9/11 jumpers

I'll comment on this post: 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/brittany-maynard-didnt-commit-suicide-what-we-can-learn-from-9-11s-falling-man/

The post is a pretext to bash conservative Christians, by an ex-fudie. 

Until Brittany I was absolutely, positively against the idea that physician assisted suicide should be legal. 

I'm unimpressed by the moral seriousness of people whose ethical views change based on the last news story they saw. 

However, the real shift in my thinking came from sitting in my rocking chair next to my wood stove late in the evening, watching a program about iconic photography from the terrorist attacks of 9-11…On one hand, one could say these people took their own lives– that they committed suicide– but that wouldn’t really be fair, would it?…The Falling Man, and others like him, didn’t have a real choice to live or die– they only had a choice in which way they died: smoke and fire, or by falling. For their children to have to walk through life saying, “my dad committed suicide” is less than fair and completely untrue– they didn’t choose to die (the very definition of suicide), they just chose how they died. This is precisely why I’m losing my patience with my fellow Christians who are condemning Brittany Maynard for her decision to take the pills her doctor prescribed her.

Problem is, Corey is conflicted. On the one hand he's defending their choice, but on the other hand he doesn't want to call it "suicide." Yet if what they did wasn't wrong, what's wrong with calling it suicide? It would only be wrong if suicide is always wrong, but that's the very question at issue. He resorts to euphemisms because he apparently feels that "suicide" carries a stigma. Invidious connotations. But since he doesn't think it's always wrong to end your own life, why run away from the word "suicide"? 

If he were logical, what he'd say is that, yes, they committed suicide, but in some cases suicide is morally permissible. Instead, he's hung-up on the word, but that reflects an unease that's in tension with his argument. 

Like the 9-11 jumpers, Brittany didn’t have a choice in dying, she only had a choice in how she died. You see, there are people like Brittany– terminally ill with imminent death looming– who are essentially trapped in a burning building from which there is no way of escaping with their lives. For some of these people, the idea of being burned alive or having to inhale smoke until death overcomes them becomes less appealing than stepping up to the ledge and accepting a quicker, less painful fate.

i) That's a careless comparison. The 9/11 jumpers were facing imminent death in a way that Brittany was not. Terminal illness doesn't mean death is imminent. 

ii) Moreover, his argument proves too much. Death is inevitable for each and every one of us. We have no choice about whether to die. At most, we have a choice about how and when two die. Sooner or later. 

In all the years since 9-11, I’ve never once heard a Christian speak up in judgement and condemnation over the 9-11 jumpers. I’ve never heard someone say they sinned because they “hastened death instead of accepting God’s timing.” I’ve never heard anyone say that failing to condemn their choice is a “slippery slope that could send the message that suicide is okay.”

There are several problems with that objection:

i) It's only applicable to Christians who take an absolutist position on suicide and euthanasia. If you think that's intrinsically wrong, then it would be inconsistent to make an exception for the 9/11 jumpers. 

ii) His objection lacks traction for Christians who think suicide and euthanasia are normally impermissible, but permissible under special circumstances. 

BTW, that isn't relativistic. If you think suicide or euthanasia is always impermissible in one type of situation, and always permissible in a different type of situation, then that's not relativistic–because it's always licit or illicit given the same type of situation. What changes is the situation, not the licit or illicit  character of the action in that situation. 

iii) Obviously, the choice of 9/11 jumpers isn't a slippery slope, because their plight was so exceptional to begin with. How often do people find themselves in that situation? It's pretty rare dilemma. 

iv) Apropos (ii), he ducks the question of whether death by brain cancer is analogous to death by incineration. How much pain do brain cancer patients experience, under sedation, or when they become comatose? Is that comparable to burning alive?

v) Keep in mind, too, that the 9/11 jumpers were separated from their families. By contrast, terminal cancer patients are often surrounded by one or more loved ones at the end. So there's the question of what duty you have to your loved ones, and their duty is to you. Caring for a person the harder it gets is an acid test of true caring. To support a person at their worst. That's a "soul-making" virtue.  We short-circuit our moral and spiritual development when we give up on people before the end. 

vi) He hasn't shown that the same sample of Christians who condemn Brittany's suicide don't condemn the 9/11 jumpers. 

vii) Moreover, many Christians lack the time and aptitude to have considered positions on every social issue. It isn't easy to be intellectually consistent. Even professional Christian ethicists struggle with formulating consistent positions. Many Christians have an intuitive sense of right and wrong. That's very rough-hewn. It can be unreliable. But a lack of intellectual consistency isn't necessarily hypocritical. 

If you're going to attack Christians who condemn her suicide, don't pick on Christians at random. That's too cheap and easy. Test yourself against those who specialize in bioethics.