic laws, but if I had an injured family member or friend who needed immediate medical attention in the car with me I would have no qualms whatsoever about violating traffic laws in order to get to the hospital more quickly.

Most people don't refrain from committing crimes because they feel obligated to society. Habit, fear of injury or punishment and lack of real desire to do harm to others all factor in far more heavily than any conscious desire to fill a societal obligation.

As for what would happen to society of there were mass suicides, I couldn't really say. It would certainly be disruptive, but this isn't a very plausible situation. People don't avoid suicide because it's illegal or because they don't want society to crumble. They avoid suicide for the same reason they avoid any mortal danger: They don't want to die.

Lack of permission isn't what's keeping people alive.


-B

 

[Pure]

Hi Francisco,

Yours is an intelligent posting, and of humane intent, but with a certain one sidedness.

Certainly depressed people need help. As a general policy should we go around helping them 'off' themselves? No. Of course not.

Should anyone with a suicidal impulse, give themselves time to reflect, and talk it over? Certainly.

There is an encouraging and helpful thread on depression in the Authors Hangout.

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=215570

That said, I think you overstate your case for "safely assuming" a mental illness (disorder), and for your 90% figure of suicides with mental illness.

The 90% figure comes from one of your sources I quote below, (which itself is citing two sources which neither you nor I have seen). But another source at the same site gives a 60% figure, and treats 'rational suicide' in a little more balanced way than you do, leaving the question as having no adequate evidence. Your own slant is fine for you, or course.

I'd further suggest that you reflect on the issue of mental illness (psychiatric disorder), and its (mis)application to your own lifestyle. I'm not researching it right now, but it's plausible to suppose that one can find psychiatrists who says 90% of those self-inflicting more than trifling pain or trivial harm has a 'psychiatric disorder.' Even more likely is it to find a taste for flogging others labeled a sexual deviation and disorder.

------
From the National Institute of Mental Health websiteand links, two docs:

In Harms Way

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/harmaway.cfm#2

Research has shown that more than 90 percent of people who kill themselves have depression or another diagnosable mental or substance abuse disorder, often in combination with other mental disorders.2,3
-----
-------

Frequently asked questions about suicide

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research/suicidefaq.cfm

Does depression increase the risk for suicide?

Although the majority of people who have depression do not die by suicide, having major depression does increase suicide risk compared to people without depression. The risk of death by suicide may, in part, be related to the severity of the depression. New data on depression that has followed people over long periods of time suggests that about 2% of those people ever treated for depression in an outpatient setting will die by suicide. Among those ever treated for depression in an inpatient hospital setting, the rate of death by suicide is twice as high (4%). Those treated for depression as inpatients following suicide ideation or suicide attempts are about three times as likely to die by suicide (6%) as those who were only treated as outpatients. There are also dramatic gender differences in lifetime risk of suicide in depression. Whereas about 7% of men with a lifetime history of depression will die by suicide, only 1% of women with a lifetime history of depression will die by suicide.

Another way about thinking of suicide risk and depression is to examine the lives of people who have died by suicide and see what proportion of them were depressed. From that perspective, it is estimated that about 60% of people who commit suicide have had a mood disorder (e.g., major depression, bipolar disorder, dysthymia). Younger persons who kill themselves often have a substance abuse disorder in addition to being depressed.[[my bold, pure]]

[...]

Is there such a thing as “rational” suicide?


Some right-to-die advocacy groups promote the idea that suicide, including assisted suicide, can be a rational decision. Others have argued that suicide is never a rational decision and that it is the result of depression, anxiety and fear of being dependent or a burden. Surveys of terminally ill persons indicate that very few consider taking their own life, and when they do, it is in the context of depression. Attitude surveys suggest that assisted suicide is more acceptable by the public and health providers for the old who are ill or disabled, compared to the young who are ill or disabled.

At this time, there is limited research on the frequency with which persons with terminal illness have depression and suicidal ideation, whether they would consider assisted suicide, the characteristics of such persons, and the context of their depression and suicidal thoughts, such as family stress, or availability of palliative care. Neither is it yet clear what effect other factors such as the availability of social support, access to care, and pain relief may have on end-of-life preferences. This public debate will be better informed after such research is conducted.

 

[bridgeburner]

Francisco,

More than 90% of people who commit suicide suffered from a significant psychiatric illness at their time of death.

The sources you provided didn't support this that I could see and unless puberty is considered a significant psychiatric illness I doubt the veracity of this claim.

Of course this leaves 10 % however statistically speaking we can safely assume that anyone who commits an act of suicide has a mental problem.

No, it cannot be safely assumed. It can be suspected and even highly likely, but it is not a given nor are all mental health issues equivalent. Schizophrenia is not Megalomania is not Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is not Psychosis is not Depression is not Mania is not Catatonia is not at all equivalent to a really bad day.

People go "crazy" and kill their loved ones but it is extremely rare for an accused murderer to enter a successful not guilty by reason of insanity plea. Why? Because people do lots of stupid, impulsive and cruel things all without being crazy or mentally incapacitated.

This is actually one of the number one arguments for gun confiscation --- if it weren't so easy to commit suicide fewer people would do it because they'd have to really think about it which would make them chicken out.

In cases were there is a high attention from media, the danger exists of copy catting.

I don't find this very persuasive since cannibalism is far too extreme for most people to have any interest in. The media is what it is. Reportage of violent crime has gone up while actual commission of violent crime has gone down. I don't think the media has much effect on whether we commit crimes only on whether we are afraid of them being committed against us.

If Meiwes gets away with it what is to stop him from doing it again, and again and again.

If Meiwes gets away with this is will be because the courts determine that he did not commit a crime in which case he is free to do it as many more times as he likes.

And what if he can not find any more willing victims will he then try to eat up his unwilling neighbour?

Well, he's already stated that he has no desire to consume anyone else, but if he were to continue in this desire there has been nothing to show so far that he has any intention of taking an unwilling meal. He met with several other men besides Berndt and did no harm to any of them. If he were to take the life of an unwilling person, however, he'd be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and treated accordingly.

You can't punish people beforehand for things you think they might do. It's illegal. (unless of course they happen to be a foreign country and you're the President of the United States and you really really want to.)

By killing yourself you are also hurting and deserting friends and family.

Yes, you are. Suicide is one of the most selfish, cruel acts a person can commit against others. The problem is that there is no legal way to prevent or punish it short of dragging a corpse around behind a wagon in the square which helps no one.

Of course, a person may not have any friends or family to be concerned. Or, perhaps those friends and family might be handled respectfully and lovingly before the person takes his life so that they don't feel assaulted by the act. I don't think suicide HAS to be cruel. In the case of Berndt I wonder why we have heard nothing about anyone in his life except his ex-girlfriend who said they had a normal sex life --- as if that were the most important thing in this whole fiasco.

Next to that statistics proof that if you take your own life you are having depressions and are mentally unstable.

No, they don't. Or at least none that I've seen so far have shown that. Yes, it's extremely common and yes it's highly likely but it is not a given fact in every case and it is wrong to assume that the act itself negates a person's right or ability to consent.

Again I hold up the examples of BDsM: People who cut themselves or allow themselves to be abused often suffer from debilitatingly low self esteem. Does this mean that only people with low self esteem are willing to be subs? People who inflict pain and suffering on others are often psychotic. Does this mean that all Doms are at high risk of psychosis?

Take it a little further and say that no person who is truly healthy really wants to be whipped or to whip others. Therefore people who engage in this are not truly healthy. If they're not truly healthy then they can't really give their consent. Which makes all Doms guilty of rape and assault.

Now, obviously I don't believe this and I doubt anyone here does either, but the point I'm getting at is that we cannot just make these wild assumptions about the mental health of others based solely on what we see in a limited arena. Just because you cannot comprehend someone else's kink does not mean that person is crazy or incapacitated.


-B

 

[catalina_francisco]

Interestingly, in many studies, one of which I was part of in University and the next few years, it was shown most people who do suicide (or attempt) do so as a result of depression. Even more interesting in such studies, which sort of refutes the idea of suicide being so damn easy, is most people do not suicide from depression until they are beginning the upward climb out of the pit....why?....because while in the depths of depression they do not have the power/energy to do it because it actually is not something so easy to do. It requires energy, control, decision making, motivation, all of which are absent in the bottom of the pit. The misconception is why so many loving family and friends miss the cues because they are lulled into thinking the worst has passed and do not remain as vigilante as when they mistakenly thought the danger was most prevalent.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

Let me start by thanking Pure and bridgeburner for their postings both of them intelligent and interesting to read. I am carefully formulating an answer but I am preparing it a bit better this time.

Francisco.

 

[bridgeburner]

Francisco,

It's always a pleasure to discuss with you and the lovely Catalina. I'm thrilled to talk about pretty much anything with folks who can take an opposite point without feeling any personal ill-will. It's become an increasingly rare phenomenon these days!


-B

 

[Pure]

Relevant to the question of % of suicide commiters who are mentally ill or disordered: Here's a 'low end' figure, based on previous admission to psychiatric hospital, again from Francisco's listed sites.

It's clear that the criterion of 'disorder' 'illness' etc. is very fuzzy, as is the term 'mental problems', which could include anger over a job loss.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20000415/tips/22.html

Wallings summary of study by Mortenson et al. in Denmark (no exact citation)



Suicide rates were higher in residents of urban areas compared with nonurban residents. The risk of suicide was also increased with unemployment, single status, low income and receipt of pension or social security benefit. The strongest risk factor concerned admission to a psychiatric hospital. Almost one half of the persons who committed suicide had a history of admission to psychiatric facilities. Regardless of diagnosis, the greatest risk was during hospital admission and in the first week following discharge. Among psychiatric patients, the risk was increased only in those diagnosed as manic-depressive. Patients with alcohol and/or substance abuse were not at increased risk compared with other psychiatric patients. Overall, the attributable risk for admission to a psychiatric hospital was 44.6 percent. The other leading attributable risks were 3 percent for unemployment and 10.3 percent for single status.

 

[Pure]

Catalina said,

most people do not suicide from depression until they are beginning the upward climb out of the pit....

Yes, this is a pretty well known fact, but worth repeating. It also applies in cases where medications are beginning to 'work', and the person feels better. That said, I don't want to completely pathologize the phenomenon.

Francisco said,

By killing yourself you are also hurting and deserting friends and family. The actions of an individual do not only effect himself, they effect everyone around him especially friends and family. Taking your own life or in this case giving it to someone else to be taken is a selfish act

At the same time, everyone is entitled to a 'selfish' act, occasionally, no? A recent NY TImes magazine article 12-28-03 described the decision of Carol Heilbrun, a well known feminist and author, who was going to kill herself at 70, then post poned for a time, and finally did it. She was 'healthy' and 'vigorous' at the time.
The article notes, summarizing CH's view: "rational suicide is more than a way of cutting your losses; it's about freedom and power, the right to shape the arc of your life, to decide when the journey is over"

 

[catalina_francisco]

To me the question of consent is a deep moral one in cases where the life of an individual is involved. There are many questions I find difficult to answer and I have more questions than answers in this. Yes my opinions are very one-sided concerning suicide and the taking of another’s life. I am Catholic and without a doubt my religious upbringing is clouding my judgement in this. I have tried playing the devils advocate for myself, and trying to convince myself of the righteousness in taking one’s life.

Strangely enough I agree and believe in euthanasia, but euthanasia is not suicide it is the merciful ending of a life that was going to end painfully, and in ending, removing unnecessary suffering. Euthanasia is not suicide, in the worst case it can be seen as assisted suicide, in the best it is a medical treatment being the only cure left for a terminal disease. In the Netherlands euthanasia is legal, you need to have had at a minimum a second opinion on the disease and a psychiatrist needs to evaluate the patient before a physician performs the euthanasia. It is seemed to be of the utmost importance patients decide for themselves in a clear state of mind before the euthanasia can be performed.

In BDSM D/s consent is very important. We use the word consensual to make our actions legal or in the least give them the appearance of legality. We use it to distinguish ourselves from abusers, we use it to justify our actions towards outsiders or in the minimum make them ignore us. Being a Dominant in a 24/7 relationship and one where I have gotten blanket consent to perform whatever I would like to do. I could kill Catalina and slowly eat her and then claim that since I have gotten consent from her it is all perfectly fine for me to perform acts of cannibalism.

In essence I could make the same case as Meiwes does and many Dominants who are in my position can make the same case. So why do we not? We have consent and still have not eaten our partners or slit their throats. Dominants understand the power we have over our partner, in essence we can make our partners agree to almost anything we want, yes it might take some convincing and yes it may take some effort, but in the end we normally get what we want. Now, and this is where it goes wrong with consent, we have had consent and we even might have it affirmed again but how valid is that consent. Understanding the power and control, we have over our partners, and the responsibility that brings, makes me realize that the consent that Meiwes has gotten is not very valid in my eyes if an independent Psychiatrist or counsellor has not confirmed it.

IMHO suicide is a coping mechanism, when we can not deal with the world anymore, when living becomes too painful, when the pain of existence becomes more than an individual can deal with, suicide becomes an option for the individual. I try not to put a moral judgement on suicide however in this my Catholic upbringing keeps whispering in my ear; you are going to burn in hell if you commit suicide. To avoid suicide we need to help the individual to deal with the pain of existence, we need to improve the balance between on one hand pain and on the other hand the coping mechanism. We can do this by reducing the pain or increasing or coping resources.

Suicide is a very selfish act, but selfishness is important in life, so now and then we need to be selfish or we would lose our sanity. We need to get our needs met or in the end we would drive ourselves into insanity and probably drive ourselves into suicide. But in this selfish act they will feel no relief, in suicide although a selfish act they will not get their needs fulfilled and even it they would it would be a single moment in which they would get relief. Better is to help them endure life, help them deal with their problems and help them get their needs fulfilled so in the end they have a fulfilled life.

Francisco.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Well for all the uproar and outrage of the world, he got 8 1/2 years imprisonment.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

So he was found guilty of manslaughter, 8 1/2 years imprisonment, probably out in four, the internet blamed as being the deciding factor...without it the judge felt it would never have happened.....and Meiwes is already working on the book so all the gory details suppressed from media and court reports will be available to all.

Catalina

 

[bridgeburner]

I'm glad he was found guilty of something and received a sentence. I'm not sure how the internet contributed to his crime, though. I think it's just SOP now to blame the internet --- like they used to blame TV.



-B

 

[catalina_francisco]

I'm glad he was found guilty of something and received a sentence. I'm not sure how the internet contributed to his crime, though. I think it's just SOP now to blame the internet --- like they used to blame TV.



-B

Yes, I agree. Seems powers that be have to find something to blame to make them feel they have done their job well. The argument was if the internet had not existed they would have been unable to connect. Narrow view if you ask me as people have been meeting each other in a variety of ways before the interent came into play.

Catalina

 

[DevilBoy79]

i remember reading the first one, it was fucked up then and still is now, ugh it kinda tops the jeffery dalmer (sp?) case in my opnion

 

[catalina_francisco]

i remember reading the first one, it was fucked up then and still is now, ugh it kinda tops the jeffery dalmer (sp?) case in my opnion

I guess this one at least got the permission of his victim unlike Dahmer. Sad so many had to die at the hands of JD thought when police had so many opportunities to stop his body count and didn't investigate fully...ugh and his skull drilling routine while they were still alive was not good to read while snacking or in the dentist waiting room.

Catalina