Losing Our Freedom
Jeannette
Vail
American
University
Washington,
D.C.
December
15, 1999
Many
believe the United States government has taken control over all areas of its
citizen’s lives. There is very little a
person is able to do in this country without some sort of policy existing, or
legislation in the process on it.
Issues like education, drugs, helping those in need, and even healthcare
have become public debate and government issues. Most of these issues used to be in the private realm, left to
individuals to decide what outcome was best.
Today, the government has created laws on all of these issues, along
with any other issue that comes to mind.
Many argue the government has been given the right to create these laws
because citizens have voted their representatives into office. People on this path of thought believe the
U.S. government has its citizens’ best interests in mind; therefore, it will
only pass legislation and make law that will positively effect its
citizens. There are however, the more
cynical (they would say, the more realistic) thinkers who argue giving this
much power to a concentrated group of individuals only leads to one thing: a
totalitarian state. These thinkers
believe the United States is headed in this direction, unless the tides turn
drastically and citizens begin to take back some of their freedoms. A new concentration for the government,
media, courts, and the practice of psychiatry is suicide and euthanasia. Experts in these fields have turned to
suicide as yet another way to deprive private citizens the right to choose what
to do with their own bodies. Because
this is happening, the question then becomes “in exercising its police power to
maintain and promote ‘the healthful and sanitary condition of the general body
of people or the community,’ should the state restrain [suicidal] persons to
protect the public” (Szasz, 108)?
One of
two things occurs when suicide is attempted.
Either the individual dies, or the person is found, "saved,"
deemed mentally ill, and the choice of how to live is revoked (sometimes
willfully, other times it is coerced).
Basically, individuals found attempting suicide are put under
psychiatric treatment, many times having their rights denied for the rest of
their life. This paper will attempt to
concentrate on the coercion of suicidal "patients" and how their
freedom to choose how to treat their own bodies is systematically denied. While the choice of euthanasia, is important
for critically ill patients, it is a different topic and will not be
addressed. This paper will concentrate
on the issues of individual choice, without assistance; one person's choice to
act on his own and only effect his own body.
There
are some basic problems people always run into when discussing suicide. For example, there is one word with many
meanings and these meanings are used interchangeably. We use the word suicide for an individual voluntarily taking his
life, as well as to discuss the disbelief of a horrible act, implying the
horror and criminality that many believe suicide is. While the outcome of all suicides is the same, the manner in
which they are attempted is different and the language should reflect that
difference. The justice system uses
different words for the act of killing someone. Most people know when the word homicide is used it implies
something worse than the word manslaughter.
We also use the same language when describing suicide and denouncing
it. "Actually, we use the word
'suicide' to express two quite different meanings: to describe a mode of
death, that is, taking one's own life, voluntarily and deliberately; and to denounce
the act, that is, to condemn it as sinful, criminal, irrational, unjustified,
in a word bad" (Szasz, 2).
Another
problem is terminology. We use other
words, synonyms, which connect suicide to being an evil and sinful act. These words include, self-murder,
self-mutilation, and personal-homicide.
All of the terminology we use is associated with the legal language of
killing and murderers. How is a society
to look kindly on this issue, if the language itself does not allow us? When we hear the words used for suicide, we
think of bad, immoral, disgusting, wrong acts that we should not condone. This language is used long before knowing
anything about the issue. Just
listening to the explanation can turn people off, because of the word usage.
Finally,
when discussing suicide we face a moral dilemma. Most religions consider suicide a sin and believe those who
commit suicide will go to hell or be condemned. It is only the right of a higher power to decide when it is a
person's time to die. People or “mere
mortals” do not have the insight to understand the "plan," or the ability
to decide their own fate and time of death.
While suicide is a moral and religious issue, that should not make it a
governmental issue. The government does
not have a right to dictate what the morality for people living in the state
should be. Because the United States
government has made physical and mental health a public issue, they are calling
for the problem to be solved, and may take very aggressive move to end actions
that could hurt the health movement.
This means, they may choose to outlaw suicide and to criminally charge
individuals attempting who do not succeed.
Again, this is the government prioritizing a person’s life for him and
deciding what the healthiest behavior is for that person.
One way
society deals with an act or issue it does not understand is by denying and
demoralizing it and the people who commit the act. The government and society are both doing this with suicide
because they will not accept it for what it is. Instead of calling suicide what it is, government officials,
media, and the health world are calling suicide an unnatural death, as opposed
to a natural death caused by injury (Szasz, 22). These persons choose to deny the reality of teens, and adults
choosing to end their life instead of living here and they demoralize the act
and persons who have attempted suicide unsuccessfully. "In twentieth-century United States,
authors and artists frequently glorify it, dramatize it, make it look better or
worse than it is, or 'sanitize' it. In
other words, they simply deny its true nature.
The collective attitude toward death has led to a universal fear of the
dying experience in our society" (Burnell, 5). It is difficult to understand suicide, but it is even more
difficult to understand why a society, and government, have chosen such harsh
language and gruesome portrayals of suicide that automatically assume and imply
it is wrong.
"If
an act is legal-say eating cereal for breakfast- then attempting to commit the act,
and assisting another to perform it is also legal. Conversely, if an act is illegal-say murder- then attempting to
commit the act and assisting another to perform it is also illegal"
(Szasz, 19). The question then becomes,
should suicide be illegal? According to
Szasz’s definition it is illegal, however no states currently have laws making
suicide illegal. The question usually
becomes one of legality versus Constitutionality. Judges in most states have made rulings that suicide and
attempted suicide is not illegal, because individuals do have freedom to choose
what happens to their own body. A judge
in California ruled suicidal tendencies and attempts are a cause of a mental
illness where punishment by law would be inconsequential. Without the effect wanted (remorse and
transformation) it is outside legal prosecution (Szasz, 22). By making a statement like this, the judge
is allowing the state to deny a man all of his liberty by deeming him
incompetent or mentally ill and unable to care for himself if he has attempted
suicide. This allows the state to have
a suicidal person committed and removed from society while still keeping him
alive, which is the opposite of what he wanted in the end anyway. The "patient" becomes a ward of
the state and taxpayers are forced to pay for the care of a person who does not
want to be living to begin with.
A Supreme Court decision (Griswold v
Connecticut) was the first to find that citizens do have a right to privacy,
specifically in what they do with and to their own bodies. It "first recognized the right to
privacy as a fundamental constitutional guarantee, one that would figure
prominently in subsequent right-to-die cases" (Humphrey, 230). It allowed individuals a right to choose
what happened to their own bodies without intrusion by the state. However, this right has not been guaranteed
in all cases and is part of the continuing debate.
Those
individuals attempting suicide who are not able to "finish the job"
can look forward to a life of medication, sedation, and therapy. While this is not a happy outlook, it is the
truth. Because states have decided
attempted suicide is beyond the parameters of legal prosecution, they have
found a new way to control the individuals life. The irony is a person has no life to look forward to if he
attempts to end his life and is unsuccessful.
At the turn of the century psychiatrists professed themselves as experts
on suicide. They explained the attempts
as a cause of mental illness, leaving other psychiatrists as the only
physicians capable of "treating" the "illness." Some suicidal patients were diagnosed as
schizophrenic, while others just with extreme cases of depression. Ilza Veith wrote, "the act [of suicide]
clearly represents an illness and is, in fact, the least curable of all
diseases" and the AMA wrote, "the contemporary physician sees suicide
as a manifestation of emotional illness.
Rarely, does he view it in a context other than that of psychiatry"
(Szasz, 17). Psychiatrists found
another way to keep themselves in business.
Moreover,
psychiatrists have taken the place of clergy and religion. Psychiatrists are set in place to explain
that suicide is evil, wrong, and the want or need to commit suicide must be
driven out of a person. “Instead of
being stigmatized by religion [suicide] is now stigmatized by medicine
(psychiatry)” (Szasz, 23).
Psychiatrists explain that those who attempt suicide are mentally ill
and with counseling and medication they can be reformed and perhaps allowed
back into society. Two hundred
years ago, a priest would have told someone with suicidal tendencies he was
possessed by the devil (instead of having a mental illness) that was evil,
wrong, and needed to be driven out of the person. As with the psychiatrist, the priest would offer counseling and
instead of medication, perform an exorcism.
Due to the change in society, suicide is no longer treated as a
religious sin treated by priests.
Today, psychiatrists are explaining these people as "patients"
who are "mentally ill" and in need of psychiatric care so they may
function normally in society once again.
What if
these individuals do not seek therapy voluntarily? If the person is under age, most of the time he will have no
choice and his parent or guardian will force him into some sort of psychiatric
treatment program. However, when the
individual is of legal age and refuses treatment, the courts may become
involved. Family members will go to
court explaining it is in the best interest of the "sick"
individual. They will explain to the
court the self-mutilating tendencies of the loved one and request the court
deem this suicidal individual incompetent of making decisions for himself. The family member will then assume power of
attorney and sometimes guardianship of the loved one and attempt to find a
facility where the “patient” can begin treatment.
If there are no family members who want to take responsibility for this person, a social worker may be appointed. He will explain to the court the harm this person is bringing to himself. Again, the court can choose to find the person incompetent, and put his freedom in the hands of a third party. One argument that used in courts where this becomes an issue comes from Esquirol. "According to Esquirol, suicide shows all the characteristics of mental alienation. A man attempts self-destruction only in delirium and suicides are mentally alienated. From this principle he concluded that suicide, being involuntary, should not be punished by law" (Durkheim, 58). However, it does find that a person is incapable of caring for himself and must employ a third party to care for him. Once a suicidal “patient” is in a facility, or living with a family member, he begins therapy sessions. “We call such services ‘psychotherapy.’ Trying to persuade another person to refrain from an action which we believe is injurious to his best medical, moral, or financial interests is always permissible and may or may not be meritorious; however that does not justify replacing suasion with coercion” (Szasz, 47).
This
paper has attempted to explain why we should not fear suicide or condemn those
who choose when to die instead of leaving it up to fate. These people are not sick; in fact one might
argue they are more in control of their lives than others living on earth. However, there are a few compelling
arguments that suicide should be regulated and found unlawful. It would not be fair to write a paper
without discussing some of these arguments as well.
First,
many argue it is in the states best interest to keep people alive, being
productive and giving back to the community.
This gives the government a compelling interest in the health of a person
and a need to keep citizens alive.
While the government may not be allowed to control a persons diet or
exercise (yet), working to eliminate life-ending tendencies is within their
parameters. "Our goal is to see
that law in our society protects innocent human life. And that for us is the unborn, handicapped, elderly, incompetent
patients, those people who are most vulnerable to someone else's decision that
they be dead" (Betzold). This
means the state has a compelling interest to keep anyone alive who falls within
these parameters, including those a psychiatrist or judge has deemed
incompetent due to mental illness (those attempting suicide) and are in need of
care. Basically, they are not capable
of making decisions for themselves, so we must deny “patients” that right.
A
second argument comes from the law itself.
Because there is no such thing as an a-moral law there is no reason why
suicide should be regulated. With every
law created there is a dimension of right and wrong. Some may disagree with what the government (and law in effect)
says is right and wrong, but these laws are still in effect. We see it through laws on drugs, tobacco,
and sexual activity. While some argue
these laws are wrong, they should be reminded that the majority of society has
voted in legislators who have made these laws and it is the electorate's
responsibility to recall and change laws it does not approve of.
Finally, the most compelling argument about regulating suicide spawns from the right to privacy in that while a person does have a right which allows him to do what he will with his own body, he can not hurt those around him. Yes, we all know suicide hurts a family emotionally (and some might say psychologically), however many times it also hurts them financially. Not only do doctor bills cost a lot to save a person's life (if the attempt did not work), but if the person attempting suicide is the head of a family, he has just killed the family’s financial viability. Not only will this cause problems for the family, but if they are forced to take assistance from the state it becomes a taxpayer's problem as well. Now a family that used to be financially viable and independent becomes dependant on welfare and the taxpayers are supporting a person's family so he could end his life. Is it the responsibility of the government and taxpayers to make up for this lost life? Many say no, but how can we hurt those still living for an act committed by a family member? The government can not deny a family assistance based on the way the provider for the family died.
Conclusion
Choosing to commit suicide is
an individual choice. No one should be
involved except for the person choosing to end his life. No where does the right to privacy exclude
people choosing to end their life and no where does it say the law has a right
to step in. A person choosing death is
not mentally ill and has taken logical steps to end his life, which means he
must have some concept of reality.
Death may be difficult for many people to deal with and by making it
evil and unattractive, people have a reason to claim distaste and
misunderstanding for it. By treating
suicide as dirty and "crazy" we are passing judgement on others
everyday. Committing those who want to
be dead may only prolong that person’s suffering and at a great financial
burden. Saying "I understand"
does not make suicide easier to deal with, but saying that the act was wrong or
committed by a mentally unstable person only makes things worse. “A truly humane society would recognize… a
natural right to be left alone to commit suicide"”(Szasz, 108). Give people a right to be left alone!
Betzold, Michael.
Appointment with Doctor Death; United States, Momentum Books
Ltd., 1993.
Burnell, George M.
Final Choices; to Live or Die in an Age of Medical Technology;
New York, Plenum Press, 1993.
Durkheim, Emile.
Suicide; New York, The Free Press, 1951.
Humphry, Derek; Wickett, Ann. The Right to Die; Understanding Euthanasia. New York, Harper & Rowe Publishers,
1986.
Szasz, Thomas. Fatal
Freedom; the Ethics and Politics of Suicide. Westport, Praeger Publishers, 1999.
Copyright, 1999, Jeannette
Vail