Is Suicide a Fundamental Human Right?

[Sharat]

think you approach the issue from a far to simplistic point of view, speaking as someone who has deliberated over his own death ( and i do not wish this to be a sob story for I am no longer in that realm) but speaking as a man who seriously deliberated over the issue and came to the conclusion that though it was the simple solution it was morally unacceptable, let me recount why

I went through deliberations for a week, with myself, I had no intention of either informing anyone of my thought, nor discussing it with anyone and though obviously fear did play a factor

Ultimately it boiled down to me sitting down and watching a program on North Korea, a BBC documentary, where they interviewed a man who ran a prison a gulag ( can you imagine a gulag in North Korea)

In that documentary i came to learn that in North Korea if you commit a crime or you are perceived to commit a crime whether in fact you may have been innocent is irrelevant, you go to these gulags, not content to punish the individual, the next generation of your family also receives a prison sentence and so to does the third generation

So the reality is, you can be born into a prison there by virtue of having a grandfather who may have been innocent yet you would still have to do a lifetime of hard cold labour

In the gulag they have the five member rule meaning that if you commit an offense the 5 families (these are family affairs in North Korea) surrounding your immediate proximity are also punished. Collective culpability is what it is referred to over there

When I though that things in my life were difficult to the point that I wished to take my life, i think of these people, people who never had a chance to start with in the first place and though some may succumb and opt out the majority persevere, whether it is due to lack of opportunity or not is irrelevant to me

I decided taking the easy the way out was just that, far to easy, things have a tendency to be bad and get worse, but no matter how bad it gets there is always worse

To take the easy way out and commit suicide in that context is not acceptable, perhaps excusable for euthanasia i would not argue that point, but for people who can walk and talk and are free

It is disrespectful, and should you wish to die in a disrespectful manner negating anything you meant as a human being, your life meaningless

then i would argue be my guest. you mean nothing

 

[juju]

Sharat,

Just because one is worse off than another, this does not make it any better for the second. To think anything else is rather ghoulish.

It's like feeling better because someone is worse off than you. How UN-human.

If you think that some people in the world are really worse off than you (and they are), why don't you try to do something about it. Like toppling the North Korean government for instance.

As for the meaning of life. It has none. It is just a stage in the evolution/becoming of your being. It has no intrinsic value or meaning. It only has value or meaning in terms of what you learn from it and how it furthers your evolution/becoming. If you get nothing from it and it retards your evolution/becoming, it is useless.

juju

 

[Sharat]

That is a little naive don’t you think, and that’s not what I suggest at all, its not about feeling better because someone else is worse off, its knowing that there are people out there and you need to continue. Nor was that the context at which I looked at the decision from. please read the post, I treat euthanasia separately.,

What you suggest is this, difficulty gives license to individuals to commit suicide, that’s what you suggest, they should not consider the disrespect that brings on individuals that do actually have it harder perhaps a million fold

If I cannot continue under these rather simplistic set of circumstance for example how does one born into prison continue

If you cannot ask that fundamental question then there is something wrong there, don't you think, it suggests to me that the individual, more than anything is opting for the easy solution the quick fix

Suppose we set up schools and allowed everyone to drop out as soon as they found it difficult

Human achievement and the meaning of life is all about striving through the things we find difficult. Nobody ever said life was meant to be easy. If you commit suicide it says two things

(1) your life has been defined by one action for that is how everyone will remember the individual, through his suicide

(2) your life didn’t mean enough to them to have one in the first place and you squandered it on an act and how sad is that, there are people that struggle to live on in the face of tremendous adversity and someone who commits suicide that has access to the internet for example just let go of something so valuable because they couldn’t handle life

and that makes me sad and what a waste and where is the meaning other than shame, my cousin committed suicide, I know his reasons and I know why, and every time I remember him I think what a waste.

Is that how you would be remembered even when it gets so difficult as you want to escape

Not me, I didn’t buy it and I’m still alive, and you know what, I got through that stage and it was the best decision I ever made

 

[russ_watters]

If suicide is self-murder, and murder is permissible in extreme cases of self-defence...

Actually, murder is by definition unlawful - so that answers the question pretty directly: suicide is illegal by definition. That's why its called suicide. In fact, in the dictionary, it says both that its illegal and that its a symptom of mental illness.

juju, if you can't argue without slinging insults, you should be arguing.

 

[the number 42]

Actually, murder is by definition unlawful - so that answers the question pretty directly: suicide is illegal by definition.

'He lived by the dictionary, and died by the dictionary' has a certain ring to it, I suppose. But it makes more sense to just call suicide 'self-killing', and sometimes killing is lawful and sometimes it aint. Heavens to Betsy, sometimes war's legal.

juju, if you can't argue without slinging insults, you should be arguing.

Good point, Russ: 'If you can't argue, you should argue' is without a doubt one of your stronger arguments. (Sorry, couldn't resist ).

 

[BoulderHead]

In matters of legality the best dictionary would be a law dictionary. Here it is according to Black’s;

Suicide.
Self-destruction; the deliberate termination of one’s existence.

Attempted suicide is a crime in some jurisdictions, not in others. Some jurisdictions hold an attempted suicide which kills an innocent bystander or would-be rescuer to be murder, others manslaughter, others no crime. Some jurisdictions hold it to be murder for one person to persuade or aid another to commit suicide; some (by statute) make it manslaughter or a separate crime.

Unlike what russ_watters has said, the above legal definition does not label suicide as being illegal. Attempted suicide, on the other hand, is a crime only in some jurisdictions.

 

[the number 42]

Amazing: attempting the crime can be illegal, but actually committing the crime isn't. On the other hand what would the punishment for the crime of murder be? Capital punishment in really bad cases, perhaps?

 

[BoulderHead]

Haha, yes it is amazing that in some jurisdictions attemting suicide should be a crime.
It has the smell of a stockyard to me.

 

[abitofnothingleft]

Amazing: attempting the crime can be illegal, but actually committing the crime isn't. On the other hand what would the punishment for the crime of murder be? Capital punishment in really bad cases, perhaps?

its not that amazing...i mean its not illegal to commit suicide because there really isn't a punishment for it. you're dead. they can't punish you for it.

 

[russ_watters]

Unlike what russ_watters has said, the above legal definition does not label suicide as being illegal. Attempted suicide, on the other hand, is a crime only in some jurisdictions.

Obviously, you can't be punished for a successful suicide. But it is still generally illegal (or, if not illegal, just written into contracts as a deal-breaker) and has implications such as voiding life insurance policies.

 

[BoulderHead]

Obviously, you can't be punished for a successful suicide.

Too obvious to mention, I would say.

But it is still generally illegal

No, it definitely appears not to be illegal. Would you please provide the reader with your source for such information?

Besides the Law dictionary, here is something interesting from another source;

In the U.S. suicide has never been treated as a crime nor punished by property forfeiture or ignominious burial. (Some states listed it on the books as a felony but imposed no penalty.) Curiously, as of 1963, six states still considered attempted suicide a crime--North and South Dakota, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, and Oklahoma. Of course they didn't take matters as seriously as the Roman emperor Hadrian, who in 117 AD declared attempted suicide by soldiers a form of desertion and made it--no joke this time--a capital offense.
Taken from; http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040326.html

(or, if not illegal, just written into contracts as a deal-breaker) and has implications such as voiding life insurance policies.

This is irrelevant, as will be stats on assisted suicide. Please provide support for your claim or kindly withdraw same.

 

[the number 42]

Actually, murder is by definition unlawful - so that answers the question pretty directly: suicide is illegal by definition

Russ baby, kindly rise to the bait when I dangle it so generously under your nose:

...sometimes killing is lawful and sometimes it aint. Heavens to Betsy, sometimes war's legal

There. Now you've made me say 'Heavens to Betsy' twice. What are you trying to do to me?

 

[russ_watters]

Russ baby, kindly rise to the bait when I dangle it so generously under your nose: [re: "...sometimes killing is lawful and sometimes it aint."]

Well, you're not being consistent: you said the definition of suicide is self-murder, not self-killing. Killing isn't always wrong/illegal, murder is wrong/illegal by definition.

 

[Kerrie]

Obviously, you can't be punished for a successful suicide. But it is still generally illegal (or, if not illegal, just written into contracts as a deal-breaker) and has implications such as voiding life insurance policies.

how come those who attempt suicide and fail then are not prosecuted for attempted murder? your claim of it being illegal is more of your opinion of what it should be rather then what is practiced as law...

 

[russ_watters]

how come those who attempt suicide and fail then are not prosecuted for attempted murder? your claim of it being illegal is more of your opinion of what it should be rather then what is practiced as law...

Murder and suicide are two different things, so why would you prosecute someone for attempted murder if they attempted suicide? That's like prosecuting someone for auto-theft when they stole money from a house. Both are stealing, but two different kinds.

Besides, Boulderhead provided evidence (well, he asserted it, but I'm inclined to believe him) that attempted/successful suicide is illegal (ie, written in law) in many places - it just isn't prosecuted. Some quick research shows that the laws/punishments against it have waned in recent history and were much more severe in the past.

My argument is based mostly on the definition. It is illegal by definition. From the dictionary.com:

1. The act of taking one's own life voluntary and intentionally; self-murder; specifically (Law), the felonious killing of one's self...[emphasis added]

To be fair, though, most of the definitions don't make the distincition between "killing" and "murder."

The reason, I think, attempted suicide isn't prosecuted is that it is recognized as a sign of illness and its best to treat it rather than punish it.

One caveat here (for all): please don't mistake a philosophical argument for a practical one. The fact that suicide is unlawful by definition has nothing to do with whether or not it is actually prosecuted - that's a practical matter. Either way though, there are legal implications for it.

 

[BoulderHead]

My argument is based mostly on the definition. It is illegal by definition. From the dictionary.com:
…

If suicide is illegal by definition simply because dictionary.com had a line saying so then to remain consistent you must accept that patriotism and nationalism are synonymous (by definition) because dictionary.com (your source) says so, lol. So, either this talk of “illegal by definition” is meaningless prattle (in which case you shouldn’t be prattling on so) or you should now by all that constitutes good manners concede my point denied in that other thread.

One caveat here (for all): please don't mistake a philosophical argument for a practical one. The fact that suicide is unlawful by definition has nothing to do with whether or not it is actually prosecuted - that's a practical matter. Either way though, there are legal implications for it.

Please don’t mistake a [near] meaningless game of words (in this case centered on the words “unlawful by definition”) with an actual legal state of affairs. In any event, when dealing with legal issues it would be an error to give preference over an actual legal definition to something from dictionary.com (which is why I provided one for the reader). Now, your continued claim that suicide is still generally illegal appears from my research to be quite in error, and so again I must ask where is your support for this assertion? Certainly you are going to be forced to look beyond the borders of the United States for support of it.

Besides, Boulderhead provided evidence (well, he asserted it, but I'm inclined to believe him)…

Perhaps you would be inclined to believe me when I say aloud that you are telling this forum untruth?

 

[Kerrie]

Actually, murder is by definition unlawful - so that answers the question pretty directly: suicide is illegal by definition. That's why its called suicide. In fact, in the dictionary, it says both that its illegal and that its a symptom of mental illness.

Murder and suicide are two different things

your first comment led me to believe you associated the two as sharing the same definition, but i have to agree with BH...you can't use dictionary.com when it comes to legal definitions. can you provide any legal evidence that suicide is illegal? like i said before, if it was illegal, those who attempt it would receive some kind of reprimandation or mandatory treatment..i highly doubt those definitions were written from a judge who ultimately interprets the law in situations like these...

as for being an illness-i have to agree, it is a desperate state of mind that does need treatment.

 

[juju]

Hi,

The argument on the legality issue is not the point. Many things are illegal that should be legal and many things are legal that should be illegal.

The real point is does anyone, and I mean anyone, have the right to tell you that you must go on living even if you do not want to.

I don't think so.

juju

 

[russ_watters]

your first comment led me to believe you associated the two as sharing the same definition...

I'm not going to scroll back, but someone posted the entemology that suicide literally means "self-murder." Thus they are similar, but not exactly the same. if the two words were exactly the same, they could be used interchangeably and clearly, they can't be. Boulderhead - that actually makes it a great analogue to patriotism vs nationalism: similar, but not exactly the same, so not interchangeable. But I'm not going to play the "how similar does a synonym have to be?" game with either of you - they can't be used interchangeably and I will split no more hairs on exactly what the difference is.

...but i have to agree with BH...you can't use dictionary.com when it comes to legal definitions.

Dictionary.com is a metadictionary, and the definition I quoted actually comes Webster's. I regard Webster's pretty highly when it comes to putting words in context and when it says "(Law)" that means its the legal definition. But if you have a 'legal dictionary,' that certainly would be a better source.

can you provide any legal evidence that suicide is illegal? like i said before, if it was illegal, those who attempt it would receive some kind of reprimandation or mandatory treatment...

Certainly. PA Code:

Persons who may be subject to involuntary emergency examination and treatment.

The standards of clear and present danger may be met when a person has made a threat of harm to self or others; has made a threat to commit suicide...

1) When a person clearly articulates or demonstrates an intention to commit suicide or mutilate himself and has committed an overt action in furtherance of the intended action; or

(2) When the person has actually performed such acts.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, I might as well:

Dictionary.com is a metadictionary, and the definition I quoted actually comes Webster's. I regard Webster's pretty highly when it comes to putting words in context and when it says "(Law)" that means its the legal definition. But if you have a 'legal dictionary,' that certainly would be a better source.

Here is a "LEGAL DICTIONARY" and here is what it has to say:

the intentional killing of oneself. Ironically, in most states suicide is a crime, but if successful there is no one to punish. However, attempted suicide can be a punishable crime (seldom charged against one surviving the attempt). "Assisted suicide" is usually treated as a crime, either specifically (as in Michigan) or as a form of homicide (second degree murder or manslaughter), even when done as a kindness to a loved one who is terminally ill and in great pain.[emphasis added]

The hairsplitting is getting on my nerves, but well gosh, it looks like I can have it both ways!

Boulderhead, the definition from Blacks that you posted says nothing at all about whether suicide itself is illegal or not, so it does not support your assertion that it says it is not.

 

[BoulderHead]

Boulderhead - that actually makes it a great analogue to patriotism vs nationalism: similar, but not exactly the same, so not interchangeable.

What then is the difference? You want to go by definition, black in white, read it and weep.

But I'm not going to play the "how similar does a synonym have to be?" game with either of you –

Lol, that’s quite a laugh considering you are the one now splitting those hairs. Synonymous no longer means synonymous, despite the fact our beloved dictionary says so, hmmm. It is most interesting to see someone who enjoys hammering so loudly and so frequently about dictionary definitions reduced to saying something like that.

…they can't be used interchangeably and I will split no more hairs on exactly what the difference is.

And here is of course what it amounts to; you have completely avoided any meaningful attempt to demonstrate an actual difference. In fact, it is readily apparent you are the one who has invoked the hairsplitting game. I am encouraged you have decided to stop, as it was a [not so] clever tactic from the start, haha.

The hairsplitting is getting on my nerves, but well gosh, it looks like I can have it both ways!

If it’s getting on your nerves then be more careful in the future to not make unsupported claims and expect people to simply bow and nod. As for thinking you can actually have it both ways; not really, the rest of your post had nothing to do at all with the synonyms spoken of earlier, recall you refused to ‘play that game’.
Additionally, you made the claim that suicide is generally illegal but have only provided one [poor] example. I was not aware that general rules were derived from single observations, but then I'm not much a scientist either, haha. Now, I understand you are highly Americentric from previous discussions and so I have decided I will bow and nod to the correctness of your assertion as soon as you actually support it by showing a majority of the North American States do in fact hold it to be illegal. By taking the time to support what you say you may demonstrate fact is on your side as opposed to simply claiming they are.

Boulderhead, the definition from Blacks that you posted says nothing at all about whether suicide itself is illegal or not, so it does not support your assertion that it says it is not.

Well then why not show where the PA code says it is?

Try some of these for starters;

The United Kingdom decriminalized suicide and attempted suicide in the Suicide Act of 1961. By the early 1990s only two USA states still listed suicide as a crime, and these have since removed that classification. Increasingly, the term commit suicide is being consciously avoided, as it implies that suicide is a crime by equating it with other acts that are committed, such as murder or burglary.
Taken from; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide#Legal_views_of_suicide


In America until recently suicide was a criminal offense in most jurisdictions, often characterized as a crime of moral turpitude. Recently, however, almost all states, Utah among them, have decriminalized suicide and attempted suicide.
Taken from; http://www.utahbar.org/rules_ops_pols/ethics_opinions/op_95.html


Until then, anyone found guilty of attempted suicide in Canada – and in many other countries – could face jail time. The federal government decriminalized suicide and attempted suicide in 1972.
Taken from; http://www.focusonals.com/the_fight_for_the_right_to_die.htm


Oh yes, patriotism and nationalism remain synonymous (by definition, of course).

 

[Kerrie]

Increasingly, the term commit suicide is being consciously avoided, as it implies that suicide is a crime by equating it with other acts that are committed, such as murder or burglary.

~wikipedia

(seldom charged against one surviving the attempt)

~law.com

hmmm, Russ, I would be curious to know what you think of this definition in the game of hair splitting? the fact and reality is, the USA has many laws that are never enforced:

Pennsylvania Dumb Laws

 

[loseyourname]

Wasn't this supposed to be a discussion about whether or not a person has the natural right to commit suicide, not the legal right?

 

[loseyourname]

An interesting formulation of natural rights was discussed in an ethics class I took a while back. I can't remember who made the argument, but it was made that any individual has the right to do whatever he wants with his person or property so long as he does not infringe upon the liberty of others to do what they want with their person of property. This is common, but the interesting part was that he included any act that permanently restricts one's own liberty (such as suicide or selling oneself into slavery) as an act one does not have the right to commit, the argument being that you cannot ever change your mind.

 

[honestrosewater]

This is common, but the interesting part was that he included any act that permanently restricts one's own liberty (such as suicide or selling oneself into slavery) as an act one does not have the right to commit, the argument being that you cannot ever change your mind.

That is a very interesting twist. However, assuming

1) the relevant liberties/rights are natural or inalienable rights,
2) natural or inalienable rights apply to all persons and only to persons,
3) the definition of a person includes "having life or being alive", i.e. once a person dies, they are no longer a person,

slavery and suicide are different because a slave is still a person, while a "dead person" is not a person; Slavery entails a contradiction in the system, while death does not entail any contradiction. Choosing slavery is different from choosing death.

 

[BoulderHead]

An interesting formulation of natural rights was discussed in an ethics class I took a while back. I can't remember who made the argument, but it was made that any individual has the right to do whatever he wants with his person or property so long as he does not infringe upon the liberty of others to do what they want with their person of property. This is common, but the interesting part was that he included any act that permanently restricts one's own liberty (such as suicide or selling oneself into slavery) as an act one does not have the right to commit, the argument being that you cannot ever change your mind.

The problem occurs between the two boldface segments wherein restriction is first strictly limited to others, yet in the second part restriction is placed on self. There is exclusivity between others and self which makes holding both of those viewpoints simultaneously a fair example of doublethink.

 

[learningphysics]

"Life is good. Death is bad"

This seems to be the commonly held assumption. But upon inspection, life and death are seen to be morally neutral. However pain and pleasure are NOT morally neutral.

 

[honestrosewater]

The problem occurs between the two boldface segments wherein restriction is first strictly limited to others, yet in the second part restriction is placed on self.

I don't see it as a problem, it is a condition, or an exception to the rule. A more common exception is

so long as he does not infringe upon the liberty of others to do what they want with their person of property.

 

[juju]

Hi,

If you tell someone that they don't have the right to die by their own choice, then they have the right to tell you you can not live by your own choice.

juju

 

[the number 42]

..you said the definition of suicide is self-murder, not self-killing.

Russ, I know you revere me now and will think less of me when I tell you this, but I was wrong; suicide does in fact mean self-killing. The Oxford English Dictionary says of the suffix cide:
1. a. F. -cide, L. -cda cutter, killer, slayer, f. cædre, in comp. -cdre to cut, kill, as in homicda, parricda, mtricda, frtricda, sorricda, tyrannicda, etc., slayer of a man, father, mother, brother, sister, tyrant, etc.; also lapi(di)cda, stone-cutter, etc. Most of the L. words having the sense ‘slayer, murderer’, have come down into Romanic and English, where new combinations have also been formed on the same type, notably regicide and suicide; filicide has also been used; and many occasional forms appear as jocose nonce-words, e.g. apicide, avicide, canicide, ceticide, muricide, perdricide, tauricide, vaticide, verbicide; or, still more ludicrously, birdicide, prenticecide, suitorcide, etc. Also applied to preparations destructive of animal or vegetable life, as algicide, fungicide, germicide, insecticide, pesticide".

Sorry about the mistake. My only defence is that my 'definition' was off the top of my head as an afterthought to a post I had just written. I promise not to be bad in future, and will be your friend for the next week if you like.

 

[the number 42]

If you tell someone that they don't have the right to die by their own choice, then they have the right to tell you you can not live by your own choice.

Juju, just curious, but are you planning to pop your clogs?

 

[juju]

Juju, just curious, but are you planning to pop your clogs?

I've tried a few times in the last 35 years but never succeeded. Every once in a while I pick up the .45 and consider it. Haven't been able to yet.

If I had the proper drugs, I might just succeed.

juju

 

[russ_watters]

Wasn't this supposed to be a discussion about whether or not a person has the natural right to commit suicide, not the legal right?

Yes, it was...

An interesting formulation of natural rights was discussed in an ethics class I took a while back. I can't remember who made the argument, but it was made that any individual has the right to do whatever he wants with his person or property so long as he does not infringe upon the liberty of others to do what they want with their person of property.

That's Locke. (and Boulderhead - if its a contradiction, its one that has worked quite well, as it is the basis of the US system of protected rights)

This is common, but the interesting part was that he included any act that permanently restricts one's own liberty (such as suicide or selling oneself into slavery) as an act one does not have the right to commit, the argument being that you cannot ever change your mind.

That is one of two reasons why suicide would be morally wrong (and the same as the reason an "elected dictator" is an oxymoron): the other is that it does infringe on the rights of others - someone has to scrape you off the sidewalk after you jump!

That is a very interesting twist. However, assuming

1) the relevant liberties/rights are natural or inalienable rights,
2) natural or inalienable rights apply to all persons and only to persons,
3) the definition of a person includes "having life or being alive", i.e. once a person dies, they are no longer a person,

slavery and suicide are different because a slave is still a person, while a "dead person" is not a person; Slavery entails a contradiction in the system, while death does not entail any contradiction. Choosing slavery is different from choosing death.

Well, slavery is now seen as contradiction in the system, but at the time was justified by its proponents based on the belief that blacks were not people.

In any case, your example is interesting: jumping off a building would be immoral; hitting the ground wouldn't be.

Russ, I know you revere me now and will think less of me when I tell you this, but I was wrong; suicide does in fact mean self-killing.

Sorry about the mistake.

Ehh, no biggie - whether the entemology has cide meaning "kill" or "murder" or 8 different kinds of killing at the same time, the entemology is just the history and definitions evolve. But look what you started!

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally Posted by loseyourname
Wasn't this supposed to be a discussion about whether or not a person has the natural right to commit suicide, not the legal right?

Yes, it was. But accurate content is also an important consideration. Some people require simple facts be beaten into them before they stop telling falsehoods and remain politely (and tellingly) silent...

Originally Posted by russ_watters
Boulderhead - if its a contradiction, its one that has worked quite well, as it is the basis of the US system of protected rights.

Hmmm, the quoted material you put this below was not what I was finding problematic. In any event, what you bring up is at best unintentionally irrelevant and so I’ll pass on responding directly to it.


Honestrosewater,
The first part tells us it is only the liberty of others that may put a damper on the individual. But, this is clearly not the case when the second part is introduced because the individual’s own liberty now puts a damper on his own liberty (fascinating!). My ‘problem’ is; how are both ideas held simultaneously without engaging in doublethink when one clearly will not suffer the other?
It was said “he included any act that permanently restricts one’s own liberty…” but I do not see where it was included, nor do I see anything in the first part that might suggest or even allow for the second part. I am not saying it is impossible to think this way, but to do so should actually require a revision of the first statement so as to at least allow the second to be derived. Failing to do so, doublethink occurs (and does, all the time).

 

[honestrosewater]

BoulderHead,
Right, so revise the first statement. The state cannot infringe on a person's liberties except when...

russ,
BTW I wasn't saying that attempted suicide is immoral. I'm still figuring out the correct argument.