Today, when I glanced at the website of a newspaper to review the news from Afghanistan, my eyes fell on three reports about suicide: three incidents from three different provinces in a single day. Three human beings, three families and three different stories, yet all three ended bitterly: a person who could not go on living.
A lump rose in my throat, and tears blurred the text of the report. For a few moments I stared at the screen. Perhaps each of these reports amounts to only a few lines among dozens of other news items, a few short lines after which the reader moves on to the next story. But behind each of those lines there is a life: a family that has lost a loved one, children who may never see their fathers or mothers again, and a person who, before reaching that final moment, had probably lived for a long time with a suffering that others either did not see or were unable to respond to.
Amid all this, what is deeply worrying is not only the number of reports about suicide that we read from time to time. More worrying is that we still do not know how wide and painful the true dimensions of this phenomenon are in Afghanistan. The recording and reporting of suicide cases face serious difficulties, and for this reason it cannot be claimed, based solely on media reports, that official suicide figures have risen or fallen over a given period. Yet these scattered and recurring reports are themselves enough to take the issue seriously, and it can be said with certainty that unrecorded cases are far more numerous than those that are recorded.
Here, the question is not only why a person commits suicide. The more important question is this: when a person reaches a point where they no longer see life as livable, what claim do they have on us, and what are our responsibilities toward them? Can suicide be regarded merely as a psychological and personal matter?
What if a person has no access to the necessary material and spiritual support services? What if they are a victim of violence? What if they are trapped in poverty? What if they are deprived of education and job opportunities? What if they have no way to ask for help?
More importantly, does the right to life only mean that no one has the right to take another person’s life? Or do the government and society have a duty, within their religious and legal responsibilities, to create conditions in which a person is not left alone and helpless in the hardest moments of life? It is from this point that, in my view, suicide is no longer only a psychological issue. It becomes an issue concerning the right to life, health, human dignity, justice, equality, and public responsibility.
The right to life is one of the most fundamental human rights. In the Holy Quran, while stressing the importance of this right and affirming its inviolability, God Almighty has forbidden people from suicide: “And do not kill yourselves; indeed, God is merciful to you.” (Surah An-Nisa, verse 29)
This verse is among the clearest Quranic texts on the issue of suicide. But there is a point in the verse worth reflecting on: that God is merciful to you.
Here, the prohibition of killing is accompanied by a reminder of divine mercy, which teaches us a great lesson. According to this lesson, the way we treat a person who has fallen into hardship and crisis should not be marked solely by blame, humiliation, and moral condemnation. It should be marked by support, kindness, efforts to solve their problems, and efforts to preserve their life.
In religious teachings and modern civil law, the right to life does not only mean that no individual or group may directly take a person’s life. It also means that every member of society, and especially officials and governments, have a duty in specific circumstances to take reasonable and appropriate measures to protect human life. This duty does not mean that the government is responsible for every death or every individual decision. It means that, in the face of foreseeable risks and problems that can be reduced through action, one cannot always fold one’s hands and remain a spectator.
Indeed, society and the government are not responsible for the outcome of every individual choice people make. Yet, to a reasonable and possible extent, they have a duty to protect the right to life and health of all people, and to reduce and even completely eliminate the factors that lead to such an act. When we speak about suicide prevention, we should not only ask how many psychologists or psychological centers exist in the country, and how much access our compatriots have to psychotherapy services, and at what level.
Poverty, unemployment, indebtedness, displacement, loss of home, inability to meet basic needs of life, family problems, and the lack of a clear outlook for the future can place heavy pressures on people’s lives. Of course, it should not be concluded from this that poverty or unemployment is the direct cause of every suicide. Such a simple relationship is defensible neither scientifically nor legally. It is better to say that suicide is a multifactorial phenomenon. Therefore, policies related to employment, education, social protection, housing and poverty reduction cannot be separated from mental health and the factors that push people toward suicide. But there is one important reality that cannot be denied: even if only as a secondary factor, social and economic conditions affect people’s health.
Another important question is how the law should deal with a person who has attempted suicide. In this regard, it must be acknowledged that a person in a state of extreme vulnerability needs, before anything else, support and rescue, rather than being deterred from seeking help by fear of punishment. Of course, this does not mean removing criminal liability in cases where another person has played a role in harming the individual through threats, coercion, violence, or criminal conduct. In such cases, the matter is entirely different, and the law must protect the victim and, if the elements of a crime are present, deal with the perpetrator.
On the issue of suicide, a distinction must be made between several types of responsibility. Each individual is responsible for their own decisions and behavior. The family also bears responsibilities within the limits of its capacity and circumstances. Society, specialists, schools of thought, and the media also have duties. The government, too, has responsibilities.
Indeed, the government cannot be said to be responsible for every individual decision. Such a view is consistent neither with human reality nor with legal principles. But on the other hand, the government cannot remain completely indifferent to the general problems of members of society that can be prevented.
Therefore, the legal debate is not about who is to blame for this person’s death. The more important question is whether public institutions, within their means and duties, have taken reasonable measures to reduce risk and protect the lives of members of society.
Suicide prevention should be regarded as a multi-sectoral and multidimensional responsibility, with an emphasis on cooperation among different sectors, including health, education, labor, family, community, the media and other social institutions.
The most important question that all members of society, especially responsible individuals and institutions, should ask themselves is this: why could we not help a person before they attempted suicide?
Perhaps one of our greatest mistakes is that, after encountering incidents of suicide, we direct all our attention to the deceased and say that he was depressed, that he had family problems, that it was his own decision, but that he made a great mistake and ruined both his faith and his worldly life, and so on. Then we close his case file for good.
But if we keep in mind the religious, human, and even official responsibilities we have toward members of society, we must look at the issue more closely and ask: were conditions in place to prevent this person from reaching this point? Could his family and those around him have helped him? Had the responsible institutions carried out their duties? These questions are not raised to accuse an individual or an institution, but to reform the system.
In suicide, the issue is not only death with all its bitterness. The issue is the quality and story of a life full of pain and helplessness, of which we see only the final point: death. If we look at suicide only at the moment of death, we have looked at the issue far too late. Far too late.
You can read the Persian version of this analysis article here:
افزایش آمار خودکشی در افغانستان؛ وقتی حق زندهگی نادیده گرفته میشود
