Suicide--justified at times or never an option?

I've posed this question elsewhere and thought it might provide some interesting possibilities for discussion.

I'm guessing this topic will become debated. (Gee, wonder why? ) However, I ask that people attempt to keep it more in the realm of what you feel you might do, supported by your beliefs, if your circumstances were to become such that continuing to live seemed unbearably difficult. Ask questions to clarify what others have said, but please try hard not to make those seem like a challenge to another's expressed beliefs.

In short, I'm hoping we can keep it within the bounds of explaining what circumstances might lead you to choose to end your life and how your beliefs would or would not support that decision.

If you believe in an afterlife, what do you think may be the situation in that realm for someone who has committed suicide or been aided to do so? Does the person helping incur spiritual punishment for doing what s/he likely believes to be an empathetic act?

Could mercy killing go along with this topic?

I don't see why not.

We had an extremely difficult situation of that type when my elderly father suffered serious head trauma in a car accident.

Have at it if you'd like to introduce situations in which euthanasia is justified, justified in some instances but not others, or not justified in any circumstances.

Living and dying are the same thing. This side of the veil, that side--doesn't really make much difference. I fully support anybody choosing suicide for any reason.

I am here because I choose to be. Should I tire of this life, I'll find a door into summer and see what's there. The greatest dignity that can be had is to choose one's own manner and time for dying.

Do those represent only your personal beliefs, AT, or would such a view of suicide be common among those of your belief system?

I'm not familiar with Canaanite Reconstructionism, so please enlighten me (and perhaps others) if you would.

Killing can be justified. The bar is easiest met when the life taken is your own, as it is the only life you actually have a right to.

Everybody dies. Death is not the defining moment of your life, it is simply the last one.

Having said that, it is a permanent solution. You had best be sure it was not a temporary problem you were trying to solve if suicide is your solution. There are however a number of permanent problems that suicide frankly addresses adequately well.

Since I mentioned the very challenging decision we faced after my father's accident, I might as well toss that out for consideration.

For most of my adult life, I strongly supported almost without question honoring a loved one's living will to the letter. However, I found out that there can be more gray areas than I'd envisioned.

My father was 86 at the time of his accident and in fairly good health. He still lived alone in my childhood home but was gradually becoming more and more forgetful. Deciding that an assisted care facility was needed probably would not have been far in the future had he not had the accident.

He was semi-comatose and appeared largely unresponsive to all but stimulation of reflexes for almost two full months.

My younger sister, who had medical power of attorney for Dad, was adamant that he would not want to be kept alive in that condition with little to no possibility of any improvement in his quality of life and much uncertainty about how much pain he might be suffering. He needed a respirator for about the first six weeks after the injury, severe head trauma. Then, gradually, he seemed to be trying to breathe on his own, so the doctor began attempting to wean him off the respirator which gradually was accomplished.

But then, we were still faced with a man who would not be a good nursing home candidate. He could not swallow, so a stomach tube for feeding was put in place, which my sister was somewhat opposed to and I had extremely mixed feelings about.

We were still very uncertain at that point how much recovery if any Dad might make.

At two months after the accident, his doctor said that she felt it highly unlikely he would ever regain any degree of awareness or responsiveness and suggested that we consider withdrawing sustenance. Consistent with Dad's expressed wishes, my sister was all in favor of this, but I was reluctant, knowing that it would be a thoroughly nasty process. The nurse with whom we discussed that option mentioned that they recommend no visitation for the first 10-14 days after food is withheld as "the body's reactions can be distressing and unpleasant to observe." Well, yeah...starving someone who can't speak or communicate otherwise probably would be "unpleasant to observe."

Also, Dad's regular nurses said they were fairly certain they were seeing indications that he was becoming more aware and might be coming out of the semi-coma. One described asking him to squeeze her hand if he understood what she was saying, and she said that it could simply have been a reflex when she gently held his hand, but she felt that he was trying to respond appropriately to simple questions.

I realized when it came down to starving my father to death when he might be regaining some degree of awareness that I couldn't agree to it. So, I said that I wanted to give him another couple of weeks, and then, if there were no notable signs of improvement, I would reluctantly agree to withdraw nutrients.

It was weird, but I felt strongly that Dad deserved a chance to fight his way out of this if he possibly could. He'd always been a fighter and had recovered from serious injuries earlier that the doctors said would have killed a man less determined and resourceful than he. Also, I thought that I'd noticed some indications of awareness when I talked to him. I have a very distinctive voice, which the nurses said they thought was triggering some marginal responsiveness.

So, we waited another week and a half, at which point, one of Dad's younger sister's wanted to come to visit. We agreed since she had been a nurse, and we thought that she might be able to give us another perspective.

The day before she arrived, the nurse told me that she thought Dad was coming out of the semi-coma. When she and an aide went to turn him over, they asked him to help roll to his right side, and noticed one leg flopping in that direction. It seemed to be voluntary, they thought.

When my aunt walked into Dad's room the following morning and greeted him, he opened his eyes and looked directly at her. She asked did he know who she was, and he mouthed her name, obviously trying to speak.

Gradually, voice rusty, he began talking and clearly knew my aunt and cousin who'd come along with her.

When we reported what had happened to his doctor, she said she could no longer authorize anything but supportive treatment since we now had no idea the extent to which Dad might recover.

Sadly, later testing revealed that the injury had wiped out his short term memory to the point that if someone left his room for a few moments, he could not remember their ever having been there. He would be bedridden in a nursing home for the rest of his life.

After his death nearly three full months after the accident, the hospital chaplain told me that the week before, Dad had described to her a vision he had had of my mother's having come to tell him that she was waiting for him whenever he was ready. The chaplain said she questioned him a bit, and he clearly knew that my mother had died ten years before. "A vision" were his words describing her visit to him. He told the chaplain that now he was ready to die.

He died fairly quickly a few days later.

While I don't know this with any real certainty, I think that I was somehow able to sense Dad's need to hang on until it was his choice to let go. I felt more strongly than made any kind of rational sense to me that we must not take any action that would cause his death. My sister thought I was merely being overly emotional; I think I truly sensed that the father we loved was still there at least to some extent inside that largely unresponsive body.

Dad's doctor was gracious enough to admit that she would never have believed he would regain as much alertness and awareness as he ultimately did.

Once adamant about such situations, I am now far less certain that doctors or anyone else can determine what the best course of action may be in such uncertain cases. Thus, I have extremely mixed feelings about so-called mercy killing.

I do feel strongly that suicide is a person's choice and also support euthanasia. Like Dot, my opinions were formed by my experiences. My mother died a death that I would not wish on a dog. Over the course of a year, she lost all physical ability and was in excruciating pain. The doctor (picked by my father) wouldn't give her much pain medication and talked about not wanting her to become addicted!!!! She was dying! I just wanted her not be be in so much pain that she literally was climbing the walls. She went blind and shortly before she died her backbone separated in two. Fortunately, by that time, she had retreated into madness. That was a blessing. Before she did, she used to beg me to let her die.

I lived far away. I would come, try to help her and then my father, who refused to believe that she was dying, would undo it all. So... yes, I believe that euthanasia can be a kindness and I wish with all my heart that my mother had not had the death she had. No one deserves to go through what she did.

My father learned from my mother's death. He did not want anyone else to be in charge if he was incapacitated. When he found out that he was going to die he let us know that when he thought the time was right, he intended to take his own life. I thought, given mom's experience, that was a good choice and could certainly understand why he wanted it. My s-i-l flipped out and wrote him a two page letter about how selfish he was. :-) She hadn't been there for mom and that was before he father developed Alzheimer's. She told me later she was so sorry she did that, wished she could take it back, it was his business and no should take that right away from a person.

Dad chose his way to die. He carefully picked his doctor and food was withheld at his own request. The doctor met with us and bluntly told us that Dad had made all the decisions and he was his boss, we had no say in it. Dad was failing badly by that point and it did not take long. You know, when it gets to that point, what is the difference between a shot that puts them to sleep and starving them to death? I see no reason he had to do that.

Dot, I'm unaware of any statements from the historical record made by Canaanites regarding suicide. There may be references to it among what few writings have been discovered; I have no knowledge of any.

As for how Canaanite Recons in general approach it, I've no idea. It's not come up in any discussions I've been privy to.

So, my statements are purely from personal belief. How well they match up with historical Canaanite beliefs is an open question. I suspect, as the Canaanites (not the descendant cultures) existed so long ago when productive members of any tribe/family/group were important that there may have been some sort of discouragement of the practice unless to achieve some specific end (retaining/regaining honor, etc.).

gillyflower wrote:Dad chose his way to die. He carefully picked his doctor and food was withheld at his own request. The doctor met with us and bluntly told us that Dad had made all the decisions and he was his boss, we had no say in it. Dad was failing badly by that point and it did not take long. You know, when it gets to that point, what is the difference between a shot that puts them to sleep and starving them to death? I see no reason he had to do that.

Agreed, Gilly.

I don't see the point of making an elderly person with a terminal illness choose starvation over a relatively quick and painless end by injection.

As Autumnal said above, I basically believe that choosing when life should end is the individual's decision even when others think it irrational and feel obliged to intervene.

I've seen enough instances of children with severe multiple birth defects who are kept alive at tremendous cost that I have to wonder if these cases are worth either the cost or the heartbreak. For instance, the daughter of a former co-worker of my husband's had a massive staph infection during her sixth month. It was close to viability point when this occurred, so a caesarean was quickly done in hopes that the infection had not crossed the placenta.

It had, and her son was born with such severe birth defects that even after several eye surgeries, he can probably only see vague shapes with one eye and almost nothing with the other. I'm not the least bit certain that the doctors know and strongly suspect that they only claim so because he's had so many expensive surgeries. He can't walk, talk or even swallow so is fed through a tube and will be for the rest of whatever lifespan he has. Worst of all, he has frequent violent seizures that typically put him back in the hospital for a week or more at a time.

Since she was only 16 when he was born, social services advised her and her boyfriend not to get married even though they wanted to since no insurance would consider covering their son's expenses if they did. So, the taxpayers get to pay to keep a child "alive" who will never have any real quality of life to speak of.

I can't see any merit in this situation.

But, the family are Catholic, and he was born in a Catholic hospital, so there wasn't much question but that all possible measures would be taken and will continue no matter the cost to society.

Oh, and by the way, I hope everyone here has made a living will. Since I go to an army hospital, they insist we have one. If nothing else, it will remove from your relatives the need to make tough decisions in an emotional time.

DotNotInOz wrote:I've posed this question elsewhere and thought it might provide some interesting possibilities for discussion.
I'm guessing this topic will become debated. (Gee, wonder why? ) However, I ask that people attempt to keep it more in the realm of what you feel you might do, supported by your beliefs, if your circumstances were to become such that continuing to live seemed unbearably difficult. Ask questions to clarify what others have said, but please try hard not to make those seem like a challenge to another's expressed beliefs.

In short, I'm hoping we can keep it within the bounds of explaining what circumstances might lead you to choose to end your life and how your beliefs would or would not support that decision.

If you believe in an afterlife, what do you think may be the situation in that realm for someone who has committed suicide or been aided to do so? Does the person helping incur spiritual punishment for doing what s/he likely believes to be an empathetic act?

I agree with the other posters to this thread: Auto-euthanasia, also called self-deliverance, is justified, and not wrong, if an injury or disease has significantly adversely affected your quality of life. Of course no one but you should decide what amounts to a significantly adverse affect on quality of life.

Note that I don't call it "suicide". Suicide implies "self-murder". It's etymologically worded like the name of a crime.

If self-deliverance is justified by injury or disease, then it is _not_ suicide.

Let's call it "suicide" if it's unnecessary, if even you yourself can't justify it in terms of damage to qualilty of life due to disease or injury.

Suicide, so defined, is a mistake. I agree with most religions, when they say that it's a big mistake.

I suggest that you're already in Eternity, but, from our perspective here, it just isn't apparent. As for your life in this world, you have a purpose in this world, and that purpose has to do with mutual improvement of life. You're here to make life better for one other person, or for a very few people closest to you, especially including your life-partner or spouse, and children and grandchildren if any.

This life provides a unique, one-time opportunity to fulfill your purpose here.

Bare Eternity isn't in a hurry.

If you commit suicice, as I've defined it, you'll feel like you've done something really stupid, and that's putting it mildly.

Check the laws in your state. A living will can be shit upon. When my mother had her stroke, the doctors told us that if ALL the children weren't on the same page, it would only take one contesting the Will to stop it. Needless to say, I let them all know that if they even THOUGHT about contesting it there would be two funerals.... But, knowing that one person could undo the Will was not heartening. So, make sure you know the law and have an ironclad plan.

tmarie64 wrote:Check the laws in your state. A living will can be shit upon. When my mother had her stroke, the doctors told us that if ALL the children weren't on the same page, it would only take one contesting the Will to stop it. Needless to say, I let them all know that if they even THOUGHT about contesting it there would be two funerals.... But, knowing that one person could undo the Will was not heartening. So, make sure you know the law and have an ironclad plan.

Mine is a family of soldiers. The living will is the intent of the clan member. I am tanist, oldest male of service age. The living will directs the medical staff to obey the will of the clan member on the manner of their death. While there will always be some family (those who never served) who are willing to let their personal inability to deal with loss interfere with the dying clan members right to choose the manner of their own care in the final times. If any seek to interfere with the will of the clan member as expressed in the living will, it is for me to see that it is respected. Lawyers can feel free to see me afterward. There is a reason all of my kinsmen have a copy of their living will filed with me. They know if I am involved, their will will be respected.

To more concisely answer the question:

I feel sure that there are no adverse spiritual consequences for doing physically-justified auto-euthanasia or physically-justified self-delieverance. I'm referring to situations where an injury or disease or birth-condition has significantly adversely affected a person's quality of life. As I said, I emphasize that no one but the individual whose life it is, is qualified to say what constitutes a significant damage to quality of life. When the auto-euthanasia is physically justified as I described, then I don't call it suicide.

Likewise, and for the same reason, I also feel sure that there are no adverse spiritual consequences for someone who provides needed assistance to someone who feels that s/he needs to do physically-necessary auto-euthanasia. Obviously, for legal reasons, the assistor should only do what the other person literally, physically, cannot do. But I make no claim about what is legally safe or advisable, because I'm not qualified on the subject of law, the text and implementation of which varies by place and time anyway.