Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!swatt
From: swatt@ittvax.UUCP (Alan S. Watt)
Newsgroups: net.suicide
Subject: Re: The right to commit suicide
Message-ID: <1092@ittvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 4-Nov-83 17:09:51 EST
Article-I.D.: ittvax.1092
Posted: Fri Nov  4 17:09:51 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 7-Nov-83 21:07:25 EST
References: yale-com.2337
Lines: 27

The argument over "right to suicide" is pointless in the general case.
Pragmatically, people have the "right" to do anything that is in their
power to do, and not in your power to prevent.  In the case of suicide,
there is little you can threaten to serve as a deterrent; if they
succeed, they are completely beyond you power.  Even if they fail, it
is unlikely that you can (or would wish to) do something unpleasant
enough to dissuade them from another attempt.

If the woman in question wants to make other people accomplices in her
suicide (by not eating what they provide), then it is in their power to
prevent her.  But even in a 24-hour care facility, sufficiently
determined patients can find means to kill themselves.

I once listened to the story of a woman who had had a stroke and was
paralyzed from the neck down, and attempted suicide with sleeping
pills.  She had to get the pills out a child-proof bottles by removing
the cap with just her teeth.  If the person is determined enough,
nothing short of solitary confinement in a padded cell and a
straight-jacket will prevent him/her from making a serious attempt.

"Right" is the wrong concept under these conditions.  What is really
invovled here is: does society have the "obligation" to attempt to
frustrate this person's intentions?  If so, what are the limit of this
obligation?

	- Alan S. Watt
	decvax!ittvax!swatt