Part 28 (1/2)

Those who attempt suicide should not be punished. If they are insane they should, if possible be restored to reason; if sane, they should be reasoned with, calmed and a.s.sisted.

Ingersoll's Letter, The Right to One's Life Colonel Ingersoll's Eloquent Reply to His Critics

In the article written by me about suicide the ground was taken that ”under many circ.u.mstances a man has the right to kill himself.”

This has been attacked with great fury by clergymen, editors and the writers of letters. These people contend that the right of self-destruction does not and can not exist. They insist that life is the gift of G.o.d, and that He only has the right to end the days of men; that it is our duty to beat the sorrows that He sends with grateful patience. Some have denounced suicide as the worst of crimes--worse than the murder of another.

The first question, then, is:

Has a man under any circ.u.mstances the right to kill himself?

A man is being slowly devoured by a cancer--his agony is intense--his suffering all that nerves can feel. His life is slowly being taken.

Is this the work of the good G.o.d? Did the compa.s.sionate G.o.d create the cancer so that it might feed on the quivering flesh of this victim?

This man, suffering agonies beyond the imagination to conceive, is of no use to himself. His life is but a succession of pangs. He is of no use to his wife, his children, his friends or society. Day after day he is rendered unconscious by drugs that numb the nerves and put the brain to sleep. Has he the right to render himself unconscious? Is it proper for him to take refuge in sleep?

If there be a good G.o.d I cannot believe that He takes pleasure in the sufferings of men--that He gloats over the agonies of His children. If there be a good G.o.d, He will, to the extent of His power, lessen the evils of life.

So I insist that the man being eaten by the cancer--a burden to himself and others, useless in every way--has the right to end his pain and pa.s.s through happy sleep to dreamless rest.

But those who have answered me would say to this man: ”It is your duty to be devoured. The good G.o.d wishes you to suffer. Your life is the gift of G.o.d. You hold it in trust, and you have no right to end it. The cancer is the creation of G.o.d and it is your duty to furnish it with food.”

Take another case: A man is on a burning s.h.i.+p; the crew and the rest of the pa.s.sengers have escaped--gone in the lifeboats--and he is left alone. In the wide horizon there is no sail, no sign of help. He cannot swim. If he leaps into the sea he drowns, if he remains on the s.h.i.+p he burns. In any event he can live but a few moments.

Those who have answered me, those who insist that under no circ.u.mstances a man has the right to take his life, would say to this man on the deck, ”Remain where you are. It is the desire of your loving, heavenly father that you be clothed in flame--that you slowly roast--that your eyes be scorched to blindness and that you die insane with pain. Your life is not your own, only the agony is yours.”

I would say to this man: ”Do as you wish. If you prefer drowning to burning, leap into the sea. Between inevitable evils you have the right of choice. You can help no one, not even G.o.d, by allowing yourself to be burned, and you can injure no one, not even G.o.d, by choosing the easier death.”

Let us suppose another case.

A man has been captured by savages in central Africa. He is about to be tortured to death. His captors are going to thrust splinters of pure into his flesh and then set them on fire. He watches them as they make the preparations. He knows what they are about to do and what he is about to suffer. There is no hope of rescue, of help. He has a vial of poison. He knows that he can take it and in one moment pa.s.s beyond their power, leaving to them only the dead body.

Is this man under obligation to keep his life because G.o.d gave it until the savages by torture take it? Are the savages the agents of the good G.o.d? Are they the servants of the infinite? Is it the duty of this man to allow them to wrap his body in a garment of flame? Has he no right to defend himself? Is it the will of G.o.d that he die by torture?

What would any man of ordinary intelligence do in a case like this? Is there room for discussion?

If the man took the poison, shortened his life a few moments, escaped the tortures of the savages, is it possible that he would in another world be tortured forever by an infinite savage?

Suppose another case. In the good old days, when the inquisition flourished, when men loved their enemies and murdered their friends, many frightful and ingenious ways were devised to touch the nerves of pain.

Those who loved G.o.d, who had been ”born twice,” would take a fellow-man who had been convicted of heresy, ”lay him upon the floor of a dungeon, secure his arms and legs with chains, fasten trim to the earth so that he could not move, put an iron vessel, the opening downward, on his stomach, place in the vessel several rats, then tie it securely to his body. Then these wors.h.i.+pers of G.o.d would wait until the rats, seeking food and liberty, would gnaw through the body of the victim.

Now, if a man about to be subjected to this torture had within his hand a dagger, would it excite the wrath of the ”good G.o.d,” if with one quick stroke he found the protection of death?

To this question there can be but one answer.

In the cases I have supposed it seems to me that each person would have the right to destroy himself. It does not seem possible that the man was under obligation to be devoured by a cancer; to remain upon the s.h.i.+p and perish in flame; to throw away the poison and be tortured to death by savages; to drop the dagger and endure the ”mercies” of the church.

If, in the cases I have supposed, men would have the right to take their lives, then I was right when I said that ”under many circ.u.mstances a man has a right to kill himself.”