Personal Autonomy and Defining Suicide in Medical Ethics
This paper addresses two related questions in medical and mental health ethics: the importance of a precise definition of suicide for clinical practice, and the limits of personal autonomy arguments regarding the right to end one's life. Drawing on the concept that suicide requires willful self-arrangement of one's death without outside pressure, the paper argues that an overly broad definition creates risks of inappropriate intervention. It then critically examines Joel Feinberg's autonomy-based argument in "Whose Life is it Anyway?" contending that his paralyzed-patient example is atypical and does not justify a general policy of permitting suicidal individuals to act on impulse without clinical intervention.
- Defining Suicide for Clinical Practice: Definition of suicide and its clinical importance
- Why Precise Definitions Matter for Providers: How broad definitions risk inappropriate medical intervention
- Feinberg's Autonomy Argument: Feinberg's case for personal autonomy in suicide
- Critiquing Feinberg's Example as Atypical: Why Feinberg's paralyzed patient is not representative
- Autonomy, Impulsivity, and Clinical Responsibility: Crisis states and limits of autonomy-based arguments
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It grounds an abstract philosophical debate in concrete clinical scenarios — terminally ill patients, drug users, extreme athletes — making the argument immediately practical and accessible.
- It fairly represents Feinberg's position before critiquing it, acknowledging that his argument is valid within its own narrow example while demonstrating it cannot be generalized.
- It uses the counterexample of acute crisis states (intoxication, sudden job loss, relationship breakdown) to challenge the assumption that suicidal individuals are exercising stable, autonomous judgment.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates conditional concession: the writer grants that Feinberg's autonomy argument works in a very specific, well-defined case (full paralysis with a stable medical prognosis), then systematically shows why those conditions rarely exist in typical suicidal presentations. This technique strengthens rather than weakens the overall critique by showing intellectual honesty before delivering the rebuttal.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by establishing a working definition of suicide and explaining why definitional precision matters for frontline providers. It then moves through examples of edge cases — terminally ill patients, addicts, extreme athletes — to show the dangers of an overly broad definition. The second half pivots to Feinberg's philosophical argument, summarizes it accurately, and then applies a counterargument centered on the atypicality of his example and the clinical importance of treating impulsive, crisis-driven suicidality differently from considered end-of-life decisions.
Defining Suicide for Clinical Practice
According to the article "Suicide," an act of suicide is defined as an event in which "an otherwise healthy victim has, without any outside pressure, willfully arranged the circumstance that brought around his or her death." The process of clearly defining the circumstances and actions that constitute suicide is essential to medical providers, mental health workers, and many social service and public providers who are charged with caring for the health and safety of other individuals. Without a clear definition of suicide, it can be difficult — if not impossible — for these providers to fulfill their ethical and professional obligations to care for sick individuals or prevent crisis and emergency situations that may result from genuinely suicidal behavior.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.