Source: bamablogunite.blogspot.com
Unfortunately, the internet is the equivalent of a double-edged sword. It can help us, serving as a vast cyber pot of knowledge and discovery, or it can harm us, doubling as a dark bottomless pit of dangerous information made available to innocent minds. Moreover, the internet is portrayed as an open forum for people to express their constitutional right of free speech in the form of personal websites, social networking accounts, and blogs. Specifically, blogs seem to be the ultimate platform for anyone (not just the stereotypical “computer potato”) to express a variety of personal aspects, including their opinions, helpful advice to others, and memorable moments of their life. Thus, blogs are similar to journal entries, except for the crucial fact that they are open to anyone who has access to the World Wide Web to read. Whatever actions an individual commits after reading the blog is solely up to the individual, making him or her responsible for those actions, not the blogger. However, if the individual is not entirely stable psychologically, then the family of that individual is responsible for that individual’s actions. To understand how important this statement truly is, let us dissect the interesting case of a California medical student, who wrote a blog entry that would end one life, and ruin two others.
The first year medical student posted an entry on his personal blog, which was hosted by a weblog content provider. The entry consisted of detailed instructions on an assisted suicide with the primary intention of “serving the rights of competent, terminally ill adults.” Now, the first questions that emerge from this scenario are “Is this act legal?” and rather, “Is it ethical?”. I believe that this act is both legal and ethical. It is legal because it is a form of free speech and it is ethical because it exhibits a concrete purpose of helping the terminally ill. The medical student did not state the purpose as “aiding those who want to die” and therefore did not have any bad intentions when writing this entry. Terminally ill patients have an incurable sickness that will eventually lead to death, and so the medical student might have figured that he really wanted to assist these people in achieving a proper end to their lives. Hence, this is in no manner unethical, but rather quite noble. The medical student was most likely aware of the risks of posting this entry; nevertheless, he ultimately did it for a good cause. If that is not ethical, I really do not know what is.
Moving on to the meat of this case, we come across a clinically depressed teenager in another state who reads the medical student’s entry and ends up surrendering her life to an overdose of drugs. In addition, the teenager explains in her final note to her family that the blogger assisted her in successfully completing this task. This brings us to the chief question, “Who is responsible for this tragedy?”. One’s first response would be to blame the medical student for committing the crime of assisted suicide. However, it is important to realize that there is a clear difference between a decision and a well-informed decision. Keeping this in mind, I did some research, wanting to know what factors make assisted suicide a crime in the United States, particularly in California. According to the Patients Rights Council, a credited source addressing all “end-of-life issues”, the general assisted suicide law for the state of California is “Every person who deliberately aids, or advises, or encourages another to commit suicide, is guilty of a felony.” [i] For this reason, legally speaking, the medical student has not committed a crime because he did not intentionally assist the teenager in committing suicide. As I stated earlier, his only intention was to help the terminally ill. Because no crime has been committed, nobody should be prosecuted. Although nobody is legally responsible, we still need to determine who is technically responsible for this tragedy. Personally, I find the parents of the teenager entirely culpable for all that happened. They should have been aware of the fact that their daughter could possibly be experiencing suicidal thoughts, one of the likely symptoms of depression. Furthermore, the parents should have kept a close watch on their daughter’s internet usage, such as sitting with their daughter as she used the internet, or placing parental controls of some sort. I acknowledge that no parents can monitor their child at all times; nonetheless, when the child is clinically depressed and could take his or her own life at any moment, it is at least important to be with the child as much as possible. It does not seem right to leave a depressed teenager unaccompanied at all, let alone with a computer, which supposedly has all the answers to one’s questions.
Consequently, it would not make any sense to blame the medical student for this tragedy because, as I discussed earlier, he never directly intended to write this for the depressed teenager. Moreover, blaming the teenager would not be fair because she was not in a proper psychological state to make decisions on her own. In fact, she was very vulnerable and therefore easily influenced by whatever she read. Some might claim the weblog content provider is responsible, but that too would not be right because the provider had no actual reason to disallow the medical student from posting the entry. The entry was not inappropriate in any way, it did not directly hurt anyone, and it was for a good cause. For this reason, prohibiting the medical student from posting it would be a violation of his right to free speech. That brings us back to the parents, who in my opinion, are exclusively responsible. I am certain that if they were more involved in monitoring their daughter, they would have saved her life.
Reference:
[1] “Assisted Suicide Laws." Patients Rights Council . 2011. Web. 13 Feb 2011. <http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/assisted_suicide_laws.htm>.