I am going to say no. It’s essentially the same crime as murder, except the victim and perpetrator are one and the same.
How do you figure that?
A crime has been committed when one person wrongs another. We have a law in place so that the victim, or their family can recover some sense of justice. You can’t steal from yourself, or say hit yourself with your own car and sue yourself for damages.
I have no doubt that suicide is harder on the survivors than death from other causes, but that’s at least partly a result of the view of suicidal people as mentally unsound.
In your example, the family feels guilty for not saving their son/brother. But if suicide was seen as a personal choice that can be arrived at rationally, there’s no need (or right) to “save” a suicidal person. Thus no need to feel guilty.
I think Chief Pedant’s observation that most people who attempt suicide and don’t succeed, later change their mind, is reason enough to offer a sanctioned, regulated process for ending one’s life, but not necessarily structured exactly on one’s own terms. Suicide on one’s own terms can easily infringe on other people’s rights.
As I envision it, people with suicidal ideation would have the option of admitting in-patient or out-patient to a suicidi-center, which would include regular meetings with a professional panel (consisting of at least a physician, a lawyer and a psychologist), a mandatory 6-month waiting period and a humane, Kevorkian-style method of termination.
The panel would counsel the “patient” medically, legally and psychologically, not so much to dissuade them from going forth with the plan, but to make sure they are not making an impulsive decision, have considered all options, have informed consent of the procedure and help to get estates in order and ducks in a row, before departure.
Offering the actual means of a humane suicide at the center is as much for the welfare of the patient as it is for their family, friends and the rest of society. My guess is that most fully committed suicide intenders would choose a sanctioned Kevorkian-style death over one of their own design (a design that perhaps looks appealing to them, but not so to everyone who must bear witness to the aftermath), even with a 6-month waiting period, for a number of reasons. Reasons may include: the assurance of success, a relatively relaxing, pain-free passage, coverage by Medicare, Medicaid and most major medical insurance plans (CPT-code 11111-0, co-payment and deductible due before procedure), and free valet parking on the day of procedure.
The problem with people taking their life on their own terms is that their own terms can have devastating effects on others. Losing a loved one is sad no matter what, but how much less sad would it be if, upon returning home from a fine meal at Applebee’s and finding blue-faced Dad swinging from the hall closet door frame, Mom and the kids instead were given 6-months of counseling to come to terms with Dad’s decision to release himself from his unremitting pain. And, instead of being traumatized by an unexpected, shocking site, they’d be given the choice of saying adieus in pre-op holding or watch him peacefully shed this mortal coil as the IV trickles veinward—as I chose to do with my beloved Tibby, as he shuffled off to cat heaven…or perhaps cat hell (he did like to torture those mice).
Society-at-large should not have to be burdened by anyone’s offing themselves on their own terms, either. Having the “right” to self-immolate oneself for a righteous cause sounds good in theory, but I’m thinking it may put a bit of a tarnish on little Kimmy’s happy memories if some monk flamed-on at the Magic Kingdom as she spins around in her Tea Cup (at the very least, it’ll turn her into a coffee drinker). And, if he combusts close enough to soot up my just-washed car…I’m gonna kick some serious ash. Besides, flambé-style self-immolation is so 1950’s…I’d offer sauté-style self-caramelization with onions at my suicidi-center, and include a TV-MA pay-per-view option so the sacrifice-for-a-cause can garner an audience (maybe not the intended audience, unless the monk wishes to influence Food Network aficionados, but an audience none-the less).
I do believe people should have the right to end their life, but only if the deleterious effects on others is minimalized as much as possible.
there need not be a contradiction between “suicide may be appropriate thing to do” and “the state should do some minimum amount of effort to stop suicides and at the very least not de facto encourage them”. Not stopping completely on Stop signs may be appropriate in some cases and does not make you “immoral”, but that does not mean that police should not enforce the relevant rule. Or, let’s say, bluffing in poker is not immoral, but neither are the efforts of your opponents to catch you at it.
People have brought up high end of life costs as an argument for suicide. Sooner or later, IMHO, we will see this argument being put forth by the government as well, so that they could cut costs on the old folks irrelevant to the “change they can believe in”. Be that as it may, this is an excellent example of what should not be a good argument for suicide.
If end of life costs are too high, we have to work to lower them. Let’s say these costs are much less in China - so why not copy their practices? or send people to die in China? I know, I know, maybe it’s all about the quality of care, as in, Western euthanasia is so much better care for the dying patients than a poor Chinese hospice… Cost reductions would be an admirable thing and actual progress in human affairs. By contrast, killing people or, let’s say, tacitly encouraging them to kill themselves - yeah, I wouldn’t call it much of a progress. It’s more of a “let’s preserve fiscal entitlements of doctors and pharma companies regardless of how many have to die in the process” approach.