The ECONOMIST Misses the Obvious
The Economist, which I consider the best newsweekly in the world (and no bylines!), published an article apparently bemoaning the increased rate of suicide around the world. And yet, although the article ostensibly urges governments to try and prevent suicides, it actually seems to back the notion of permitting some suicides. From the story:Measures can be taken to make it harder for people to kill themselves. They may not be able to (and arguably, should not try to) stop the really determined, but they can save the lives of many who are confused, temporarily depressed or in need of sympathetic attention.
Talk about abandonment of those in need! Why shouldn't we try to stop the determined? Aren't their lives as important and valuable as those who are "confused" and "temporarily depressed?"
Such mixed messages fundamentally undermine suicide prevention and amount to an acceptance of the concept of "rational suicide." If some suicides are deemed okay--then it becomes harder to tell a self destructive person, "Your cause for wanting to die isn't good enough." Should we ever get to that point, we might as well put suicide prevention centers in a museum.
Labels: Suicide.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 5:24 PM
9 Comments
9 Comments:
Wesley:
"Talk about abandonment of those in need! Why shouldn't we try to stop the determined? Aren't their lives as important and valuable as those who are 'confused' and 'temporarily depressed?'"
Well.... Taking another look at the statement in question:
"They may not be able to (and arguably, should not try to) stop the really determined..."
It depends on how one defines "really determined." There are two situations that I can think of (that are closely related) that might fall into this category - attempted murder/suicides, and "suicide-by-cop."
In the first place, someone is already intending to kill himself as well as a victim. It may be necessary to *not* stop the guy from killing himself in order to save the victim's life.
In the second place, usually a suicidal person will try to force cops to kill him - suicide without actually shooting himself. Again, that usually involves the suicidal person taking hostages or otherwise threatening someone's life. In that case, actually killing the person might be the only way the authorities can prevent him from killing or otherwise harming his victim.
In cases where the "really determined" would be willing to take innocent victims with them, I could see being forced to allow a suicide to save innocent lives. If someone only threatens his own life, then all efforts must be made to save him.
Do you know how hard it is to type around a squirmy 5-year-old in your lap? I've been babysitting all week and typing became a combat experience!
Tabs: Actually, I think you read too much into it. The Economist is pretty libertarian in outlook. It is probably referring to "rational suicide," a belief that, as a matter of upholding human freedom, only suicides that are impulsive or lacking a justifiable basis should be seriously interfered with. Hence, the article's statement distinguishing between those with a commitment to killing themselves and those "who are confused, temporarily depressed or in need of sympathetic attention." Note that it does not speak of preventing the suicides of the chronically depressed or preventing suicides of the seriously ill, disabled, and those with long term suicidal ideation.
But my point is that preventing suicide can't be done with equivocal messages. Society can't say that it is fine for some but not for others. If it does, the prevention message will be enfeebled.
I've got a question, and I'd be interested in your answer, Wesley.
Should religious people, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, be able to refuse blood transfusions, even if it will kill them? And how is this any different from suicide through self-starvation? Both are "passive," both intend death, and both are legal. But most people would consider self-starvation suicide, so why do most consider refusing blood transfusions to *not* be suicide?
If the JWs are adults, yes. The difference is that it is refusing medical treatment, not taking action to cause death. Moreover, the blood isn't refused because the patient wants to die but because his/her religious tenets are most important. In fact, the JW refuser will accept other forms of medical treatment that does not violate his/her religious beliefs.
So respecting their religious beliefs is more important than stopping them from killing themselves? Gotcha.
It's still suicide if they're going to die anyway, in my view. Interesting how when religion says that suicide is OK, society goes along with their wishes. Jesus is a prime example (but that's neither here nor there)
Now on to the issue of discouraging suicide. You said "But my point is that preventing suicide can't be done with equivocal messages. Society can't say that it is fine for some but not for others. If it does, the prevention message will be enfeebled."
So, should society also oppose all wars? According to your argument, supporting some wars but opposing other wars undermines the message of "peace" that society wants to promote.
I believe that society and individuals can tell the difference. If life was always worth living, why is the suicide rate, especially among the elderly, so high? Most suicides should be prevented, but if the individual has a consistent desire to die, that desire should not be dismissed immediately.
There's also a loophole present for Jehovah's witnesses. If they have a living will stating their religion, and that they don't want blood transfusions, they can slash their wrists, and if they wind up in hospital, the hospital would be obliged to let them bleed to death, while if they were not Jehovah's Witnesses, they could be given blood transfusions.
Tony, at a minimum there is the difference between starvation and a blood transfusion that EVERYONE who is starved will die, not everyone who is not given a blood transfusion, even those will blood loss, will.
If enough blood has already been lost, those who refuse blood transfusions will also die.
Tony, yet again, this is about the difference between allowing someone to decline treatment (even if it results in death) versus actively aiding or bringing about the person's death. Yes, sometimes the line between them is not completely clear, but so what? That's simply the reality of actions in this world -- it's not mathematics. Are you more interested in racking up juvenile "gotcha!"s, or having a realistic, meaningful debate?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home