Suicide – the ending of one’s own life. This observable, enigmatic and perplexing experience and fact was rampant even during the earlier times. As a result of this occurrence, there were various thoughts – mostly philosophical that are instigated by different philosophers and scholars with the purposes of providing a clear description and the full understanding of the principles underlying it. As an ancient practice, suicide possesses important views in terms of its acceptability and application.
The question on whether or not suicide is justified could still be a controversial topic to several perspectives of this modern living. Today, suicide is an object of multidisciplinary scientific study, with sociology, anthropology, psychology, and psychiatry each providing important insights into suicide (Cholbi 2004). With the onset of globalised manner of thinking, it could be said that there are still different beliefs that refer to the totality of suicide – may it be rational and irrational in nature. But then again, suicide must be viewed in terms of applicability and perspective to fully understand its ethical dimensions. Still, thoughts on suicide are appropriate to understand especially during these contemporary times where uncertainty and ambivalence prevail.
This paper aims to discuss the moral justification of suicide. Included on this reports are significant concepts of this particular subject varying to all areas concern like psychology. Further, euthanasia as an example of justified suicide will serve as an example and will constitute most part of the paper. Another reason on why euthanasia will be used in the discussion is the goal to further illustrate the justification of the said phenomenon.
What is suicide?
The dictionary provides a definition that is constricted only on the manifested facts relation to the phenomenon. The American Heritage Dictionary describes suicide as “the act or an instance of intentionally killing oneself”, the destruction or ruin of one’s own interests”, and “one who commits suicide”. Traditionally, people think of suicide as connected with a negative connotation and often misjudge as an evil deed. Not considering the mysteries and other reasons behind this observable occurrence, suicide traverses different aspects of individual human life. There are unknown and undiscovered things that need to be exposed to fully clarify the elemental nature of suicide. Then, what is suicide?
As stated by Cholbi (2004), suicide is an enigmatic and disconcerting phenomenon. He also qualified the different views connected with the said practice in relation to history, religions, legal and social (such as cultural) systems of the world. With these considerations, understanding the nature of suicide will then be bounded on the specific perspectives and reasons of the incidence.
On the other hand, suicidal acts are complex human behaviours that involve many aspects of an individual's personality, state of health, and life circumstances (Tondo and Baldessarini 2001a). Since ancient times, many philosophers and clinicians have been intrigued to factors leading to suicide although these modern times, explanations of suicidal behaviour have largely shifted from moral philosophy to medical biology, psychology, and sociology (Tondo and Baldessarini 2001a).
Meanwhile, a widely held view is that being suicidal is itself a psychopathological condition or is a strong indication of mental illness (Tondo and Baldessarini 2001b). In terms of risk factors, psychopathological problems are the most prevalent reasons, specifically depressive disorders and substance abuse disorders (Otsuki 2002). Certainly, a person contemplating suicide is in a depressed mood, sometimes in reaction to adverse circumstances, but this state of mind does not necessarily represent a psychiatric disorder; typically, an operational distinction is drawn between suicide as a consequence of pre-existing psychiatric illness, and suicide as a resolution of an existential dilemma or a response to a precipitating experience in the absence of a history of psychiatric disturbance (Tondo and Baldessarini 2001b).
In reference to statistical figures, 12% of youths had actually died because of suicide (Grunbaum et al 2004). But these cases are inclined with the use of drugs and other risk behaviours that contributed to the actual suicide case and other causes of youth premature death (Grunbaum et al, 2004).
A past report of World Health Organization (1996) regarding the rate of suicide in terms of gender in the global setting generally showed that there were higher suicide rates in males in 1994 than females. Among the countries that have high suicide rates in males are: Russian Federation (48.9); Lithuania (45.6); Finland (45.5); and Latvia (40.0). On the other hand, countries that have high rate of suicide among females are: China (39.4); Lithuania (12.0); Kazakhstan (11.2); and Singapore (10.2) (WHO 1996).
Andrews and Lewinsohn (1991) conducted a study and examined data from 1,710 adolescents attending nine high schools in five communities to determine the prevalence of suicide attempts and the lethality and intent of the attempts. The results showed approximately 6.8% of the adolescents had attempted suicide in their lifetime; while significantly greater proportion of girls (9.8%) as compared to boys (3.5%) had attempted suicide. Generally, rates of attempts were higher among those diagnosed with major depression, substance use disorder, or disruptive behaviour disorder.
In relation to this report, the aforementioned discussion may serve as the traditional notion of suicide. Realistically, the subsequent parts of this paper will now focus on it real intent – to provide a justification of the said phenomenon.
From the point of view of contemporary philosophy, suicide raises the following distinct questions (Donnelly 1998): whether a person who commits suicide (assuming that there is suicide if and only if there is intentional termination of one's own life) is morally blameworthy, reprehensible, sinful in all circumstances; whether suicide is objectively right or wrong, and in what circumstances it is right or wrong from a moral point of view; and whether, or in which circumstances, suicide is the best or the rational thing to do from the point of view of the agent's personal welfare.
Indeed, the morality of committing suicide has existed in classical philosophies such that of Immanuel Kant. In his writings, Kant emphasized the autonomy of human beings as the ultimate impetus in all humans- ranking even higher than life. The essence of life thus is the ability of humans to answer for their existence and take control of what they have. Suicide according to Kantian philosophy ultimately reduces human autonomy to nothing. This point of view has been dealt accordingly by Kant in the 18th century where he is generally seen as an opponent of suicide (ASB 2003).
When deliberating over the morality of suicide, it is necessary to also bring into the discussion those cases in which death is a highly possible risk, but not an intention, and the question of intervention, psychopathology and autonomy. However, Kant's Formula of the End in Itself can allow, or sometimes provide the reasons for, suicide in certain conditions.
Kant discusses suicide in the Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals and disapproves of it as a general rule of conduct (cited in ASB 2003):
"A man reduced to despair by a series of misfortunes feels wearied of life, but is still so far in possession of his reason that he can ask himself whether it would not be contrary to his duty to himself to take his own life. Now he inquires whether the maxim of his action could become a universal law of nature. His maxim is: From self - love I adopt it as a principle to shorten my life when its longer duration is likely to bring more evil than satisfaction. It is asked then simply whether this principle founded on self - love can become a universal law of nature. Now we see at once that a system of nature of which it should be a law to destroy life by means of the very feeling whose special nature it is to impel to the improvement of life would contradict itself, and therefore could not exist as a system of nature; hence that maxim cannot possibly exist as a universal law of nature, and consequently would be wholly inconsistent with the supreme principle of all duty". (Kant, 1948)
In his essay Suicide, Kant argues that suicide is wrong because it degrades our inner worth below that of animals. Kant considers two common justifications of suicide, and rejects them both. First, some may argue that suicide is permissible as a matter of freedom, so long as it does not violate the rights of others. In response Kant says self-preservation is our highest duty to ourselves and we may treat our body as we please, so long as our actions arise from motives of self-preservation. Some also might give examples from history that imply that suicide is sometimes virtuous.
For example, in Roman history, Cato, who was a symbol of resistance against Caesar, found he could no longer resist Caesar; to continue living a compromised life would disillusion advocates of freedom. Kant argues that this is the only example of this sort and thus cannot be used as a general rule in defense of suicide. Kant's main argument against suicide is that people are entrusted with their lives, which have a uniquely inherent value. By killing oneself, a person dispenses with his humanity and makes himself into a thing to be treated like a beast. Kant also argues on more consequentialist grounds that if a person is capable of suicide, then he is capable of any crime. For Kant, he who does not respect his life even in principle cannot be restrained from the most dreadful vices.
These noble deaths, such as Captain Oates's, are just as much suicide as the adolescent (successfully) slitting her wrists. The intention is to end one's own life and whatever the causes, and however "noble" the motives, it is still an act carried out with the intention of self-termination. On these grounds, an intention-based or rule-based morality can not separate them, whereas consequentialist accounts may still.
Suicide is often seen as the act of a desperate or mentally unstable person, which seems a little harsh. Suicide can be entered into in a completely rational frame of mind, but, more importantly, what is sane? Is sanity simply agreement with those around you, or societal convention?
Kant's argument, writes Wood (1999), is "progressive," with the later formulations constituting ever more "adequate expressions of the supreme principle of morality" (p. 110). To "insure the unity of the principle he is seeking," Kant formulates the "moral law first in terms of a certain kind of principle (a categorical principle or universal law), then in terms of a value to be esteemed, respected, and furthered (humanity as an end in itself)," then "in terms of its ground in the rational will which legislates universally, recognizing no authority except its own autonomy," and finally as the "allness or totality of the system" of ends expressed in the formula of the realm of ends (pp. 183, 185). In terms of this framework, and by filling in the "intermediate premises," Wood rereads the arguments in Kant's familiar examples (suicide, false promises and converted deposits, rusting talents, refusing to help).
To Szasz (1999), suicide is morally problematic and ought to be problematic. The reason provided is the fact that it entails the deliberate killing of a human being. He added that there is a need for suicide to be judged. In judging suicide as a moral dilemma, there are two options presented. One option is to condemn it out of hand where the common laws of the land will preside. Another is to treat it as we treat other types of killings namely, by examining the context in which the act occurs, the actor's motives, and the consequences of his act. With the usage of these options, the justification of suicide is identified.
Euthanasia
Countless discussions have been performed to address the issues concerning the right to life and the right to death. However, thousands still tread over the specific ethical issues surrounding it. With the advancement of knowledge and the modernization of medical treatments, questions revolving around the persuasive powers of physicians over their patients and the trust these patients are willing to give their doctors have increased considerably, especially with the growing alertness of the public concerning the principles and morals that surrounds this issue.
The case of euthanasia as a justified suicide is worthy of discussion in this research. Euthanasia is defined as “the act or practice of allowing a hopelessly sick or injured patient to die by taking less than complete medical measures to prolong life called also mercy killing” (Merriam-Webster 1996). Euthanasia can be divided into two kinds: passive euthanasia (allowing patients to die without taking an active role in assisting their deaths or by withdrawing medical treatment) versus active euthanasia (allowing patients to die through the use of medical treatments or instruments in order to assist their deaths), and voluntary euthanasia (the patient requests for death or it is administered with their knowledge, usually since the suffering is too great) and involuntary euthanasia (the patient has no idea of the decision made and it is the physician who decides for the patient; usually when the patient is in comatose).
0 comments:
Post a Comment