I guess the titular "two faces" under discussion are biological vs social causes, but the article suffers from the defect of assuming all suicide is of the same kind and has the same motivation.

I divide suicide into rational and irrational suicide. Most suicide is "irrational" in the sense that it is attempting to escape or avoid existential pain by the least effective, most avoidant, and most permanent of means, often without sufficient regard for its effect on others or with sufficient consideration of viable alternatives. The canonical example is the young person impulsively distraught over something of amplified significance that is actually both common and survivable, and mostly needs time to heal and/or provide a more mature and considered perspective concerning.

Rational suicide is either exiting a life you're already doomed to exit because of illness, in a manner and time of your choosing ... or assessing your quality of life as unacceptable and not fixable, and determining you don't want to have more new experiences under that regime. I believe that each person has the right to end their life for such reasons ... the problem being, that the criteria is necessarily somewhat subjective, for where suicide becomes "rational".

Here's a practical, personal example of what I'm talking about.

I currently suffer from an aneurysm at my aortic root which is being monitored regularly. It does not need correction unless and until it grows to a certain size, beyond which, statistically, the first physical symptom I'd likely experience is death. At that medically determined point where the probability of total failure soars, we're talking open heart surgery with cardiac bypass, a complex, expensive and painful surgery with a long recovery profile. And the nasty thing about it is that most people's aneurysm doesn't grow to where it needs to be dealt with until quite late in life, at which time you'd have probably multiple physical problems / frailties complicating matters. This accounts for the surgery having only an 85% survival rate. And the survival rate fails to account for quality of life, which probably doesn't fully bounce back for many people.

Let us suppose that one day I'm 80 years old and frail and my doctor says the defect has reached a size where it's going to blow. Let us say that upon consideration, I triage myself and decide to let nature take its course rather than undergo the surgery. Two years later I'm found dead in bed, and an autopsy shows my aneurysm dissected and that's the cause.

It can be said that I committed rational suicide, just by a rather indirect and non-immediate, non-deterministic means. Most people would have no problem with this. All I'm suggesting is that if I had decided to be more proactive, what would change the morality of my decision? Say that I had one of the minority of dissections that was gradual and painful and I decided to hang myself rather than bear with it or risk some doctor deciding to do the surgery anyway? What if I was anxious enough about that possibility plus other vexing physical issues that I hung myself at 81? I'm simply suggesting that everyone has the right to make these decisions for themselves. And they should have medical assistance on the basis of mercy, just like we care for sick animals to end their suffering.

I find this distinction far more useful. In theory if a 25 year old with a history of childhood abuse and resulting serious mental health issues who has tried every mental health intervention known to man and is still in day to day agony wants to hang it up, they should be able to. It's their call. And in fact this has happened in countries like the Netherlands and Switzerland with relatively liberal assisted suicide laws on the books.

“(As some critics have argued, Camus failed to see that his submission to absurdism was itself a philosophical suicide.)“

So true!

I've really changed how I feel about suicide.
In the past, I've gone as far as to undergo training and work for a suicide prevention program.
I was even good at it. Did it for years. May have even saved a couple of lives
along the way. Thought I was doing good work and the right thing.

Now, I think if people really want to end their lives, who am I to try and stop them?
There's such an over-sentimentalization about the "sanctity of human life".
There's nothing precious about life.
Oh sure, there's the whole "me and mine" thing, but in reality, none of our lives
are so consequential that the world actually "needs" our presence.
If anyone feels like they really want their life to be over, why should they be forced
to remain?
It doesn't matter how old they are. Young, old, it's irrelevant.
People are going to die anyway. What's so awful about letting them make the
choice for themselves?

A good read. Thanks.