i saw a bit of a tv show yesterday that sparked quite a debate between
a fellow grexer and myself. it concerns the right to die.
a woman, who was a member of AOL xtian forum saw a suicide
note posted there. she went through great lengths to get
help in locating and preventing the death of this stranger.
she appeared on a talkshow, and seemed very pleased with herself. the
audience applauded as well.
now, this got me thinking. the person who was trying to kill himself
was a grown man with all the rights and priveleges associated with such.
why shouldnt a person be allowed to die if they want to?
if you think a terminally ill person should be able to terminate their
life <i do>, then why couldnt someone who WASNT terminally ill be
allowed to terminate their life?
i have heard people say that suicide is a very selfish act. but i dont
agree.. i think that forcing a person to bear all the emotional
pain that is obviously too much for them to bear in the first place just
so they will stay around for the comfort of others is selfish.
what business is it of someone if a person wants to die? is it really
being a goody-two-shoes to force your will onto someone?
if someone REALLY wants to die, and it isnt a half-hearted cry for
attention, and they REALLY know what they are doing, then they should
have the right to die.
if you step in and prevent someone from dying, then are you willing
to be responsible for them and their pain, or will you just walk
away patting yourself on the back thus leaving the person to continue
living in agony? you'd 'make sure the person got help' you say?
how? call them everyday? give them your home phone so they could call you
at 2am and cry? or during a busy meeting at work? would you
chauffer them to a psychicatrist's meeting? pay for it?
would you be willing to do this for a family member? a friend? why not a
stranger then?
what business is it of yours if you arent willing topersonally
throw yourself into this person's life? or dont people see past
being a 'hero' for stoppping a suicide?

ok folks.. have at it

68 responses total.

  I dont think there is any way to tell for 100% sure who is certain they
want to die.  Michigan's most famous citizen, Dr. Jack Kervorkian, should in
my opinion be tossed in the clink the next time he plays god.  It is one
thing to show compassion, but it should be against the morals of any human
being to take another life or assist in the taking of another life.  In the
end the only person you are making feel better is yourself.

i happen to applaud kevorkian's efforts.

I also applaud Dr. Kervorkian. I conclude that a person *should*
have the right to take their own life. They should, of course, make
all necessary prior arrangements, so that no one will be harmed by
their act (e.g., their bills should be paid..). However, I also
realize that leanings toward suicide can be very ephemeral, as can
be personal "pain", anguish, or whatever. All people have mood
swings, and some have mood swings that take them over the "line" that
suggests suicide - and then back again, when they wouldn't even
consider suicide. The problem, of course, is that acting on their
mood on the suicide side of the line precludes them rejecting the
option on the survive side of the line. Therefore I think that there
should be some safeguards so that each person considering suicide
looks at it from "both sides of the line". 

Igor, what would you do about a teenager who is so distraught over a first
relationship ending that he or she spirals into a depression and makes
suicide gestures?  Would you assume this person is in full control and has
accurately assessed the situation?  Let it be and see what happens? What
of someone who suffers from episodes of clinical depression where brain
chemicals are so out of whack the person is suicidal?  Should medical
insurance cover their treatment including the necessary medications to
reset these brain chemicals? 

Should there be laws which allow society to step in during such a 
crisis, keep the person safe until it can be understood what's 
happening and it is felt the person is indeed able to see to his
or her best self-interests?  There are such laws now.

There are, no doubt, folks who need to be able to end their own
lives with dignity and without being considered either incompetent
or criminal.  But there are others who simply need help to get
through a crisis.  Big difference.

   Quite right.   I'm in favor of letting people terminate their
own lives, but it needs to be done as a *rational* decision, and
not in haste.  When someone is in the state that Mary described
they aren't in the right frame of mind.  So I have no problems
with stopping the suicide of someone at first.  Perhaps even a
couple of times.  I know that the *vast* majority of people who've
been thwarted in their attempts have later seen this as a good
thing--they were able to overcome the problems, and ultimately
see that what they thought of as a life-ending situation wasn't
really that at all, despite the momentary pain.

   But if they still want to end their lives after some period
of time, and despite counsiling, they should be allowed to do so.
I knew a woman many years ago, who made the attempt twice only
to be "rescued" at the last minute.  This person had some really
deep mental problems compounded by a cyclic despression, which
even the strongest drugs could not stop.  I remember talking to
her sister one night, as she was recalling the days "therapy" with
a doctor who kept on insisting that things would be allright, etc.,
when the sick woman and her sister knew it wouldn't be.  Finally,
she performed what I would call an acting job and convinced the
doctors that they were right, etc., and said she felt better, and
wanted to go on a short vacation.  Borrowing the family car, she
wandered around the UP for a while, and finally chose a spot where
she routed the exhaust back into the car, and let it idle.  As her
luck went, a Delta county sherrif found her, and tried bringing her
back to life(!) again.  The was successful this time however and no
one who knew her was really surprised at what had happened.

   So there are cases in which people should be allowed to make
the decision to end their lives.  Unforunately, the Christian 
concepts of life override the concepts of liberties in most places
in the world.  The only exception I know of is the Netherlands,
where people can die, sometimes, if they have a terminal problem.

i did make an allowance for the person who makes a half hearted
suicide attempt in orderr to get attention or as a
cry for help.
i was referring to someone who thought it through and definately
wants to die SHOULD be able to die.
i know there are laws to the contrary.

i'm not convinced that there are many people who would welcome
a total stranger into their life, home or whatever to deal with
the consequences of a suicide they halted.
i'm assuming most 'rescuers' would think their job ends there with
a pat on their back.
if someone isnt willing to be PERSONALLY responsible for the continued
agony of someone they forced their will onto <i.e. forced them to live>
then they should just let the suicide attemptee decide what is best
for themselves.

Linking this to scruples...

Well I feel that if the person has a terminal condition, then they do have
a right to die. Now phsyical terminal conditions can be diagnosied <sp!>
but emotionaly terminal people, are harder to weed out of the crowd... It
seems to me that if you leave a note that states, you are going to kill 
yourself, then mainly you are asking for help. I think if someone wanted to
kill themselves over emotional pain, then they would just do it, and not 
worry about leaving notes. Leaving a note is like asking someone to stop you
there by involving them in your life, and making it their bussiness to stop
you.

When I was in high school I had a friend who would call me and tALk about how
she hated her life and wanted to die. She didn't have many friends and was
starved for attention. I talked to her as much as I could but knew everything
was ultimately up to her. She got out of high school, is now abou to graduate
from Occupational Therapy school and is going to be married soon. Sometimes
we forget that bad times WILL pass. Suicide also has a "take that!" aspect
to it in cases like this: "i;m in pain, so I'm gonna end mine and give it to
you."
As for terminally ill people, I personally would rather they pull the plug
than let me lie there in pain. I wouldn't want to put my family through it.
My grandma died of bone cancer, and it's so hard to watch someone you love
die slowly and be high on morphine to block the pain. She had always told me
that she wanted to die and go to Heaven, see her husband again and all that.
She died peacefully-- just took a deep breath and that was it. The woman on
AOL was surely motivated out of genuine concern I think, but in the meantiime
that guy could have offed himself. He posted a message where millions of
people could read it. A cry for help if I ever heard of one.

     I am a mudder.  That is, I've played Multi-User Dungeons (muds) for
a good couple of years.  Not those hard edge diku's or D&D clones, no.
I mud socially, on aber-style muds, in which the main goal isn't to kill
other players or something, but to talk a lot and socialize in a fake
atmosphere in which there just so happen to be computer-controlled bad
guys to fight. :) I once met this guy on the mud, the name of whom escapes
me now (sadly).  I never spoke to him very much, but he lived in the same
region of the state of VA as I do.  His attempt at suicide was a clear case
of a cry for help.  He logged on one day and talked to a few people in his
own introverted way and then before logging out, shouted "Goodbye Cruel
World!!!", which was a method of leaving which I had used for a while, so
I said to him "hey that's my line", and he responded with something like
"yeah, but I mean it." and well, before long I knew what he was alluding
to, because he wanted me to feel sorry for him.  I kept him talking long
enough to find out he'd been logging onto several other muds and announcing
his death, and many people were trying to track him down.  One person happened
to know his real name and made a few phone calls to find out where he lived,
and all the while I was keeping him online with rambling chatter.  Eventually
he just quit, spontaneously and dramatically, leaving me physically shaking.
He had apparently taken a bottle full of sleeping pills before logging on,
(or something of the like) and by the time he disconnected, a police car
was being dispatched to his home.  He was pumped out and sent to a local
psychiatric hospital in less than a week after the incident, and the whole
thing just shook me up pretty badly.
     Later, by about 3 weeks, he logged on again, from where I know not, and
told me "Fuck you, friend." and cut his connection.  I haven't heard from him
since.
     Verily, I don't know if the world is a better place with him alive in
it.  I can't be sure what was the right thing in that circumstance, but I
can't believe it benefits us as a species to have people killing themselves
because they're sorry for themselves, which if you get right down to it, is
always the reason.  Unfortunately for me, I also can't believe that you can
strip a person of the right to die.  Let's face it, btw, we're not talking
about the right to die, we're talking about the right to kill one's self.
     Igor, I most definately don't consider myself a hero in that case, nor
do I consider any of the others who helped set into motion the events which
prevented this guy's death.  However, I also did not follow this prevention
with any sort of pretense of personal responsibility for this person's 
mental health.  Truthfully, I 'passed the buck' of responsibility onto the
psychiatric hospital, knowing that they could handle it better than I could
have.  Looking at the bigger picture, saving the lives of depressed people
who afterwards contribute little to society is not always a step forward,
but that's another debate: efficiency vs. humanity.

if someone melodramatically spreads their intent on suicide in a
public forum, i agree that it is a cry for attention/help.
if someone wants to end their suffering <physical or emotional> then
it shouldnt matter if they are the nobel prize winner or someone
who never amounted to much... they should have the right to terminate
their own life. and they would do so without much fanfare.

Your all Going...oh never mind.  Death is my decision and mine alone.  You
do NOT have control of your lives, whatever gave you THAT idea?  Incidently,
That last entry is going to hell for the "FUCK YOU".  For I am the Lord your
God and I have Spoken. ;)

<heh heh..>

re 11 -- Welcome. Being omnipotent and omniscient -- perhaps you
could lend the Grex staff a little help? They are dedicated volunteers
and are performing a worthy service. 

Is #11 what's called the "second coming"? Sure doesn't live up to
the previews. 

<grin>

 There are a variety of reasons one might wish to kill themselves for. 
For instance, a soldier might throw himself on a grenade to save the
rest of his platoon.  A terminally ill person might wish to end their life
painlessly and with dignity.  Etc.  But, in Real Life, the vast majority
of suicide attempts are of the "impulsive" type - where a person is
depressed or suffers a psychiatric trauma (eg. significant other leaves,
etc).
 In the vast majority of cases, depression is a treatable illness.  Even
if untreated, depression will spontaneously remit over a period of several
months as a general rule.
 There is a *very* big difference between someone wishing to kill
themselves because they are depressed (treatable, self-limited illness)
versus the person who has sat down rationally and examined their life from
all angles and concluded after due consideration that perhaps a voluntary
termination of life is the best course.  The latter type of suicide is
what one might see in a person with a terminal illness, but even in this
situation, depression (treatable, self-limited illness) is often the
culprit.  For the person who has carefully thought things through, weighed
the choices, and made rational decisions free from emotional baggage, I
think most of us would be comfortable letting them take their own
life.  However, for the person acting out of depression or impulsivity,
preventing their death, even forcibly and against their will, is compassion.
IMNSHO, anyways.

   Well, I think all of you who are talking about a rational decision are 
missing the point.  A decision to kill one's self can *never* be free from 
emotional baggage.  No way, no how.  I don't care if you're a friggin' Vulcan, 
you still have to have feelings about killing yourself.  STeve and Bret say 
they'd support a thoroughly rational decision of suicide, but that's just CYA 
talk, because such a decision is impossible. 
   I agree with iggy, that everyone ought to have the right to end his own 
life.  I also know that if someone hadn't stepped into my life at just the 
right moment, on two occasions, I probably ouldn't be here.  And I'm glad I 
am.  It's a paradox I live with.
   Several of you have referred to "passing" or "temporary"  depression;
Bret spoke of "impulsive" acts.  I saw it written that people should be 
prevented from killing themselves while they're depressed.
   Well that's like saying you should only be allowed to drink when you're not 
thirsty.  It's a veiled attempt to prevent all suicide.
   How long does depression have to last (or keep recurring) for it to no 
longer be "temporary"?  Two weeks?  Two months?  Two years?  Twenty years?  
And if someone just can't stand to live in the world, what gives you the right 
to tell them they're not competent to make the decision for themselves, of 
whether they live or die? 
   I think, frankly, that our culture is terrified of death.  Why is there 
such a flap over the death penalty?  (n.b. I am not trying to start that 
argument here)  We have forgotten, entirely, that there are much worse things 
on earth than dying.

I'm not sure I agree with you, Mark.  The kind of rational suicide I refer
to might be something along the lines of this:  a person discovers they
are dying of cancer.  Right now, they feel okay.  But, they know in
several months they are going to be in pain.  In addition, they are going
to lose the ability to take care of themselves, so either their family
will be changing his/her diapers, or the patient will have to have some
sort of hospice arrangement.  Obviously, when the person first gets the
diagnosis, they are depressed.  After awhile, they come to grips with the
situation.  They plan a final trip to see the relatives, and perhaps visit
a tourist attraction that they had never quite got around to seeing.  Now,
they decide that they would rather end things on a positive note, as well
as a more tidy one.  After talking things over with spouse, and perhaps a
few good friends, they decide on a particular day, and, well, there you
have it.  That's a rational suicide.  How often does it happen?  Dunno.
 It's true that I have never had to face suicidality on a personal level. 
But, I have seen death and dying on a number of occasions.  What I think
is that a person is entitled to a dignified death.  Yes, this is a
nebulous term.  For some situations, this means a death free from pain. 
For others, it means a clean death (eg. not having the patient drool all
over their loved ones, as an example).  For others, it is the setting of
the time of one's death, and perhaps the manner of it.
 There are a number of ways in which I would *not* wish to die.  Torture,
for example.  Or, at the end of a long, painful, hopeless attempt at
revival.  I think I would also not like to die in rage, or in fear.  It
seems to me, that to allow someone to die in the depths of hopelessness
and despair that is major depression, is to let them die a bad death. 
Especially (as I have stated), when depression is largely a treatable,
temporary illness.
 I don't imagine everyone will agree with me.  The ethical principles of
autonomy and beneficence (paternalism in this discussion) often conflict
in medicine, with gray areas of right and wrong.  Where you draw the line
is a difficult question, and will depend on your perception of the "facts"
and the principles in question.  For me, at least, I have made my
decision.  I think dying of depression is a bad death.  Compassion would
dictate that we try to prevent such deaths.  Again, IMHO.

i think that terminally ill patients do have the right, as long as it it
\well thought out.  i apploud dr. kevorkian for being brave enough to help
those people out that are no longer capable of doing it themselves.  for
all of the people that he has helped, they all had discussed it with their 
families, and everybody knew what was going on.  on the other hand, is
depression a terminal illness?  a very good friend of the family's killed
herself this past winter, leaving a husband and 3 children.  She had been on
depression medicine, but apperently something went wrong.

where does the line exist?

And old "Dr. Death Kevorkian" visited another patient yesterday.

  Dr.Kevorkian's latest client was a 48 year old woman with multiple
sclerosis.  I have personal experience dealing with someone who had that
disease.  There is simply no way Kevorkian could have been 100% sure
this woman was coherent and fully aware.  When you are in the latter
states of MS, severe damage has been done to your neurological
systems.  Even when one appears to be fully in control of their
faculties, they are not.  This was a sick woman, her body and brain
ravaged by disease.  I
   I'm sure Kevorkian judged her to be conscious and aware enough to
make decisions, but there is no way he can really tell what the damage
to her systems had already done and there is no way he can be 1 ,000%
sure she was really making a rational decision. 
   Dr.Kevorkian says he acts out of compassion, but in my way of thinking,
he is encouraging these people even unintentionally, even by his mere
presence, to make these decisions.  In that way he is playing god.  He
knows he is playing god.  And he is wrong.  
  Essentially I think people DO have the right to take their own lives, but
Jack Kevorkian does NOT have the right, even at invitation, to help them.
What he does is take a gun, load it, stick it in the patient's mouth, and
then say, "If you want to pull the trigger, I'll hold it and help you pull"
  What these people want is permission to take their own lives and he
is granting that permission.  I say he doesnt have that right.

So, maybe she was making an irrational decision - but it was the best
she could do. I think she had the right.

I support the right to assisted suicide, but I don't think Jack Kevorkian has
helped the issue in the least.  Jack Kevorkian is hardly the first docto to
help patients kill themselves.  What he is is the first to do it for the
publicity.  While there are lots of doctors who would quietly prescribe an
overdose of sleeping pills, or something like that, for terminally ill
patients who were in so much pain that they couldn't take it anymore,
Kevorkian distinguishes himself by providing  "suicide machines" to his
patients, and after they have killed themselves with his contraptions, he has
his rather flamboyant and arrogant lawyers call a news conference about it.
I really have to wonder sometimes whether Kevorkian is really doing this for
his ptients, or whether he's doing it to get attention for himself.

What Kevorkian is doing, essentially, is forcing the issue in a way that
people really haven't forced it before.  While those who helped patients get
lethal doses of drugs were truly allowing their patients to die quietly and
peacefully, as Kevorkian claims to be trying to do, they got little attention
and were barely noticed politically.  What Kevorkian may be trying to do is
to make the legislators and the anti-choice people have to be aware of what's
going on.  Maybe in Kevorkian's ideal world, these people will realize that
assisted suicide is happening, and there's not much they can do to stop it.
What's happening instead is that Kevorkian's theatrics and blatant self
promotions are causing people who would otherwise have left the issue alone
to try to stop it.  His flaunting of the procecutor and the legislature has
just made them more determined to stop him, and by extension, the others who
were also doiing the same sort of thing a lot more quietly.  If Kevorkian
really does want to see assisted suicide become legal and accepted, the best
thing he could possibly do is to quietly go away.

A good friend of mine has had MS for almost 10 years. She's 35. She says
that MS rarely impairs your mental faculties, even as it ravages the
body.

I don't agree with all Doc Death's tactics, but I think he has helped and
continues to help bring the topic to the forefront of public debate.  What
he does is currently not legal nor accepted in Michigan, and if he's not
out there challenging the law and raising public awareness to keep the 
debate alive, I don't think that status is likely to change for a long time.

I agree. What should one do when one believes passionately in a
principle and related practices? Keep quiet? That isn't how to 
effect change. All leaders of opposition to established practices
have been called "publicity hounds". I think Steve may be forgetting
the hysteria and opposition  generated by the women supporting 
universal suffrage. 

i keep hearing a phrase thrown out: "playing god".
what EXACTLY do you who use it mean?
explain what you mean by the phrase, and why you use it with such
distaste.
or is it just another catch-phrase with no real meaning?

Playing god is a term used to describe, when someone feels they have the right
to take other people's lives into their hands. Commonily used when talking 
about sergions, and other doctors... 

  I agree with that.  Usually it refers to making life-or-death
decisions about another person, but it can be extended to refer
to any type of interference in another person's life.  I think
the contempt comes from a general Christian belief that God and
*only* God should decide when people should die.  Modern medical
technology has created some conflicts with this view; surgeons
often do "play God," by the common usage.  (Got one kidney to
transplant, and two potential recipients - who lives, who dies?
Or is any transplant justified, if it violates God desire for
both recipients to die?)

what if god decides to 'play doctor'?   <sorry, couldnt resist>

The expressiion is "playing god" - small G. The word "god" is shorthand
for any mythological person that is/was arrogant, arbitrary, and powerful. 
Since those characteristics are found in people too - such as some doctors
- the expression gets applied to them. I don't think it applies to Dr.
Kervorkian, however, as he appears to communicate at great length with
those he assists, and considers their wishes. 

<orwell gives a delayed laugh to the joke by iggy>

(laughs)

re 24:
        What Kevorkian is doing was legal in Michigan when he started.  Because
of him, it is no longer legal in Michigan.

But no one was doing it when it was legal...where does that leave us?

"There's no law against it as long as you don't do it" is no freedom at all.
The law would have been enacted if anyone had aided a number of suicides.
Many people thought it was covered under existing statutes, but when the
courts ruled for Kevorkian, then Michigan enacted legislation outlawing it.

Plenty of people were assisting suicides, but they were doing it without
Kevorkian's theatrics.

This is true.  I'm kinda caught on this one.  I'd really like
to see the issue of assisted death on demand get some support
and our society get over some of it's weirdnesses about 
death but I'm sorry Kevorkian (crass showman that he is) has
decided to shepherd the cause.

Re #20:  Kerouac, you say you believe people do have the right to take their 
own lives.  Then you say that Jack Kevorkian is giving them "permission" to do 
it, and you think that's wrong.  How can he give them permission, if it's 
already their right?!?  That doesn't make any sense.  How can he do anything 
but help them, since they don't *need* permission?

Re #17:  I have a couple of things to say about Bret's example of a suicide he 
thinks would be "rational".  I'll grant him that maybe someone could wish for 
suicide when he wasn't overwhelmed by emotion, though of course most thoughts 
of suicide don't come under those circumstances.
   Bret's example is of someone who is scheduled to die anyway and decides to 
do it himself so that he's acting rather than being acted upon.  I agree that 
the man in question ought to have the right to commit suicide.
   But I also think *no one* should be denied the right to commit suicide.  
And on that point I shall lay down my gauntlet.
   In Bret's example, a man is told by his doctor that he is shortly going to 
be in a lot of pain, ending in death.  First of all, that doctor does not know 
the future.  He can't say with absolute certainty what will happen, all he 
knows is that there is a *high probability* that the man will suffer and die.  
So if you accept Bret's example, you have to accept that a decision of suicide 
can be based on probabilities. 
   Now, why must a person be dying shortly in order to make suicide a 
"reasonable" option?  What if, instead, he thought that there was a high 
probability that he would suffer for the rest of a long life?  Say, for 
example, he had been a heroin addict for 20 years, had given up hope of 
kicking the habit, and hated himself for it and the things it made him do.  
Wouldn't that make it even more "reasonable" for him to consider suicide? 
   Note: before I go any further, let me just say that the example above is 
not a *recommendation* to anyone - it is absolutely, positively, unequivocally 
NOT MY PLACE to make recommendations about suicide to someone else.  And 
that's my whole point, as you'll see in a moment.
   Now, I'm sure Bret didn't mean to say that physical pain is the only kind 
of suffering.  Certainly people suffer psychologically.  If someone were faced 
with a lifetime of mental agony, isn't that a "reasonable" reason to commit 
suicide?
   Now, what the hell does "reasonable" mean anyway?  I say it's a judgement 
that can only be made by the individual in question, because there is no way 
anyone else can possibly know what life is like for him.  There are people on 
this planet for whom every day of life is pure hell.
   And at this point, I think it's absolutely ludicrous that anyone should 
tell a person like that "No, sorry, you have to keep on living."  That person 
views life as a *prison* - you are *imprisoning* him against his will.  I 
could take one of my friends, and lock him in the basement, and say, "You 
should stay here.  I know you want to leave now, but you'll get used to it 
here (even if it takes a couple of months).  There's a pool table and a VCR.
Lots of other people like it, so I'm sure you will too."  Would that be a 
civilized thing to do?  Of course not.
   I think everyone *must* have the right to decide for himself that he wants 
to die.  I think it is the ultimate tyranny to tell someone they must live 
when life, to them, is unlivable.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss