From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!npois!alice!rabbit!jj Newsgroups: net.suicide Title: Re: Suicide and Salvation Article-I.D.: rabbit.560 Posted: Thu Jun 24 09:36:41 1982 Received: Mon Jun 28 00:49:20 1982 References: utcsrgv.413 Taking Mr. Chan's arugement to its (ill)logical limits: I know that I could die in an automobile accident on the way to work. Is going to work suicidal? I'm not going to order pro/anti smoking as I sit by by 160 CFM micropore filter.(My roommate shokes 3 packs a day.) but it seems that any reasonable person is going to realize that life in fact implies death. It could be argued that those who go to work or smoke do NOT intend to die, therefore they are not suicides, gluttons in the case of smokers, maybe but not suicides. I would argue that a person who smoked in order to start a tumor would be a suicide, but a person who smoked for would not, unless there was some intent involved. The matter of intent is very important because of the following arguement. Assume for the purposes of arguement that someone is seriously and they need a particular medical treatment that will cure them if it succeeds and kill them otherwise. Assume that it is 75% likely that they will die with the treatment. Assume forther that it is 100% likely that they will die without the treatment. Which course of action is suicide? Certainly any action that I would take that had a 75% chance of death would be regarded as suicide, so the patient is subjecting himself to almost certain death. Since his alternitive is also certain death, what is the theologically correct course, excluding arguements based on the theological implications of medical care in itself?