May 02 2009
In other words, let’s give pillows to widows on funeral pyres
“We should have a nicer attitude to suicide, saying suicide is a very good possibility to escape.” – Ludwig Minelli of the Swiss suicide clinic Dignitas
Evidentally my transformation to a rightwing nut is complete, as about a month ago I read this story on Fox News.
A perfectly healthy British woman was planning, with the assistance of forementioned clinic, to commit suicide with her terminally-ill husband. I’d read about it, thought about it, and then recently the subject came up again so I decided to comment on it.
For me, it’s partly a feminist issue: In the relatively few cases of assisted suicide we’ve seen in our country, more women have chosen – or been coerced – into taking the plunge. They’re expected to take care of themselves and of others; when they become incapable of doing so, they consider themselves a burden.
The usual excuse is “Women live in good health longer than men, so that’s why they appear over-represented in suicides.” However, suicides in the US are often in their ’40s and ’50s - that’s “old age” only to a child.
Jack Kevorkian aka ”Dr Death” killed at least 106 people, more than half of them women. Among them were several who weren’t terminally ill. Marjorie Wantz, 58, had pelvic pain that could have been managed with medication. She chose death over her doctor’s recommendation of pain management, but her judgment may have been impaired by large doses of Halcion.
Kevorkian was a pathologist who studied disease by examining corpses and tissue. He wasn’t trained to diagnose psychological problems or treat illness. Sherry Miller, 43, had been suffering from depression for five years before being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. He didn’t take her depression into account when she came to him.
I often hear people say that Kevorkian was an anomoly, since the majority of doctors and medical ethicists do not advocate performing experiments on dying humans. But in looking at the stories of assisted suicide, a general theme plays out: “I’m useless. I’m no good to anyone, not even myself.”
In the British woman’s case, committing suicide with her husband is couched as a romantic gesture. Nothing says “I can’t live without you” like not living without you.
That’s where the hook comes in: Committing suicide as a loving act – or a heroic act.
In the late ’50s Kevorkian read about experiments using political prisoners. He proposed using drugs to render condemned criminals unconcious, then performing experiments on them, and finally giving them lethal injections so they would never wake up.
His proposal highlighted the benefits to humanity. Here was a low-cost way to study the effects of various drugs and procedures without endangering human life – because the subject is as good as dead. And how many diseases might be cured! How much insight humanity would gain from seeing what makes the criminal tick!
He found a convict who agreed with him. Wrote the man, “I would gladly give you what you requested of me and in doing so it might help others.”
For a sick person, it’s a tempting idea. In contemplating suicide, he isn’t being cowardly. He’s not just escaping but committing a Noble Act.
There’s the hook again: You’re a burden and you’re going to die anyway. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if you could do something for the entire world - not just relieving your caregivers – by helping to ensure that no one in a future generation will suffer as you have?
I remember reading about widows who were expected to throw themselves on their husband’s funeral pyres. As a child, I wondered why she wasn’t stopped by her children or her in-laws. It was only much later that I understood that it was not just socially acceptable; it was a duty. Widows, being useless to their communities, were better off dead.
The Kevorkians of the world seek a legal framework in which, barring competence or family members with power-of-attorney, ”designated authorities” may give consent. I expect a ”fast track” authorization for newborns and infants with disabilities, since they already are losing their protection under our current laws and culture.
“Quality of life” is the central criterion, but there are other criteria that push against one’s right to live. Witness the environmental groups that characterize the proliferation of human life as an ecological disaster; let those who live be few and “perfect”. Consider the black market in organs from developing nations; sensible “harvesting” will fill demand and reduce the exploitation of the poor.
Even countries with declining populations spend a great deal of money and time on the issue of population control (specifically, exporting birth control and other forms of reduction). However, this is a twist to the ”quality of life” issue: With fewer people, everyone will automatically have a better quality of life. After all, more resources can be used by me.**
There is also another cultural push, something I noticed in the wake of the financial burden placed on generations unborn: Many Americans don’t have a stake in the debt of future generations because they’re childless-by-choice. When it comes to euthanasia, they may more easily shrug it off as a matter of little consequence except to the individual who is unable to take care of himself or is burdened with caring for a parent or life partner. (Yes, I use “life partner” ironically.)
For further reading about end-of-life issues and current events, I suggest the International Taskforce on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.
**I pointed this out to my bachelor brother a few years ago: We both found buying a house to be more economical than renting for several more years. But now we are both single people living in houses that once contained couples raising more than one child. Electricity, natural gas, water, etc. make the shelter comfortable, but now these resources are in the service of a single person. In other words, Reason #234 to get married and fill the house with people.
Thanks for joining us. Lots of food for thought
While I generally agree with the overall idea that people should be discouraged from suicide, the fact is, it happens. And often when it happens, others are also harmed and/or threatened — if a person is going to do it, then I believe, after a battery of tests has concluded that they are in their right mind, and spent “adequate” time considering alternatives (and yeah, that’s an “interesting” term I concur), then the heck with it — let them do it, make it, if not easy, at least moderately painless, and, if they choose and a mechanism exists, let them do some good for society in the process.
As for gender bias, any suicide stats are heavily warped by the fact that men are more likely to do things like driving a car into a highway pylon to do so than a woman is. If a lone, elderly male shoots himself after cleaning his own gun, and without a note, is it an accident or a suicide?
I knew of a guy in our neighborhood when I was young that did exactly that. His wife had passed away about 3 months before, and he had an “accident”, and hit the middle pylons of a highway overpass at about 70mph. No obvious skidmarks or detected mechanical failures. No known issues with sleep or other drugs which might have caused drowsiness or other. Yeah, maybe he did die by true accident, but he was known to be very devoted to his wife. The assumption by everyone who knew him is that it was vehicular suicide.
That accident never wound up in any suicide stats.
Ever heard the phrase, “suicide by cop”? It refers to when a person, having screwed up something illegal, deliberately attacks a cop attempting to arrest them so that the cop will shoot (and hopefully kill) them. At the best, this is highly traumatic to the cop — I am sure there are ample exceptions, but I do think most cops don’t like having that burden, of having to take a life in defense of themselves and others, placed on them. In any event — such suicides are uniformly male, and, well, gosh, they don’t wind up in any “suicide” stats, either.
I’m not saying these events DO balance out, but chances are they bring it a lot closer than you realize.
In contrast, if someone IS considering suicide, AND it is acked that they won’t be stopped if they are reasonably determined to do so IF they approach the authorities AND submit to a measure of counseling, then, PERHAPS they can be dissuaded from doing so by said counselors.
In short, I think it’s probably a push. As long as some stringent measures towards preventive interaction with the suicidal indvidual is taken, then there is easily a benefit TO THE INDIVIDUAL to have this option present.
In the end, it’s between them and God. I have faith that, if God doesn’t want it to happen, it doesn’t happen. And if it does, then it fits in with His Plan, whatever that is.
People are going to commit suicide. Period.
Perhaps, if it’s made “easier” but prefaced with counseling, then maybe more of it might be **stopped**.
Suicide is a cry of pain. Our society (humans in general, really) don’t do a great job hearing the early whimpers that lead to such final acts. If we had such mechanisms in place, we MIGHT be able to do more to stop them, instead of looking the other way until the act is completed.
I’m not saying you’re inarguably wrong, here — but I believe your view is somewhat knee-jerk in response to an idea you disapprove of, mildly wrong in terms of libertarian ideals this nation is based upon, and possibly wrong-headed in terms of even the goals you find laudible — to wit: If you want to stop some behavior, making it something people have to do without any social supervision isn’t always the best way to go.
And saying that “acceptance” equates to approval is foolish i the extreme — We “accept” cigarette smoking… I think that anyone who thinks that there is any measure of social approval for the activity doesn’t know anyone who smokes.
There are some problems which are better dealt with by negative peer pressure and social interaction, rather than total outlawing and overt disapproval.
I’d argue that suicide belongs in the former, rather than the latter, category.
“In the end, it’s between them and God. I have faith that, if God doesn’t want it to happen, it doesn’t happen. And if it does, then it fits in with His Plan, whatever that is.”
Interesting take. I also agree that ultimately ANYONE’s death is between him and God. However, I think we have free will and do a lot of things that God prefers we not. The rub is that His Plan is His Plan, whether we cooperate or not.
In reading your other comments, I get the sense that perhaps I wasn’t clear. I understand that acceptance isn’t the same as approval, although I don’t understand the smoking example. (But I never experienced the disdain of society or disapproval of nonsmokers, other than a request that I not smoke in the house of an asthmatic.) I’m not making a “somewhat knee-jerk in response to an idea you disapprove of”. I’ve had a few decades to think about suicide, euthanasia, and good old “no extraordinary means”. (In fact, that is an oxymoron. A knee-jerk response is a reflexive response; there’s nothing somewhat about it. Is that really what you meant to type?)
I know that men often commit suicide by car, gun, shoot-outs, etc. And I know, sadly, that teenaged boys are much more likely to commit suicide than girls. My comment about women had to do with assisted suicide, since women seem to talk to someone before making the decision and can be persuaded.
My main concern (and again, perhaps I just didn’t express it clearly) is that government health care/supervised suicide assistance is an oil/flame combination. I can see that it would be cost-effective to have otherwise healthy individuals commit suicide with their ailing partners, especially if those individuals were older and retirees. Add the message that the suicides contributed to the welfare of the living, especially with the proper mix of cooperative media, and… what negative peer pressure?
> However, I think we have free will and do a lot of things that God prefers we not.
True, but if someone is in their right mind, then how are we doing God’s will by preventing others from making their own choices, when those choices harm no one but themselves?
Assume it is God’s intent that we not suicide… ever, under any circumstances.
Is there any good to enforced behavior to that extent? And it is really possible to prevent a determined individual from carrying it out, even so?
We have free will, because God gave it to us (I believe, personally and, no doubt heretically, that He always intended us to have it, but was not going to force it upon us… we did not so much leave the Garden of Eden as much as stopped perceiving it as such, by gaining The Knowledge of Good And Evil, as He always knew we would someday choose to accept by virtue of the way He made us).
Within the bounds of that free will, he allows us to choose Good or Evil, and those choices are what place us wherever we wind up.
Forcing others to behave, when the only possible victim is themselves, and they are, indeed, in right mind, thwarts God’s will for each of us: that we choose of our own accord which path we take.
> (In fact, that is an oxymoron. A knee-jerk response is a reflexive response; there’s nothing somewhat about it. Is that really what you meant to type?)
In the sense of responses to an idea, I believe one can have a direct response without serious consideration. This is what I mean by “somewhat” — In this sense I mean presumably you have possibly HAD time to think about it, but you haven’t done so because your initial response is very strong and, as a person, you’ve chosen not to consider if that response is truly correct. (Your response suggests this presumption was likely in error, mind you)
You may not be an individual who does that (and certainly you may not have done that in this case, either, either way) but most people, especially those who would qualify themselves as “religious”, seem to have, in my experience, a more knee-jerk, reflexive attitude towards some of these questions than to many others.
There are some areas where religious peoples’ attitudes towards things are as poorly thought-out as any libtard’s, and dogma is the driving force behind those attitudes more so than reason.
I am of the belief that there is no subject which is outside the bounds of the application of reason, though many wind up devolving on faith and thus don’t yield solely to reason alone. Failure to apply reason to anything is to respond as an animal, without “thinking”. THIS to me, is a direct violation of God’s will — he gave you the faculty for it, and, if you see the events in the bible as a progression from humans who are somewhat just barely beyond animals, towards a more advanced, reasoning state, then you see how it is that the strictures and behaviors change with time. The earliest depictions of God in the bible seem very much at odds with the God that gave us Jesus. The early God seems petulent and demanding and far more like a super-powered child. The God of Jesus is loving and forgiving and far more understanding of human foibles and errors. The former is simple and direct, the latter is complex and subtle.
Did God change or did He change the way He interacted with us because He knew we had become capable of more? I claim for the latter.
I believe as time passes he expects us (i.e., humans in general, not “you and I”) to think, more and more, about what we do and why we do it, and to be far more complex about our motivations and choices. Hence the Bible says almost nothing against slavery, though today we consider it almost utterly reprehensible and without justification in any modern society. We expect more of ourselves than we did of our ancestors. We actually spend time considering the motivations of our enemies and considering if there is a solution which need not involve force and violence. We have developed a preference for cooperation where possible, and seeking an even level of mutual dissatisfaction where disagreements occur.
Despite the common claims that we live in a violent time, in true fact that is more the fact that our developed skills place more power into the hands of abberrant individuals more so than the idea that we as a people are actually growing more violent.
In truth, there is a larger percentage of the people on this planet who avoid violence as a solution than ever in human history, and even when they cannot avoid it, their efforts are to reduce the suffering of the enemy as much as reasonably possible and to use as little force as possible and apply even that as surgically as possible to the deepest and most unreasoning component of our opposition.
People are, as a whole, better and more enlightened and civilized and decent than they were 100, 1000, or 5000 years ago, in a steady procession.
And the faculty of reason, a gift from Him, is the cause.
Whenever someone abandons reason for Dogma they are drifting away from the Will of God.
And, while that may well not be the basis for your own attitude towards suicide, I am willing to bet that that attitude is prevalent amongst most people who oppose assisted suicide.
It’s my own experience that if God doesn’t want you to commit suicide, He will, indeed, act to stop you. He will make you fail somehow while sufficiently injuring yourself to make someone else notice your attempt, and they will stop you long enough to give you reason to change your mind. He will give you reason to hold your own hand, for long enough for you to change your mind of your own free will.
And that is why I don’t particularly oppose assisted suicide as long as there is properly oriented counseling to determine that the people involved are of right mind, are capable of making a rational decision, and, more critically, have actually explored their options to the point where a rational person can, if not agree, “understand” (I’m put in mind of the 1979 film, “Whose Life Is It, Anyway?”). If God hasn’t given you sufficient inspiration by that point to change your mind (after all, if He doesn’t know what you need, and doesn’t provide for it, who can?) then your place in His plan is over and done with, and any repercussions from your decision are between you and Him.
I think proper counseling beforehand can force the people to really, really consider if they want to quit playing or if they just want to foolishly strike out at those around them with that “ultimate” rejection: “I’ll show them! I’ll make them blame themselves for my death! I’m confuse them about what they might have done to stop me, or to make me do it!!”
I think some percentage of suicides do derive from a cry of pain which is unheard until too late. There are certainly aspects of our society which are a bit f***ed up, and don’t solve problem which are readily soluble… and which pain and fear and a general lack of faith in other humans (this often with good reason, mind you!) can prevent one from finding as an individual even when they are there.
I think that there may be an awful lot of suicides which succeed because someone wasn’t willing to say to someone, “I going to quit” because they were afraid that anyone they told would try and stop them — so they did not say anything and just did it.
OTOH, if they’d have reached out to someone, that person might have been disuaded from doing so, or at least been given reason to hold off long enough that the situation which led them to that dark moment has changed sufficiently that they would not make that choice now.
But to get that kind of essential human contact one has to also have a guarantee that, if you ARE determined, that people won’t try and prevent you by force from carrying out your wish.
You have to have a covenant with the one in despair. You have to get them to hold off for a time, while you both explore the alternatives together. If, after that time, they still despair, then you have to agree to get out of the way and, indeed, perhaps ease it a bit (not easy to do for a close friend but readily possible for The State).
I honestly suspect that, if a rational preventative approach is taken, that it will actually lower the suicide rate for anyone who doesn’t have a clearly terminal (and painful) illness (and if you have a terminal illness then it’s utterly between you and God as to when you go, and should be)
OK, this comment has drifted a bit on the surface element, but I brought it back to why I was discussing the matter in the context of suicide. And it’s long enough at this point to stop relatively arbitrarily “here”.
> Add the message that the suicides contributed to the welfare of the living, especially with the proper mix of cooperative media, and… what negative peer pressure?
You’re allowing the libtards to justify it, because you’ve abandoned the field to them. So gee, they come up with benefit to the state type arguments and justification.
This is a surprise? It’s how they think. They have no real respect for an individual human life, the entire concept is anathema to everything they believe in.
The only approach other than blind opposition is to use it as a tool to reach out to those who are determined to do it, on the presumption that you’ll get a chance to make the rules in such a way that you’ll have a chance to dissuade them, and make sure that people with that goal — that every successful suicide is a failure on their part — are the heart of the system.
The Right has to get a clue that they can’t abandon *any* social arena to The Left.
They did that with Education and the Environment, and now there is nothing but Leftist Dogma in both arenas, and a total lack of any common sense on all levels.
Excellent post. Several things come to mind.
Among them is C.S. Lewis’ “The Problem of Pain” (physical and psychological), in which he outlines how going through trials is an essential element of God’s sanctification process for each soul.
Taking CSL’s thesis further, truncating tha process through suicide is like saying to the coach: “I don’t want to do the workout.” And since the ‘coach’ in this case is all-knowing, suicide is the perfect storm of two of the worst sins: pride (I and I alone ‘own’ me and only I know what’s best for me) and homicide (one is, at the same time, killing a human being).
Another thought comes from Sheldon Vanauken’s “A Severe Mercy”. Vanauken and his wife were students of CSL, totally in love (and then married). She got sick and died young. The book is Vanauken’s memoir about his realization that, while love and marriage are GOOD things, they are meant for God’s glory and for spreading light.
Vanauken realizes (and essentially confesses) that they had become an exclusive diad, more in love with one another than with God Himself. God took her home for their own good… for the good of their eternal souls. It’s a radical idea, but one very much in line with scripture, which tells us that marriage is merely a temporary accommodation here to give us a tiny taste of heaven and model Christ’s relationship with his bride the church. It’s NOT designed to shut out everything else. I am sure it is one of the hardest things in the world to lose a spouse (I have some close-up, albeit secondhand knowledge of that).
Finally, OBH characterized suicide as something that doesn’t hurt anyone else (a common refrain about many sins). My question is: How do you know that?” How can you know that others will not suffer as a result of such an act? How do you know souls aren’t connected in ways we’re not aware of? How can you presume to say that what God defines as sin is not, in fact sin because from outward appearances it doesn’t seem quite as bad as involuntary man-on-man homicide?
The thing is, we can’t. When we do — when we narrow the frame of reference and look at the world in an atomistic, individualistic way (a view I used to hold but don’t anymore — among other things, the OT doesn’t even hint at the concept) we’re led down the path Satan wants us to walk — towards a hell in which everyone is on their own. In that vein, I recommend yet another CSL piece: “The Great Divorce” in which he paints an allegorical picture of hell as an infinite process of turning inward to self and self-concern (for which suicide is the veritable definition) as compared to heaven which is infinitely other-embracing and self-denying.
If the God of the Bible as manifested in Christ Jesus (and thus, the best kind of society) were meant to condone suicide, you’d think he would have gone down like Socrates or Samson. That he did not gives us a massive clue as to how suicide is looked at in God’s eyes. If we care at all for our fellow human beings we will go to the greatest lengths possible to keep them from what I suspect, in most cases (though of course I cannot be certain) is an eternally damning choice and course of action.
After all, in teens (especially females) suicide is regarded as a “cry for help”. What changes when someone becomes an adult? Perhaps not as much as we think. If we don’t answer that cry for help, much less if we encourage the pathological thinking that led to it, we are stained with additional guilt.
Again, kudos to our host for an excellent and thought-provoking post!!
“There are some areas where religious peoples’ attitudes towards things are as poorly thought-out as any libtard’s, and dogma is the driving force behind those attitudes more so than reason.”
I’m curious about your use of “dogma”, because it means is a collection of doctrine, as in a group of principles. Doctrine can be philosophical or scientific. It’s not a dirty word.
(An aside about your use of “libtard”: Name-calling says “I’m NOT a reasonable person using reason”. Worst case: The View.)
“And that is why I don’t particularly oppose assisted suicide as long as there is properly oriented counseling to determine that the people involved are of right mind, are capable of making a rational decision, and, more critically, have actually explored their options to the point where a rational person can, if not agree…”
But that’s my point, OBH. “Properly-oriented counseling” means something different to a liberal than to a libertarian, doesn’t it?
“You’re allowing the libtards to justify it, because you’ve abandoned the field to them. So gee, they come up with benefit to the state type arguments and justification.”
I haven’t abandoned the field to libertarians, liberals, or whatever “libtards” represent to you. In fact, I haven’t abandoned the fields of education or environment (being a conservationist, not a “greenie” myself). You clearly have here:
“They did that with Education and the Environment, and now there is nothing but Leftist Dogma in both arenas, and a total lack of any common sense on all levels.”
As you noted, this has gone far afield of what we were talking about originally, so perhaps you’d be willing to answer a couple of specific questions. I’m trying to get a handle on your viewpoint.
1. What do you think would be reasonable criteria for obtaining assistance for suicide?
2. Do you see any social reason(s) to err on the side of suicide deterrence/prevention?
Ultraguy wrote: “suicide is the perfect storm of two of the worst sins: pride (I and I alone ‘own’ me and only I know what’s best for me) and homicide (one is, at the same time, killing a human being).”
I hadn’t thought of it as a type of pride, I’m embarrassed to admit. I should have, given that anorexia, which can be fatal, is also tied into control.
Another thought comes from Sheldon Vanauken’s “A Severe Mercy”. Vanauken and his wife were students of CSL, totally in love (and then married). She got sick and died young. The book is Vanauken’s memoir about his realization that, while love and marriage are GOOD things, they are meant for God’s glory and for spreading light.
“Finally, OBH characterized suicide as something that doesn’t hurt anyone else (a common refrain about many sins). My question is: How do you know that?” How can you know that others will not suffer as a result of such an act? How do you know souls aren’t connected in ways we’re not aware of? How can you presume to say that what God defines as sin is not, in fact sin because from outward appearances it doesn’t seem quite as bad as involuntary man-on-man homicide?”
This is an important factor. Truth is, suicide is often used as the penultimate psychological weapon: “Because of you, I’m going to kill myself.”
As for the comparison of sins, that’s something I’ve noticed is prevalent. If you compare one behavior (X) to something worse (Y), that somehow justifies X. It’s like the abused person saying, “He slaps me, but he never punches me.”
“In that vein, I recommend yet another CSL piece: “The Great Divorce” in which he paints an allegorical picture of hell as an infinite process of turning inward to self and self-concern (for which suicide is the veritable definition) as compared to heaven which is infinitely other-embracing and self-denying.”
I only recently read that book, after three recommendations within weeks of each other. What struck me was the way in which the houses in Hell moved further and further apart, as when the men attempted to visit Napoleon.
BTW the character that struck me as eerily true-to-life was the woman who wanted her late husband back so she could continue to manipulate him. Her “improvements” seemed so very reasonable and practical on the surface. It creeped me out to realize that I’ve known people (men & women) who’ve done this to loved ones.
“If the God of the Bible as manifested in Christ Jesus (and thus, the best kind of society) were meant to condone suicide, you’d think he would have gone down like Socrates or Samson. That he did not gives us a massive clue as to how suicide is looked at in God’s eyes.”
Or like the man in 2 Machabees 14:46, who didn’t die when he threw stabbed himself, nor when he threw himself down at his enemies, but only after he threw his intestines at them. He wanted to commit suicide rather than suffer torture, but he suffered horrible self-inflicted pain. In the end, he prayed the Lord would restore his body. (I was recently reading about bodily resurrection, so this comes to mind.)
“Again, kudos to our host for an excellent and thought-provoking post!!”
No, no. I thank YOU. You gave me a lot of reading to do!