Is suicide ever a viable option?

I am taking a Psychology 101 class online as part of the Humanities curriculum of my major (Internetworking Technology). The class was asked, by the professor, recently, "Are there any conditions under which suicide is a viable option? Discuss the conditions."

Most of my fellow students, responded with canned comments like “If I were terminally ill I would “pull the plug,” or want someone to do it for me. And “I wouldn’t want to burden my family with my suffering.”

Higher education, as the professor tells us, is to “expand our vision,” and “learn to be critical thinkers.” I answered:

First, I think it beneficial for the definition of suicide to be posted. It appears some have different meanings of the word than others, which can be confusing. According to Webster’s dictionary, suicide is defined as "The act or an instance of intentionally killing oneself. "I've read many instances of people explaining if they were terminally ill or in an incurable state they would pull the plug or want someone else to do so etc. If one were to specify in one's will the desire not to be supported by artificial means, I don't think this constitutes suicide by definition. It's basically stating don't prolong my death and let natural means run its course. A far cry, if you ask me, from deliberately destroying one's own life prematurely. Webster’s defines murder as: "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." And, "To kill (another human) unlawfully.” There are such things as lawful killings (not murder) of other human beings. Such as in self-defense, preserving/protecting life from murder, defending another's life, etc. That being said, I believe under absolutely NO circumstances should someone commit suicide. No more than someone should murder another person, so should they not murder themselves. I have no right to unlawfully take the life (murder) of my neighbors, his neighbors, any other human being, or my own - i.e. murder. When we start to deem someone's life as "unfit for living," "burden on society," and so on, then we have just dehumanized these very people we are supposed to love and support. By the way, who is going to be the arbiter of such things? Where do we draw the line? Quadriplegics? Terminal cancer patients? AIDS patients? Do we kill everybody that doesn't meet with our standard of "worthy living?" Germany in 1942 thought so. I am surprised that there aren't more disabled persons that aren't outrageously offended by this whole “dignity of death” euthanasia movement (there are some voices out there though). I bet a lot of people wanted to put Christopher Reeves "out of his misery" too. In the name of compassion no less. How heart-warming. This line of reasoning flies in the face of thousands of quadriplegic people (or other disabled deemed a burden to society) that have remarkable lives and have contributed greatly to things such as science, medicine, and technology.

After many more subjective responses, the professor grew wary and took it up a notch, "Remember, we are here to learn to be critical thinkers. Lots of you are stating your personal opinion…other societies may have different points of view. What about suicide as a viable option when "you are terminally ill", "you are a suicide bomber defending your country - (Japan)", "a religious suicide bomber - (Israel)", "people who don't believe in God", or "you are on flight 93 during the 911 incident and you decide to give your life to save thousands by attacking the cockpit knowing it will probably kill you and everyone on the plane."

Does this sound like moral relativism to you? Is he equating suicide with an act to save life (911 hijacked scenario). Well, I wanted to see if that’s what he or other students believed. I responded to this post with:

Dr. White for bringing up some good discussion topics. One topic was "attacking the cockpit knowing it will probably kill you and everyone on the plane." Personally, I would do this very thing (I hope I would). But, I don't think this is suicide as I described earlier in my original post. I'm not SEEKING the destruction of my life - the terrorist is (or other outside influence). I am placed in a circumstance that may result in the end of my life that's not according to my desire. Like war, for example. I am not trying to kill myself when I climb the hill with one rifle, two cartridges facing an enemy outnumbering me 10 to 1. But my life may be ended by this course of action as a result of the circumstance.[Note: I'm really attempting to communicate accurately and mean no harm to anyone or offense to their opinion- past, present, & future]As for people that "don't believe in God," I suppose they will think whatever they like and call it whatever they wish in accordance with their own desires. It seems their view on suicide would arbitrary and relative to each person. In short, they can call whatever they like "right" or "wrong." They are the final judgment on the matter.

I would like to hear other perspectives on this. Specifically, how can one know what is right or wrong about suicide, if it were based on opinions of a few people? Why would it be right to kill one’s self because of pain or someone’s standard of worth-while living? Who is to make the decisions of life and death? Would this not be arbitrary?

Some may be convinced suicide is a viable option. But you couldn’t convince her:

http://dory.typepad.com/wittenberg_gate/2005/03/a_voice_to_spea.html