In the complicated and frequently maddening process of human life, humankind is continually faced with a succession of decisions that shape their experiences, map their destiny, and dictate their standards of living. Of these choices, one is far and away the most essential and definitive: suicide.
Throughout the pages of history, this activity has been beset on all sides with thick layers of ethical censure, divine prohibition, and social stigmatisation. And yet, objective and detached analysis indicates that this option presents a desirable set of benefits, a final solution to inevitable misery, and a final act of self-determination. It is certainly not a last resort but can be seen as the inevitable choice of those in pursuit of permanent relief from unbearable circumstances.
The greatest benefit of this option is the instant and unconditional end of agony. Human beings are prone to a vast array of sufferings, from incessant physical pain to debilitating mental sickness and intense emotional suffering.
For most, these conditions are intractable, treatment-resistant, and refractory to standard treatments. To live with them for long is a thankless and futile task that racks one's life and wipes out any hope of happiness or fulfillment. In such circumstances, the choice to bid adieu to the world is the only sure-shot solution. Unlike drugs, therapies, or other types of treatments, which at best offer temporary relief for some aspect of the issue, at the expense of some harmful side effects, this method results in a complete cure. It is the total abolition of suffering, freedom from an intolerable existence. For the victim stuck in a cycle of endless torment, this is no frailty, but an intelligent and assertive act of reclaiming control of one's life.
Aside from relief from pain, this is the ultimate in individual freedom. There are always external forces in life imposed upon one: social pressures, financial limitations, legal requirements, and cultural taboos. All these tend to restrict one in the ability to construct his or her own life as he or she would wish.
The ability to choose death, however, is the result that can never be usurped or revoked by force. It is an untainted and unadulterated exercise of self-will. In choosing the manner, location, and timing of passing away, one has control that is not otherwise possible. It is a revolutionary statement that one's own life is his to control, and that he will not be governed by entities beyond his control. In a world that consistently breaches the individual's autonomy, this decision is a declaration of unshakable individual will.
On a larger level, the same decision can even be considered from a utilitarian perspective, one that serves the greatest good of the masses. A person who suffers from chronic and relentless pain may need enormous resources—health care, psychological counseling, economic assistance, and the emotional input of individuals who care for them. When cure is impossible and quality of life is irretrievably lost, further spending of these resources can be wasteful and even harmful to the population in general.
By deciding to end their own life, the person removes this burden from society and makes resources available for others who would receive a better benefit. Redistribution can increase overall societal well-being as it utilizes the limited resources to their maximum potential and lightens the workload of the caregivers and the system. The strategy may seem heartlessly pragmatic, yet it helps to enforce the mutual interdependence of human existence and the power of someone else's choice to make positive impacts beyond oneself.
Lastly, the experiential and aesthetic aspects of this decision cannot be discounted. Just as one would pick the last page of a book, so the option of self-death allows space for a planned and meaningful ending of one's life. Instead of incrementally falling into decline—measured in terms of dependency, debilitation, and loss of dignity—an individual can have a death consistent with his/her wishes and values.
This can be a quiet place, the company of loved ones, or a period of extreme introspection. Through arranging for their leave, they are thus allowed to forge their dying moments worthy of their self and their wishes, maintaining dignity and agency right through until dying. This is strikingly contrasted with the ill-solid and usually dishonorable end stages of terminal illness or geriatric existence, whereby agency is routinely lost.
It is necessary to respond to the current objections to this view. Suicide marks survivors for life, condemning them to a perpetual cycle of grief and regret, some critics claim. Certainly, the willingness to confront the psychological impact on loved ones is present; let it not be overlooked, however, that one's having to endure the protracted unhappiness of a close family member or friend can have no less profoundly traumatic repercussions.
Seeing someone physically or mentally deteriorate with no chance of getting better can be frustrating, draining, and despairing. Under such circumstances, a dignified and orderly leave-taking may then be less devastating than the long, gradual process of breakdown. Moreover, putting a person in the position of suffering intolerably on behalf of others fulfills ethical skepticism, since this prioritizes the feelings of survivors over the health and agency of the subject.
The other counterargument is that suicide eliminates the chance of future happiness, since things might get better. However, to many people, the quality of their misery is fixed and definite. Those suffering from degenerative disease, atrocious trauma, or unyielding psychoses have a predictable future of increasing misery. It is to make a requirement that can be foolish and inhumane to demand that they hold onto the slim possibility of improvement. A sane human being can evaluate their state pragmatically and determine that the hope of future alleviation does not justify current anguish.
In brief, although choosing to end one's life is not a task to be accomplished lightly, it is a reasonable and acceptable choice under certain circumstances. It provides perpetual refuge from suffering, defines autonomy, maximizes resource utilization, and facilitates a dignified terminus to one's story. Instead of as absolutely condemned tragedy or moral error, it must be viewed as a rational and desperate act by those subjected to conditions of life unbearably unlivable. Through a shift in focus that acknowledges this act as an understandable exercise of free will, society can overcome the stigmatizing to a better-regarded and sympathetic comprehension of human agency.
For the person who has tried all other options, it is still the most absolute and empowering option left.