Original_To:  BITNET%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:16:00 EST
From:         "Give me Sodomy or give me death!" <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      on suicide, etc: response to richard

Greetings:

<a lot deleted>

        Reason 3: There is no reason to hold that only physical pain
warrants the status of being a legitmate reason for ending one's life.
In all relevant respects there is no difference between physical pain
and psychological pain.  Both are biological responses to adverse
situations in the environment.  The human animal is created in such
a way that the pain continues, even when it is not causally possible
to remove the cause of the pain.  Psychological pain can only be ended
by altering the agents aversions and desires; making his responses to
a given environment more pleasant.  But, whereas a person largely is
to be identified by his desires, where these desires play a central
role in the individual's identity changing the desires would be quite
like killing the person anyway.  He would cease to exist and a new
person created, having desires and aversions more compatible with his
given environment, created in his place.  An agent may rationally
desire that he cease to exist altogether, rather than cease to exist
in order to be replaced by the individual to be created by treatment.

        this really has to do with questions of personal identity.
        i am not so sure that i would call a change in desires a death
        per se.  after all, i certainly have different desires now
        than i did when i was an infant, but i would not say that i
        have died, or that someone died so that i could live, or some
        such absurd thing.  i would rather say that i have changed.
        (i am a heraclitian at heart)  i would say that unless such
        a significant number of desires and traits were altered in
        a very short period of time that the person became virtually
        and actually unrecognizable as her/himself, this is not a
        concern.  it is the defining qualities that would have to be
        altered, and humans are so complex as to defy an easy definition.

        In one extreme possibility, an agent may have moral objections
to the life he must live and can only function well in the world as it
exists, and lack the power to make changes in the world significant
enough to allow him to live comfortably in it.  For example, a person
may have to become less compassionate to function in society without
the extreme pain of having strong compassionate desires continually
thwarted, and believe it to be immoral to be a less compassionate
person.

        Reason 4: It is reasonable to hold that individuals tend to
acquire an irrational fear of death, and even individuals who recognize
that death is a reasonable choice may find that they are unable to
do that which will best fulfill their desires because of this ir-
rational fear.  Consequently, it is rational to assume that some in-
dividuals for whom suicide is rational are in need of psychological
as well as physical assistance in bringing about their desires.

        i would counter that those who are not psychologically ready
        to kill themselves should not kill themselves.  this would
        put shrinks in the position of convincing people to kill
        themselves, in which case it is no longer wholly their
        will to do so.

        Reason 5: Individuals have a right to seek professional help
with the expectation that his or her views on such matters will be
treated with respect, rather than dismissed out of hand without dis-
cussion.

        ok, i'll go with this, as well as the stuff i deleted from
        the beginning of the text.

        Reason 6: A willingness to respect the interests of those who
consider suicide may make it easier to encourage individuals considering
such options to the attention of helath professionals.  I am not arguing
that everybody who seeks this type of treatment will in fact obtain it,
just as it is not the case that everybody going to the hospitals with
ulcers will be operated on.

        The objections that I can see to such a position is that:
1) Death is never a rational option.  2) We must uphold respect for
life.  3) We will begin down a slippery slope which will result in
suicide by individuals whose life is still worth living.

        Answers: 1) There is no reason to hold that desires can never
best be fulfilled and aversions thwarted by death.  2) Life is purely
an instrumental good.  It has no intrinsic value.  As such, respect for
persons surpasses respect for life as a value to be upheld.  Respect for
persons implies respecting their need to end their life when that best
allows them to obtain the (morally permissible) ends they puruse.
3) Oversight by trained professionals is more likely to save individuals
whose life is worth living from wrongfully acting on their own than to
bring death to individuals who would otherwise have been better off
remaining alive.

                                        Richard A. Fyfe
                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu

        ok. i'll buy all those answers.  the people i am mainly concerned
about are those who think that they have reasonable and rational reasons
for suicide and for whom, *at the time*, suicide does seem to be a good
solution, but who would, should they actually survive, very possibly
continue on to lead a very healthy and fulfilling life.  i have seen a
number of people fail in their attempts, and go on living well, after
coming to the conclusion that perhaps it was not the right thing for them.
if a trained professional were helping them, they would never have survived
to realize that they may have been wrong.

brni
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics