David Hume 's Argument Against Suicide

Suicide under circumstances of extreme suffering is the morally right action as opposed to the alternative, living in pain. J.S. Mill’s Utilitarian ideals provide strong reasoning to support suicide in instances of severe pain, while Kant’s moral theory of the categorical imperative provides reasoning against taking one’s own life. Mill’s principle of utility is the maximization of pleasure and the reduction of pain. Mill regards happiness as the greatest good in life and all actions should be performed as long as they have the tendency to produce pleasure. Mill also introduces the Harm Principle. The Harm Principle is used to determine whether coercion is justifiable based on the impact of individual

“Suicide is applied to all cases of death resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or negative act of the victim himself, which he knows will produce this result” (Durkheim 34). Suicide is a phenomenon that has plagued our world since the beginning of time. It currently accounts for the second leading cause of death in people ages ten to twenty-four years old (Garni Powerpoint). This means of ending your own life is something we can prevent as a society. If we can eliminate societal pressures and stereotypes we can all be treated equally. All suicides during a certain time period are grouped together, when in all reality we should be treating each situation as it’s own. Durkheim states “...with it’s own unity, individuality, and consequently its own nature- a nature, furthermore, dominantly social”.

IV. Some would say that there are religious issues with suicide, but according to “Clarifying Christianity” the Bible speaks in Exodus (20) verse 1-17 that we should not murder. That is often taken out of context and one cannot simply murder their own self.

Suicide is, according to Sartre, “an opportunity to stake out our understanding of our essence as individuals in a godless world” (Stanford, 2004). Fundamentally, existentialism argues all individuals are free and therefore responsible for their actions. Thus, it is up to the individual to create an ethos of personal ideology, which is the only way one is able to rise above the human condition of suffering, death and finality (Guigon, 2001). Suicide is seen as the individual’s act of giving in to the absurdity of human life. In other words, when a human is unable to create meaning out of the absurdity that surrounds him or herself, her or she live the typical life of pain, suffering, death and thus make suicide a natural act of existence

Assisted suicide is suicide committed with the aid of another person, or physicians. It is only legal in four states in the U.S., where physicians are allowed to prescribe medication to hasten death. Ending suffering through euthanasia is a moral issue that has caused many controversies.

Hamlet's to be or not to be soliloquy, illuminates something that crosses every human's mind, even if only for a split second; to live or die, fight or cry. Sometimes the world can get to a person, and when allowed to manifest, it can be hurtful. Suicide is a choice when things get tough, but a cowardly act. Life is precious and the only way to succeed must be to be in it; therefore, living. Suicide doesn't terminate a problem, but hides it. People will be judged sooner or later by the powers that be.

Many people throughout the world are diagnosed with a terminally ill disease, meaning their disease is not curable and they are given a short period to live. Take Brittany Maynard for example. She was diagnosed with brain cancer at the age of 29 and had two surgeries to prevent the tumor from growing. Months later she found out her tumor came back, was more aggressive, and she was given six months to live. Doctors suggested another surgery, but after reading the side effects, Brittany decided not to do it. She considered staying at her home in San Francisco under hospice care. With not wanting her family to watch her suffer, she looked into the Death with Dignity Act. This act is adopted in only five states and gives patients who are terminally ill the right to die with the use of a prescribed drug from a doctor. Here in Wisconsin, there is no Death with Dignity Law. According to John Stuart Mill, author of “On Liberty”, this assisted suicide act should be legal in all states. In his work, he talks about his own principles. Certain principles that tie into assisted suicide are direct and indirect harm followed by informed consent. In “On Liberty” Mill’s principles say assisted suicide should be legal in all states since it only causes direct harm to the person taking the pill and indirect harm to loved ones.

As humans, we have the right to life. In Canada, in section 7 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians can expect “life, liberty and security of the person.” This means not only to simply exist, but have a minimum quality and value in each of our lives. Dying is the last important, intimate, and personal moment, and this process of dying is part of life. Whether death is a good or bad thing is not the question, as it is obviously inevitable, but as people have the right to attempt to make every event in their life pleasant, so they should have the right to make their dying as pleasant as possible. If this process is already very painful and unpleasant, people should have the right to shorten the unpleasantness. In February of this year, judges declared that the right to life does not mean individuals “cannot ‘waive’ their right to life.” Attempting suicide is not illegal in Canada, but the issue here is for those whose physical handicaps prevent them from doing so, and to allow access to a safe, regulated and painless form of suicide. It is a very difficult, sensitive and much-debated subject which seeks to balance the value of life with personal autonomy. In this essay, I will argue that the philosophical case for pro-euthanasia is more complete than those arguments against it due to the

Much of modern medicine prolongs not only living, but also dying. Physician-assisted suicide is a quite controversial topic as it brings up questions about the morality of killing, the credibility of consent, and the duty of physicians. This is not a new problem; assisted suicide has been discussed in all cultures from very early historical times to the present. However, medicine's recent technological progress has led to an increased ability to extend life. This new potential has made this problem much more pressing than it has in the past. I believe opposition to assisted suicide is in error not only because it does not allow for mercy, but also because the position does not take into account one's autonomy. I

Many people have been faced with having to deal with hard truths of both life and death. One of these decisions that can be fronted to a person with a terminal illness may be what to do next. With what can be considered looming doom, one has to ingest the decisions of self, family and the pain that lies ahead. The debate over physician assisted suicide has been a long time argument wielding both positive and negative views exactly how a person should proceed once a decision has been made. Three questions are often asked in the attempt to argue the case for physician assisted suicide, that of legality, ethicalness, and morality. In the long run, the debate between the cause, effect and personal ideology that is social

One of the strongest arguments that favors the legalization of physician-assisted suicide is the individual’s self-determination and well-being. In other words, since all humans have the right to decide on their life and fate, they should have the autonomy to request for death when they feel they are suffering from unbearable pain. However, physician-assisted suicide does not only affect the patients that request for it, but also affects their family members and physicians. The patients may be relieved from the unbearable suffering after death through physician-assisted suicide, however, their pain will be transferred to their family members since they will now need to face the loss of their loved ones. In addition, the physician who performs the assisted-suicide will suffer from the guilt of indirectly killing a patient. Hence, I think it is an irresponsible thought to claim requesting for physician-assisted suicide should be allowed because it is a personal decision and patients should have the right to self-determine their life and fate. Furthermore, physician-assisted suicide violates the nature of

Although a patient’s choice of suicide symbolizes an expression of self-determination, there is a great distinction between denying life-sustaining treatments and demanding life-ending treatments. The right to self-determination is a right to allow or reject offered treatments, not to choose what should be offered. The right to refuse life-sustaining interventions does not correlate with a right to force others to hasten their death. The inability of physicians to inhibit death does not mean that physicians are allowed to help induce death.

The idea of universalizability strongly suits this case. To universalize the patient’s individual maxim, we would see that most if not all will find suicide morally justifiable because everyone at times may feel depressed. At this point, we look at the duty to preserve life at all costs, and find we cannot universalize the patient’s maxim. Kant was tempted with this maxim, but his will finds it immoral. He once said, “I still have strength enough to take my life, but I hold this to be immoral. Whoever deprives himself of life is a beast…” The extreme idea of suicide also looks at self-love. She wants to feel better, so she thinks death will accomplish this. The problem here is with death, you don’t feel anything anymore. Another angle on this case looks at the patient using the

The argument by those who are against using the term suicide believe that in contrast to those patients with impaired judgment, patients who are terminally ill and request medication under the act possess the ability to make a reasonable, autonomous decision to terminate their lives (Chin, Hedberg, Higginson, & Fleming, 1999). Therefore a person’s mental capacity or judgment has not been affected and they are deemed suitable to make this decision (Chin, Hedberg, Higginson, & Fleming, 1999). Proving that a person is capable of making this decision on their own without any outside help is most critical part of this whole entire process (Chin, Hedberg, Higginson, & Fleming, 1999). .

Once the consequentialist discussed his concerns and philosophy about the thought provoking matter, the deontologist stands from the bench, pulls out his wallet, and shares a prized picture of Immanuel Kant. While the consequentialist and virtue ethicist look over the photo, the deontologist begins with, “(I)f I were Immanuel Kant, here is what I would have to say about the topic of euthanasia”, “suicide and asking for euthanasia do not show respect for our own rationality; they do not treat it as an end in itself” (Lacewing, n.d., p.3). The deontologist goes on to communicate about his philosophy, we all have a perfect duty to not kill, not deceive, and keep promises. These are the responsibility of deontology. Therefore, we all must stay