Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Pyrrho · 07-31-2003, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Harumi
All right then. I wonder if any of you feel if there was a case in which suicide is unacceptable. Here's a scenario, and it's actually a fairly common:

Mr. X is a happy man with a wife and two beautiful children. He lives in a decent house, gets decent wages, and has enough free time to relax and just enjoy life once in a while.

One day the economy went bad, and businesses start to dismiss people. Mr. X was one of them. Because of the current economy, he can't immediately find a job. His pride won't let him work at some cheap restaurant or some such (taking such a job would cause him a great deal of emotional pain), so he stays at home. Because of the lack of income, he is forced to sell their home and move him and his family into a very poor district. Once prosperous, the family is now forced to work for every penny. Even take charity and government loans.

Mr. X cannot bear this. He feels he has failed the family. As any other person would in his place, he becomes depressed. He can't speak to his wife and family about his feelings, because that would just worry them further.

This goes on for quite a while.

By now you probably know the ending. Mr. X can no longer bear his feelings of shame, and so commits suicide.

Do you feel that Mr. X was perfectly justified when he took his life? Do you think he isn't guilty for leaving a starving, practically homeless family behind?

I think that when other lives are seriously affected (and I mean seriously), then I don't believe you have the luxury of taking your own life. Mr. X left a poor, starving family behind, in a way escaping his responsibilities. His wife and children may just follow in his footsteps, simply because they feel there is no hope, whereas when the father was around, they did.

Opinions?

Okay, I'll bite. To give a 'definitive' answer, I would need more details, but I'll just deal with it as you've presented it. First of all, Mr. X, if he has committed himself to providing for his family, should take the bad job that you say he refused. (As you have presented it, there is no indication that he has made more of a commitment in this area than Mrs. X, so why is it that she isn't getting a job? You also have not told us the ages of the two children; at some point, one's obligation to support them ends, and we have no idea from your description when this will occur in Mr. X's case.)

Because, it seems, that Mr. X has committed himself to supporting his family, his suicide violates that commitment. But this is really no worse than him sitting at home doing nothing to support them, and, in fact, with his death, he does not need to be supported, so it is better for him to kill himself than to continue to be an additional burden on his family.

In other words, you are presenting a case where, presumably, Mr. X has voluntarily committed himself to a certain course of action, which would not be consistent with suicide. Therefore, his suicide is wrong, but only because it violates his previous commitments. I already indicated this kind of case above, when I stated:

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrrho
If you have made a commitment to not kill yourself, then you should not do so (under normal circumstances). But that, too, is your choice. Whatever agreement you have made with your wife regarding such things should be considered, though obviously extraordinary or extreme circumstances may make the commitment irrelevant (Kant would disagree with me on this). In general, one has no such commitment to one's parents or other blood relatives, nor to one's friends. You may, for example, move to the other side of the world, and never see them again. Perhaps you will choose to live in a remote village, and be unable to communicate with them ever again, so you may as well be dead as far as your future interaction with them goes. But, presumably, you have made some sort of commitment to stay with your wife, though perhaps not.

I should have added that, generally speaking, when one produces children, one is voluntarily creating an obligation to care for them, up to a certain age. Suicide is not generally consistent with that, but many other things are no more inconsistent with that obligation, but often are not illegal, such as Mr. X's refusal to take a job he does not like when no other jobs are available. Of course, if he were legally obligated to take the job, we would be putting him in a position of forced labor, something very much like slavery. Which brings us back to the title question of this thread: "Should suicide be made illegal?" I say, no.

We still are left with the man's own appraisal for how bad his life is. We are not in a position to know what kind of emotional pain he suffered, and it is his life. Forcing someone to continue a miserable existence is a kind of torture, and no one deserves that.

XGuilt · 08-03-2003, 03:46 AM

To make suicide 'illegal' would be to create (yet one more) unenforceable law. Still today, however, if a person is unsuccessful in attempting suicide and 'the law' becomes aware of it (such as via a hospital visit, or by advice of a friend or family member), in some states that person can have his/her freedom jeopardized by the effort of some do-gooder. And since most suicides in this country are attempted by people under legal age, parental authority and responsibility can override a young person's individual rights and freedoms after a failed suicide attempt.

The only other comment I would offer on this subject is to refer anyone to the concept of 'rational suicide' - which does exist and is logical, and is offered in the writings of Ayn Rand...

winstonjen · 08-03-2003, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by XGuilt
The only other comment I would offer on this subject is to refer anyone to the concept of 'rational suicide' - which does exist and is logical, and is offered in the writings of Ayn Rand...

Here is another example of suicide in the terminally ill when self-starvation takes too long. A quote:

Quote:

The method (withholding treatment) came into prominence in Australia in January 2001. Cancer sufferer Norma Hall tried to use it with full access to palliative care, found it unbearable, and committed suicide after seven days (5). The case received a great deal of publicity. Norma Hall, a clear thinking, courageous and determined person, had attended one of Dr Phillip Nitschke's advisory clinics to explore her options as her premature death from cancer approached. She was attracted by the legality of the method - it could apparently be achieved openly without compromising others - and decided to involve the media in the monitoring process. She signed a declaration of her intentions and gave a short interview for national television explaining in detail why she was using the method, which was widely reported in the press, and on radio. There is no doubt that she demonstrated the inadequacy of the method under prevailing medical and legal conditions in Australia, and the need for legislation to define the circumstances and safeguards under which proper medical assistance in hastening death at the request of the patient may be provided.

Quote:

In summary, it seems that:

this method of self-deliverance avoids some of the legal/ethical dilemmas by relying on our common law right to refuse medical treatment;

� refusing food alone is a very lengthy process, so that fluids must also be refused. Even when both are refused, times in excess of a week may be involved;

� the method is most unlikely to achieve a peaceful death without medical treatment, particularly palliative care;

� medical treatment will include the provision of sedation, possibly terminal sedation, at some stage. The level of sedation will usually be decided by the treating doctor with the patient, and patient's advocate if one has been appointed, having limited capacity to insist on increased sedation. If adequate sedation is not provided, the method may be experienced as agonisingly slow, and certainly not peaceful.

� the medical treatment invokes the dubious principle of "double effect" (6) in which medical treatment to relieve suffering when the foreseen outcome is the death of the patient is permissible in certain circumstances provided the doctor does not "intend" the death of the patient. Ethical/medical/legal dilemmas may arise over whether providing food and fluids can properly be regarded as medical treatment, particularly when taken orally. Consequently there may be excessive scrutiny by medical/hospital/police/coronial authorities;

Shake · 08-04-2003, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by contracycle
Yes and no. Yes, I agree with you, ideally. In practice, states can and have conscripted their citizens and sent them to die. And an individual who tries to refuse to serv miltarily can often be accused of cowardice and shot. So clearly, under certain circumstances the modern western state does arrogate to itself the right to assume control of an individuals life. For an individual to attempt to remove themselves from this duty to the state can be considered treason, as in the case of being unwulling to fight.

Good post, contracycle. Now let's look at some of the replies:

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen
That's crazy. Would anyone want employees who didn't want to work for the company? They'd try to bring the company down and sabotage things if they could. It'd be better for soldiers to enrol of their own free will.

OK, first, contracycle is talking about militaries, not companies. The military is not a for-profit organization (per se), nor should it be thought of that way. Second, here in the US, the military IS an all-volunteer force. The COs that you hear whining when fighting starts signed up hoping to get through their terms without having to fight, and just get the benefits (education, experience).

Harumi's response to your reply was this:

Quote:

But unfortunately it's an ideal, and this is reality. As much as it makes sense, I doubt that the current government under Bush, Ashcroft, and even Rumsfeld would take to the idea.

Why should they change a system that's worked for years?

Getting back to the point of contracycle's post (which was apparently missed), governments call upon some of their citizens for defense, and yes, ask them to put their lives on the line. They do this for what is seen as the greater good. The lives of thousands are put on the line for the sake of defending millions of others.
[Spock]The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.[/Spock]

This was good, Heather!

Quote:

Personally, I wish we had legal suicide. You could get signed affidavits from a number of psychologists or psychiatrists indicating you are legally sane and not depressed. Then you get state permission to commit suicide if you want. I can think of a number of reasons a sane, non-depressed person might want it.

I don't think the state should have any right to stop suicide under any circumstances for sane and competent individuals but I'm realistic. State permission under restricted circumstances is more likely than suicide booths on every corner.

I agree with this.

Quote:

Loren Pechtel said:
Actually, there's one good reason for making it illegal: So the person can be punished in case of a failed attempt that harms others.

Someone jumping off of a highway overpass or throwing themselves in front of a motor vehicle is likely to cause additional damage and potentially harm others. I think this is what he was getting at. A self-hanging, OD, or drowning isn't likely to cause physical harm to others. Death is going to be hard on the survivors no matter what. Someone above used the case of a mother finding her son who had hung himself and how hard it was on her. Someone tell me how different this is if he had been killed in auto accident (single car), or some other way in which no one else was to blame. She'd have been equally upset at the loss of her son.

winstonjen · 08-12-2003, 01:07 PM

I posted a link to the Secular Euthanasia Debate between myself and Tom Sawyer here .

I response to Tom's statement:

Quote:

If you've ever been to a long-term care facility, you'll see that the people who visit there are glad that their loved ones are still around, no matter what the state of those loved ones is. They are relieved that they can still visit them and be with them and show the dying person that his life had an effect on others and they can be there for him in the end. If you talk to them, you'll find that they are comforted by the fact that he is still there and they can still express their feelings to him, rather than hoping that his pain ends so that they can get on with the greiving process and move on with their lives. Perhaps this is selfish of them and it would be better for them to just let him go, but when you're dealing with someone whom you love, you cherish the time you have together, especially when you know it's going to be short and you want that time to continue as long as is possible.

One poster said:

Quote:

Hell f***ing no. When one of my grandmas was dying, she was in pain -- when she wasn't drugged or wasn't going crazy. She knew she was going to die, and it was painful for family members (my dad and his sister) to watch her for six months, spewing out hurtful or untrue things or nonsence. My dad was NOT relieved, was NOT comforted by the fact that she was still ALIVE and SUFFERING and that he could NOT express his feelings to her. While he cherished the time he had left with her, he certainly didn't want her to suffer so he could selfishly talk to her some more.

Someone else said:

Quote:

I have debated suicide many times. Ultimately, the final argument of the opposition removes from their arsenal is the simple:

"Your death dosen't only effect yourself. It effects all those who know you. It causes pain to them. Suicide is a selfish act."

Which to me, proves nothing. If you live for others and not yourself, you are not living. You are merely existing.

It is a hollow existence to life for everyone but yourself. I know, I am there right now. I'd wish it for no one. I would rather be dead than be living simply to not hurt my family. I couldn't read the whole debate because I don't have the attention span, I just wanted to bring that to your attention.

To me, the anti-euthanasia movement is NOT about compassion for the dying - it's about control and tyranny.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-03-2003, 03:46 AM	#72
XGuilt Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Columbus OH USA Posts: 12	To make suicide 'illegal' would be to create (yet one more) unenforceable law. Still today, however, if a person is unsuccessful in attempting suicide and 'the law' becomes aware of it (such as via a hospital visit, or by advice of a friend or family member), in some states that person can have his/her freedom jeopardized by the effort of some do-gooder. And since most suicides in this country are attempted by people under legal age, parental authority and responsibility can override a young person's individual rights and freedoms after a failed suicide attempt. The only other comment I would offer on this subject is to refer anyone to the concept of 'rational suicide' - which does exist and is logical, and is offered in the writings of Ayn Rand...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.