Consumariat - I think you may have read too much into what I said. I am not saying that I would not violate my mother’s liberty in that situation, and I am also not saying that in the general case it is always wrong to violate someone’s liberty. I was only pointing out that the wrong word had been used by the OP.
You realise that the above makes no logical sense whatsoever?
As I said earlier… If someone really wants to kill themselves, the chances that anyone likely to stop them will be around when they do it are not great. Perhaps we can infer that if someone approaches you stating that they intend suicide, they are in fact making an implicit request that you dissuade them, excepting cases of medical euthenasia, obviously. Perhaps we can extend this principle to a situation in which an inchoate attempt has been made and interrupted - if they really wanted to kill themselves, they could have done it properly, or could plan to do it properly in future for that matter.
These suggested provisos notwithstanding, it is utterly absurd to claim that a person with self-ownership doesn’t have a legitimate right to unconditional suicide. Let’s not forget that in all of the emotional, knee-jerk examples people are bringing up here, you are envisioning situations in which there exists some kind of personal relationship between the person commiting suicide and the person who is supposedly entitled to prevent them from doing it. Are you suggesting that the person who wants to kill themself does not have the right to sever the relationship they have with you prior to killing themselves?
I’m not just being pedantic here. If someone wants to kill themselves, I’m inclined to feel sorry for them. They are obviously in a lot of pain. I feel an empathetic need to ease that suffering somehow, and convince them to take another course of action. I know that claiming a right to force them to live is not going to ease their suffering. It’s going to make them feel worse, and practically speaking might make suicide more likely. It’s an excuse to avoid the duty of voluntary convincing that needs to be done. I know that if I don’t convince them not to kill themselves, forcing them to live is incredibly cruel.
Where do you go with the belief that you have a right to force people to live? Do you keep someone caged or restrained until they die naturally? Do you ply them with drugs and electroshock torture until they are willing to lie to you and claim that they want to live?
Suicide is a feasible act, it is in everyones power to perform the act. With possible exceptions for the terminally ill.
Suicide is an admissable act, because the fact is that it cannot be made inadmissable. Its inadmissability is unenforceable, and therefore for all intents and purposes meaningless.
Stopping a suicide by any normal means is also both a feasible and an admissable act.
Therefore the only logical conclusion is that 1: Everyone is at liberty to commit suicide 2: Everyone is at liberty to stop someone from commiting suicide.
That is all that needs to be said as far as I can see. Any talk of ‘rights’ in connection with suicide only serves to confuse the issue and is a misuse of the word.