If any one topic in the law has been the subject of more confusion than the "right to die", I have yet to find it.

The traditional legal view of suicide was simple, if unrealistic. The law viewed life as an absolute good, so that anyone choosing to die was assumed incompetent. Thus, there was no circumstance under which one could choose to commit suicide. By choosing suicide, one was proving himself incompetent, and thus the choice was always invalid. And since one could not choose to commit suicide, then no one could assist a suicide either. It had the benefit of simplicity, but, especially to modern eyes, it seems to poorly fit observed reality.

And those modern eyes were largely responsible for the modern changes in the view of, if not always the laws concerning, suicide. To the modern mind a number of circumstances would render suicide a rational choice, and thus it is unsound to assume the decision to commit suicide is not a rational one. Likewise, since the modern view is that suicide is sometimes rational, in some places it would be permissible for someone to provide assistance to a person committing suicide.

I will admit to being modern enough that I can agree that there are circumstances in which I would consider suicide a rational choice. But that does not change my opinion that the modern trend in thinking has some serious implications, and some which are rather dangerous.

The first problem with the modern view of suicide is that it conflicts with some of the treasured beliefs of the modern therapeutic society*. It has become a central belief of modern mental health practices that those who are a danger to themselves can be coercively detained for treatment. However, if we recognize that suicide can be a valid choice in some circumstances, how do we draw the line between justifiable suicide and "danger to themselves"? Under the old definition this was easy, all who wanted to commit suicide were a danger to themselves, but if suicide is allowable, this is not so. If a man has cancer, is suicide justifiable? How about if it isn't terminal? Or what about a debilitating disease? How about one that just disfigures? Or only causes fatigue?

The problem is what constitutes a "life not worth living" is very subjective. One person may accept quadriplegia, another may not. And if we accept that, then what about paraplegia? How about pain in both legs? If we allow one and exclude another, where do we draw that line? What constitutes a situation where suicide is rational and what constitutes an irrational suicide? Most will agree that ALS probably justifies suicide and burnt toast at breakfast probably does not, but between those two, a lot of ground exists. And even then, not every person facing ALS chooses suicide. Lou Gehrig himself did not, nor did Steven Hawking, so even what seems intolerable to the public at large is not intolerable to everyone.

All of which make sit impossible to say, based on fixed criteria, when suicide is rational and when it is not.

And if the question of rationality makes a shambles of public mental health laws, adding the subject of assisted suicide makes an equal shambles of criminal law.

Advocates of assisted suicide often act as if  there could never be a legal problem. They seem to think that requiring some sort of proof is enough to avoid any accusations of murder. However, anyone who has been involved in a contested inheritance can tell these advocates that it is not that simple. Elderly people who are in the care of relatives can often be induced to sign documents or even say things against their own interest. It would not be that difficult for a caretaker who wishes to hurry his inheritance to persuade an elderly person to sign a fictitious "advance directive" before helping them depart this vale of tears.

Nor is that the only problem. Once we enter the realm of assisted suicide, we run into problems of second thoughts. A person committing suicide, who later changes their mind, can always stop their own actions. Ont he other hand, once they have enlisted a confederate, any second thoughts can be ignored. It is quite possible a statement signed two years ago no longer applies, but the person assisting will be unable to know that. And as many of those being assisted ar eno longer capable of making their will known, this sort of problem will arise. It may not be a common problem, but it does exist.

Having said all that, I have no easy answers. Given our current environment, these problems are inevitable unless we retain the traditional rules calling all suicide irrational. Any other position creates too many conflicts with mental health laws. But, if we do allow suicide, I still think the problems of disguised murders simply makes it unconscionable to allow assisted suicide**. Even if require a videotaped statement, it is still possible that someone was coerced, cajoled, or, in the case of the senile and demented, simply tricked into making such a statement. Whether or not we allow suicides, assisted suicide makes it too easy for the greedy caretaker to hasten the demise of a wealthy relative or a harried family member from relieving themselves of an unwelcome burden.

-------------------------------------------------

* As I do not believe in involuntary commitment, I have no real objection to this particular problem raised by recognizing suicide. On the other hand, I am sure this is a major problem for many pushing the right to die, as they are also often the same individuals who advocate for more mental health assistance from the state.

** Ideally I would end the concept of involuntary commitment, actually end all legal concept of insanity. Those who are "insane" and commit crimes would go to jail, those who are just "insane" would be free to go about their business like anyone else. But as this will create too many comments on this topic and distract from my main subject, I am putting this in a footnote. Perhaps later I will write on the idea of removing the legal concept of insanity.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATED 05/25/2008

It appears this essay was a victim of my wireless keyboard. Sometimes my keyboard stops transmitting mid-sentence and I don't notice. The second paragraph appears to have had words dropped in at least two places. I have corrected those omissions, but I am afraid that those who read this in the past may have been slightly confused by sentences which ended apparently in mid-thought. Sorry for any confusion this caused.