Questions About the Illegality of Suicide

Last week, I had an interesting conversation about the illegality of suicide. The conversation revolved primarily around the function of law in this social setting. Any law against suicide is an exceptional one, because it only has an impact in the case of preventing suicides or addressing failed ones.

The reasoning of my comrade went as follows: In many situations, people make decisions founded on unstable and transitory emotional states-- sometimes irreversible ones such as suicide. Often, people can come to regret these decisions with more hindsight. If there were not a law against suicide, agents of the state (i.e. police officers, fire engineers, etc.) would be unable to forcibly enter a home and resuscitate the suicide, even if a potentially resuscitated person would be thankful for the interdiction.

Of course, my general suspicion and distrust for statism and legislative interdiction put me on one side of this issue while, of course, important subtleties called for a closer look. So I had to ask myself a few questions.

1. What is the legal difference between a well thought out and executed suicide and a suicide attempted in passion?

2. Does society general have an interest in distinguishing between the two? Does society general have a vested interest in preventing suicide great enough to eclipse personal rights?

3. Law is edict designed to ensure conformity in situations where social normalizations fail to do so; Is a law necessary?

4. A law against suicide is particularly unique due to its lack of enforceability. Its primary purpose is to allow the state to intervene (i.e. enter premises, detain attempters) as a matter of duty. These seems to presuppose that the state is the only line of prevention. What role do less formal social structures (e.g. family) play in intervention? Is there such a lack of such structures that the state is necessary?

Of course, all my considerations were being done in the abstract. How would I know how I would feel about the state's interventions if a suicide occurred close to home?

Later in the week, at a Christmas party, I was approached by someone with whom I had a common friend. This common friend was a student of mine when I assisted an undergraduate topology course. Earlier in the week this student had committed suicide. Let's say his name was Red. When he was alive, Red emailed me frequently about what grad schools to apply to, how such-and-such mathematical theory related to such-and-such, and what books to read and study. I was always forthcoming and often responded to his emails with multiple responses in the forms of long post-scripts.

I saw Red just a few weeks before he died, on the sidewalk while I was walking to dinner with a few friends. He seemed happy and asked me how I was doing and I asked him how is grad school application process was going.

The news of his suicide definitely changed the tone of the previous conversation on suicide. I was sad that he decided that he didn't want to live anymore. Could I still answer my questions? Ultimately, the answer was yes. If I could have prevented him from killing himself (though not his reasons for doing so), I don't think I would have. Maybe I would have liked to talk to him first.

If he had wanted to talk, he could have called or emailed me as he did so often in the past. He could have called any of us, or a hotline. He didn't. He had no desire to talk. So how can I intercede? I cannot justify any right to intervene with his wishes. I don't think I would have called the police. I guess I just would have hoped that he thought it out and knew what he was doing.

1. This hope constitutes the major difference which might necessitate some sort of intervention. Suicide attempted in passion is fundamentally different from a well-thought out choice.

2. If society is a contract to defend personal liberty, how could I deny one's right to suicide just to protect whatever marginal liberty gained by more social stability?

I want to point out that "more social stability" is the crux of the states push to encorporate and federate more power. Every totalitarian government has used this to sequester power, whether it be of the form "defending against terrorism" or "Getting rid of the greedy Jews."

3. No law was going to keep Red from taking his life. The only thing that could possibly offer a counterpoint was the expectations of his family and friends-- the local support that existed for him. This is all to say that existing social structure is the law in this case. It seems like laws regulating suicide are just candy coating over a humongous social normative structure.

4. Finally, if I would not have intervened myself, what is the role of peace officers (who ideally act as my advocate) in prevention? It might be the case that another citizen (Red's mother maybe) might want to physically intervene or have her representatives (peace officers) intervene. As we remarked above, is this not a transgression against a conscious adult's rights (the fascist totalitarianism of a mother, however well-meant).

I hope that Red made the right decision and I hope peace for his family.