Vengeful Cynic

Are there ever any times when you take a life that it isn't suicide or homicide (if we are going by the police definition that homicide equals murder)? Just another question to toss about.

I would assert that there are not. Now, self-defense might be legally considered justifiable homicide... but purely semantically, this doesn't take away from the literal definition of homicide that results from the killing of another.

didn't know about the fiancee part... grats. When's the date, and where will it be?

Or maybe I did... it's late and I'm not sure what I'm doing still up...

I'd tend to agree- but your bringing up justifiable murder seems to reveal how you're hiding behind semantics to avoid actually answering what is meant by the question... the question, in my mind, is not if it was suicide, but if it was justifiable. The heart of the question is: "Is disconnecting one's own life support something to be looked down upon (and something equally destructive in nature) as the act of untimely escape commonly associated with the word 'suicide'?" Similarly, the question could be posed: "Is choosing to have a family member taken off life support homicide?" Well, semantically, they are suicide and homicade, respectively. Are they justifiable? Well, that starts getting into a realm where things can only be done justice on a case by case basis.

If there can be justifiable homicide, can there be justifiable suicide/euthanasia? I would say yes.

It seems to me that you are attempting to separate an extremely gray area into black and white sides. I don't think it can be that simple.

I'm with Stu and Randy on this one. What is an isn't suicide, as you've pretty well shown, is not really up for debate. However, just as homicide is justifiable in the right circumstances, suicide may be as well, and you did not address that possibility.

Were I to assume that there was such an instance, likely the occasion of disconnecting life support would be one of the situations I would permit suicide as an acceptable thing. If I cannot and never will be able to live without an ICU room full of equipment, I am drugged for the otherwise unbearable pain, and have a future of white rooms with rude nurses to look forward to, likely a very short future, is it wrong for me to dictate when that future comes to pass? I would say that it is. It was God's decision that you should live thhrough the accident, and there will be a purpose for it, if you only wait for it. You may never know what it was until you die, but as long as you are capable of thought and control of your body, I believe that the timing of your death is God's decision and not your own.

I did mention in the beginning of my extended post that we have to be careful in definition of terms.

By your black and white definitions, yes. Killing someone in self-defense is justifiable homicide. I would assert that pulling the plug is justifiable suicide only on as I would describe--removing artifical means of life support rather than acting upon the natural workings of the physical body.

I believe that Randy, Toad and Stu all correct that the actual morality of such a situation is nowhere near as black and white as the actual definition of terms. Namely, the whole situation breaks down in the use of the word "justifiable" both in terms of homicide and in suicide.

The definition of justifiable homicide is something that I can fairly easily deal with. The justification of suicide and assisted suicide, on the other hand, isn't something that I can say that I have an especially easy time dealing with. That said, I have a really hard time with people who assert that disconnecting a life support system is somehow different from slitting one's wrists.

All of this is not to say that I can't see a case to be made for euthanasia. However, I see a case needing to be made along quality of life-related lines or imminent demise rather than removal of artificial means of perpetuation of life as being somehow different than termination via removal of natural means.

Anna, your argument seems simple and makes sense at first glance, but rapidly breaks down because you are being too general in your distinctions.

By your definition, it is justifiable suicide for diabetics to stop injecting themselves with insulin, or for heart patients to deliberately shock themselves so their pacemakers will stop functioning, or for asthmatics suffering an attack to refuse their inhalers . . . All of these are "artificial" means of preventing death by "natural" causes.

Also, your working definition of "euthanasia" (literally "a good death") is not correct. It consists of allowing or causing the death of someone whose imminent (and likely miserable) death is assured or whose quality of life is virtually nonexistent. Euthanasia doesn't have to involve the request, or even the consent, of the person who is going to die. It is simply anything that could be considered "mercy killing."

I'm trying, by playing with your very general use of "artificial" and "natural" to figure out what you and Scholl each think is right and wrong. Which of the following is okay, and which isn't:

1. Causing unnatural death by artificial means. (Slitting the wrists or being stabbed)

2. Causing unnatural death by natural means. (Jumping or being pushed from a cliff)

3. Causing natural death by artificial means. (Removing life support, or anything that supports life in any way)

4. Allowing natural death by artificial means. (Withholding life support, or anything that supports life in any way)

5. Preserving life from unnatural death by artificial means. (Saving someone from a murder, suicide, or accident)

6. Preserving life from natural death by artificial means. (Doing anything medically to keep someone alive who would otherwise be dead)

In very general terms (barring specific exceptions), 1 and 2 are always wrong, 5 is always right. There seems to be some argument over 3 and 4, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU GENERALIZE, and if you play around too much with the issue of going against God's will, you're going to be on shaky ground with 6 before too long.

In other words, if 3 and 4 are wrong because you are tampering with what God has ordained, why wasn't 6 wrong in the first place? And if 6 WAS right in the first place, how can 3 and 4 be wrong within the context of euthanasia?

yes I'm generalizing but only because I have to. This issue is far more complex as we all know.

Artificial means by my defintion is are man-made devices that replace various organs to sustain life. Without the device, death is imminent, in the very near future.

I will agree that making the choice to withhold or remove artifical means of life is essentially suicide, especially if the person is in full knowledge that will die (and most likely unpleasantly). Is it justifiable? I think most of us have agreed that it is really a case by case basis.

It's for God to judge in the end, but I personally have less of a problem with the removal of life support or the choice to refuse life support. If I think someone has a good chance to live and has a lot left to do on Earth no matter the health circumstances, I would try to convince the person to choose to live. We have the freedom of choice. Our choices affect the quality of our lives and the numbering of our days. A diabetic refusing insuling or an asthmatic refusing the inhaler is like the person who chooses to use harmful drugs, smokes, or eats unhealthy foods. There are risks to every choice we make and we have the knowledge of where many of our choices will lead us. God gives us the knowledge and means to taking care of bodies. It is a person's choice to do something or refuse something with the knowledge that it will harm them whether or not it causes a sooner or later death. God's will is done even with our choices.

On the issue of making that decision for someone else who is unable, well, that's another issue altogether to cover with more shady definition of terms.

It should be noted first and foremost that I have really been attempting to avoid the moral implications of the actual act of suicide as such and have been, instead, trying to somehow nail down the difference of opinion that I seem to have with Anna in the arena of death by removal of natural means of life-support versus death by removal of man-made means of life-support.

In short, I am going to have to say that while eating unhealthy and smoking is bad stewardship of one's body, it is not an attempt at suicide... because I would assert murder belies intent. On the other hand we still come around to the basic assertion that I have that still has yet to be answered:

How is causing death by removal of life support different than causing death by slitting one's wrists? Why is it somehow different to give someone a shot to kill them than to disconnect his/her respirator when either action will leave the recipient equally dead?

Really, Scholl, I don't think there is a difference in the nature of the acts. They are both/all conscious, willful suicide. The only difference that I can really see is that it would be more justifiable to disconnect yourself from life support "for the good of others." After all, hospital bills are very expensive, and living off machines for a long period of time will leave your loved ones in a massive amount of debt when you die, unless you're just really rich to begin with. It might, too, be easier to justify it as "I was supposed to die," and thus you are simply allowing what was going to happen anyway to happen naturally, since it was interrupted unnaturally.

So, I suppose you could see a difference if you look at it this way: slitting your wrists puts an unnatural end to your life that would not otherwise have occured at this point in time, whereas disconnecting your life support merely restores the natural order of things, since your death was only interrupted by the application of the machines, and not actually avoided. You could think of slitting your wrists or ODing on drugs or taking a shot of cyanide as causing a death before it was due, and disconnecting life support as merely allowing your death, which was already in process, to continue normally.

I don't know if that's how I look at it, but it's a way to look at it that would allow for a different application of ethics.

toad. you have just summarized my position on the issue. and it is really just ONE perception.

I think my stance on it, ethically and morally, is as follows:

By and large, suicide is wrong and destructive. From Jared's list, I'd say a case in category 1,2 or 4 pretty much always is wrong.

3, however, can be a tough one. In the case of a terminal disease, it's really hard to say. My grandfather had terminal cancer... it was only a matter of time until he died. He wasn't really able to communicate anymore, and was very close to going into a comma when he pulled out his wires. The nurses caught him, and he ended up dying about a week later, regardless of life support. The question is, if someone has a terminal disease, isn't really able to communicate at all anymore, and life support is simply postponing the inevitable end, is it wrong to unplug yourself? It saves your family from having to decide later about it, as well as saving your family the money. The other question I have about that scenerio is the following: family *may* be emotionally hurt by the act- is that because of the nature of the act, or is that because of the cultural conditioning that we are subject to?

I'd say that there are a few cases where it can be justified, but they are generally few and far between- and only within the realm of allowing nature to do its work, the second case that Toad mentioned.

What makes the difference? I'd say the difference is defined by two things: 1) cause of the state: if the person is placed in a situation where he is in need of life support in an untimely and abrupt way, I'd do all I can to keep them alive. (I.E. if they're not there because of a terminal chrinic illness) 2) potential of future: if the person, if left on life support is very likely to fall into a commatose state, and remain as such for the rest of their life, there isn't much point in extending the inevitable. If the person has potential to recover and continue conscious life, then suicide isn't so justifiable. Note that I didn't say anything about physical state, I'd say that there is value, or at least potential for value in any conscious life. I'm not sure how big of a rabbit trail I went off on, but there you go.

Eventually, I think medical science will get to the point where a body can be artificially kept "alive" (in the sense of there still being live cells being supported) almost indefineately. At some point, someone will have to make the call to turn off the machines- I see unplugging yourself as simply making that choice while you still have the power to, saving your family from having to make it themselves. I'd say that a better way to do it would be to request that your family have the machines turned off once you enter a permanent commatose, but I don't see either as ethically or morally wrong.