| Formerly "Tom Dogg"
Status:
Online
Join Date: Feb 2003 My Local Time: 03:28 PM Location: New York City
Posts: 10,682
vBookie Cash: 500
Casino Cash: $327
Points: 31,569, Level: 77 | | From the New York State Commission of Quality Care: Quote:
There exists absolutely no common law, constitutional, or statutory right to commit suicide in the State of New York or elsewhere in the United States or England.(18)
First, there is no common law right to commit suicide. In fact, as previously discussed, suicide and attempted suicide were considered to be crimes under the common law of England and the United States. While suicide and attempted suicide are no longer considered crimes in any state, society still overwhelmingly considers this self-destructive act to be "'a grave public wrong.'"(19) Moreover, to reiterate the point, arguments based on the common law right to refuse medical treatment are not applicable to suicide, for "it has long been recognized that the State has an interest in discouraging irrational and wanton acts of self-destruction which violate fundamental norms of society."(20)
Second, there is no established constitutional right to commit suicide. Perhaps the most compelling constitutional argument advanced in this regard involves the right to privacy derived from a penumbra of provisions within both the United States and New York State Constitutions. This argument has been thoroughly addressed and rejected in a number of cases, including the celebrated case of Von Holden v. Chapman,(21) where Mark David Chapman, the assassin of John Lennon, asserted that the State of New York violated his constitutional right to privacy when it intervened to prevent him from committing suicide by starvation.
Mr. Chapman, who was suffering from a mental illness "which was likely to result in serious harm to himself" and who had "frequently expressed an intention to commit suicide," refused to eat for several days and intended to end his life by starvation.(22) The director of the facility where Chapman was temporarily in custody applied to the court for an order authorizing him to feed Chapman against his will, which was rejected by the lower court. On appeal, however, the Appellate Division of the Fourth Department overturned the decision of the lower court and began its consideration of the privacy issue by stating the following:
[i]t is self-evident that the right to privacy does not include the right to commit suicide. For, as has been repeatedly stated, "... only personal rights that can be deemed 'fundamental' or 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,' Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 ... (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy" (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152 ...). To characterize a person's self-destructive acts as entitled to that Constitutional protection would be ludicrous. On the contrary, the State has a duty to protect the health and welfare of those persons in its custody ... and may be cast in civil damages for its failure to observe such duty ....(23)
Rather than engage in a balancing of the individual's right of privacy against competing state interests, the court made clear that a privacy interest in committing suicide or refusing treatment following an attempted suicide does not even exist. Moreover, the court authorized the State to force-feed Chapman in an effort to prevent his impending death, thereby not only ruling that Chapman did not possess a constitutional right to refuse treatment essential to prevent starvation, but also that the State has a compelling interest in preserving life that is stronger than the person's own will and legal rights. In fact, not only was the State permitted to treat Chapman against his will, finding no violation of his constitutional rights, but the court further observed that it was in fact the State's duty to do so.(24)
Finally, the question of whether there is a statutory right to commit suicide and refuse treatment following an attempted suicide must be addressed. In this regard, "the extent to which the State has manifested its commitment to that interest through legislation or otherwise is a significant consideration."(25) Even after a brief perusal of New York's statutes that address suicide and/or attempted suicide either directly or indirectly, it becomes evident that not only does a statutory right to commit suicide not exist, but the State is indeed empowered to prevent such an act.
New York State's significant power to prevent suicide and uphold the sanctity of life is most directly evidenced by certain provisions of the Penal Law. For example, pursuant to subdivision (3) of section 125.15 of the Penal Law, "[a] person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when [h]e intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide."(26) Also, according to section 120.30, "[a] person is guilty of promoting a suicide attempt when he intentionally causes or aids another person to attempt suicide," which is punishable as a class E felony.(27)
Most significantly, section 35.10, subdivision (4) of the Penal Law states that "[a] person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical injury upon himself may use physical force upon such person to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to thwart such result."(28) There cannot be a more explicit statement of the principle that there is no statutory right to commit suicide, attempt suicide, or refuse to be treated after such an attempt. The implications of such a direct endorsement of the ability of the State to use whatever physical force is necessary to prevent an act of suicide are overwhelming. This law not only empowers doctors and staff of mental hygiene facilities and general hospitals to prevent suicide, but any ordinary citizen in the State of New York can lawfully intervene in an attempt, using force reasonably believed to be necessary, to prevent an individual from taking his or her own life. This intervention necessarily and logically includes the authority to medically treat against his or her will an individual who has attempted suicide.
The State of New York's Mental Hygiene Law also demonstrates its considerable power to prevent suicide. For example, pursuant to section 9.37, a person may be involuntarily committed if he or she "has a mental illness for which immediate inpatient care and treatment in a hospital is appropriate and which is likely to result in serious harm to himself or herself or others."(29) This "likelihood to result in serious harm" specifically includes "a substantial risk of physical harm to the person as manifested by threats of or attempts at suicide ...."(30) A person can also be admitted under the emergency provision of the Mental Hygiene Law for threatening or attempting suicide.(31) Furthermore, section 9.41 authorizes peace officers and police officers to "take into custody any person who appears to be mentally ill and is conducting himself or herself in a manner which is likely to result in serious harm to the person ...," which includes threats of or attempts at suicide.(32)
In addition to these provisions of the Penal Law and Mental Hygiene Law, there are several other statutes in the State of New York that reflect its commitment to preserving life and its broad authority to prevent suicide, as well as to forcefully treat individuals who do in fact carry out an attempt.(33) With all of this in mind, it is undeniable that any attempt to establish a statutory right to commit suicide and refuse treatment following an attempt in the State of New York is futile.
| For those of you too lazy to read, it basically says that attempting suicide was once illegal in the U.S. and England, but no longer. However, you do not have a legal right to commit suicide, and the authorities are permitted to use force in order to prevent a person from committing suicide |