Skip to main content

Rational Suicide and the Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Rational Suicide in the Elderly

Abstract

When therapists encounter elderly patients who express an apparently rational desire to end their lives, they will very likely have legal concerns about their management of such patients. While those who end their own lives have committed no crime, those who assist them in doing so may be held criminally liable for doing so. Assisting a suicide usually means that a person has actively provided the means for someone to end his life. It does not include discussing suicidal thoughts or plans. As five states have legalized physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill under certain conditions, some suicides are rational and legally acceptable. Therapists face some risk of being held civilly liable when treating competent elderly persons who have expressed a desire to end their lives, but this risk can be managed by careful professional practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Supreme Court of Minnesota. State v. Melchert-Dinkel, 844 N.W.2d 13–25. 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Supreme Court of California. In re Joseph G., 34 Cal.3d 429–40. 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mendelson D, Freckelton I. The interface of the civil and criminal law of suicide at common law (1194–1845). Int J Law Psychiatry. 2013;36:343–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Supreme Court of the United States. Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793–810. 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Supreme Court of the United States. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189–213. 1989

    Google Scholar 

  6. Supreme Court of the United States. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702–92. 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  7. California Court of Appeal. Donaldson v. Lungren, 2 Cal.App.4th 1614–25. 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nelson LJ. Primum utilis esse: the primacy of usefulness in medicine. Yale J Biol Med. 1978;51:655–66.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Oregon Revised Statutes. Sections 127.800-127.995. 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Revised Code of Washington. Sections 70.245.010-70.245.904. 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Vermont Statutes Annotated. Sections 5281–5292. 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  12. California Health & Safety Code. Sections 443–433.217. 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Supreme Court of Montana. Baxter v, Montana, 224 P.3d 1211–40. 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Supreme Court of Ohio. Blackburn v. State, 23 Ohio St. 146, 163. 1872.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Oregon.gov [Internet]. Salem: Oregon Health Authority; 2015 [cited 2015 Nov 23]. https://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Pages/ar-index.aspx.

  16. Death with Dignity [Internet]. Tumwater: Washington Department of Health; 2012–2014 [cited 2015 Nov 24]. http://www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFamily/IllnessandDisease/DeathwithDignityAct.

  17. Griffin M. Working with suicidal patients. The Therapist 2011; July–August:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bongar B, Stolberg R. Risk management with the suicidal patient. Washington DC: National Register of Health Service Psychologists; 2009 [cited 2015 Nov 23]. http://www.e-psychologist.org/index.iml?mdl=exam/show_article.mdl&Material_ID=100.

  19. Robertson JD. Psychiatric malpractice: liability of mental health professionals. New York: Wiley; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bongar B, Maris RW, Berman AL, Litman RE. Outpatient standards of care and the suicidal patient. In: Bongar B, Berman AL, Maris RW, Silverman MM, Harris EA, Packman WL, editors. Risk management with suicidal patients. New York: Guilford; 1998. p. 4–33.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Baerger DR. Risk management with the suicidal patient: lessons from case law. Prof Psychol Res Pr. 2001;32:359–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Battin MP. Can suicide be rational? Yes, sometimes. In: Werth JL, editor. Contemporary perspectives on rational suicide. Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel; 1999. p. 13–21.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Werth JL. Rational suicide? Implications for mental health professionals. London: Taylor and Francis; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Testa M, West SG. Civil commitment in the united states. Psychiatry (Edgemont). 2010;7:30–9.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Packman WL, Harris EL. Legal issues and risk management in suicidal patients. In: Bongar B, Berman AL, Maris RW, Silverman MM, Harris EA, Packman WL, editors. Risk management with suicidal patients. New York: Guilford; 1998. p. 150–86.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lawrence J. Nelson Ph.D., J.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nelson, L.J. (2017). Rational Suicide and the Law. In: McCue, R., Balasubramaniam, M. (eds) Rational Suicide in the Elderly. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32672-6_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32672-6_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32670-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32672-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics