What makes rape and homicide criminal is the fact that the other person hasn’t *consented* to the act, they haven’t agreed to it, and thus both rape and homicide violate a person’s right to autonomous control over themselves.

But where rape is illegal, we allow the most violent sex between two consenting adults who *choose* to engage in it. Again, the issue is consent. And suicide is, by definition, a consensual act, since by choosing to kill yourself you are choosing to accept the end of your own life.

Now, in rape we make exceptions for people who are under the influence or “incapable of giving consent” – i.e., if you say yes while under the influence of drugs, you still haven’t consented. I see no problem with applying this to suicide as well. But that leaves a whole lot of consensual suicides.

The trend over the last century or so of western legal tradition has been towards greater recognition of personal autonomy in defiance of established moral standards. We no longer criminalize homosexual sex, for example (Lawrence vs. Texas, 2003). Someday we’ll no longer criminalize suicide.

And someday those barriers will come off. Because if we are to recognize suicide as a legitimate option, then there’s no reason not to allow it to be beautiful.

René – Your comment makes no sense. “Suicide is for the weak” but then “only a strong person can kill themselves.” Huh?

James – Have you ever been suicidal? No? Then you don’t know how irrational it is.
—–
I don’t understand why people make a distinction between homicide and suicide. Killing someone else is bad; everyone agrees with that. But then if you want to kill yourself, it’s “not” irrational, it’s “not” wrong. There seems to be an imbalance here.

*lets out disgruntled sigh*

In London we don’t have barriers on the underground system and people often kill themselves by jumping in front of trains.

I’ve tried to explain what I see as that distinction to others before and this is the first time I’ve received more than lukewarm agreement.

Of course the stats John quotes in the article regarding attempted jumpers who go on to complete suicide suggests that either the overwhelming majority of suicides are acute rather than chronic or that the acutely suicidal are disproportionately drawn to prominent landmarks. Either that or it suggests that chronically suicidal people aren’t the ones who can be talked down by the time they reach the edge.

Some of the points made in ‘The Urge to End it All’ suggest a more complex picture than the above, but of course the sample of people spoken to about their suicide attempts is skewed by the facts that (a) they were unsuccessful – so all things being equal had probably not spent a lot of time thinking through the act and possible methods and (b) they are prepared to talk to mental health professionals about their experience – and if you are still planning to kill yourself there are good reasons to decline to discuss it openly with a shrink.

Must admit that the piece started off on an astoundingly bum note that probably made me more cynical than I otherwise would have been. If the entire Camus quote had been included I don’t think Anderson could have got away with putting the spin on it that he did.

“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy.” – Albert Camus

It seems to me that there is a useful distinction to be made between chronic and acute suicidality.

People who might, almost impulsively, throw themselves off a bridge while in a fit of reactive depression or under the effects of substances might rightly be considered irrational at the time, especially if the decision is made in the context of a transient situation. If they can be physically prevented from following their impulse for a relatively short period I would guess that their longer term prognosis might be OK – especially if substance abuse or life skills issues are addressed.

On the other hand, to call people who have long felt their lives not worth living – whether due to a serious physical illness, intractable psychological condition or other unresolvable problems – ‘irrational’ is insulting and disempowering. Any coercive attempts to alter their perspective or interfere with their actions are not only ethically questionable, but, IMHO, likely to aggravate their problems.

I feel that chronically suicidal people would be more likely to seek help – if only to exhaust all options as part of their rational decision making – were it not for the attitude John reflects.

Certainly we would like to diminish others’ suffering, but this is not the same issue as whether one can sensibly and with understanding and reason assign value to one’s own life, and subsequently rationally decide to end it. Yes human life is an ultimate end from our prevalent cultural perspective (and therefore one reasons, without any objective extra-cultural justification, supremely valuable). Yet while I don’t mean here to be insensitive or incendiary, another’s value of one’s possessions doesn’t philosophically determine whether one should or should not be permitted to discard them. The issue is whether we own ourselves and if that means we have the right to decide to end our lives, regardless others’ evaluations of our decision. I predict over time our cultural conception of suicide will evolve (legally convergently) as it is with other volatile issues surrounding self-ownership.

Thanks for allowing me to share,

Abraham Bin, J.D.,PhD, Clinical Neurosciences, Psychiatric Epidemiology, & Health Policy

The point I was trying to make, however, is that suicide is not irrational. The term ‘irrational’ screams ‘wrong’ to me.

One’s reasoning might be ‘flawed’ or slightly ‘handicapped’ but it is by no means irrational…

Calling it irrational takes away EVEN MORE from the individual who sees no option but suicide. The word irrational is taking away the value of one’s choice to commit suicide! And this is flawed! One might not be able to pull out of the ‘negative’ thought cycle he or she is in, but this is not irrational.

To be sure this is a semantic distinction, but one that needs to be made!

With that, I must also say, in all my experience (in school, work, and at the centre), I have never experienced an individual, who–out of the clear blue sky–decided to commit suicide.

There is a process involved in deciding whether one should commit suicide. There are pros and cons involved. There is a long-term bout of negative thinking. There are choices being made. For the most part (I cannot say this is universal) it is hardly a spur of the moment decision.

For anyone else out there reading this, watch Eric Steel’s film ‘The Bridge.’ It will shed some light on this ‘touchy’ subject….

Cheers.