Suicide and Euthanasia

20441951

PHIL 220

ASSIGNMENT 1

21st January 2015

Words: 1015

Suicide and euthanasia are two moral issues that have been the source of debate for many years. People have varying opinions on this topic and have different outlooks on its outcomes and effects. Some argue for the sanctity of a human life and perceive suicide as an evil that exists in society. Others, have a much more objective vantage point, recognizing those lives worth saving and those not worth saving. In this essay, I will elaborate on two main schools of thought regarding intervention during a suicide attempt. I aim to present an argument pertaining to whether or not it is morally correct to intervene in matters of an individual and prevent him from ending his own life. However, my personal belief is more in line with that of Glover’s on this particular issue, I will attempt to present both his and Narveson’s equally, through an objective lens.

Having struggled with clinical depression myself, I have had first had experience with the thoughts and feelings a person faces as they contemplate suicide. Is my life worth living? Is the world better off without me here? These questions plague the mind of those who face clinical depression. After reading Glover’s article on suicide, certain things struck me as feelings that I myself could relate to when I was clinically depressed. Glover explains the many facets of suicide, how a person with an otherwise normal life can experience bouts of severe depression and can attempt to end his suffering versus a person who has lead a troubled life since childhood and has no hope of improving. He even talks of individuals who are ready to sacrifice their lives for the sake of a greater good or in the name of religion (Narveson, 30). He argues that for a person to commit suicide, he has to be in a mentally disturbed state. A state in which he is unable to think with a rational mind, has not reached out to people in search for help and has not evaluated the damage it may to do to those who love and care for them except in the scenario when a person is willing to die for a cause. For people given the opportunity to intervene in a suicidal attempt, they are faced with two questions; firstly, they must decide whether or not the individual in question is worth saving or not, if they decide that they have to take action to save the individuals life, they must then decide whether or not they should save him (Narveson, 33). After all, a man is his own master and can choose freely when and what to do with their life- This is Narveson’s opinion in a nutshell on the topic.  We must also consider the extent as to which one may persuade a person not to commit suicide, this too is something that is not a written rule in legislations, but is left up to the moral judgement of individuals.

There was one particular point that Glover made that I found to make the most sense. He argued that reasoning with someone who was on the verge of committing suicide is something that can have little harm but a lot of gain. Essentially, what I understand from this is that if someone is going through a difficult phase through their lives, and the only way they see to escape this torture is to end their lives, the least we can do is reason with them and engage them in a rational debate as to whether or not their lives are worth living, either for themselves or for the ones who love and care for them. This can essentially show the person that suicide is not the way out and that there are people out there who are willing to help them, on the other side, the person may disagree and attempt to commit suicide a second time.