Kenny McCormack <***@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>David Carson <***@neosoft.com> wrote:
>>People sometimes engage in self-destructive, reckless behavior without
>>making a deliberate decision to end their lives, but it ends up that way.
>>Perhaps they miscalculate the risk, or they've done similar things so many
>>times, they forget there is a risk, or deceive themselves into thinking it
>>doesn't apply to them. "I know what I'm doing." It happens a lot.
>>What I got from this article is that the coroner and the daughter are
>>saying that Kidder deliberately overdosed because she wanted to die. I
>>don't know why ***@gmail.com read the article differently - he
>>seems to be disagreeing with the coroner and the daughter for reasons that
>>are unstated - but I don't think the fact that she overdosed proves in and
>>of itself that it wasn't an accident.
>The operative question here is: Does it matter? (or: Who cares?)
>Obviously, objectively, it doesn't matter. But as long as we live in a
>regressive society where it *does* matter - both in terms of the survivors
>social standing and in terms of the legal implications - then people will
>expend effort to get the ruling they want.
We want public officials to make findings and judges to make rulings
based on evidence, not emotions. A coroner who is unwilling to do so is
unfit for duty.
As I've pointed out multiple times in this very thread, it matters if
only to try to recognize that certain people are at risk of death of
suicide or from extreme reckless behavior like this, to attempt to help
them while they've nt yet killed themselves.
>As a total aside, it reminds me of the money people spend to get church
>annulments; total waste of time/money/effort, but it happens.
I don't know that not getting an annulment leads to death in this day and age.
>There are many instances in the various forms of fiction and storytelling,
>where people go to great lengths to make a suicide look like an accident,
>so as to avoid both the social stigma and the legal consequences of a
>judgment of suicide.
>Again, in a well-educated, secular, society, this nonsense wouldn't exist,
>but we're not there yet. But make no mistake, in the days when the Church
>ran society, there was a *lot* at stake.
I guess so.
>>To put it another way, a guy comes up to a railroad crossing. The train is
>>bearing down, the lights are flashing, the bells are blaring, and the
>>barriers are falling, but the guy tries to beat the train. If the train
>>hits him, unless he meant to get hit, it's still an accident.
>Suppose a guy plays Russian Roulette. If he does it once, just once, and
>dies (unlucky, but sometimes those 16% shots come in), you might say it was
I would never say that because I won't substitute the word "accident"
for "reckless behavior".
>But suppose the guy plays it regularly. Eventually (and
>eventually may not be very long), he's gonna die. Would you really
>consider this an accident? No. If a guy is playing RR on a regular basis,
>he probably (at some level) wants to die (or has some serious mental issues).
I'd say he's at risk of death from the first instance.
>I think the same is true of people who routinely abuse drugs and alcohol.
>They must know that, sooner or later, there number is going to be up.
>And, mind you, if you think I'm being snotty, read the previous part of
>this post. I don't think there's anything wrong with it.
I think you sort of agree with me.
>P.S. This same stuff happened when Dana Plato died. There was a big
>hulabaloo them about "Was it suicide or was it an accident?". My opinion
>then as now was "It was suicide. So what?"