Frank:
You seem to acknowledge above that there are circumstances in which society should step in to prevent a person from committing suicide.
Can you expand on how that should work?
If it’s not a basic human right for those reasons, then neither is abortion. At least in the context of not letting the father be part of the decision.
As for the OP… “rights” are a human construct, so they’re whatever we decide them to be. But suicide is one of those things that, in most cases, isn’t something that someone has to provide for you. It’s something you do yourself. So it fits my definition pretty well.
I completely agree with everyone who says that suicide should be considered a human right. Our lives belong to ourselves, not to anyone else.
The problem lies with the “sound mind” clause. It seems to me that suicidal intentions (in healthy people, at least) are automatically considered evidence of an unsound mind, and not for any well thought out reason, but just because most people can’t imagine why anyone would wish to take such a step, and no professional wants to be seen as allowing someone to die.
My answer would be that it’s ok to try to convince someone not to kill themselves, but not to forceably prevent them from doing so. I don’t see the point in sending such a person for a psychological evaluation - anyone threatening suicide is certain to end up confined against their will. With mandatory reporting laws, I don’t think that professionals have any discretion on that point. At present, society is more concerned about preventing suicide than in genuinely distinguishing between the mentally sound & unsound (if that’s even possible to do.)
Few rights are unlimited, so I don’t see the problem, at least in theory, of placing some restriction on suicide. First off-- minors shouldn’t be allowed to commit suicide.
Otherwise, maybe we could set up some kind of “panel” to decide? 
An approach to societal regulation of “suicide” needs to consider the following:
-
Most individuals who unsuccessfully attempt suicide later change their minds. The state of mind which led to the attempt was impulsive or temporary–or, at least, not their most frequent state of mind. To some degree, societal regulations aimed at preventing suicide help keep folks from making a bad decision (bad from the perspective of the person attempting suicide once they’ve had a chance to reflect).
-
Some individuals carefully weigh their options and wish to end their life. For this group, it is their life, after all. There should be no effort to sanction this. An example might be a death-row inmate who would rather die on his own terms at his own hand than be on death row. Another example might be a self-immolator flaming out for a Cause; a third might be a terminal patient. There are others.
-
Euthanasia is trickier to parse but closely bound to “suicide” when the decision is made by an individual unable to execute his wishes. In general euthanasia for those who made a reasonable suicide decision of their own accord should be acceptable.
As a physician who has involuntarily incarcerated many individuals presenting to the ED with “suicidal ideation” or the like, I realize the law does not recognize “rational” suicide. For most determined individuals, this is irrelevant. It’s not of consequence to worry if suicide is some sort of “right”–whatever that is. For most, it’s certainly an option that cannot be taken away by some sort of law. There’s always somewhere to jump off of, for most people. Even on death row, a good head-first swan dive off the toilet should do the trick.
I agree–as I said, I’m not arguing against suicide as a basic human right. I’m just arguing that it’s incorrect to say “It is a decision that applies to one person only, and is a decision that should not be stigmatized or restrained by society, family, friends, or the well-meaning masses.”
I have no problem with abortion under certain circumstances being stigmatized, and I certainly think under many circumstances, abortion applies to more people than just the mom. I also think abortion is a pretty freakin’ strong right for anyone who’s pregnant.
I disagree that it’s irrelevant. While it’s true that the law really can’t prevent someone from ending their life, it certainly can make the process much more difficult, painful, and risky for everyone involved.
For example, a person planning to end their life in a responsible way might want to talk to their loved ones about their decision ahead of time, to explain their reasons, answer any questions and say goodbye. In the current climate, this is impossible to do without taking a huge risk of being involuntarily hospitalized if anyone in the family disagrees with the decision.
Secondly, if a person isn’t sure that suicide is the best solution to their problem, they might want to ask for advice or just talk over their situation with a friend or professional. Currently, this is impossible. Any person making this decision has to do so completely alone.
Thirdly, once a person has decided to end their life, they are going to want solid information about how best to do it. Sure there are lots of places to jump from, but how high in order to be sure of dying quickly? Is it better to jump onto water or land? How painful will it be, what are the chances of survival and what injuries are likely if one does survive? Similar questions exist for any other method one might pick, and the answers are nowhere to be found in a society that refuses to acknowledge that suicide can be a rational decision. People are forced to make uneducated guesses and risk ending up horribly injured rather than dead.
I really feel that the social stigma of suicide and the assumption of irrationality do far more harm than good overall.
I think its the sound mind part that most people get hung up with.
But! what if that one person has responsibilities or obligations to other people, that their suicide would prevent them from fulfilling? For example, I do not think a parent—at least a custodial parent of minor children—has the right to commit suicide, because of that parent’s overriding responsibility/obligation to take care of their children.
Those who are religious or who wish to include God in a discussion of “basic human rights” would also have to consider whether a “right to suicide” would be overridden by the person’s responsibility to God. For example, I found this from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, quoted at the Catholic Encyclopedia site:
Of course, if you don’t believe in God, this part is irrelevant. But historically, human rights have often been seen as being endowed in us by our Creator (e.g. The Declaration of Independence), and in that context, it makes sense to consider human responsibilities to their Creator as well.
I believe that suicide is absolutely a basic human right, not extended to minors and those of diminished mental capacity. Being against capital punishment, I also strongly believe this is one of the rights that criminals forfeit. I’m a strong proponent of life without parole for certain crimes and am not agreeable with a criminal having the option to take the easy way out.
I think in theory it sounds right.
In practice, I’ll bet that outside of the terminally ill, there are very few suicidal people who are actually “in sound mind” as the OP put it. Having known a few people who were suicidal or very near in my lifetime, I’m awfully glad that they didn’t carry through with it- they all got help and are now pretty happy with everything.
One thing to consider is the very idea that outside of something like a terminal illness, the very state of being suicidal is probably an extremely good indicator of not being “in sound mind.”
A 16 year old kid may really hate their life, and think that it’s not worth living, and really want to kill themselves, but that doesn’t make it the right decision, or even a good one. And it may be over something as fleeting and silly as teenage love affairs; again, not a good reason for someone to kill themselves.
What if the criminal doesn’t want to die? Than its the hard way out.
Also most suicides other than those to say like protect his family (such as by Field Marshal Rommel) happen during times of depression or other mental illness.
Doesn’t matter what the criminal wants or doesn’t want. Life in a cage is the appropriate punishment for certain crimes, in my opinion.
And death isn’t, when they have taken a human life? What’s so wrong with taking a life for a life? You say it is wrong but why?
I have complex feelings on the subject of suicide - I can certainly understand why some people think it is their best solution (degenerative medical conditions, that kind of thing). But let’s not pretend that the effect of a suicide is the same on the survivors is the same as the effect of a heart attack, accidental death, etc.
Example: the older brother of a childhood friend of mine hung himself this past summer. He timed it in such a manner that his parents were the ones who found his body. Now they are complete basket cases and completely unable to function normally, in part because of the guilt that they were unable to save him - they had flown 3,000 miles because they knew how bad his mental state was - they even tried to talk him into checking himself into the psych ward - and in the end, everything they did wasn’t enough to save him.
Same for my friend, his younger sister - she has had intermittent bouts of severe depression her whole life and has also been suicidal herself in the past. And she’s not been taking this well, in part because she is a Ph.D. social worker and was also unable to save him.
Would it have hit his family hard if he died in a car crash? Sure, but it’s not comparable. It just isn’t.
It’s true that suicide can have a profound effect on surviving family and friends.
I’m not sure that weighs into whether or not it should be protected as a “right.”
I defend another’s right to smoke tobacco despite the profound effect their early departure from cancer or vascular disease might have on others.
I don’t think it’s wrong. If I was personally involved, I might want to exact that myself although I seriously doubt it. I would want the perpetrator to suffer as long as possible. As an atheist, death is the end of everything, especially suffering.
I have no problem with an eye for an eye on a personal level, but I don’t think, in a civilized society, the government should execute people. There have been too many errors, too many unjust executions. There is no correction possible upon execution. Though not for me, there may be moral questions involved.
All these issues are avoided by life without parole AND I believe the punishment is actually more appropriately severe.
Thanks for this link.
In the Netherlands, where assisted suicide is permitted, they have allowed it at least once (maybe several times, I wouldn’t know) for a person who was chronically and severely depressed. So, western society can learn to accept suicide as a valid choice, even when the suffering is “only” psychological.
A comment about the “sound mind” part.
I unfortunately have known 4 people who committed suicide (No family. Two friends, one buddy, one acquaintance). Plus another friend who was seriously suicidal at one point. None of them was in a lot of physical pain, dying or anything similar.
Out of those 5 people, all things considered, it was a reasonable choice, in my opinion, for three of them. Their distress, psychological issues, lives, justified such a choice.
Amongst those three, one was definitely not sound of mind. In fact, he was insane. Schizophrenic. Depressed too when he was lucid enough to have a semblance of normal life. I had known him before he began to have mental issues. Bright, young, creative (art and photography) active (travels, sports…), full of potential. He even served on a nuclear missiles carrying sub (mentioning that to show that he wasn’t even remotely a nutcase at the time)
His life became hell, when he lost his mind. Even when he wasn’t interned and medicated, he still was quite a nutcase, very difficult to relate with, and realized it relatively well. He was anxious, depressed, without much purpose in life. He had become obese, he had lost any hint of self-confidence (that was the most striking point. He used to be a bit over-confident), he was paranoid. He couldn’t hold a job (though he still produced some art), couldn’t have a girlfriend, he had alienated his friends. Simply said, he was suffering. A lot. And didn’t have much prospect of improvement.
He committed suicide. He wasn’t sound of mind when he did so. He would never have been sound of mind. But I knew him well enough to say quite confidently that, had he been perfectly lucid, he would have done the same. That was a rational decision, despite his mental state.
Also : of course, that was devastating for his family, and especially for his parents. He was in his early 30s, and they had already lost his big sister some years ago, also in her early 30s. I can’t begin to imagine what they went through and what they’re still going through. Still…was it wrong for him to commit suicide?