Why? I think you need to justify this statement with reasoned argument. I think you are confusing your disgust at the fact that a gay man would feel so unaccepted in our society that he would choose to suicide with the actual argument, which is not at all about encouraging gay people to suicide, but instead simply about allowing all individuals who choose to suicide to do so (there are a lot of failed suicides, with serious repercussions, this policy would stop this from occurring, additionally, it may also lead to greater social acceptance of suicide- see below).

I think this is really about our society coming to terms with the fact that there will always be those who want to suicide, and instead of 'nannying' them, we should accept this, and we should give them the opportunity to fulfill their last wish in a peaceful, dignified manner (rather than being found hanging under the house by family members). This would be better for the individual, better for his or her family and better for society.

Further, this position would hopefully create a new way of thinking about suicide. Suicide could be thought of as an individual's choice. We don't know what is best for them, and therefore, we cannot say that it is best for them to live, because we don't know this. Therefore, all we can do is respect and support their right to make the decision that is right for them.



There is no obligation. If people choose to work in the industry that provides the drug that allows people to suicide that is their choice, they are in no way obligated to work in that particular industry.

I find it a little hypocritical for you to use the term 'nannying' when your position is the one that opposes making it easier for people to make their own decisions about their own life.

I think there’s more to it than that. What you are advocating is a change in the law to give social acceptance or approbation to a suicide decision, and social support (in the form of a socially-approved suicide drug) for implementing it. That is something that involves us all, even if we’re not actually handing out the drug ourselves.


I guess what’s at the bottom of my concern, arry, is this. Suicide, ultimately, is a decision to reject society; to terminate irrevocably all your human and social relationships.

It’s a decision that can be taken for a variety of reasons. We’ve already identified voluntary euthanasia, where somebody takes the decision to escape from actual or expected intolerable physical pain, but we’ve also agreed, I think, that euthanasia is something of a special case, and is not really what we are talking about here.

Euthanasia apart, suicide is usually a rejection of human relationships. Take your example of the unhappy gay man. He is fundamentally rejecting the relationships through which he is oppressed as a gay man; once he’s dead, we can’t hurt him any more. He is also, of course, rejecting the actual or possible sexual and romantic relationships which define him as a gay man in the first place; once he’s dead, he won’t be gay, and he won’t have to hate himself or be hated by others for being gay.

But the man who is rejecting every kind of human relationship is rejecting society, and therefore cannot reasonably ask for (and almost certainly does not want or care about) social acceptance of, or co-operation in, his decision. If he cared at all about this, he wouldn’t be suiciding. At best, he is indifferent to what others think about his suicide; all too often, he wants them to be offended, hurt by it.

It seems to me that if we as a society accept, endorse, co-operate in and approve of suicide decisions, even in the largely token way of passing this law which nobody will make use of, we are, in effect, saying, “You are right to terminate your connection with us; this is an ethically acceptable solution to the situation you find yourself in. We are happy, as you are, that your connection with us be utterly destroyed.” That seems to me to be a pretty fundamental rejection of someone, and to send utterly the wrong message to people who, as in this example, are struggling with society’s attitude towards them and their sexuality. That seems to me a profoundly immoral thing for society to say.

And, for the reasons just explained, the intending suicide does not need or want us to say it. We are saying this for our benefit, not for his. What we are really doing is trying to approve or excuse or forgive or normalise or whatever you will our action, as a society, of abandoning this man or, worse, of driving him to destroy himself. I don’t think that’s a proper, healthy or ethical stance for us to take. I don’t think we’re looking for his peace or dignity at all; I think we’re looking for something that will enable us to avoid facing what we have done to him.


I confess I was being deliberately provocative with that word. I can’t really justify it. But I don’t accept that what you propose is intended to make the suicide’s position any easier (and you’ve made no real attempt to explain how it would). I think it’s intended to make our position easier, so that we don’t have to face up to any responsibilty for our part in his suicide.

You make interesting points.

If I understand you correctly, suicide is about escaping pain;

-euthanasia is about escaping physical pain and this is acceptable.

-the gay man is escaping the pain of rejection and it is unacceptable for us
to condone this as we are all responsible for it.

and what about;

-the depressed person who wants to escape the pain of their mental illness?

And;

-the old person who feels their life is complete, and no longer has a need to continue living? Are they escaping pain? Is it possible for someone of say 40 to feel that as well? This type of suicide is not one we hear about much and is a tricky one as it does not appear to fit into the 'pain' category.

Hi arry

Two responses:

1. I haven’t said that euthanasia is acceptable; just that what you are proposing here is not euthanasia, and therefore requires its own justification.

2. What you say in this e-mail seems to me to be different in an important way from your original suggestion.

Your original suggestion was that people could get the suicide drug if (a) they wanted to kill themselves, and (b) this resolution endured for a month. There might have been some examination of whether they were mentally competent to make the decision – you didn’t say this but I think it was implied – but there would have been no examination of their reasons for wanting to die, or the sufficiency of those reasons in the eyes of others. If the reasons were persuasive to them, then the fact that they might not be persuasive to you or me or the doctor or whoever was of no relevance.

The point was, as I understood it, that suicide was the right (and, therefore, the responsibility) of the individual; his freedom to choose his own reasons for dying was not subject to review or restriction by someone else., Because he, and he alone, had the right to make the suicide decision, and because he, and he alone, was responsible for it, we were under an ethical obligation to accept his decision and to support him in giving effect to it.

But here you embark on an examination of a variety of possible reasons for suicide, suggesting that some or all of them might seem to us to be good reasons. Under your original proposal, such an examination would be irrelevant, and would not be undertaken, so – unless you’re changing your proposal – I don’t think you can rely on it to justify your proposal.

What is the relevance of the questions you ask in this post? Will the answer make any difference to your view that we should introduce the law you suggest?

I do not necessarily believe we should introduce the law, I was just interested in the ethical considerations; as the discussion evolves, so too do my questions. I follow the school of thought, "The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress."
As the discussion develops and hopefully so too does our understandings of suicide, we consider different things, and different ideas become relevant...

Could suicide be regarded as unassisted voluntary euthanasia? I wonder.

Hunter wrote:

... As long as my health and wallet holds out that should give me another 5-10 good years.

A race between poverty and death so to speak.

I understand. I analysed all my income and expenditure, made some limited provisions for my children also and after many late nights with the stars over my shoulder, I carefully constructed a speadsheet financial plan that calculated to the last dollar my forthcoming financial status. It shows that I can enjoy my retirement with adequate funds if I die shortly after retirement. If I want to travel more after retirement, or any of my children get married expect me to pay for the function or drinks, I will have to die earlier. Suicide should be legalised to all those who wish to take that action. We each own, more or less, our life and should be legally allowed to own our death. Such is life, and death.

So Hunter, we can maybe share a 7 in ten years. For those who are young, a & was a seven ounce glass of beer served in Victoria.

While the concept is true, the numbers are invented to entertain, hopefully.

I think this is an ethical issue. Is it ok to support suicide? And I think it's not ok to support suicide.

So very much would depend on the individual case here and of course family and friends.

Time restrictions and counselling of course would have to come into it as to when and by whom the 'drug' would be given.

We don't hesitate to put a beloved pet to sleep if it's suffering yet to do this to a human? Why is it so wrong? Why prolong their suffering and inhumanity when the outcome could be so much easier for the person choosing to die.

If anyone that I loved was suffering and there was absolutely no chance of recovery and this was their choice, I would back them 101%. Let them have their dignity and choice.

In saying this though, it's all well and good to comment on what we think is right or wrong when the situation isn't with us.