PDA

View Full Version : short fiction--a failed suicider sueing the hero who saved him for damage




judejin
07-04-2013, 12:07 AM
one day, in a miserable city, a guy who couldn't come up with enough money to pay for the ransom to rescue his son hanged himself. he left a note: "do not rescue me, please use my insurance money to pay for the ransom to rescue my son! my insurance's beneficiary is my son."

but he woke up to find himself in a hospital. why am i not dead was the first thought coming to his mind. he learned that someone saved him and notified police about his son's kidnap, but the police's rescue attempt failed and his son was killed by the kidnapper!

the guy was furious at the hero who saved him. he went to a court and charged the hero for violating his right to suicide plus the damage to his son.

plaintiff's lawyer says: "because the defendant messed up my client's plan to die, my client didn't die. the defendant is guilty of violating my client's right to suicide. and since my client didn't die, my client's insurance company didn't pay compensation to the my client's son, who is the beneficiary to my client's life insurance. so my client's son was killed by his kidnapper. so the defendant is liable to my client's son's death."

the defendant's lawyer says "when my client rushed in to save the plaintiff's life, he didn't know about your client's intertwined scheme. anyone besides my client would have done the same thing to the plaintiff, saving his life. so i don't think my client committed any crime against the plaintiff. as to the indirect consequences, the client has himself to blame. why? because the plaintiff(son of bitch), could not come up with a better way to get the money. plus my client notified the police and the police has made every efforts to try to save the plaintiff's son. it's a tragedy that the rescue attemp failed. but it's the kidnappers who killed the plaintiff's son!"

but in this miserable city, the hero was held responsible for violating the plaintiff's right to suicide and indirectly causing the death of the plaintiff's son. the hero was sentenced to 10 years of prison.

such is the city many of the libertarians here who supports the notion of the right to suicide would wish to live in!

fiction is fiction. following the moral of the story, i can come up with many other similar scenarios to illustrate the lunacy of claiming suicide is a right that nobody can intervene!

on the contrary, from time immemorial, anybody can intervene with somebody's suicide's attempt REGARDLESS of this person's purpose of suicide! if the suicide failed, the suicider can't blame the hero who saved him. the suicider has only himself to blame. he can continue to try suicide until he succeed. but he's not exercising a RIGHT. he's performing self destruction.

rights are actions and titles without which one CANNOT LIVE!

suicide is to DIE

suicide is a NON-right!