Should Suicide by Self Starvation be Prevented?

I received a very nice letter from a reader of Secondhand Smoke that I thought I would share with y’all to see what you think: She wrote in part: “I am curious to know what your stance on self-starvation is, since someone recently accused you of being a “hypocrite” (I really disagree with that judgement) for believing that self-starvation is not suicide. Unfortunately, I’m having a little trouble navigating your blog to find articles that reflect your opinion. What would you recommend I read to have your opinion best represented in this matter?”

This is the relevant part of my response: “I don’t recall ever discussing self-starvation. Unless the person means that I think people have a right to refuse tube feeding if they become incapacitated. My position is I don’t support that morally, but I would not try to prevent it legally, assuming the person has put it in writing. In that case, the person would die of natural processes, not self starvation. If an elderly person stops eating as the body shuts down due to old age and the dying process, that too is natural and not self starvation, when he or she refuses to eat. If that person does not want a feeding tube, I would respect that desire since a feeding tube is surgery, and they are not refusing to eat due to mental illness.

“Self-starvation as a form of suicide would be different. It used to be done in Roman times. This is something of a first impression for me, but if a person is depressed and wishes to self starve to death, otherwise having the capacity to eat and drink, I think that that person’s life should be saved just like we would if he or she were going to jump off a bridge. And I don’t think that would require a feeding tube or that kind of surgery. It would require a legal finding that the person is beyond a reasonable doubt a threat to themselves. Under such conditions, the state can hospitalize the suicidal person for treatment. I see no reason why that would not also apply to self starvation suicide…

“I guess your friend thinks I am a hypocrite because I am not a vitalist, that is, I don’t think that everything has to be done on every occasion, no matter how much suffering it causes, to keep people alive. I don’t see it as hypocrisy, though. People have a right to personal autonomy, that is, the right to refuse unwanted medical interventions. For example, Pope JP II did not have everything done that could be done to extend his life, and I think he was a very ethical man.” (And I should have added, that JP II certainly didn’t commit suicide.)

The floor is open to anyone who wishes to comment. Thanks.

Dear Reader,

Can I be direct with you?

War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.

First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.

But we can’t do it without readers like you.

Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.


Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.

Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.

GIVE NOW

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.

Next
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

The Church in the Age of Therapy

Matthew Loftus

In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…

Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot

Anna Farrow

On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…

The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen

Mike Aquilina

Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…