Suicide: Time to stop the whispers, speak loudly
Suicide remains the last taboo, a topic more likely to draw an averted glance and whispered word than frank and open discussion. That’s in part because suicide strikes at our deepest fears — to most of us, intent on keeping death as far away as possible, it’s unsettling to see someone marching the other way, in death’s direction.
So we prefer not to acknowledge it. We ignore the reality that in some cases, choosing death might be rational and right, and with that denial, with that silence, we unfortunately open the door to radical groups such as Final Exit Network.
After a multi-state investigation, four network members — “exit guides,” they call themselves — have been arrested and charged with helping 58-year-old John Celmer of Cumming commit suicide last June.
In addition, two of those charged also allegedly helped a pancreatic cancer patient — actually an undercover government agent — prepare to kill himself here in Georgia. They are part of an alleged conspiracy that nationwide may have been involved in as many as 200 deaths by suicide in the past few years.
Final Exit Network, which claims some 3,000 members, believes that what they call “self-deliverance” ought to be an option not just for those with terminal illness and in great pain, but for those “suffering intolerably from an irreversible condition which has become more than they can bear.” That’s a standard so loose as to be no standard at all.
In an Arizona case, for example, a suicide victim “guided” by Final Exit members is alleged to have been mentally unstable but not terminally ill. In the case involving the undercover agent, Final Exit members allegedly made no effort to establish that he truly was terminally ill and did not try to assess his mental health.
Celmer, the man who died in June, was recovering from cancer of the jaw and apparently sought death not because of pain or looming death, but because of shame at the disfigurement the cancer had caused. In those and other cases, if the factual claims against them prove true, Final Exit members appear to have acted irresponsibly and criminally.
Of course, the final determination will have to be made by the justice system, meaning that some of the more profound questions of human existence will be argued in a criminal courtroom. While that’s an imperfect forum for such a debate, our reluctance to discuss the topic elsewhere makes it necessary.
For example, do my inalienable rights as a human being extend to the right to self-destruction? If my life is truly my own, shouldn’t I be able to end it as I see fit? Personally, I think the answer is almost always no. Societal consensus, backed by medical research and experience, dictates that a person in decent physical health who wants to commit suicide is by definition mentally ill — no fully sane person would make such a decision.
But how far does that line of reasoning extend? As a person’s physical health declines, that once-bright line begins to blur for many of us. During the Terri Schiavo controversy, for example, I stumbled across the case of David Mack, a Milwaukee police officer who had been shot in the line of duty and lapsed into a vegetative state.
Twenty months later, Mack miraculously returned to consciousness only to be horrified at his predicament. The shooting had left him totally paralyzed; he could communicate only by moving his eyes across a spelling board. He told his wife that he wished the bullet had killed him. He begged for a lethal injection or for feedings to stop.
Using the spelling board, he would send the same message over and over:
“I D-O-N-T W-A-N-T T-O L-I-V-E L-I-K-E T-H-I-S A-N-Y-M-O-R-E.”
He lived another five years.
In Mack’s case, like that of Schiavo, medical advances made it possible to artificially extend physical existence without extending the other aspects of life that give existence meaning.
So was Mack’s wish to die evidence of mental illness? No, it was an act of sanity. But we as a society refused him his final wish. He had been shot bravely protecting us, but we did not return that bravery by protecting Mack. By insisting that he live, we protected ourselves from a tough decision, but not him.
Legally, politically and emotionally, it is easier to simply deny suicide as a valid option in every case, even if it leads to inhuman and immoral outcomes. That approach forces real-life decisions to be made in the shadows, hidden from sight — back to the averted glance and whispered word.
But it also gives groups such as Final Exit the ambiguity they need to thrive.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
111 comments Add your comment
I Report/ You Whine
March 5th, 2009
6:41 am
I wish we would have left abortion in the “shadows.”
Then there would be about 50 million more human beings with us we could talk into committing suicide when it all got too tough.
Lot’s of “hope” in the message this morning, Bookman.
I Report/ You Whine
March 5th, 2009
6:56 am
You hear the little tidbits being spoken about and you just know the Republicans are getting back on the right track-
That tattered Big Tent now flaps pathetically in the wilderness of political defeat and out of it crawls its wounded confederacy of country-club dunces. Have they learned anything? Not much. Wowed by Obama’s popularity, they reflexively resume the me-too PC platitudes of “compassionate conservatism” and engage in what amounts to a big-government bidding war for the affection of the American people. Bad federal program A versus bad federal program B — that’s the debate between the parties at this point.
If victory is the Big Tent Republicans goal, why don’t they join the Democrats in calling for a one-party state? That way they could win every time.-Nuemayr, AmSpec
GodHatesTrash, Superstar
March 5th, 2009
7:00 am
You’re depressing some of your RightWingnutterbutters with your honesty, Bookman.
Perhaps nuking a few hundred thousand Iranians will make them feel better.
GodHatesTrash, Superstar
March 5th, 2009
7:03 am
Obama probably won’t debate Rush.
If’n you wrestle with a fat, oily, slippery, filthy pig, you’re probably going to get dirty.
Bud Wiser
March 5th, 2009
7:05 am
Legally, politically and emotionally, it is easier to simply deny suicide as a valid option in every case, even if it leads to inhuman and immoral outcomes.
And so, whose analysis or judgment thereof is to be used to determine whether or not the projected outcomes are “immoral’? The thrust of your argument seems to support assisted suicide Jay, and I believe two states already have it as an option (Washington and Oregon). Move there. No more social engineering please by making doctors violate every fiber in their being and against oaths they have taken: …”I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion. But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts… (only a portion of the actual oath; I’m sure that Chad the Rat Rancher knows the rest).
Obama and his minions are seeking further toward forcing those in the medical community that morally object to performing abortions to have to do it anyway, essentially making them a party to murders against their own will, so morality appears to not be an issue to the White House. That much has already become apparent already though with this seemingly never ending string of tax evaders and cheats being appointed to key positions.
So why not suicide, you ask? As I said after the election, the majority of the voters committed mass suicide on Nov 4 already anyway, so why not let them kill themselves before the tax bill to this stupendously fraudulent ’stimulus’ bill comes due?
GodHatesTrash, Superstar
March 5th, 2009
7:07 am
Let’s face it. Rush is a loud-mouthed drug-addicted terminally-obese sex-tourist.
Not someone the POTUS should grace with his presence.
We elected Obama to remove the scum from influence in the White House, not the opposite.
Redneck Convert
March 5th, 2009
7:21 am
Well, I’m against letting people kill theirselfs. If they start doing that our taxes will go up because we’ll have to pay their part too. That’s the thing about us Libraritarians and the Republicans. We hate taxes worse than death itself. Besides, the Bible says you shouldn’t kill yourself. You got to pay attention to God’s Word.
Anyhow, if anybody’s going to kill theirself I want it to be libruls. Maybe then we’ll be able to get a godly Republican back in the White House if alot of libruls take theirselfs off of the voting rolls. Course, as crooked as the libruls are, they’ll probly keep right on voting them anyway.
That’s my opinion and it’s very true. Have a good day everybody and be sure not to kill yourself. My tax bill’s out of sight as it is.
Eric
March 5th, 2009
7:21 am
I can only surmise that with David Mack, the costs associated with life-support over five years made more than a few doctors and hospital staff an attractive profit. That too is immoral in my opinion.
Bud Wiser
March 5th, 2009
7:44 am
Yes Eric, you proved my point quite nicely, and thank you for that. Your particular standards of ‘morality’ apparently incorporates financial effects, both for the doctors, hospitals, staff, etc., etc., but also the effect on the family, their insurance coverages (if any), and subsequent snowball effect of that as well.
In other words, if a person becomes sick, do you, Eric, then deny that person medical attention and treatment because it may create a ‘financial burden’, or have potential for an “attractive profit” as you so bluntly put it? What if perhaps that person is you, or someone you care about, and you or that person have a desire to continue living?
The word is, under Obama’s “health plan”, bureaucrats would make those assessments for you, and if it is determined that the potential from lengthening your life through receiving proper care does not outweigh the associated costs, or ‘burden’ on the government to pay for your treatment, then you are sort of, shall we say SOL. Is THIS the type of health care you want, the change that everyone can believe in?
I guess the Obamaniacs will march gladly to the chambers if their Master so instructs. I shall not.
DB, Gwinnettian
March 5th, 2009
7:44 am
Saw this in the dead-tree earlier today. Good piece, and I’d never heard of David Mack before. Makes ya think.
Beyond that, let the record show:
No. of minutes it took a nutball to link assisted suicide to abortion: 11
No. of minutes it took a nutball to insinuate that Jay should commit suicide himself: 35
oh, and Report Whiner, if you’re not too bloodied from yesterday’s festivities, now might be a good time to point out that most of us are fully capable of going to American Spectator ourselves and reading their drivel.
We really don’t need you copy/pasting it here every. goddamned. day.
John Galt Jr.
March 5th, 2009
7:45 am
We already have assisted suicide. Its called McDonald’s, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, etc, etc. People who do not take care of themselves just commit suicide slowly. Look around, they are everywhere. And in many cases, its the taxpayers who get to pick up the tab for these people who are slowly killing themselves. I find it ironic you can kill yourself slowly, legally, but if you have a terminal illness you must wait and suffer.
DB, Gwinnettian
March 5th, 2009
7:47 am
“We already have assisted suicide. Its called McDonald’s, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, etc, etc.”
And AM talk radio.
Hip Hopcracy
March 5th, 2009
7:50 am
Conservatives want no part of “playing God” when the subject is abortion or assisted suicide. Yet when the subject is capital punishment, they have no problem casting judgment on the sanctity of life. That hypocrisy alone renders their arguments moot.
I Report/ You Whine
March 5th, 2009
7:52 am
DB, Gwinnettian March 5th, 2009 7:44 am We really don’t need you copy/pasting it here every. goddamned. day.
Aahhh, yes, a simple newspaper blog brings out the inner psychotic in the DeadBeat.
Would you like to kill me, stunt dummy?
Are you suggesting I should commit suicide, bobble head doll? (<——how do you like that, I was on topic.)
kitty
March 5th, 2009
7:58 am
Hip Hopcracy, conservatives only like to play God when they can pull the lever and watch. The power gives them a woody. Hate filled revenge is sweet to them.
DB, Gwinnettian
March 5th, 2009
8:04 am
Report Whiner begs @ 7.52: “Would you like to kill me”?
That’s a task best left for your long-suffering family to perform, methinks.
DB, Gwinnettian
March 5th, 2009
8:06 am
Bud posits: “bureaucrats would make those assessments for you”
hoo boy, I sure am glad I don’t live in a world where for-profit insurance companies do just that every day!
Oh, wait…
Joey
March 5th, 2009
8:10 am
I support the individuals choice to die, if he is able to have a conversation with his loved ones and explain his reasoning. But the catch is: Can we trust the people (Government) to assist us in our choice only when it is our choice.
My brother is severely handicapped. He worked in Georgia’s healthcare services, arranging for their care, for 20+ years before disability retirment. He is convinced, knows, that Nationalized Health Care will insure his premature death. There have a phrase for it, but I won’t get it exactly right: “The patients quality of life is to degraded to justify our continued efforts”.
B. Steal
March 5th, 2009
8:15 am
Whine,
Can’t you have anything more original than a cut-n-paste 20 times a day. You should start your own oh-so-clever blog and getting funny comedy show too. You are so funny!
Hip Hopcracy
March 5th, 2009
8:15 am
Joey,
Conservative “Darwinism” as applied to American society also insures premature death and suffering for millions of our elderly. If you think our health care system is somehow immune to bureaucracy in its present state, then you are an ostrich.
DB, Gwinnettian
March 5th, 2009
8:16 am
Speaking of tough healthcare-industry life-and-death decisions: Anyone remember the “medical futility” case of Sun Hudson?
DB, Gwinnettian
March 5th, 2009
8:19 am
“He is convinced, knows, that Nationalized Health Care will insure his premature death.”
Are you?
Are you under the impression that any healthcare reform proposals being seriously considered would take the form of the UK’s National Health, rather than, at the MOST “extreme”, and probably not even all that likely, a Canadian-style single payer plan, wherein you could still seek your own healthcare provider and even your own insurance company should you wish to?
Bud Wiser
March 5th, 2009
8:21 am
I am thrilled to see that the idiot patrol has responded in mass to what I have written.
Of course, none of it deals with the effects, one way or another, or moral or financial or whatever considerations to the subject at hand.
That is perhaps what I like most about the idiot patrol; they make it so easy to be identified by the way they are so totally incapable of responding with even a shred of intelligence, but choose instead to attack the messenger, or careen wildly off into another subject matter altogether.
Perhaps your inabilities to deal with matters of morality come from your total lack of a moral compass to begin with; like Billy C. when he was administering throat massages in the Oval Office, character didn’t matter then to the idiot patrol, it matters not now.
Now, I’m off to the golf course in the pursuit of the administration of my own form of non-assisted suicide….
Later, tools.
I Report/ You Whine
March 5th, 2009
8:24 am
B.Weal- When I get up to “20 times a day” then you have good reason to blubber like a little sissy.
As it stands now, you have jumped the gun.
But I’m sure you feel better, letting out your little moan, no?
DB, Gwinnettian
March 5th, 2009
8:31 am
Deep Thought:
Bud Wiser’s lament @ 8.21 is most entertaining if you can imagine Alan Keyes uttering it.
Later, all.
B. Steal
March 5th, 2009
8:31 am
Whine,
Your clever introspective wit has hurt my feelings. And you missed an opportunity to cut-n-paste for the 21st in the past day. You blew it. You failed again, you hopeful GED grad.
BDAtlanta
March 5th, 2009
8:35 am
Wow, health care reform is coming so some of you should just get back to your cave, pull the mattress over your head and take several long, deep breaths.
Bureaucrats get some things right and some things wrong. Will the new health care system be perfect from the git-go? Of course not.
Even you beloved Wal-Mart is going in front of the Obama administration and begging for relief on employee health care. If Wal-Mart goes under, where will you be in life? If they are forced to close the store in your area, what else will you have to live for?
Shannon, M.Div.
March 5th, 2009
8:37 am
Oy vey, this is a thorny question. I remember debating this in seminary ethics class. Somewhere, there’s a line which has to be drawn. We should not keep people alive artificially when they have no quality of life. Note: this is not the same as suicide or assisted suicide, but I think most of us recognize that the Schiavo case crossed a line of appropriateness. Who should answer this question? Doctors? Bureaucrats? Politicians? Family members? Lawyers and judges? The patient in question (if s/he is able)? Each of these choices has advantages and drawbacks.
I’m not prepared to tell someone suffering that s/he must stay alive. I’m not prepared to tell someone who wants to live that s/he must be removed from life support. I’m also not prepared to let any of the groups mentioned above have sole authority over these cases–no, not even family members. There’s enough disagreement on this sort of thing in my own reasonably agreeable family, enough generational differences, and enough theological differences that I wouldn’t necessarily want to make these decisions on their behalf.
The bottom line for this point in time is that all of us need to get our living wills in order. The individual should have the right to make these decisions, but perhaps only when the individual is healthy with the appropriate perspective.
Tough, tough questions–and worth more than some of the tired and unnecessarily partisan responses posted so far. Why don’t we agree not to just repeat the same wearying nonsense we’ve heard Olbermann, Maddow, Limbaugh, or Hannity say? Then we might be able to have some real discussion.
Observer
March 5th, 2009
8:39 am
Wow, Jay writes a very thought-provoking column on a non-partisan topic and all you people can do is discuss abortion, Obama and Rush – none of which was mentioned in the article.
Great column, Jay. It’s unfortunate that it won’t receive the meaning discussion it deserves.
Hip Hopcracy
March 5th, 2009
8:44 am
Observer
There is no such thing as a “non-partisan subject” in a nation governed pursuant to a two-party system, particularly when the spirit of debate has been vanquished and replaced by intractable ideologies.
Observer
March 5th, 2009
8:44 am
oops. I meant to say meaningFUL discussion. Must have been caused by the loose nut at the end of the keyboard.
BDAtlanta
March 5th, 2009
8:44 am
My one off-topic cut and paste for this column:
From the Washington Post
“Give conservatives credit for their consistency: They attacked Roosevelt as a socialist as they are now attacking Obama, when in fact Obama, like Roosevelt before him, is engaged not in creating socialism but in rebooting a crashed capitalist system. The spending in Obama’s stimulus plan isn’t a socialist takeover. It’s the only way to inject money into a system in which private-sector investment, consumption and exports – the other three possible engines of growth – are locked down. Investing more tax dollars in education and research and development is a way to use public funds to create a more competitive private sector. Keeping our banks from speculating madly with our money is a way to keep banking alive.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/03/AR2009030303207.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Davo
March 5th, 2009
8:52 am
Well I suppose some of these poor souls have noone to turn to except some ‘organization’. Either they were unlucky or just plain mean throughout thier life and now noone is there for them to pull the plug. Even so, Bookman wants the government involved in this most personal of business. Death and taxes sans liberty; what a great time we live in.
Observer
March 5th, 2009
9:01 am
Hip Hopcracy – I will respectfully disagree. Partisanship is a choice, period. Mind you, that statement is made by one of the more partisan members of this discussion group. Not every topic needs to be governed by which side of the political aisle we happen to sit on. It is possible and, in my opinion, healthy, to actually THINK through an issue instead of posting an answer born purely of some predisposed political ideology.
Too many on this board have no intention of adding meaningful content but rather, seek to incite mindless arguments with those on the other side of the aisle. And yes, I recognize that I have occasionally been guilty of that myself in the past.
Tank
March 5th, 2009
9:02 am
Hip Hopcracy, regarding your post at 7:50 am.
Liberals have no problem casting judgment on the sanctity of life when the subject is capital punishment. Yet when the subject is abortion or assisted suicide, they want to “play God”. That hypocrisy alone renders their arguments moot.
TnGelding
March 5th, 2009
9:02 am
“For example, do my inalienable rights as a human being extend to the right to self-destruction?” I would say yes. Certainly if you have the right to abort a cell, fetus or embryo. I would warn however that something as simple and common as anemia can make you suicidal. At some point when we become a burden on our families and society we have to be allowed to just lie down and die if we so choose. In Oregon they call it Death with Dignity.t
http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/ar-index.shtml
TnGelding
March 5th, 2009
9:05 am
BDAtlanta
March 5th, 2009
8:44 am
I couldn’t have written it better myself. It’s just another vast-right-wing-conspiracy.
Eric
March 5th, 2009
9:05 am
The only point you’ve successfully made, bud, is the blaringly obvious fact that like dubya, you are a moron.
Hip Hopcracy
March 5th, 2009
9:09 am
Observer
I do not believe that it is in our nation’s best interests to divide itself into two distinct camps; it is, in fact, antithetical to any sustainable progress and social evolution. However, it cannot be denied that this is the country that we have become.
Hip Hopcracy
March 5th, 2009
9:14 am
Tank
Point well taken. I was simply responding to a myriad of conservatives’ points relative to abortion and its relation to Jay’s blog.
Both liberals and conservatives make arguments that are logically inconsisent with other beliefs that they hold sacred.
Few, however, will admit it. Do you?
Mrs. Godzilla
March 5th, 2009
9:14 am
I do not want to be kept alive by extraordinary means and have reviewed my living will with Mr. G and the ‘Zillettes. I have faith the at the right time, we will make the right choice.
My father has done the same with all of my brothers and sisters.
Frankly, this is nobody’s damn business but our own.
AmVet
March 5th, 2009
9:15 am
Shannon, bless you.
A sane voice in a world with much too much blogging “chatter”. There is often so little intellectual honesty, or even clarity, regarding this issue, some exactly equate it to abortion or war or the common cold or…
Bullhockey. They are different animals. Similar arguments? Yes. But using one as a “prop” for the other is mere mental masturbation.
To me, forget the philosophical/religious pyschobabble.
The biggest challenge to addressing this issue is the same one that keeps us from advancing in most other areas – many people in this country don’t like change. They live in another time and place. Politically and mentally. And they will do anything before they look at, much less deeply consider, these “ugly” issues head-on, using the latest information and knowledge.
MUCH of the stigma is just outdated, nonsensical leftovers from societal and religious taboos. (Isn’t it the Catholics who believe if you do yourself in, you’ve voided your otherwise “ensured” one way ticket to Golden Streetville?)
Clearly define, what the laws are. This is not that difficult. Ensure that safety (as in properly determining who meets the criteria) and certain other parameters are met. Then let ‘er rip.
Make adjustments as necessary. This is how the evolving Constitutional Republic we live in, works.
We are not talking about murder here. We are talking about people who have CHOSEN to follow this path. (and no, that does NOT make them all insane).
To me, the “insane” are the esteemed Bill Frist’s of the world, who would violate their own integrity by showing utter contempt for the medical reality of any given situation, simply to score political points for an intransigent and repudiated ideology. Well maybe not insane, but certainly and willfully repulsive.
And so, the weak are again vilified and the wicked glorified.
Kevorkian was a true American hero to many of us. And they put him in prison.
Citizen of the World
March 5th, 2009
9:18 am
One of the main reasons our health care system is so overburdened and expensive is because so much time, money and energy are spent to extend people’s lives beyond their capacity to experience or enjoy any quality of life. If a person does not want life support, including feeding tubes, or extraordinary measures to be kept alive, they should not be subjected to them. We all do need to get our living wills in order.
As for assisted suicide, perhaps there needs to be a legal document to cover that, as well. It’s a complex issue, to be sure, but we shouldn’t adopt a “zero tolerance” attitude about it, as we do for so many other issues (to our regret). Certainly there are situations where a person would be justified in wanting to die, and some of these instances could be because medicine intervened in the first place to save the person and, consequently, prolonged their suffering.
fed up
March 5th, 2009
9:23 am
Good article Jay. I agree with Ms. Godzilla’s comment it’s nobody’s business. I think you should take out DB Gwinnetian’s comment at 7:44 “We really don’t need you copy/pasting it here every. goddamned. day.”
rcs
March 5th, 2009
9:24 am
Well said Mrs. G
sd
March 5th, 2009
9:26 am
We treat our pets with more dignity when it comes to death.
Even when a person has a living will that specifies that they do not wish to be hooked to a feeding tube, the best we can offer is starvation. We cannot end their suffering even though we have the means. The person has chosen to die, but we will only let them starve to death. Carry that to your dog. He is blind, arthritic, and in severe pain. Would you have a vet put him down, or starve him to death?
TnGelding
March 5th, 2009
9:38 am
Citizen of the World
March 5th, 2009
9:18 am
Well said. But even with a living will you might be kept alive if your family doesn’t intervene forcefully.
Citizen of the World
March 5th, 2009
9:18 am
Well put. They’ll put you on a morphine drip, but heaven forbid if you get caught smoking marijuana.
Oregon is leading the nation on this issue as they have on many others:
http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/ar-index.shtml
Taxpayer
March 5th, 2009
9:38 am
sd, It’s inhumane to starve your pet to death. That’s why I am going to have written into my living will words to the effect that my name has been changed to Rover under certain circumstances.
Andy the Welcher
March 5th, 2009
9:39 am
I go out of town for a week and Andy changed his name (again)???
Oh well, Andy’s still a welcher, no matter what he calls hisself…
RW-(the original)
March 5th, 2009
9:39 am
Of course, the final determination will have to be made by the justice system, meaning that some of the more profound questions of human existence will be argued in a criminal courtroom. While that’s an imperfect forum for such a debate, our reluctance to discuss the topic elsewhere makes it necessary.
As far as I can tell this is as close as the writer gets to telling us who will settle this question, but never quite gets to the point of who he thinks should answer this question other than this silly throwaway line that if we would just openly discuss these things over a cocktail this thorny question would miraculously go away. I had those discussions in my younger days and even though you thought you had solved all the woes of the world that night the same old problems were there the next day. Maybe Jay B is following Eric Holder’s lead and just saying we’re a nation of cowards when it comes to discussing suicide.
Somehow I think we could discuss this topic nonstop for the next ten years and we’d be no closer to unbluring that line.
Final Exit Network, which claims some 3,000 members, believes that what they call “self-deliverance” ought to be an option not just for those with terminal illness and in great pain, but for those “suffering intolerably from an irreversible condition which has become more than they can bear.” That’s a standard so loose as to be no standard at all.
I’m reminded of the partial birth abortion debate where the proponents of allowing the procedure wanted a “health of the mother” exception that basically said she might have had second thoughts that day. It got to the point where the standard would be so loose there wouldn’t be one.
For example, do my inalienable rights as a human being extend to the right to self-destruction? If my life is truly my own, shouldn’t I be able to end it as I see fit? Personally, I think the answer is almost always no. Societal consensus, backed by medical research and experience, dictates that a person in decent physical health who wants to commit suicide is by definition mentally ill — no fully sane person would make such a decision.
Great news for the criminal defense business!