Background

Suicide is not an easy topic of conversation for most people – and for obvious reasons. Taking one’s own life goes against everything we grow up believing is morally right. One of the most fundamental moral principles is to not kill. As we have discussed in class, this principle can be broken down into more specific domains, such as do not kill humans, and includes certain exceptions such as it may be ok to kill in self-defense. So, herein lies the problem: how do we view suicide? Is it morally wrong to kill oneself, or do we have the autonomy to do what we choose with our own life?

Simon’s Case

In this particular scenario, Simon was a clinically depressed 53-year-old who had been medicated for years. Simon reported difficulty concentrating and remembering things, and showed little interest in doing anything at all. He admitted to staff members that he was planning on killing himself. From a physician’s standpoint, their goal is to do everything they can do keep a patient alive. The psychiatrists’ suggestion was to try electroconvulsive shock therapy (ECT) as a more intense method to hopefully alleviate some of his depression. ECT would require 6 shocks over a 2-week period. While the charge of electricity induces a convulsive seizure, studies conducted with elderly depressed patients have shown that the procedure significantly reduces remission rate (Bjølseth et al., 2014).

Analysis

In many cases, such as when an individual is comatose, we value the decision the individual would have made prior to their comatose state, or based on what they had written in their living will. Similarly, some may argue that Simon should be allowed to take his own life if he so chooses in order to end his suffering. However, I argue that if Simon has treatment-resistant depression (TRD), he is not in a healthy state of mind to make a clear decision. TRD occurs when depressed patients are nonresponsive to treatment used for depression, and many alternative methods are now being utilized to treat these patients, such as ECT or brain stimulation (Souery et al., 2006). Therefore, the psychiatrists should do their job and treat him to the best of their ability, and perhaps once he is thinking rationally again he will be able to make a clearer life choice. Thomas, Waluchow and Gedge (2014) raise an important question – “Should we regret having administered the most effective known treatment for Simon’s depression or regret that the most effective treatment available proved to be inadequate?” In the non-maleficent viewpoint it is best to try all options before all else fails.

Perhaps my opinion is biased because I will one day become a psychologist. From a psychologist’s standpoint, their primary goal is to keep a patient alive and do whatever it takes to minimize suffering and help a patient recover. However even thinking about this situation from my own moral viewpoint, I think that suicide is not the solution to end suffering, and that Simon will be able to recover through means of other options that were not previously explored, and as humanbeings it is our duty to do what we can to keep Simon alive and treat his depression so that he is no longer suffering and can live a full and fulfilling life.

Resources

Bjølseth TM, Engedel K, Benth JS, Dybedal GS, Gaarden TL and Tanum L (2014). Clinical            efficacy of formula-based bifrontal versus right unilateral electroconvulsive therapy         (ECT) in the treatment of major depression among elderly patients: A pragmatic,       randomized, assessor-blinded, controlled trial. J Affect Disord. 175C:8-17.

Souery D, Papakostas GI and Trivedi MH (2006). Treatment-resistant depression. J Clin             Psychiatry. 67 Suppl 6:16-22.

Thomas, John, Wilfrid J. Waluchow, and Elisabeth Gedge. Well and Good: A Case Study   Approach to Health Care Ethics. 4th ed. N.p.: Broadview, 2014. Print.