Suicide and Euthanasia

[soundofmusic]

I think the reason there are so few countries that allow euthenasia is that it is really a sticky, complicated issue. Personally, as a hospice nurse, I see terrible suffering; unfortunately, by the time the person decides for themselves they want to die; they no longer have the stregnth or power.

I have sometimes wondered who I would trust to give me that final injection? Sometimes when I see the relatives, greedily looking through the jewelry and stocks...here the hospital ask if the person is an organ donor...

What would happen in a world where we could instantly remove all of the financial hardships that a schizophrenic relative, or an autistic child could cause...

I have voted yes for euthenasia; but only if I can pour my own pills...

[Jozanny]

I do not necessarily believe in suicide, and in fact, though I am getting over the hump, I was somewhat personally pained with the choice David Foster Wallace made. I cannot say why, as I barely knew Infinite Jest existed and he himself wasn't on my writer recognition zone until his obit thread appeared here on the forum; then I paid attention, listened to interviews, read about him, and became angry--and I know how that sounds, so I'm writing about it to sort my reactions out.

But on a personal level, I am not going to be able to beat the system back as a disabled woman forever. I already cannot handle the attendant care system; it nearly drove me crazy, and how much more yet a more regimented environment, to which eventually I will have to concede, as my strength continues to decline. I don't have a good man. I don't have children.

I do have bylines but so what. Vassar Miller was one of the most famous poets with cerebral palsy and her end of life was virtual torture for her writing assistants.

I don't want to allow medical model paradigms to destroy me, either way, by enduring their assaults on my dignity, or by forcing me towards a choice I don't want to make. Don't have handicapped children, as we never asked for our conditions, or from the constraints most of us face in trying to be just like everyone else.

[Cunninglinguist]

I can discern two separate issues you’ve brought up here, the first being whether suicide requires strength or weakness and the second being the moral status of suicide and euthanasia. I will address them respectively but as I am limited on space and time I will only offer a few short words here:
Suicide probably requires a type of weakness and a type of strength simultaneously. But this is true for all actions. When one asks for another’s love, is it not because one is too weak to endure the agonies of loneliness and also because one is strong enough to ask? If one lacks a sufficient quantity of strength or weakness the action will not take place. When a ‘brave’ or ‘courageous’ man patriotically fights for his country, is it not because he is afraid he is too weak to live without it? This raises the question, what is bravery or courage? Is it rooted in weakness?
One could argue that we are all weak in the sense that no one can live in complete isolation. In this type of argument weak would be synonymous with dependent. And, of course, here we’re asking is a person who commits suicide unable to depend upon himself and therefore weak.
The more important question is not whether it requires weakness or strength but whether or not it is morally justifiable. The reason this topic is so difficult is because for most of us we have many conflicting values. I don’t believe that it is right for society to be designed in such a way that leaves many people feeling the agony of anomie and then attempts to justify suicide by saying that people have a right to do whatever they please with their bodies.

[Gladys]

One could argue that we are all weak in the sense that no one can live in complete isolation. In this type of argument weak would be synonymous with dependent. And, of course, here we’re asking is a person who commits suicide unable to depend upon himself and therefore weak.

Those who suicide are weak in the sense that they voluntarily give up the struggle which is life: "Rage, rage against the dying of the light". Of course, the life burden of some is so onerous that few would have the strength to bear it.

Consider Hamlet's soliloquy for a moment. His option was to take the easy way out or to "take on a sea of troubles." Of course he chose the "sea of troubles" because he wasn't sure about what was to come in the afterlife. in the suicide, but the conduct in their life while they lived.

Hamlet, himself, is rather more fascinating than this! His choice is to acquiesce in "a sea of troubles" and live a cowardly and tawdry long life, "Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, | And by opposing end them", which he views as tantamount to suicide. It's suicide to oppose a reigning monarch and, in this sense, Hamlet knowingly chooses suicide. Weak or strong?

[keilj]

But on a personal level, I am not going to be able to beat the system back as a disabled woman forever. I already cannot handle the attendant care system; it nearly drove me crazy, and how much more yet a more regimented environment, to which eventually I will have to concede, as my strength continues to decline. I don't have a good man. I don't have children.



I don't want to allow medical model paradigms to destroy me, either way, by enduring their assaults on my dignity, or by forcing me towards a choice I don't want to make.

You've articulated one of the main points. In the United States, the health care/nursing home system is pretty fraught with an astonishing lack of compassion, and a pretty heartless rigidity. This, added to the already torturous nature of some physical illnesses, can make a pretty good case for voluntary suicide at some point. And it is quite troubling that the U.S., whose health care system creates these kinds of conditions, would be very slow to ever allow voluntary suicide.

[dizzydoll]

I don't want to allow medical model paradigms to destroy me, either way, by enduring their assaults on my dignity, or by forcing me towards a choice I don't want to make. Don't have handicapped children, as we never asked for our conditions, or from the constraints most of us face in trying to be just like everyone else.

Joz, I am so sorry to hear of your pain, and pain is one of the reasons for bringing this subject up to start with, but this isnt about me. While we are able to philosophize about life easily enough, we seem to ignore or be unable to philosophize about death.

If you look at Music's comment, none of us want to go there:

I think the reason there are so few countries that allow euthenasia is that it is really a sticky, complicated issue. Personally, as a hospice nurse, I see terrible suffering; unfortunately, by the time the person decides for themselves they want to die; they no longer have the stregnth or power.

I have sometimes wondered who I would trust to give me that final injection? Sometimes when I see the relatives, greedily looking through the jewelry and stocks...here the hospital ask if the person is an organ donor...

I must agree, it would be easier to allow someone else to give that final injection, but the choice is not theirs its ours. But something inside us compels us to go on, we dont know what that is for sure, all we know is our inner self that wants to go on. Like all of us, Joz you have to find a way to make peace with your inner self and feel the comfort in any decision you make.

I have been told those who are dieing are more concerned about leaving their kids behind, thank your lucky stars you dont have that problem. I would recommend you read Eckhart Tolle's works. Now I know there are some bad reviews so please dont judge him by the way he writes or that he includes a bible verse, the publishers could have just as easily left those out as they have no bearing on his ultimate message [if you find it offensive]. He is such a patient, thoughtful compassionate man, he has gone through difficult times himself which he bravely shares with the reader. You can even listen to his works on CD, [read by him] if you prefer. If you watch some of his YouTube videos he's like a little comedian, so cute he is.

In the end Tolle can help everyone to find peace within themselves, his message is comforting. I highly recommend A New Earth and The Power of Now. Here is a link to some of his stories on a LitNet thread: [I particularly enjoy The Lost Ring]

Watch out For

I had a brother who committed suicide and it literally broke me, even now, 3 years later I feel the gap from this loss. He had damage to the stem of the brain so really, if I think about it logically -- this was no life for him --, he was an angel put here to teach us. Perhaps if I had thought about his death beforehand, it might have been easier to accept. I felt the trauma of his death more than that of my fathers death, or other family members for that matter. I take this to mean we are kindred spirits who will see each other again.

Whatever our decisions when faced with death I believe we'll find the support we need, judging by this poll. This has been a very difficult comment to write, but it helps my healing too. It was one of the reasons for bringing up this topic to begin with, sometimes I do have my serious side too.

P.S. If you can listen to Wayne Dyer's work on CD or YouTube, he offers truly remarkable inspiration. I have his Change your Life, Change your Thoughts CD. Now you will definitely read or hear bad reviews about him and his lifestyle... whatever..., ignore it all. Have fun.

[dizzydoll]

I don’t believe that it is right for society to be designed in such a way that leaves many people feeling the agony of anomie and then attempts to justify suicide by saying that people have a right to do whatever they please with their bodies.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, please can you rephrase.

[Jozanny]

Sound,

This will not make much sense, perhaps, but I do not believe in making peace, or coming to acceptance. I have had some huge struggles, some of which I alluded to, which in the end, seem a bit cheesy, and make me look a bit comic, even in my own eyes--but for the chronically disabled to attempt suicide, and I say attempt because the disabled most often fail, if their ability is impaired to that extent, means the bigots win, means the oppression won, and I'll be damned if I give society that satisfaction--but that said, I cannot sustain what Vassar Miller was willing to endure in her 70's either, or some of my friends, for that matter. It is not optimal, which is not to say we're not all going to die, or at least, most of us through say 2030--although biologists today do not think human life is sustainable beyond a benchmark 120 or so--just that I am not dying with stomach tubes inserted to feed me, and catheters, and IV bags.

As to Wallace, I don't buy the medical model explanations, despite the fact that I can read his ability to make acute pain seem to be an almost unspoken character within his work. He was a very privileged, gifted man, and apparently selfish to the point of committing a monstrous evil. Who the hell is he, with everything the rest of us endure, to have done this, despite his insights and awareness of human nature, to have hung himself, so terribly wounding his family, probably affecting his students, if the impact my instructors had on me is any indication?

Suicide for a just cause is one thing, but suicide because your joy juice isn't working is something else, at least in his case. Like yourself, I have been around clinically hopeless conditions, and those I will not judge, but some people would do well with a good thrashing, as far as I am concerned.

[ktm5124]

Sound,

This will not make much sense, perhaps, but I do not believe in making peace, or coming to acceptance. I have had some huge struggles, some of which I alluded to, which in the end, seem a bit cheesy, and make me look a bit comic, even in my own eyes--but for the chronically disabled to attempt suicide, and I say attempt because the disabled most often fail, if their ability is impaired to that extent, means the bigots win, means the oppression won, and I'll be damned if I give society that satisfaction--but that said, I cannot sustain what Vassar Miller was willing to endure in her 70's either, or some of my friends, for that matter. It is not optimal, which is not to say we're not all going to die, or at least, most of us through say 2030--although biologists today do not think human life is sustainable beyond a benchmark 120 or so--just that I am not dying with stomach tubes inserted to feed me, and catheters, and IV bags.

As to Wallace, I don't buy the medical model explanations, despite the fact that I can read his ability to make acute pain seem to be an almost unspoken character within his work. He was a very privileged, gifted man, and apparently selfish to the point of committing a monstrous evil. Who the hell is he, with everything the rest of us endure, to have done this, despite his insights and awareness of human nature, to have hung himself, so terribly wounding his family, probably affecting his students, if the impact my instructors had on me is any indication?

Suicide for a just cause is one thing, but suicide because your joy juice isn't working is something else, at least in his case. Like yourself, I have been around clinically hopeless conditions, and those I will not judge, but some people would do well with a good thrashing, as far as I am concerned.

I think you are downplaying his depression, which is a disease like any other. People with depression like that literally have a chemical imbalance in their brain - in particular, decreased serotonin activity. It is not at all a fault in one's attitude, willpower, or worldview; it has a very substantial and proven chemical basis.

[Jozanny]

ktm,

I know all about depression, just as I am sure Wallace did, even better than I myself, his perceptions carry the astuteness of a razor's edge; depression is part of my *adjustment disorder* which in layman's gargle means I have depression and anxiety but neither state is major enough for a sustained course of treatment, and although I am repeating myself, as a disease depression ranges from crippling interference to everyone has it but can function with and/or chemical assistance and counseling.

If I am being hard on Wallace one it is more just my problem as he is dead, but two, I don't care how much pain he was or wasn't in, he knew this was a self-involved and transient state; he knew, too, about disability, and the contradictions inherent in both its oppressive caste and self-inflicted cruelty, and in his case, what he did was selfish, wrong and not worthy of compassion, not on the basis of the public reasons offered.

I don't think it was because his medication lost its effectiveness. I believe he acted thinking he would experience what he wrote about and somehow overcome that, and he lost, and I'd smack him upside his head for it too if I could manipulate history.

Life is about suffering, and in the majority of cases, the human spirit overcomes. That is what it is to be human.

[Gladys]

People with depression like that literally have a chemical imbalance in their brain - in particular, decreased serotonin activity. It is not at all a fault in one's attitude, willpower, or worldview; it has a very substantial and proven chemical basis.

If depression has a proven chemical basis, will we establish someday a chemical basis for a fault in one's attitude, a lack of willpower, or a faulty worldview? If the basis for these is not chemical, is it physical, electrical or, perhaps, supernatural?

If depression is not a fault in one's attitude, does this imply that depression is one's destiny: independent of one's state of mind, dietary, exercise, social and sleep practices? Which comes first: a chemical imbalance in the brain or self-defeating attitudes and behaviours? Surely the depressed individual bears some responsibility for his attitudes and actions and, ultimately, for his brain chemistry.

Not everyone attempts suicide.

[Virgil]

ktm,

I know all about depression, just as I am sure Wallace did, even better than I myself, his perceptions carry the astuteness of a razor's edge; depression is part of my *adjustment disorder* which in layman's gargle means I have depression and anxiety but neither state is major enough for a sustained course of treatment, and although I am repeating myself, as a disease depression ranges from crippling interference to everyone has it but can function with and/or chemical assistance and counseling.

If I am being hard on Wallace one it is more just my problem as he is dead, but two, I don't care how much pain he was or wasn't in, he knew this was a self-involved and transient state; he knew, too, about disability, and the contradictions inherent in both its oppressive caste and self-inflicted cruelty, and in his case, what he did was selfish, wrong and not worthy of compassion, not on the basis of the public reasons offered.

I don't think it was because his medication lost its effectiveness. I believe he acted thinking he would experience what he wrote about and somehow overcome that, and he lost, and I'd smack him upside his head for it too if I could manipulate history.

Life is about suffering, and in the majority of cases, the human spirit overcomes. That is what it is to be human.

I have not read through this thread and just stopped here for a moment and noticed this post. Jozy that is beautifully said.

[ktm5124]

If depression has a proven chemical basis, will we establish someday a chemical basis for a fault in one's attitude, a lack of willpower, or a faulty worldview? If the basis for these is not chemical, is it physical, electrical or, perhaps, supernatural?

If depression is not a fault in one's attitude, does this imply that depression is one's destiny: independent of one's state of mind, dietary, exercise, social and sleep practices? Which comes first: a chemical imbalance in the brain or self-defeating attitudes and behaviours? Surely the depressed individual bears some responsibility for his attitudes and actions and, ultimately, for his brain chemistry.

Not everyone attempts suicide.

Of course, everything is biochemical. But it is much simpler to pin down the chemistry behind depression than it is to ascertain, say, the series of neurological impulses (over many years) that led to a particular worldview. The difference here is that the former is very much a question of gene expression, whereas the latter is a question of experience (the restructuring of neural connections over formative years).

A lot of people hate to admit it, but we're just a bunch of cells, genes, and proteins. Everything is biochemical - even experience, which is simply, to repeat myself, the restructuring of neural connections. But what does it matter if everything can be scientifically explained? This does not guarantee determinism. There is also no reason it should take away any joy or meaning from life.

So, to answer your question (if the answer is not clear from this mash of ideas) things like attitude, worldview, lifestyle, etc. are all products of experience. It is the sum of a series of decisions. But when it comes to the serotonin levels in our synapses, we have nowhere near the same level of conscious control. There is no decision-making there.

This post may sound coldly scientific (I realize I must come across an automaton) but I think this is an issue that is very much in need of indifferent scientific explanation. There are too many preconceptions, misconceptions, and religious stances hovering about like flies.

[kiki1982]

Yes, well suicide... I find it incredibly selfish if people come up with the argument of 'you leave people behind'. If a person thinks that his life is no longer worth living then it is probably no longer worth living. We as friends, family members and acquaintances can try to make him understand that it is not that way, but ultimately, will you as a person be happy because other people are happy that you are there? Probably not. And believe me I have had someone in my circle who actually tried. It is sad, but you can really not do anything about it. Fine, some people get through that phase (including that person I talked about), but others are kept in it for years by accident. Is it really worth seeing the agony of such a person because he is not allowed to go?

Euthanasia:

I come from Belgium where euthanasia is allowed provided that the person in question has had a document made up by a notary when he was still compus mentis (with it) sying that 'in the event of such or such' he wants to die. Apart from that, family members can decide to turn life suport machines off if there is no chane of recovery at all or if the person will end up a plant. But this is only for respiratory machines and not for food and drink.

In the event of Alzheimer's, I find it a little tricky, but seeing some of those people, I wouldn't want to be in that position. I could face possibly being brought into a coma because of cancer, because eventually I will die because of that cancer and I wouldn't last long, but becoming a hundred and not being able to find the toilet, not being able to feed myself and getting fruit compote to eat so I can do it with a spoon, not being able to say how many children I have, not being able to recognise my next of kin really... I don't know. Mind you, I wouldn't go as far as Hugo Claus (a famous Flemish writer) did and killed myself under the pretence of 'euthanasia' when I was still able to put a proper sentence together.

But I concede, in the spectrum of Alzheimer's and its counterparts, the line is difficult to draw. When is the person too far gone? When does he no longer realise that he is in the world as such? Is it when he can no longer control his urine flow, or is it when he can no longer eat with a knife and a fork, or is it maybe when he can no longer put a sentence together, or maybe even when he has ceased to talk altogether? That is the big problem. But I supprt Terry Pratchett in his battle. I think it is for everyone to decide on his own when he wants to die if he deteriorates mentally.

[Gladys]

So, to answer your question (if the answer is not clear from this mash of ideas) things like attitude, worldview, lifestyle, etc. are all products of experience. It is the sum of a series of decisions. But when it comes to the serotonin levels in our synapses, we have nowhere near the same level of conscious control. There is no decision-making there.

Aren't "serotonin levels in our synapses" a function, in part, of long term "attitude, worldview, lifestyle, etc"?

Our rather primitive knowledge of serotonin and its effects is substantially driven by the financial interests of pharmaceutical giants. They have less motive to research the impact of one's state of mind, dietary, exercise, social and sleep practices. The paltry research that has been reported on these life-style factors frequently correlates with depression and suicide, for instance.