It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bug Out or Suicide?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 06:03 AM
My elderly parents both passed away at the beginning of this year. I had been worrying about what we would do about Mom and Dad if the time to bug out came. Dad had CHF and was diabetic and on a multitude of medications. Mom, while still healthy, until she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, would have had a difficult time surviving in the wilderness and would never have left Dad behind. Not to sound heartless, but they are no longer a concern. However, it prompted me to think about how I would react if a family member chose to remain behind due to illness or just plain stubbornness.

What if you family member chose to commit suicide rather than bug out? How would you handle this? Would you stock up on drugs to help them with a painless passing? Would you argue with then or support their decision to help your survival chances by taking themselves out of the equation?

In her last days, before she was no longer lucid, my mom discussed the merits of assisted suicide. Although she had it confused with lethal injection, I understood what she was trying to get across. People who are simply waiting to die get tired of the waiting. When the s*#t hits the fan, will we be willing to honor the desires of those we love?

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 06:59 AM
I have no idea what I would do. Hopefully I have many years before I have to cross this bridge.

We seem to have different rules for our pets. Over the last year, we have had to make decisions on putting some of our pets to sleep because their quality of life was so poor. We could have continued with medical treatment and kept them alive for a few more days/weeks but at what quality of life.

Yet, we are happy as a race to kept people alive for months, if not years, with little quality of life. I think this is more for us, those who will remain living.

I believe that people such have a choice, and if they wish to end their life, that is a decision that should make. Of course, there needs to be checks and balances to ensure that decision is made by them and not under any influence.

As far as I recollect, suicide is still a crime in the UK, and those who attempt suicide could be subject to the courts.

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 08:21 AM
Some years ago, the mass media was (as now) creating anxiety within populations. Back then, it was via Nostradamus and various catastrophic scenarios. One moment I was one person, free to opt for fight or flight -- the next, I was parent to two babies. How do you flee with two tiny babies? How do you provide for them? Most importantly, how can you ensure their survival in the event you've been critically wounded or killed?

That's the thing that haunts: what happens to them (dependents, loved ones etc.) if left to fend for themselves. Before they were tortured, eaten or whatever, they'd be terrified, helpless, screaming for you and of course you'd be in no position to grant them the slightest relief.

I decided to get cyanide tablets or something similar and to keep them on my person night and day (in a locket or similar) to be used when the time came. During this period, the tv news reported that a grandmother had taken the lives of her two small grandchildren (left in her care daily) because she'd been convinced by the media's doom and gloom forecasts that her grandchildren (whom she loved more than her own life) would soon be subjected to hell on earth.

History tells of various groups which undertook to take the lives of their nearest and dearest, in order to spare them from worse and more prolonged deaths.

Fact is, our nearest and dearest are often our Achilles Heel. Often, they prevent us from fighting or fleeing effectively. They can also motivate us to fight more effectively. Depends on their ages, physical and mental strengths, capabilities (or lack of) etc.

When, as the OP says, the sh*te hits the proverbial, I would ensure all our pets were despatched humanely and painlessly. If provided the means, I would do my utmost to cater similarly to sick and elderly folk within my immediate circle and would do likewise for any who expressed the desire to evade 'the horror'.

If I felt I would impose a burden on my loved ones, I would (I hope) tell them to get going and not look back.

A lot of what we've read or seen in movies, etc. about the way people behave in life or death situations is basically true. Often they're left with few options. It brings out the best and worst in humankind. Some will survive. Many will die. Often they'll die horribly; unimaginably. If I could help reduce others' suffering, I'd do it and face the consequences later.

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
As far as I recollect, suicide is still a crime in the UK, and those who attempt suicide could be subject to the courts.

It is in the US also. But in the case if Survival Situation X, Whatever government that may be left wil most likely not care.

In the case of Sit X, how would you deal with the problem of parents or children who need constant care and would likely not survive a bug out situation? Would you allow your elderly loved ones to end their own lives? Would you supply them with the means of a easy and peaceful exit? Remember that a bug out situation is one in which your survival may depend on making excrutiating tough decisions.

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 11:35 AM
I would like to think that if required, I could despatch all our pets and loved ones that requested it. But who knows until you are faced with making the decision and excuting on it.

If we are faced with a situation X, it will be no good looking to organised government, they will not exist or care what we do.

Of course, the availability of firearms in the UK is less that say the US. Most people can get a license to own a shotgun, but anything else is a real pain.

Seems there is less of a survival mentality in the UK or have I just missed things?


posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 12:28 PM
Elderly: Let them decide. If they wish to die, give them all the assistance they require. If they are religious, their beliefs must be taken into account. For example, if they believe they must die with a clean soul, then obviously you can't just hand them a syringe full of morphine and say, "Here yah go!"

Children: It will be immensely more difficult to make new ones. Better to keep what you have and do the best you can.

Pets: Just let them go. They can take care of themselves.

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 01:17 PM
Its a tough call but in any situation x scenario then its alot of cr*p and a big fan. If you are serious about not wanting to be rounded up by the government or iradiated by a nuclear bomb then you must make some tough choices.

If your elderly parents are going to slow you down and cause you to become involved in the situation you were trying to evade, what exactly was the point? It's my view that they have had their life, you cant risk yours by trying to give them a few extra weeks or months before they are overcome by the conditions or any illnesses they have.

Children on the other hand rely on you, you brought them into the world its up to you to do whatever you can for them. Besides they will be of some use no matter what age they are and will become mroe youseful the longer you keep them.

Pets, i would say dump you cat, yeah it can look after itself, but some may well be useful. Ferrets, dogs, hell maybe you have a bird of prey, can all be used for hunting. Sure they need food but if your going to be surviving for the rest of your life then maybe you should keep them?

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 02:41 PM
I'll say this to add for the discussion.

I told my folks yesterday about me and the wife's soon to be vanishing act. They went off the scale.

i got all the old emotional tugging, all the 'we cannot see why you wat to do this', and the whole nine yards of it.

But it boils down to this.

They cannot believe that soon the crapolas gonna hit the fan, and we all need to be real ready for it - they though, see home as the safest refuge - so thats the way it will be. They chose home, I choose the hills.

My last words to them will be that i love them very much, and will see them in the next life if God permits.

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 07:24 PM
I agree with apc and manta's breakdown, except, when it comes to pets. Pets ARE food. If they'll walk on their own, fine. If not, field dress 'em and head out.
Better yet, if you have the time, smoke 'em so they'll last longer.

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 07:39 PM
Interesting question.

I would stay. I could not, would not leave. We all die. I'd rather die together or at least supporting, trying, defending, whatever was necessary.

About 8 years ago, my wife and I seriously thought that the plane we were in was about to go down. She was freaking out a little until I reminded her that we were together and if we had a choice, that's what we would choose so it's a good thing, just be at peace and the experience actually became enjoyable in a hindsight kind of way.

It also depends on what you are running from but certain death is nothing more or less than we are assured anyway so leaving achieves what exactly?

Fear of death is not the issue, it's how you die is what people fear...but you shouldn't, it's spiritually limiting.

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 09:44 PM
Should anyone wish to die, I will be happy to ablige them (situation X) so long as they have justified cause for it. If the person who whishes to die is a 13 year old kid who lost their family but has nothing wrong with them, they can go with me but I REFUSE to execute them. Should I come across someone who is missing both legs and bleeding to death, I will glady draw steel and run them through.
Helping someone "end things" depends on the nature of why they want things to end, if it is for something foolish, never. If it is a justified reason, fine, but understand your choice and what is done is done.

new topics

top topics


log in