On Euthanasia, Part 1 – Suicide

In trying to elucidate what is probably the most incomprehensible and troubling of human behaviours, it would help to look at it from the perspective of history. Suicide has long been condemned by western society and philosophical thought since ancient times (with the possible exception of the Stoics and Epicureans), where the bodies of suicides where often hung at cross-roads and ‘mock’ murder trials held over the dead. (Notably, eastern thought has been more accepting given the influential Buddhist concept of illusionary reality and the achievement of Nirvana through a rejection of desire and the ‘self’.)

Even Plato and Aristotle give antiquated arguments against suicide. Plato’s Phaedo gives the primordial variation of the modern Judeo-Christian view: God, as the giver of life, should also be the taker. Aristotle’s Ethics argument was reiterated by Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae:

It is altogether unlawful to kill oneself, because every part, as such, belongs to the whole. Now every man is part of the community, and so, as such, he belongs to the community. Hence by killing himself he injures the community. (IIaIIae.64.5)

Hume’s ‘On Suicide’, an attack on the Thomistic notions, gives the classical enlightenment view, where suicide is construed as a libertarian right to be exercised as any other. In contrast, J.S. Mill in his landmark essay 'On Liberty', contends that liberty lies in the power of the individual to make choices; hence any choice that would deprive the individual from the ability to make further choices (such as selling oneself to slavery or suicide) should be prevented.

Although it’s a fallacious appeal to consequence, the following argument is useful to point out the absurdity of the libertarian view. If suicide is a right, then persuading your best friend with a gun to his head not to pull the trigger is a violation of that right and therefore the moral equivalent of kidnapping, theft or the suchlike.

Closer to home, existentialism argues that man is confronted with life – he doesn’t necessarily own it. Indeed, by definition, it is things distinct from one, such as undershorts, that can be owned. The likes of Camus argue that it is in embracing life that sense is made of the absurd – where suicide is an abdication of our responsibility.

In all this flows a sacrosanct view of human life. It is this principle -- the respect for the human person -- that was first formally postulated by Kant as the fundamental principle for his system of ethics. It has been used by contemporary legal philosophers such as Ronald Dworkin as a foundation for rights theories where we have the moral duty to honour and respect the inherent value of human life, regardless of the value of that life to others or to the person whose life it is.

It is self-evident that for all humans to have unalienable rights, they can not be derived from subjective criteria such as wealth or intellect, but rather a respect for the intrinsic worth of each individual.

Undeniably, suicides are usually faced with immense physical or psychological trauma such as acute social isolation, which precipitate an anguished loss of meaning, hope and purpose. Thus one has to question the rationality of a decision taken in that state of mind, given that it is a permanent solution for what is often a temporary problem.

Given the above, is it permissible for suicide within the context of euthanasia? Wait for part 2.

Résumé
Razors pain you, Rivers are damp,
Acids stain you, And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful, Nooses give,
Gas smells awful. You might as well live.

- Dorothy Parker -