THE RIGHT TO DIE

By Caroline Kellogg and Rachel Zhang

Among all the personal freedoms honored in constitutions, governments, and politics, one which is not often discussed but critical to our understanding of human rights is the right to die. While one might easily advocate for freedom of expression or freedom to own property, an individual’s right to die is a freedom met with much more resistance. The right to die is further complicated by the fundamental moral and ethical issues surrounding the loss of life of an individual when so much of human existence is defined by trying to stay alive. This dilemma can be summarized as follows: who has the right to choose who can die – the people most directly affected by their death, or the person themselves?

Currently, the right to die is reserved for only the most terminally ill in the U.S. The reasons that drive these patients to assisted suicide are ones that many face as they age: an inability to particiapte in activites that make life enjoyable, a loss of autonomy, and a loss of dignity. As one of the central aims of medicine is to maintain and preserve the quality of life, assisted suicide acts as a treatment to improve a patient’s quality of life by ending it. Only recently has the right to die been extended to chronically ill patients; the first person with a non-terminal illness was legally euthanized just this past January. However, there have long been moral reservations concerning the right to die. In the most current version of the American Medical Association’s code of ethics, assisted suicide is prohibited as it is, “fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer”. The Hippocratic Oath, an oath central to medicine for centuries, is yet another argument against assisted suicide: “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan.” It is in direct opposition to the use of lethal drugs in assisted suicide.

In addition to the reservations against assisted suicide by the ethical code of physicians, there are also religious arguments against assisted suicide. In both Christianianity and Islam, life is viewed as a gift from God that humans should not interfere with. A similar perspective is seen in Buddhism, where it is considered immoral “to embark on any course of action whose aim is to destroy human life, irrespective of the quality of the individual’s motive.” Hinduism also shares similar beliefs as voluntary euthansisa disrupts the cycle of death and rebirth; those who assist in suicide then recieve the karma of the euthanized. There is therefore a common theme against voluntary euthanasia among these four religions: the natural course of life should never be disturbed. A final consideration in this argument is that legalization of assisted suicide results in a “slippery slope” of morality where society permits increasingly immoral actions if it allows assisted suicide. Assisted suicide might also be abused in order to “kill” people legally. Take the case of Terri Shiavo. Following cardiac arrest and the subsequent deprivation of oxygen to her brain, Terri was reduced to a vegetative state and relied on life support to stay alive. Terri could not talk, walk, move, eat, or do anything at all–the most she could do was breathe. While the family could petition to remove her feeding tube, there was one problem: Terri never left an advance directive about what her family should do if she was in such a state. While Terri’s husband supported euthanasia, Terri’s family argued that she showed some signs of consciousness and therefore should remain alive. This case epitomizes a central concern of voluntary euthanasia–who has the power to decide if someone should die? Is it the person themselves? Their family, religion, or their doctor? The court sided with Terri’s husband, and her feeding tube was removed March 18th, 2005.

Considering how life is the most essential part of being human, is it even possible to make a “correct” decision when it comes to ending life? Religious and moral codes attempt to address this argument via assisted suicide’s interference with higher beings, human life, and unintended effects on other peoplee. Nevertheless, it’s also important to consider the personal freedom which one should have to end their own life. If one has freedom of expression, freedom to own property, freedom of asso- ciation, freedom of religion, and countless others, why shouldn’t one have the freedom to choose how to die? This issue speaks to a larger philosophical debate in communities, governments, and individuals: how much freedom should we grant ourselves and the people around us, and is it dangerous to grant an individual too much freedom?

Credits: https://worldpopulationreview. com/state-rankings/right-to-diestates

2: https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/physician-assisted-suicide

3: http://www.euthanasia.com/ oathtext.html