f, an expert on medical ethics: "The troubling possibility is that people may get a hold of this and kill themselves when they're in the throes of a reversible depression or some other state for which they could get help" (Cox, 1991, p. B1). However, as noted by William A. Henry in Time, the book is filled with warnings against irrational suicide. Thus, "Humphry distinguishes between 'rational' suicide, undertaken by the irreversibly handicapped or the terminally ill, and 'emotional' suicide by those who are depressed, of which he disapproves" (Henry, 1991, p. 55). Other critics of the book have expressed concern that its contents might make it easier for murderers to kill their victims. Henry again provides a rebuttal for this fear by pointing out that it is already relatively easy to commit murder if that is one's intention. Thus, "the U.S. is a society in which guns can be obtained with less paperwork than automobiles, and almost every kitchen contains some lethal cleanser" (p. 55).
Final Exit is also controversial because it urges doctors and other medical practitioners to assist in the suicide of terminally ill patients. Many people feel that the doctor's role in society is to save lives rather than to terminate them. Furthermore, this part of the book is controversial because active euthanasia is currently illegal throughout the United States. Thus, according to Susan M. Wolf: "It's improper to encourage physicians to assist in suicide because that is encouraging them to break the law" (Cox, 1991, p. B1). Derek Humphry's rebuttal to this is that doctors are already assisting terminally ill patients in suicide anyway. Because it is an illegal practice, doctors almost never make a public issue of this fact. However, out of compassion, medical practitioners often help suffering patients to end their own lives. In order to better serve the needs of this special group of patients, doctors need accurate information on the s...