I can't remember if I've already raised this in another discussion, but anyhow, what are the ethical implications of de-criminalising suicide and making a suicide drug available to individuals who wish to suicide?

Let's say regulations are in place, such as a 1 month 'thinking period' before they are able to access the lethal drug.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

Also, isn't it logically incosistent to support euthanasia without also supporting suicide?

arry,

Suicide is often a long term solution to a short term problem.

If a person is terminally ill and they choose to end their own life, that is their decision. However, no one should be obligated to assist them.

Since I don't support euthanasia for humans, I don't have a logic problem. Where I would find the inconsistencey is if someone supported euthanaisa and abortion but not capital punishment.

I support physician-assisted suicide. I oppose euthanasia since it is killing someone without their consent or murder.

In my opinion, physician-assisted suicide should be allowed after a period of counselling and review.

Would many physicians be willing to "treat" people by providing them with death, rather then trying to improve their well being as is usual?

Christine



Some would, and i don't have a problem with them if they do so. My concern is if someone felt like they could compel them to do so if they had an ethical or moral objection. My other concern involves if Government health care should provide for this option in a timlier fashion than another treatment or in lieu of some other treatment.

Deleted by Hunter

Hunter, if I were to decide I wished to die, with or without assistance, it would be a suicide.

If, on the other hand, you decided my life wasn't worth living and chose to kill me, that would be euthanasia, or murder. Step one in legalizing murder is to change the language.

That's why I have a living will, which my daughter considers morbid, so that if I can't express my wishes at the time, my children have legally binding instructions.

There are different types of euthanasia; namely 'voluntary euthanasia' and 'involuntary euthanasia'.

In my question I am referring to the voluntary kind. How is it consistent to support voluntary euthanasia and not support suicide?

Further, if we respect an individual's right to control their own body, should we not allow them access to drugs to kill themself if that is what they desire? I agree suicide can be a long term solution to a short term problem, but this is of course not always the case. One person, a 'friend of a friend', committed suicide because they could not come to terms with being gay, that was a 'problem' that was not going away anytime soon. He was found hanging under his house. Now, if he had access to proper medical drugs, and suicide was seen as a viable option, wouldn't that have been a better outcome? Maybe he wouldn't even have done it because he would have to go to a doctor and think about it more carefully.. also, there are old people who apparently don't want to live anymore. Don't they have a right to end their life if they wish to?

Suicide has already been decriminalised in every Australian state or territory



This suggestion surprises me. People can - and do – commit suicide with knives, ropes, cliffs, tall buildings, moving trains, cars, prescription drugs provided for other reasons, illegal but readily available recreational drugs and a variety of other methods. Few of these are restricted in supply, and none of them are subject to a waiting period. What would be the point of making another method available, but subjecting it to a waiting period? The only intending suicides who would submit to the waiting period would be those who, for whatever reason, had no access to any of the unrestricted suicide methods, most likely the ill or significantly disabled. Which, I think, brings us back to a discussion of voluntary euthanasia rather than more general suicide.


How on earth is suicide by poison a better outcome than suicide by hanging? The only possible good outcome here is that this person comes to terms with himself.


Oh, I see what you mean. But he wouldn’t have had to go to a doctor. Even if the lethal drug with the one-month waiting period was available, hanging with no waiting period would also have been available, plus a variety of other immediately available methods. If he had decided to die, why subject himself to a month’s wait and no doubt endless interviews with the doctor, and the search for a doctor willing to prescribe?

There’s your parasuicide as a cry for help, which can go wrong and end in death, and there’s your suicide who wants to die. The latter group don’t mess around, they don’t seek help – they’re past that – and they won’t find the one-month-waiting-and-counselling remotely attractive. They generally conceal their suicidal intentions, precisely in order to stop anyone from trying to dissuade them.

The one-month-wait might be attractive to someone who is actually seeking help, rather than wanting to die. But we can offer help to people without agreeing to co-operate in their deaths if that is what they choose. Offering to co-operate in their suicide as a cover, or a “way in”, to actually offering them help not to suicide is ethically problematic. First, it’s dishonest. Secondly, by sending the message that suicide can be an acceptable response to whatever problem they are grappling with, we seriously undermine our own efforts to steer them to other responses. Thirdly, if we actually follow through, and provide the drugs when counselling failsx, what message to we send to others who are, e.g., struggling with their sexuality?

If somebody kills himself because he cannot live with being gay, that is a serious moral failing on the part of his community. But it’s not a moral failing we do anything to remedy by assisting him to kill himself; quite the opposite.

Suicidally inclined people are worthy of utmost consideration, nonetheless the act of suicide is often a selfish act, look how many people kill themselves to save face, when caught out doing something they had tried to hide.
It may let the sufferer off the hook, but it compounds the suffering of those around them by often making them feel they are responsible for the death. Yes, many times, their close associates have unwittingly contributed to their despair, never thinking that it would lead to such a horrible end.

We discussed this before and I think it was Mike M who related the study of interviews with failed suicides off the San Francisco Bridge. They said they regretted jumping off as soon as they had thrown themselves over the rails. One said he realised in an instant that all his problems were changeable accept his decision to jump off the bridge!

I am interested in ethics of us actually 'condoning' suicide (or at least condoning 'choice') by allowing individuals to access a drug that will put them peacefully to sleep.

I think this hits a number of points:

1) Should suicide be seen as a taboo? Or should it be seen (somewhat ironically?) as part of life?

2) Is it possible for a sane, reasonable person to decide to suicide, and if so, shouldn't we as a society support the individual's decision by making it peaceful, respectful and dignified (rather than a hanging)? Also, wouldn't it be better if they could tell those they cared about of their plans and have them around them when they choose to act?

3) Does our inability to cope with suicide come back to our inability to cope with death?

Christine, in response to your post, I have also read stories of people being angry at paramedics for rescusitating them and telling them, 'You know what I was trying to do!" Of course, I don't know if you heard, there was a case in America of a man trying to sue paramedics for bringing him back to life when he suicided. He argued they knew what he was trying to do and should not have interfered. This doesn't discredit those stories where people do change their mind, but it does show that some people do want to suicide and don't change their mind.

Also, allow me to take a different tact to this debate. Let us say, what if it selfish of the individuals who condemn suicide, such as family members etc to not listen or accept the person's decision to kill themself? What if it is selfish of us not to listen and understand and accept their decision because it is 'hard' or 'distressing' for us to have to comprehend. Does that give us the right to deny them a dignified death?

I appreciate Arry for making the point about language by saying there is voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Of course, if you review the plethora of posts on this forum about euthanasia you won't see the term voluntary euthanasia. Since voluntary euthanasia is suicide and involuntary is murder, the terms aren't needed to discuss the issue. Using euthanasia as a synomym for suicide does have value for legitimizing thei idea of some murders.

Suicide isn't a solitary event. I have an adopted family and I was talking to one of the boys when he was about 13-years old. He told me it was his fault his father committed suicide. I asked him how he came to that conclusion and when he told me I explained the flaws in his logic. The responsibility was his father's. Unfortunately, I am well aware that emotion always trumps logic. Suicide is frequently an aggressive act and the misery it causes survivors is often a motivation for suicide. A young man killed himself and left a note to his girlfriend, who had a new boyfriend, that said in part, "Now you'll be sorry." She was so heartbroken she attended the funeral with her new boyfriend for support.

I've always been confused about making suicide easier since I can't imagine anything easier than asphyxiation. I don't need a prescription for a rope. It can't fail. You can't change your mind before you die.

So, if a young man can't stand being gay and commits suicide it's a failing on the part of society? How about if a young man commits suicide because he can't stand his girfriend taking up with another guy? Is that a collective failing of some sort, too. How about someone who is facing public embarrassment and a possible jail sentence? Society is to blame?

Suicde can be a logical decision. I had dinner with the wife and daughter of a man who had committed a suicide after more than a year of fighting pancreatic cancer. During the dinner the mother got off on the suicide and I finally said, "It might have been the nicest thing he ever did for you." We talked about what the next three months would have been like and she said she understood but she wasn't happy about it. Another man had two verified illnesses, both of which were terminal, slow, and miserable. He killed himself early. I think it was a logical decision. Another man diagnosed himself with pancreatic cancer and killed himself. The autopsy showed that instead of pancreatic cancer, he had a kidney stone. His suicide was logical but based on false information.

Suicide is the person's choice and it is usually a foolish choice. Euthanasia is a decision to murder someone. It might be motivated by the best of intentions but that doesn't alter the fact.

It is certainly possible for a sane, reasonable person to decide to suicide. However it is equally possible for other sane reasonsable people to find the decision unconscionable, and to decline to accept it, still less to co-operate in it by adopting a law such as you propose. Why should they subordinate their consciences to his?

I don’t see that a drug overdose is any more “peaceful respectful and dignified” than a hanging, to be honest. But, in any event, I think the point is moot. Someone who really intends to kill himself doesn’t tell other people about it, still less invite them to be present while he kills himself. The last thing he wants is to have to deal with their anguish, their grief and their attempts to persuade him to reconsider. Indeed, to a large extent the reason why people kill themselves is that they cannot stand to observe the grief of others, for which they have persuaded themselves that they are responsible.

You have given no reason at all why an intending suicide would find your proposal remotely attractive. Many people already succeed in committing suicide – they are not in the least deterred by the unavailability of a designated “suicide drug” – and there is nothing to stop any of them from sharing their decision with their families and friends, discussing it with them, and inviting them to be present. Very few choose to do this. If they don’t choose to do this, what makes you think they would subject themselves to it, plus a one-month waiting period, in order to have access to a designated “suicide drug”?

To be blunt, even if we respect the decision of the individual to suicide, I don’t see that there is any demand at all for what you are proposing. It is not what those who choose to suicide appear to want.

But you also beg the question of whether we should respect a decision to suicide. Even those societies which do accommodate suicide generally have narrowly—defined circumstances which are considered to justify suicide, and suicide outside those circumstances remains shameful, dishonourable, horrible – certainly not accepted. There has never been a society, so far as I know, in which a decision to suicide is respected simply because it is the wish of the individual.

(Nor can I see any ethical case why we should respect a decision to suicide simply because it is the wish of the individual. We are social animals, and my suicide affects others other than me; why should my wishes alone determine what is right?)

When we discuss voluntary euthanasia or assisted dying, what we are really talking about is accepting suicide in the narrow circumstances of terminal illness and/or unbearable pain. And proponents are in fact careful to make this point; they reject “slippery slope” arguments.

But your proposal here is quite different. If an individual wants to suicide, and this is a considered decision which has withstood a waiting period, then he can have the suicide drug. There is no enquiry at all into what his reasons for wanting to suicide are, or whether anybody else agrees they are sufficient. Thus, to take an extreme example, if he wants to suicide because he cannot afford the most fashionable clothing brands, and cannot bear to be seen wearing anything less, he gets the drug.

The point is highlighted by your own example; the man who suicided because he could not live with being gay. As already pointed out, it is wildly unlikely that he would have taken up this option, had it been available, and asked for a suicide drug. But, if he had, then to my mintd there is no way in hell that “Are you sure, mate? OK, here you go!” would be an ethically acceptable response.

Deleted by Hunter

The main people impacted by the deaths outlined in Hunter's post are clearly his father and his friend's 81 year old father and the relatives of both. From Hunter's post it is clear that the relatives believed what they were doing was the best option. The other people impacted were the respective fathers, whom I am sure either had the same view or had expressed such a view previously.

In such instances the main people impacted share the same preferred outcome, so these actions are clearly ethical for both groups of people in my view.

People not impacted by such decisions should have a very minor or no say in the decision.

Hunter makes no such claim, and it seems a rather big assumption to make. In considering these issues, people could have:
- acted on the basis of what they knew or thought the patient wanted
- acted on the basis of what they considered to be in the patient's best interests
- acted on the basis of what they would have wanted, if they were in the patient's position
- acted in their own interests ("I can't bear to watch my father suffer" or "I don't believe in prolonging life needlessly")

These are very different approaches, and may result in very different answers to the question.

As Hunter tells these stories, in both cases the intiative was taken by the doctor, not the patient or the patient's relatives. In the second case, the doctor put his question in terms of what he wanted, and what he thought the relatives might want ("We don't want to see your father suffer, do we?") which might point to a "best interests" decision, or a "relatives' interests" decision. There is no suggestion that anyone talked about what the patient wanted. Perhaps they did, but it seems a lot to assume that that was the driver of the decision.

These stories may be an accurate reflection of how euthenasia plays out in practice, but if so then we need to consider the ethics of what actually happens, not the ethics of some assumed alternative account which we substitute for the reality because we prefer to face the ethical issues raised in the fictional version.

However, in the context of this thread, Hunter's story merely underlines the point already made that what arry proposes has little to do with voluntary euthenasia. Even where euthenasia is voluntary, people typically argue for its acceptance on the basis of the terminal illness and/or unbearable suffering of the patient. What arry proposes is quite different; that we should accept and support the suicidal intentions of anyone who is not actually insane, without any examination of the reasons for their wish to die, or the sufficiency of those reasons.

In response to P's points:

-If you think the suicide drug will not be made use of, why would you oppose allowing it to be accessible?

-The question of whether 'we should respect suicide simply because it is the wish of the individual. We are social animals, and my suicide affects others other than me; why should my wishes alone determine what is right?'
If we are to accept that a person's body belongs to them and them alone, than by consequence, we should accept their right to stop their body from functioning. If we think their body belongs to the government, than by all means, support the criminilisation of suicide and have those who do attempt to suicide locked up in mental institutions. But I think, as I have stated and as research has shown, that some people choose to suicide simply because they no longer wish to live. The interesting thing is, pereginus you are actually imposing your 'conscience' on others. You feel 'guilty' if someone else suicides so you don't want them to do it because of the effect it has on you. But see, i don't actually think you have that right. There is a saying, 'My freedom ends when it begins to intrude on your freedom'. I think if you're saying to someone, 'i don't care how miserable you are, I don't care how bad you might feel due to depression or whatever, I don't want you to suicide because it makes me as an indivdiual feel bad and we as a society feel bad. So you can't do it'. That doesn't sound like a very rational or respectful argument to me. Nor an argument that respects individual freedom.

The one month waiting period is there so they have time to 'change their mind'. If a person says they want to suicide because they can't wear fashionable clothes, I would suspect that 'reason' is covering up deeper reasons which they wish not to discuss, but the difference between you and I is, I don't think it's our business to know those reasons if htat person doesn't wish for us to know them. All I say is, let the individual decide for themself, we will never get inside their head, we will never know what's right for them, so let them make their own decisions.

I thought this was relevant and interesting....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... icide.html

"The group has proposed training non-medical staff to administer a lethal injection to healthy people over the age of 70 who "consider their lives complete" and want to die. Under the plans, the suicide assistants would be certified and would be required to make sure that patients were not temporarily depressed and had a "heartfelt and enduring desire" to die."

Deleted by Hunter

Even if nobody takes the offer up, what we are saying in making the offer at all is something that we should not be saying.

If we kill gays, that’s ethically unacceptable. If we treat gays so badly that they kill themselves, that’s no better. If we become aware that a gay man has been driven to choose suicide, the response “fine, that’s your choice; here, have some poison” is unacceptable. A general statement that any gay man driven to choose suicide will be given poison if he asks for it is equally unacceptable. It’s monstrous, in fact.


That’s a very reductionist view of suicide. And, I think, an unrealistic one. Reflect on the double-take we do when you describe a suicide as “stopping the body from functioning”. How many suicides would cry “I must stop my body from functioning?” Stopping the body functiong is a by-product of what they are really doing, which is bringing an end to consciousness, to escape physical or existential pain, etc. If you need to characterise suicide so artificially for the purposes of your argument, that makes me mistrust your argument.

If we take a consequentialist view for a moment, the fact that the individual’s body “stops functioning” is not the sole consequence of suicide. Their suicide does affect others, sometimes very profoundly. In fact, when you think about it, by definition it is others who have to live with the consequences of this action, not they themselves. Not coincidentally a desire either to punish or to relieve others is often one of the drivers of a suicide decision.

In that light , I see no case for saying that suicide is a purely private decision, in which no-one else has any ethical interest, and which we have an ethical obligation always to respect.


I don’t think anyone’s body “belongs to the government”. I haven’t supported the recriminalisation of suicide. I haven’t suggested that intending suicides should be locked up in mental institutions. None of these are corollaries of rejecting your position, and if you need to set up straw men like this, again it makes me think that your argument may not be all that sound.


I don’t think I am imposing my conscience on others. As I’ve pointed out, suicide is not illegal and people can and do commit suicide without any need for a socially-sanctioned and socially-supplied suicide drug. I have not suggested that any of this be changed.

What you are arguing for is not my freedom to suicide – the evidence that I have this freedom is unassailable – but my freedom to demand the assent and co-operation of others in my suicide. It seems to me that, if your proposal were implemented, those others would have their consciences infringed. They would be required to assent to, and co-operate in, suicides regardless of the motive or justification. I do not think this obligation can be justified.


They can already make their own decisions (including, obviously, their decision not to subject themselves to your nannyish one-month waiting period). What they can’t do is make my decision for me. I can disagree with their intention to commit suicide, I can reject the sufficiency of the reasons they offer, and I can decline to participate. And I don’t, to be honest, see any case for saying that they should be entitled to deny me the right to make those decisions.