Suicide or Not?

Liebling

Liebling

Doesn't Need to be Spoonfed.
Valued Senior Member
So suppose someone has terminal cancer, one that they won't survive from but has 3-5 years to live, according to expectations. They have no siblings or children, and their parents died more than 10 years ago. He/She refuses any treatment, traditional, alternative or holistic.

Is refusing treatment for the cancer, the same as commiting suicide? They are going to die anyway, and they make the rational choice to die sooner and without so much pain. And the chances of any traditional therapies prolonging their life is less than 20%, but it is 20%.

Would it be morally right or wrong?

Would the doctors be ethically bound to treat them, or get a psyche referral? Would be be ethically right to let the patient just walk away knowing the fullness of the suffering he/she will end up going through?

Would you step in?
 
Liebling said:
So suppose someone has terminal cancer, one that they won't survive from but has 3-5 years to live, according to expectations. They have no siblings or children, and their parents died more than 10 years ago. He/She refuses any treatment, traditional, alternative or holistic.

Is refusing treatment for the cancer, the same as commiting suicide? They are going to die anyway, and they make the rational choice to die sooner and without so much pain. And the chances of any traditional therapies prolonging their life is less than 20%, but it is 20%.

Would it be morally right or wrong?

Would the doctors be ethically bound to treat them, or get a psyche referral? Would be be ethically right to let the patient just walk away knowing the fullness of the suffering he/she will end up going through?

Would you step in?
Click to expand...

Fuck no. It's their body and pain. 3-5 years sounds like a long time with Terminal Cancer...
 
What if that person was about to write a book that could save thousands of peoples lives?
 
Liebling legally no, thats why the debate on active euthanaisa. Morally it comes down to the 2 brothers theory

Ie there are 2 brother who stand to inherit alot of money when there uncle dies

The first brother comes in finds the uncle in the bath and hits him over the head so he falls into the bath and drowns

The second brother comes in with the same intention of killing the man but finds him drowning in the bath and rather than helping he just stands there and watches till the man dies.

Is there any moral difference in there actions?

my opinion is no
 
Liebling said:
So suppose someone has terminal cancer, one that they won't survive from but has 3-5 years to live, according to expectations. They have no siblings or children, and their parents died more than 10 years ago. He/She refuses any treatment, traditional, alternative or holistic.

Is refusing treatment for the cancer, the same as commiting suicide?
Click to expand...
No. It's a decision to not do something that someone else tells that person might prolong their life. Like Eating healthily or avoiding sexual partners who may have AIDS.

They are going to die anyway, and they make the rational choice to die sooner and without so much pain. And the chances of any traditional therapies prolonging their life is less than 20%, but it is 20%.

Would it be morally right or wrong?
Click to expand...
I don't know if anything is morally right, but I don't believe commiting suicide is morally wrong, nor do I believe a choice to do anything without the intention of killing yourself when you would otherwise be alive to be suicide.
Would you step in?
Click to expand...
definitely not
Liebling said:
What if that person was about to write a book that could save thousands of peoples lives?
Click to expand...

They might have a harder time completing it in 3-5 years if they're recovering from side-effects of radiation therapy.
 
Liebling said:
What if that person was about to write a book that could save thousands of peoples lives?
Click to expand...

If the person really wanted to write the book they would either do so in their remaining time or would fight the disease while writing the book. To not produce the work given the short period of time left them shows a lack of interest in this endeavor.
 
Oh hell no.

It's THEIR life, THEIR suffering.

Keeping them alive despite their pain would be a monstrously selfish thing to do. I'd be doing it for myself, not for that person.
 
VI your making the assumption that suicide is ALWAYS wrong and there for anything labled suicide is wrong. I disagree
 
I don't believe much in ethics and moral. Every situation is unique.

My level of interaction would depend on who it is and how much I want that person alive no matter what.
 
Liebling said:
So suppose someone has terminal cancer, one that they won't survive from but has 3-5 years to live, according to expectations. They have no siblings or children, and their parents died more than 10 years ago. He/She refuses any treatment, traditional, alternative or holistic.

Is refusing treatment for the cancer, the same as commiting suicide? They are going to die anyway, and they make the rational choice to die sooner and without so much pain. And the chances of any traditional therapies prolonging their life is less than 20%, but it is 20%.

Would it be morally right or wrong?

Would the doctors be ethically bound to treat them, or get a psyche referral? Would be be ethically right to let the patient just walk away knowing the fullness of the suffering he/she will end up going through?

Would you step in?
Click to expand...
Refusing treatment when they have all the knowledge at hand is not illegal, nor immoral. It is an individual's right to chose how they live, and die.

We should however, spare no effort in trying to convince her, that would be the most prudent thing to do.
 
This is one of those yes and no questions... depending on the situation the answer varies.

I would say, if you ask the person who has cancer and he/she says "I am glad to be dying." I guess in a way it is an indirect form of suicide... but if the persons not getting treatment because of fear, fatigue etc... I don't think that should count as suicide.
 
Asguard said:
VI your making the assumption that suicide is ALWAYS wrong and there for anything labled suicide is wrong. I disagree
Click to expand...

Oh fuck no. I don't condemn suicide. People are only human. Some are good at dealing with pain. Some people go under.
 
Asguard said:
VI your making the assumption that suicide is ALWAYS wrong and there for anything labled suicide is wrong. I disagree
Click to expand...

This is a good point. Here is an interesting conundrum;

44 year old male has a marked history of severe paranoid schizophrenia, manic depression and violent outbursts since aged 14. The number of medications he's tried, in varying dosages and combinations numbers over one hundred. Hospitalized seven times, convicted of three misdemeanors and one felony offense when the meds wore off.

He has a wife and two children, who have seen him at his best and his worse. He's been married for 12 years, all of which have been medicated in some way or another, but the medication keeps slipping or becomes ineffective and it causes inner and outer turmoil in the family home. He never hurts his wife or children but has come very close and feels like he can't control himself anymore. He can no longer hold down even the simplest of jobs, and the mental health system only pays about 50% of the bills since his wife does work outside the home.

Begins drinking until he's near catatonic everyday, just to avoid hurting his family.

Goes over to his brothers house one evening while his brother is out with friends, steals his brothers gun, goes into an alley with no ID and no one around, and blows his brains out.

He's not terminal. There is no imminent danger to him or to others, he's controlling it by drinking himself dumb. There might be new medications, or he could have checked himself into a state facility free of charge and knew this. He had all his mental faculties when he committed suicide by the notes and things laid out and given to the people he loved. But his suffering was immense.

Moral or immoral? Why or why not?
 
I wouldn't use the term moral or immoral to say he is justified or not as its his life. I would say I understand his motive. It sounds a little like Spaulding Grey's situation, he loved his family but he had had enough. Why try another medication if your 44 and have tried them all? Why check into a facility when you know the routine and know they will just keep you, stabilize you on some med you've already tried and let you go back into your hell? We really over-estimate the efficacy of drugs and treatment centers when it comes to certain mental disorders. Some are not easily treated at all. I can see how someone can get beaten down after years of battling an illness. I wouldn't say moral or immoral, it is what it is and I am sure it would not be something he would have asked himself at the point he made a decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top