DISCOURAGING
TEEN-AGERS FROM KILLING THEMSELVES
One worry that is sometimes raised in objection to
talk of the right-to-die
is that such discussion will devalue
human life
and lead more people to commit
irrational suicide.
Teen-agers are known to be especially vulnerable to this risk.
Permitting the right-to-die is probably not a
significant factor
in the processes by which teen-agers 'decide' that they want to kill
themselves.
We now have the example of the state of Oregon,
where the right-to-die has been available for over a decade.
As far as I know, there has been no measurable increase
in the rate of irrational suicides---among any age group.
We know that the citizens of Oregon are well aware
of the right-to-die.
They were twice called upon to vote in public referenda on this
question.
So there is no citizen who lived thru those media campaigns
who has remained unaware of the right-to-die.
And there is probably no teen-ager who grew up in Oregon
who remains unaware that Oregonians have the right to die.
But has the Oregon Death with Dignity Act
created a 'culture of death' in Oregon?
It does not seem so.
Nevertheless, proponents of the right-to-die
should think about the possible negative impacts on even a single life
anywhere that such discussion takes place.
When we propose a new 'right-to-die',
we should worry about people with suicidal urges
who might seize upon such talk of a 'right-to-die'
as justification for their self-destructive plans.
Opponents of the right-to-die sometimes think that
having
the right to choose a timely death (which opponents call a "hastened
death")
will devalue the lives that all of us are living.
Our lives will be less meaningful if we become casual about ending them.
According to some opponents, making the exits too readily available
will cause some unstable people to choose death
rather than stay alive to deal with their problems.
When voluntary death and/or merciful death are socially approved,
does this create a social climate
in which teens are more likely to commit irrational suicide?
We must all acknowledge that teen-suicide is a major
social problem.
Teens irrationally kill themselves for a wide variety of 'reasons'.
And as a society we should seek good ways
to prevent as many of these regrettable deaths as possible.
But public policies to
discourage teens from irrationally killing
themselves
should not prevent dying
patients from choosing a timely death.
In other words, we should be able to create
safeguards
that permit behavior that we
approve (voluntary death or merciful death)
while at the same time discouraging
behavior we disapprove
(irrational suicide and other forms of premature death).
SAFEGUARDS
TO DISCOURAGE IRRATIONAL SUICIDE
Each of the 30+ safeguards proposed
has a discussion of how that safeguard discourages irrational suicide
---and other forms of premature death.
Here is the complete catalog of proposed safeguards:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/SG-CAT.html.
But some of these safeguards would be more effective
than others
in discouraging the self-harming behavior we all want to avoid.
Here are the eight safeguards
that would be most effective in preventing irrational suicide,
beginning with the safeguards that would be most beneficial
in discouraging people from killing themselves for foolish 'reasons':
PHYSICIAN'S
STATEMENT OF CONDITION AND PROGNOSIS
HOSPITAL OR
HOSPICE ENROLLMENT
PSYCHOLOGICAL
CONSULTANT EVALUATES
THE PATIENT'S
ABILITY TO MAKE MEDICAL DECISIONS
WAITING
PERIODS
BEFORE DEATH IS PERMITTED
STATEMENTS
FROM FAMILY MEMBERS
AFFIRMING OR
QUESTIONING THE CHOSEN DEATH
ETHICS
COMMITTEE REVIEWS THE LIFE-ENDING DECISION
A
MEMBER OF THE CLERGY APPROVES OR QUESTIONS THE CHOICE FOR DEATH
RELIGIOUS OR
OTHER MORAL PRINCIPLES
APPLIED TO THIS
LIFE-ENDING DECISION