Albert Camus believed that the biggest question of philosophy asked the morality of suicide.
Here, we can look at suicide from a Death by Dignity standpoint.
For someone who is terminally ill with a sure death outcome, the person can then be subdued to doctor-assisted suicide. Now, I imagine that the cases are statistical. Say, someone has an x % chance of death, and with this amount of error, confidence, and surety, they will surely die. To end their suffering, they can have someone essentially kill them.
If we are to look at mental illness as on the same playing field as a terminal, physical illness.. Suffering for the mentally ill is inevitable, mental, and can lead to death. Some mental illnesses are chronic, terminal, lifelong. So, what then of the morality of allowing a suicide? Would Death by Dignity apply to the mentally ill?
The difference with the mentally ill is that death by mental illness is not known, is often random, and is a result of 1) suicide or 2) homicide. On the other hand, what of the mentally ill who are in prison for a life sentence, or the mentally ill who can no longer care for themselves are under heavy seduced medication or even inpatient/residential treatment?
We must look into the statistical significance of what “life” is and what it is not. Is life a matter of actionably living out a life, and is death seen as the inability to do so?
We must also look at the statistical significance of a suicide, meaning suicide can occur in clusters. Exposure to a suicide is a risk factor for suicide. Sometimes it can have a domino effect. So what are the moral implications of that?
Furthermore, what is the statistical chance of a suicide or homicide (or death by mental illness)? How can we quantify the various overlying impacts from environment, additional mental illnesses, or the chance of developing a chronic, physical illness or accounting for an existing one?
We can either 1- view death by mental illness as not significant (statistically) to allow Death by Dignity. The percentage of people who die by suicide or homicide and are mentally ill does not equate to the percentage of people with chronic, physical illness allowed under Death by Dignity Act to die by doctor-assisted suicide.
However, we can go a step further and apply various statistical chances of developing some of the aforementioned conditions. We can even examine genetic and environmental predisposition to doing so. Then, is it morally just to allow a mentally ill person to die by suicide? How can we account for the loss of reality, the changing mind, the changing moods, and distinguish the right of mind to make such a decision? Can we do such a thing as this?
Of course, we have the average person (I assume this is no longer the average) who is not mentally ill or physically, chronically ill. We would then apply the same statistical significance of developing a chronic condition to then determine the moral implications of ending their life. “But this person will surely suffer in the future” so we must end their life for them now.
So, then, how do we account for the life lived in between, or the opportunity cost for the life in between for the unaffected, the mentally ill, and the chronically ill? How do we determine the chance of survival, the missed opportunities, and the life? Is there any way to truly predict the environmental events that one will experience if they do not die by doctor-assisted suicide? And are the moral implications for death outdone by the morality in justifying the unknown missed opportunity? Can we actually predict the chance of an event of living that outweighs death and account for this in a statistical model?
We must define life and death outside of the concept of physical death.
According to Camus, the question of suicide lies in the idea of absurdity. To Camus, absurdity is the difference between reality and logic, action and consequence, humanity and the world. Absurdity is the idea of a reality to the human vs. what the world gives as the ultimate reality. The difference between the two would thus predict the level of absurdity.
But what of a reality in the 21st century that poses multiple realities? With the digital age comes the era of illusion. Online vs. real life vs. true self. How does one not get tangled in one web without being lost in another, and how does one determine the true self? Vonnegut wrote in Mother Night that “We are who we pretend to be so we must be careful who we pretend to be.” This notion of identity and the loss of true self in fact is finding true self, but what of the desires of the actual self?
The constant question of identity and the identity of peers poses a unique question of reality to the 21st century human, to the frequent internet user, the life consumed or even emerged in social media. How does one determine the identity of their peers while fully engaging in the true self? And what is the true self when posed with the question of identity when one can so easily become who one pretends to be? And what of the continuous question of who are the peers?
Reality then is increasingly complex and hard to determine. The online world poses the challenges of identity and reality. Thus, what is absurdity? And how does the idea that absurdity is the distance between the world and the human, the difference between reality and logical assumption?
Do suicide rates increase with the increase of absurdity, and is our sense of reality deteriorating? Social media and the rise of the online world contribute to a unique identity problem and role of existence for the human in the world. To emerge in this world is to grow up with an absurdity that lingers. The human condition is torn between what is real and what is not real, what is self and what is not self, what are my peers, and what is my role in the world of the unknown?
For example, the social media app TikTok has gained quick popularity. Speculations suggest the app demonstrates vulnerability, authenticity, and the persona that people are who they are on the app, nothing more, nothing less. But the inevitable toll of social media, sponsorships, money, and influence can seemingly dominate the alluring qualities of TikTok. What was once fathomed becomes drained in consumership, marketing, and the need for reach. Expand, expand, expand. The cycle often seems continuous, neverending, and growing as technology grows. Technology has always grown, but here, we are in a unique position of living two worlds: virtual and in-person. What is the true reality, can the two exist together, are they the same, and can they ever be the same?
So what then of suicide? If as Camus states, suicide is in the absurd, and the absurd lures the want to escape the absurd, does this correlate with rate of suicide and the rise of rates among the youth? The digital age is not prepared for the consequences that befall the human condition nor is the human condition prepared to face the repercussions of the virtual world.