 |
The Morality of Publishing Methods (Draft)
Introduction
We believe people have the right to commit suicide, not just in theory, but in practice. Does this imply that people should have access to information about suicide methods? Is it moral to publish such information?
In a society where suicide was accepted and people who rationally and persistently wish to end their lives were legally helped to die, perhaps publication of explicit instructions of committing suicide should indeed be forbidden. But the current state is one in which society decided that nobody has the right to commit suicide. Therefore, there is no way to address only those whom we believe have the right to commit suicide and simultaneously avoid people who shouldn't commit suicide (children, impulsive people, truly mentally ill people and so on). Ideally, method information should be accessible only to the first category of people, but - due to social intolerance of suicide - it is impossible to do so.
This topic can be discussed under various assumptions and using various moral theories.
Duty-Based Morality
If we use a moral theory based on duties then the question is whether publication of methods fails to conform to one of these duties. It is difficult to imagine what kind of duty is breached by publishing methods. After all, publication does not force anybody else to read, agree to, or act upon what is published.
The basic objection to publishing methods is that it can only lead to suicide, and since suicide is immoral then anything which may lead to suicide should be banned. Of course, our disagreement is that we do not think suicide is necessarily immoral. There are many cases where suicide is permissible. Even so, we do admit that there is possibility of abuse, however this does not imply that publishing method information is immoral.
As an analogy, consider car manufacturers. The cars they make are involved in accidents which kill people. But does that make the car manufacturers immoral for making cars? Obviously, cars are good because they provide an important need for transportation. That people get killed in car accidents is an unfortunate side effect. A pro-life advocate might object to this analogy since in the case of information about suicide methods, the only result is death, which is, in their eyes, always bad. However, we think that information provides an important need for people who are considering rational suicide. That irrational suicide may occur is an unfortunate side effect.
Consequentialism
There are two kinds of moral theory: Consequentialism and Nonconsequentialism. [2] Consequentialism holds that whether anything is morally good or bad depends entirely on its consequences. Something is morally right if it produces good consequences, and morally bad if it produces bad ones. Duty-Based morality is Nonconsequentialist. The rest of this article will refer to the consequences of publishing method information.
Returning to the car analogy, it could still be argued, that although the car manufacturer analogy is reasonable, the problem is the difference in the degree of abuse, i.e. that the percentage of car accidents is much smaller than the percentage of irrational suicide. There is some injustice to such a comparison. Governments and car manufacturers are working together to reduce abuse by legislation and enforcement of traffic rules, and by building safer cars. In contrast, governments and the mental health establishment unintentionally work together to increase the amount of irrational suicides. This is done, for example, by not providing any possibility for pro-choice counseling for people who are considering suicide and by presenting suicide as a psychiatric issue rather than a moral one.
There is an additional reason why direct comparison between rates of car accidents and suicides is problematic. Before cars existed there were no car accidents, however, suicides occured even before information about suicide methods were published. So if we are to measure the effect of publishing suicide methods, we need to check for the difference in suicide rates, before and after such information is published. It is possible to test this, for example, by comparing suicide rates before and after the publication of Humphry's "Final Exit" and seeing if there is an increase in suicide rates. We are not familiar with research indicating that knowledge about methods increases the suicide rate.
However, even if the suicide rate had increased, it would say little about the morality of providing methods, since there is still a question of whether the additional people who committed suicide were cases of rational suicide or not.
There are several arguments of why publishing information about methods may reduce abuse. Such information may prevent impulsive, irrational suicides, fatal suicidal gestures and permanent injury.
Preventing Impulsive Suicides
Reading information about suicide methods requires searching for the information, reading about various methods, comparing between them, choosing one and preparing to carry it out. The length of this process prevents impulsive suicide. Impulsive suicides are not likely to use any external source for information about methods.
Preventing Fatal Suicidal Gestures
Some people do not want to commit suicide. Rather they want to send a "cry for help". They do this by performing a suicidal gesture. It is a suicide attempt which is intended to fail.
Although we do not think it is a good idea to cry for help in such a manner, information about methods may help such people avoid death.
Preventing permanent injury
Many methods may result in permanent physical damage. Information about methods may help people avoid injury. A pro life advocate might claim that life with permanent injury is better than death. However, the fact that someone chose to commit suicide already means that their life is worse than death. Life with injury would be even worse than life prior to the attempt.
Furthermore, permanent physical injury may cause additional damage to society. The cost of medical treatment may be considerable, and in addition, the person may become an emotional and financial burden to his family.
Conclusion
Beyond these arguments there is an additional benefit to the publication of suicide methods. The mere thought that one can die whenever one want is liberating. Even Kant concedes to this idea[3].
The Roman philosopher Seneca writes:
"In whatever direction you may turn your eyes, there lies the means to end your woes. Do you see that precipice? Down that is the way to liberty. Do you see that sea, that well? There sits liberty - at the bottom. Do you see that tree, stunted, blighted and barren? Yet from its branches hangs liberty. Do you see that throat of yours, your gullet, your heart? They are ways of escape from servitude. Are the ways of egress I show you too toilsome, do they require too much courage and strength? Do you ask what is the highway to liberty? Any vein in your body" (De Ira, 3.15.4). [1]
This is a case where publication of methods helps regardless of whether anyone decides to put the information to practical use. Having a practical way to exit by ones own choice, may enhance ones experience of freedom and self-control and can bring about a positive transformation to the meaning of being alive[4].
[1] quoted in Nick Kapur, Roman Ideals of Suicide: http://www.stanford.edu/~nickpk/writings/Romansuicide.html
[2] Joseph Ellin, "Morality and the Meaning of Life", chapter 8.
[3] Anonymous, "Kant and suicide", kant.html .
[4] Suicide: Enhancing the Experience of Life, enhancelife.html
EverDawn
