Suicide versus Euthanasia in the American Press in the 1890s and 1900s: “A Man Should be Permitted to Go Out of This World Whenever He Sees Fit”

IF 0.4 4区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Journal of Policy History Pub Date : 2022-04-01 DOI:10.1017/S089803062200001X
Kevin Yuill
{"title":"Suicide versus Euthanasia in the American Press in the 1890s and 1900s: “A Man Should be Permitted to Go Out of This World Whenever He Sees Fit”","authors":"Kevin Yuill","doi":"10.1017/S089803062200001X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Toleration of suicide and the campaign to legalize euthanasia, this article shows, are historically separate developments. From the early 1880s to the 1900s the American press featured moral discussions of suicide alongside gloomy roll calls and expressions of anxiety about an alleged increase in suicide. Focusing on an extensive discussion in the San Francisco Call in 1896, the article shows that Robert G. Ingersoll’s liberal individualist toleration of suicide clearly resonated with many Americans at the time. I trace the rise of suicide from private tragedy to public issue in the United States. Perhaps surprisingly, there was no crossover with euthanasia and no call whatever for assistance with suicide, despite the frequent employment of the plight of the terminally ill in the discussion. Finally, the article shows that those who called for euthanasia thought of it as a human utility and not a right.","PeriodicalId":44803,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy History","volume":"34 1","pages":"213 - 244"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Policy History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S089803062200001X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Toleration of suicide and the campaign to legalize euthanasia, this article shows, are historically separate developments. From the early 1880s to the 1900s the American press featured moral discussions of suicide alongside gloomy roll calls and expressions of anxiety about an alleged increase in suicide. Focusing on an extensive discussion in the San Francisco Call in 1896, the article shows that Robert G. Ingersoll’s liberal individualist toleration of suicide clearly resonated with many Americans at the time. I trace the rise of suicide from private tragedy to public issue in the United States. Perhaps surprisingly, there was no crossover with euthanasia and no call whatever for assistance with suicide, despite the frequent employment of the plight of the terminally ill in the discussion. Finally, the article shows that those who called for euthanasia thought of it as a human utility and not a right.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
19世纪90年代和20世纪90年代美国媒体上的自杀与安乐死:“一个男人应该被允许在他认为合适的时候离开这个世界”
本文表明,容忍自杀和安乐死合法化运动是历史上不同的发展。从19世纪80年代初到20世纪90年代,美国媒体报道了关于自杀的道德讨论,以及对自杀率上升的悲观点名和焦虑表达。这篇文章聚焦于1896年旧金山呼吁中的广泛讨论,表明罗伯特·G·英格索尔对自杀的自由主义个人主义容忍显然在当时引起了许多美国人的共鸣。我追溯了自杀在美国从私人悲剧到公共问题的兴起。也许令人惊讶的是,尽管讨论中经常提到绝症患者的困境,但没有与安乐死交叉,也没有呼吁任何人协助自杀。最后,文章表明,那些呼吁安乐死的人认为安乐死是一种人类的效用,而不是一种权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
A New Deal for Wine The Most Iniquitous Lobby: The Committee for Constitutional Government and the Shaping of American Politics, 1937–1955 “Granting” Justice, Debating Delinquency: The Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act and the UNC Training Center on Delinquency and Youth Crime, 1961–1967 Identity Politics within Kentucky’s Civil Service and the Growth of the Bureaucratic State Mobilizing for the Mind: Veteran Activism and the National Mental Health Act of 1946
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1