Suicide, Euthanasia, and Capital Punishment: A Sociological View

Introduction: Three Forms of Death

This paper examines three distinct but interconnected encounters with death: suicide, euthanasia, and capital punishment. It looks at certain aspects of each and discusses the issues they raise for society, providing both a sociological outlook and an economic basis for the arguments presented.

Suicide is not a new phenomenon — it has existed as long as mankind. The causes of suicide have been discussed on many occasions, and different theories have emerged regarding the reasons why someone would take their own life. Numerous studies have been undertaken in order to understand the phenomenon in greater detail. Certain social factors have been identified as causal or contributing to suicide, and the act has been broken down into different types, each with different causes.

Sociological Perspectives on Suicide

Henslin, just as Durkheim before him, examined suicide at length. Durkheim defined suicide as any action that subsequently leads to the death of the individual, whether through positive action — such as hanging or shooting oneself — or through negative action, such as refusing to eat.

In the book Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach by Henslin, one finds a broad range of approaches to the discipline of sociology. Applying them to the subject of suicide allows us to consider the phenomenon from multiple directions.

First, consider the structural functionalist perspective. This is the view that the family is the key institution for maintaining social order. The family is a unit that fulfils critical functions for both society and individuals, providing protection and security — in practical as well as financial terms — to its members, while also acting as a regulator of behavior.

If we consider suicide as rationalized by Durkheim — as an outcome of the way the individual fits into society — we must also consider the role of social regulators. These regulators are an integral part of society and act as a moderating influence on both physical instincts and moral feelings. An example of such a social regulator is the institution of marriage. These regulating factors have a definite impact on both the individual and on society as a whole. The way in which regulators affect the moral feelings of society fits well within the structural functionalist approach. Questions arising from this perspective might include: What was the family background of the person who died by suicide? How did they relate to their family, and how were their personal relationships? Such questions can generate hypotheses about the reasons behind a suicide. As Henslin cautions, however, we must be careful about conclusions, since "a spurious correlation is one where the apparent correlation between two variables is actually caused by a third variable" (Henslin, 2000).

If we consider the social conflict perspective, we may find greater affinity with the ideas of Karl Marx, for whom it is a natural condition of society that conflict exists between those who are exploited and those who exploit. This paradigm foregrounds macro-level forces — such as economic conditions — and the way these may strain the family and generate conflict within it.

In the final model of analysis, that of symbolic interactionism, the focus shifts to interaction between individuals and to what keeps families together. Interactions are understood as both verbal and non-verbal; viewed this way, suicide itself may be interpreted as a form of interaction. This framework emphasizes the individual's construction of their own reality and the importance of the family in the process of socialization. It is a complementary viewpoint to those already mentioned, though it focuses exclusively on the micro level.

Durkheim's Four Types of Suicide

The four types of suicide classified by Durkheim were egoistic suicide, altruistic suicide, anomic suicide, and fatalistic suicide. Each has its own set of characteristics and can be seen as emerging from a different social context. Durkheim looked not only at the family but also at "patterns of behavior that characterize a social group" (Henslin, 2000).

Egoistic suicide results from too little or poor levels of social cohesion, whereas altruistic suicide stems from an excess of social integration and a corresponding lack of individualization. The family background is therefore pertinent to the first type; however, structural functionalism does not account for all the relevant factors.

With Durkheim's concept of altruistic suicide, there is also relevance to the influence of external forces on the family and its place in society. Altruistic suicide may be exemplified by mass suicides such as that of the Heaven's Gate followers. The paradigm raises questions about the way in which the family was influenced, though it has shortfalls: it does not permit consideration of the interpersonal relationships surrounding the suicide in the way the structural functionalist model does.

Just as the egoistic suicide victim is deeply unhappy, the person who undertakes altruistic suicide is also very unhappy — but they perceive the world differently. The altruistic suicide experiences the world as unreal, as though nothing is genuine; the egoistic suicide, by contrast, sees things as all too real.

Durkheim claimed that altruistic suicide was in some circumstances chronic. The example he cited was the military, where soldiers would regularly commit suicide for a variety of reasons — a disappointment as simple as being denied leave, or a sense of failure on a mission.

All of these perspectives need to be considered together in order to understand what is occurring. The modern world is very complex, and to limit oneself to only one perspective is not, as Henslin would put it, a "down-to-earth approach."

Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia

In recent years, assisted suicide and euthanasia have been among the most controversial and hotly debated subjects in both medicine and public policy. On one hand, the current social framework places great value on the personal agency paradigm, with autonomy and freedom of choice ranked as important aspects of a free society. On the other hand, the idea of assisted suicide — arguably the ultimate expression of individual autonomy — tends to be judged in terms of right and wrong rather than of choice. When applied to those with a mental illness or condition, the limitation of personal discretion may be considered valid; however, when it involves a terminal illness and a well-considered decision made by the patient, the arguments against it become weaker, though no less emotive. Whether this practice should be legalized is therefore a question with no easy resolution.

Applying the functionalist paradigm to assisted suicide, one may argue that the doctor acts as a gatekeeper (Haralambos and Holborn, 2000) — an apt parallel in this situation, where the majority of the power rests in the hands of a physician, since without their assistance the suicide cannot be carried out. Assisted suicide is understood as an autonomous decision by an individual that is then aided by a healthcare professional, usually a physician (Donchin, 2000).

The conflict perspective, however, may be the most disturbing lens through which to view this issue. This paradigm holds that society is not based on equality and is characterized by the manner in which some sections of the community are advantaged while others are disadvantaged (Haralambos and Holborn, 2000). When applied to assisted suicide, this perspective reveals glaring inequalities in healthcare delivery as a key factor in the motivation to request assisted death. A study conducted in Oregon — where assisted suicide has been legalized — found a 60% positive response rate among potential patients who reported not wanting to be a burden (Kaldjian, 2001). This may be seen as a symptom of systemic limitations in medical care rather than a truly autonomous and independent decision to end life — a conclusion one would expect to find varying across social classes.

There is also the question of the impact this practice has on society and the extent to which permitting it may cause society to devalue life. The appearance of control and dignity may be misleading, as the pain caused to those left behind can be immense, particularly for those with strong religious beliefs. The argument against euthanasia and assisted suicide advanced by Pope John Paul II was that individuals are at their weakest in the period before death, and that in religious terms, assisted dying — alongside abortion — constituted a "slaughter of the innocents" (Pope John Paul II, letter to the world's bishops). This letter also raised broader concerns about the morality of a society that would permit such acts, and about the theological consequences of suicide — which the Church regards as a sin — for believers who fear the afterlife (Pope John Paul II, 1991).

There is also the possibility that an individual may be making a decision they would have regretted had they lived (Wineberg, 2000). Oregon's legislation specifies that the individual must be of sound mind and capable of making their own decisions; however, this cannot always be assumed. Where a patient holds a prescription "just in case," as studies have suggested, there may be an additional temptation to take the medication on impulse, without sufficient reflection.

There is also the possibility of undetected psychiatric illness (Conwell et al., 1999). Two concerns are relevant here. First, the physicians at the front line of prescribing lethal drugs are not the best equipped to conduct psychiatric evaluations or make psychiatric diagnoses. Second, when suicide statistics are examined, a minimum of 90% of those who die by suicide do so while suffering from some form of psychiatric illness, and this figure does not vary significantly with age (Conwell et al., 1991). This does not mean that rational suicide never occurs, only that it is very rare (Callahan, 1994).