Self analysis, self annihilation

Post Reply New Topic

This starts out from a note out of Master Pedant elsewhere. And a couple others.

Get some definitions and concepts explored, shall we. Not pushing anthing except srerious thought - can't have oo much of that here.

Jesus, Tien An Men Square, Maximilian Kolbe, fireman trapped in the conflagration, Marine officer in battle:

Do we count any or all of these as suicide?

We leave out Marie Curie who probably was not expecting the outcome.

We can probably concur that suicide as generally construed is in most cases a tragedy.

Is IRA prison starvation [if fatal] or Buddhist monk ignition tragedy, triumph, or neither?

Finally - MP says certain suicides are justified [rational?] mentioning terminal illness.

So here is a real life example to meditate on.

Louisa learns she has cancer.

Operation. After which she is told - THANKS to the operation - she has maximum time 3 months. Meds do not truly control her pain, and leave her with digestive difficulties; there is another condition [not cancer] they cannot or will not fix. She has little come and no insurance - unless you count Medicafe that will cut in AFTER three months.

In this case, is suicide / euthanasia a reasonable solution?

To make the discussion more interesting, I will tell you that a year and a half after the operation she is alive. Not that comfortable, thanks to problems with meds and family stresses. But alive and better than say 6 months ago.

To add to your case studies good sir.

Alan Turing, the circumstance of his death as in some quarters it is believed that he committed suicide via cyanide poisoning.
Also a case in point about Terry Pratchett, as he back in 2009 expressed a wish to commit 'assisted suicide' if his Alzheimer's disease progresses out of control.

@Philologos

Most of the cases you cited I'd consider acts of altruistic suicide.

In Louisa's case, I'd generally say if she hasn't lost basic bodily functions or basic cognitive functions, it makes sense to live. Of course, to get a more accurate moral calculus of the situation I'd really have to know the effect suicide would have on her family/friends and what her individual goals/wishes are.

cdfox:

examples welcome.

On the Alzheimer's one -

Mein Papa is now a prominent citizen of Alzheim. Both tragic and poignant - he is SO much nicer and happier now than he ever was, which makes the fact that he is as accessible to us as if he were dead a constant stab.

If he were - let's say "put to sleep" - there could be no "assisted suicide" about it. He could not take part or even comprehend in any useful or recognizable way.

Master Pedant:

Thank you. There is of course a BIG difference between Tien An Men Square and Russian Roulette, both in intention and effect, and it would be trivializing to ignore it.

As to Louisa, her family and friends would neither be relieved not devastated - in the shirt run a mixture of the two, perhaps. She does hold a segment of her family together - marginally, very centrifugal - and is important to somde other members.

Her goals and wishes - she is very bend with the wind - vary with who last talked to her, but she is quite firm at the moment on the twin propositions that she does NOT want more medical intrusion and that she DOES plan to live. It has not been that way every moment, but that is about 6 months now.

On Louisa, note also that in the first few months - in pain, in humiliation [nobody needs details, but it was to her important humiliation], drugged up and in far and despair - she might well have opted for what was termed "the shortcut".

She is here way past her medical advisers' deadline [great word] largely because she was urged to stay, instead of being advised to resign.

I am here today for similar reasons - though mine was young punk pain and despair, not cancer patient pain and despair.

Which is why I have a tendency to argue - if asked, as in Louisa's case I was - my instinct that waiting is preferable to action.

Philologos I'm sorry to hear about you father, a close family friend had Alzheimer is a very changeling condition for loved ones to see a person go thought the later stages of it, I send my best wishes to your father, you & your family.

While thinking about the issue of euthanasia, I remember reading about it in Thomas More's Utopia.

Really - I should not be surprised, of course, he was a shrewd guy and besides the church there was the case of Socrates which SHOULD have been in the list along with Kolbe. I will have to look that up. At the time I would have been most likely to read Utopia my reading went other directions.

My dad is like the guy in the open casket, except the viewing is takling years and he is visibly happy except when he is frustrated at having no words. HIS dad had a stroke and went super mean not recognizing anybody [really scared him]. Mine knows exactly who I am and likes me better than he ever did, but that is as far as it goes.

When he tries to talk, it almost sounds impressive - he has strings of phrases from years in acasdemia, and brings them out, but nothing solid.

The worst is asking yourself which is better:

a bitter, unhappy mean spirited person who can think depressing thoughts and utter putdowns,

or

a smiling, pleasant person who likes you and would have a pleassant chat if he had access to thoughts and words.

Attitudes would be easier if he had gone mean like grampa.

I don't know, ask her. It's arrogant for anyone else to force someone to live. How would you feel if you had 90% burns, and a stodgy, uncharred politician said that you had to live? It's not anyone else's call, and expecting someone to live in misery for your sake is selfishness of the highest degree.



Neither, objectively. It is a matter of opinion. Personally, I think altruistic suicide is irrational, although it can be a force for good.

I think anyone who wants to live or who does not have the capacity to even consider the question should be cared for as well as possible until a natural death occurs. The tough part of that question, however, at least for me, appears when someone such as an Alzheimer "patient" is (also) unable to care for (feed) himself or herself ... and in a case such as that, I would have no big problem just keeping him or her hydrated until starvation had run its course ...

... and no, I did not just say I would starve someone to death. Rather, either s/he could ask for food and/or even feed himself/herself, or not.

However, my mother's case a little over two years ago was even more complicated:

I had told her it was not a good idea for her to have heart surgery, but she insisted ...

... and then when the surgery went badly and she had awakened about a week later and I had quietly answered her questions and told her the facts of her case, she realized her grave error -- no pun there -- and said she wanted to die (by stopping all medical "life support" and such) ...

... but then some flippin' "Oh, just pray to 'Jesus'" people shamed her into changing her mind ...

... and then four months later, those same people "had a talk" with her and told it was time to stop all medical stuff and to "Oh, just let nature takes its course [this time]..."

I was flipping livid.

But then the next day the doctors and everyone else with any "professional" say in the matter just ignored her when she said she really did want have anything and everything done they could possibly do for her ...

Point: People who try to out-live themselves are, in my own opinion, just as foolish and/or wrong or whatever else as people who either induce early ends to their own lives or actually cause the deaths of others.

Last edited by leejosepho on 18 May 2011, 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think many of these can be considered suicide. I don't think the Marine is because there is no intention to die or even action with expectation of death as the comparative result(note: a death may be likely, but the question is whether the person is highly likely to die) , but the "throw self on grenade" is, as is the "suicide mission" and so on and so forth.

Fireman trapped is only suicide if the fireman chose a path they knew would likely lead them to death.

All others are unambiguous suicides.

The political suicide is goal-oriented, so it may be a tragic victory, but it is only a victory if the death helped accomplish the goal.

Suicide is a reasonable option for Louisa and should be offered in case that seems the best path. (Ideally, however, her diagnosis would be presented in probabilistic terms though, but it almost certainly was not)

AG:

" her diagnosis would be presented in probabilistic terms though, but it almost certainly was not)"

Clarification?

As for the maximum three months, that is just word of mouth and I do not know details of wording.

The was definitely, though, a statement of odds attached to "if you do chemotherapy [or rasiation, or both, don't quote me]. Something like a 5% chance of extending time.

AG meant "prognosis", usually the doctors give you a probability of being alive in x months.

Which is how I understood him.

I'd use the term "self-sacrifice" for suicide or behavior certain to lead to death in the interest of a political cause or to save your brothers-in-arms. I'd exclude suicide bombers as murderers whose belief is not that their lives will end, but will get better as a result of the act.

Another factor is the maturity of the person making the decision.

I support mature people's right to choose the time and manner of their death, and I don't have to agree with their reasoning to support their right to act as they will. Regardless, I might talk long and hard with them to try to either understand or change their minds.

Mental illness presents a serious conceptual challenge. I just don't know what to think.

Eh, whatever. What I mean is that doctors can't be certain on a maximum. If they had some way of making a rough probability curve(like a bell curve) based upon actuarial data, then that would be better. (If it could be reasonably compiled) After all, they can't actually be certain on a maximum.

Nor can any of us.

The priestly robes are a handicap. People - this is the Oprah watcher, after all - expect authoritative Words from a society's anointed. And they are just people.