Now, there is the moral dilemma of creating pain and suffering for those who love the person. I believe that causing pain for others should be avoided whenever possible. This scenario provides mitigation for that issue because the person choosing to death is “allowing” it to happen naturally instead of undertaking some toxic treatments that may or may not eliminate the disease/condition. Plus, it allows the person and loved ones time to reach understanding if they know that death is inevitable. (Death is inevitable for all of us, we just don’t know when, you know.) Undeniably, it’s always painful to loose someone you love.

Another point is the right of a person to choose which medical treatments are worth the risk. A patient should always have that right. Nobody can know the outcome of any medicine/treatment. We try to make informed decisions, but it’s all based on probabilities and past outcomes. Each body reacts differently at different times to medicines (even vitamins, herbs, food, etc.), and we are making educated prognostications about the effects.

So, for me: it’s OK to not treat something. It’s OK to choose to die.

The fact is, barring accidents, I will most likely die from heart disease (most diabetics die from heart disease) or complications from diabetes. Maybe I’m luckier than most in knowing what I’ll die from, if not when I’ll die.

I was not considering life insurance as pertinent to the question… but if someone thinks they have an answer to that, be my guest.

Most life insurance policies do not cover suicide, would this act affect his benefits?

If it was neglecting to take care of a disease, would this affect benefits? Any insurance experts out there care to comment?

I think the effect of this type of death on the deceased’s friends and family would be similar to suicide and for that reason I’d condemn this as well. But my reaction to this situation is directly a result of my biases: I’m pro-Western medicine (in general) and I reject any sort of notion that natural processes, per se, are morally superior or otherwise preferable.

If so, my answer won’t interest you.

I define “suicide” as allowing yourself to die (when there are options you could take which would keep you alive).

So my answer — without any emotional baggage connected to it — is “yes,” It’s suicide.

Which isn’t to say I wouldn’t have an emotional response to a specific suicide. But to me, the word itself isn’t emotional. It’s just descriptive.

Failing to actively protect your life in every possible moment can’t be ruled suicide, or a very extreme dystopian value set is the result.

This sentence confuses me, because you use passive voice. WHO can’t define suicide as “failing to actively protect your life”? Are you talking about legal definitions? That’s a whole other ball of wax. If I (personally) define suicide that way, I promise you we won’t drift into a dystopia. I don’t have that kind of power.

By the way, I DON’T define suicide as “Failing to actively protect your life in every possible moment.” That’s a little different from your thought experiment. For instance, I don’t think that skydivers are necessarily committing suicide. Sure, the run a risk of dying by skydiving, but it’s far from inevitable that they will die.

Someone who is committing suicide has to BELIEVE that his action (or inaction) will definitely lead to his death (or that it’s highly highly unlikely that he’ll survive).

Knowledge of imminent death is something many people experience without reacting, from patients with DNR orders to Kamikaze fighters, to shocked drivers staring down an oncoming bus, indulging in a moment of self-reflection rather than swerving out of harm’s way. Failing to actively protect your life in every possible moment can’t be ruled suicide, or a very extreme dystopian value set is the result. I’m trying to think of some Handmaid’s Tale/Logan’s Run sf premise akin to this, but I’m drawing a blank.