The Economist, which I consider the best newsweekly in the world (and no bylines!), published an article apparently bemoaning the increased rate of suicide around the world. And yet, although the article ostensibly urges governments to try and prevent suicides, it actually seems to back the notion of permitting some suicides. From the story:Measures can be taken to make it harder for people to kill themselves. They may not be able to (and arguably, should not try to) stop the really determined, but they can save the lives of many who are confused, temporarily depressed or in need of sympathetic attention.
Talk about abandonment of those in need! Why shouldn’t we try to stop the determined? Aren’t their lives as important and valuable as those who are “confused” and “temporarily depressed?”
Such mixed messages fundamentally undermine suicide prevention and amount to an acceptance of the concept of “rational suicide.” If some suicides are deemed okay—then it becomes harder to tell a self destructive person, “Your cause for wanting to die isn’t good enough.” Should we ever get to that point, we might as well put suicide prevention centers in a museum.
You have a decision to make: double or nothing.
For this week only, a generous supporter has offered to fully match all new and increased donations to First Things up to $60,000.
In other words, your gift of $50 unlocks $100 for First Things, your gift of $100 unlocks $200, and so on, up to a total of $120,000. But if you don’t give, nothing.
So what will it be, dear reader: double, or nothing?
Make your year-end gift go twice as far for First Things by giving now.
