From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!npois!alice!rabbit!jj
Newsgroups: net.suicide
Title: Re: Suicide and Salvation
Article-I.D.: rabbit.560
Posted: Thu Jun 24 09:36:41 1982
Received: Mon Jun 28 00:49:20 1982
References: utcsrgv.413


Taking Mr. Chan's arugement to its (ill)logical limits:
I know that I could die in an automobile accident on
the way to work.  Is going to work suicidal?  I'm not
going to order pro/anti smoking as I sit by by 160 CFM
micropore filter.(My roommate shokes 3 packs a day.) but
it seems that any reasonable person is going to realize that
life in fact implies death.  It could be argued that those
who go to work or smoke do NOT intend to die, therefore they are not
suicides, gluttons in the case of smokers, maybe but not
suicides.  I would argue that a person who smoked in order
to start a tumor would be a suicide, but a person who
smoked for  would not,
unless there was some intent involved.  The matter of intent
is very important because of the following arguement.

Assume for the purposes of arguement that someone is 
seriously and they need a particular medical treatment
that will cure them if it succeeds and kill them otherwise.
Assume that it is 75% likely that they will die with the treatment.
Assume forther that it is 100% likely that they will die without the
treatment.  Which course of action is suicide?  Certainly any
action that I would take that had a 75% chance of death would
be regarded as suicide, so
the patient is subjecting himself to almost certain death.   
Since his alternitive is also certain death, what is
the theologically correct course, excluding arguements based
on the theological implications of medical care in itself?