The Decision to End One's Own Life is a Fundamental Human Right
Every human being has a fundamental right to make decisions involving their own body…including the right to decide that they no longer wish to endure the pain and suffering of a terminal illness. These are people who are going to die in a limited amount of time, who are suffering greatly either physically, mentally or both, and who are being kept alive not by choice, but because of advanced medical technology. Life isn’t just about breathing; it’s about living. It’s not only a quantitative measurement, but also a qualitative one.
If there are any fundamental rights, they certainly must include the decision of when and if a person has decided the quality of their life is no longer worth continuing and wishes to end their own human experience. Liberty , the freedom from government interference in your life, should extend to the decision about whether and when to end your life.
While anti-aid in dying advocates make numerous social, economic, and ethical arguments against the practice (all or which can be refuted), underlying their reasoning is a basic discomfort with the idea of a person willingly ending their life. No human being should be required to remain alive, against their wishes, especially when dying of a terminal illness, simply to make others feel safer or more secure with their own insecurities about life and death.
Remember this: the opponents of physician assisted dying are not those seeking to end their own lives, nor those who are suffering from a catastrophic terminal illness. They are not the interested parties, but outsiders who seek to impose their own religious and moral beliefs on others. They have a right to their opinions, but not to determine for another the most fundamental choice…to live or to die.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
If you have a mental health issue that truly impacts your life in an adverse way it is like being in physical pain yet people insist that people with these issues are incapable of making an informed decision and I feel that is a fallacy and they should have as much right to die with dignity as everyone else. How much dignity do you think there is being locked away in an asylum or the whole world telling you your useless because of your diagnosis. How about the cost to society itself in keeping people alive who have made an informed choice to end there lives. They wouldn't have to resort to jumping off bridges!
Where is this particular right specifically codified in law?
How do we know for certain that a person who states that he/she wants to die is not under other influences than pain, such as an imbalance of chemicals in the brain?
People sometimes kill themselves over what we on the 'outside' would see as relatively nothing. Having seen a loved one die, though, makes it somewhat more understandable. It is a way of avoiding pain. In the terminally ill, this can be quite excruciating (and it sounds bad, too!). I can understand the wishes of those that simply want to 'go' and be rid of the pain in their bodies.
But the quality of life is more than the absence of pain. Another family member became parapelegic due to an accident; he was always in great pain. Still, he lived for many years, married, and had children before he passed on.
My point being this: the only one qualified to 'pull the plug' is the person hooked up to the plug unless there are specific, legally binding agreements (living will, durable power of attorney, etc).
when one has experienced watching a loved one suffer with a dicease, views change . i've seen countless people "alive" with the assistance of pharmaceuticals , but they are not living. there is a difference. one way or another quality of life has gone out the window. doctors and lawyers and drug companies brainwash the public and distort their views. do you want to know why?? PROFIT! its about all the money to be made and they get a piece of the pie.
though this is a difficult topic to digest, it is necessary otherwise one will fall into this endless cycle. i laugh at the fact that we so lovingly take our pets to the vet to be euthanized in order to end its suffering, but we can't offer the same for our human loved ones. what a hypocracy, and lets not forget the church who holds guilt over our heads telling us to leave to god when they can't keep scandals out of their back yards.
yes we need the right to die and if its a sin, then it is our personal issue to deal with. it is between the one making the choice and god.
When I was young (early teens ) I was diagnosed with a condition that will probably kill me. Because of that condition I have been on medication since then...I am now in my 50's. Are you saying that I am not living?
It would also appear that you are against pharmaceuticals. Many people are. But many lives have also been saved by simple antibiotics. Are you suggesting that pharmaceuticals be discontinued?
By the way, my father had a living will. He didnt want 'any tubes' or hospital food (no matter the method of delivery). Yes, there was pain there ( cancer ), but it was mitigated as much a possible. He passed away naturally in his sleep. Are you suggesting that we should not have tried to make his last hours as pain-free as possible???
Commiting suiced can hurt other people. Family members could go into depression because a loved one commited suicide. And because of their deppression, they may ruin their lives and possibly commit suicide themselves.
Where do you draw the line between personal liberty and causing pain to others? People make choices everyday that make others sad. What other choices should we outlaw because it makes people sad? By your logic, we should make divorce illegal because it makes people sad (often even the people who want out of the marriage).
You have to wonder what sort of family members they are if they would rather their loved ones suffer against their will.
All sorts of decisions we make in our lives cause others pain. This doesn't take away our right to make them.
I agree that the decision to end one's own life (especially a terminally ill patient who is literally spending their life waiting to die) is a fundamental human right. This article makes an excellent point about why these people are still alive in the first place. They are not alive in hospitals by choice, but instead they are alive as a result of medical technology. Critics of a right to die may argue that euthanizing a terminally ill person crosses the line and that they are then "playing God." However, is this not what medical professionals are doing by hooking these people up to machines and 24/7 IV drugs to keep them alive as long as possible? Left to nature alone, many terminally ill people would be facing death very soon anyway. There is no sense in using technological measures to preserve someone that would die without them. If one can make the choice to be put on life support and continue their lives with the help of artificial machines and drugs, they certainly should have the choice to NOT endure this. A person who is simply waiting for death, does not have a good quality of life, and if they wish to end their suffering, no other human being has the right to tell them not to.
In my opinion I believe the terminally ill may have the right to end their lives, but only if they are in a tremendous amount of pain or if the have to keep on living with the assistance of a machine. I do not believe that by “pulling the plug” you are playing the role of God. If a human being is living life by being hooked to a machine and each day comes with an artificial breath, that isn’t really living, that is just us using technology to prolong life. For those of you who believe that by “pulling the plug” we are assuming the position of God, well I do not believe God would want us to cling to life especially when one is in the state of a vegetable. For those of you who do not care about the religious aspect of it and just view “pulling the plug” as morally wrong…well let me just say that life is not measured by number of breath you take but the savoring you part take in life. If the person does not wish to live there life on tubes or hooked up to machines, I fully understand. It is possible that the person does not want to be a financial burden by living an artificial life and that he/she does not want to be remembered with all the tubes and machines around them. Now euthanasia is a little bit different, it is ending the life of an individual who suffers from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, by a lethal injection. Euthanasia, if the patient is an immense pain but not living with the assistance of technology I don’t believe we should be screwing with their lives, if anything we should try and make them feel as comfortable as we can. Give them a doobie if it makes them feel a little more at ease.
Technology has created an artificial life that surpasses our natural life. These technologies are helpful but to what point does it make living about the quantity of life instead of the quality. At that point, a terminally ill person should have a right to be taken away from the technology in a humane and moral way to be able to die, if they so choose so. Living shouldn’t be about the quantity of life, meaning how long you live, but about the quality of life. I agree that this person should be or was in the right state of mind to be able to make such a choice, but by forcing a person to live in a state where life is only about living one more minute in suffering instead of living to enjoy life is not right or fair to the person.
I agree with some of the other comments in that if a person is terminally sick and know they are not going to live long. They should have the right to choose how they die. Especially if a person is in a lot of pain. Here is a thing with life. We all do not want any animal to suffer--so in essence we put them out of their misery. Is this not true with humans as well?? We are indeed animals to some percent. So why should we suffer? I think we should legalize asisted suicide in the worst cases of health. I think it is easer on the people that care for a person that is dieing and knows they are suffering--for it all to end. Lets face it people--when a person is terminally ill they feed them with enough morphine so they do not know anything. So the person as you know them no longer exists.
We are supposed to have control of our bodies, and that should mean the right to decide when it is our time. It is inhumane to make someone who is suffering, and can not be helped lie in a hospital bed in agony until their time comes. We euthanize animals, and even though we tend to put ourselves above other animals, we are in the same kingdom.
As another poster stated. If I am in a vegetative state, the likelyhood of waking up and "living life" is not likely at all. Someone could better use my organs than me. Someone that actually has the chance. The costs of keeping someone in the hospital on lifesupport, who has practically no chance is not worth it.
It is hard to watch someone who wants to go, but can't. Personally, it would be tough to live without a loved one, but I would rather them go in peace. If it was me, I would rather my family not watch me suffer, and I would rather have the chance of giving life to someone else.
Picture this: You are sitting in a hospital bed with a splitting headache that has been pounding nonstop for a week. The doctor comes in with a grave look on his face. He glances at his charts, looks up and tells you that you have stage four brain cancer and that you have just a few months, at most, to live. He explains your options- chemo, which has no guarantees and is painful, or just enjoying the life you have left. You choose to enjoy your time. Fast forward one month. The headaches are getting worse and more frequent, and recently you have experienced blackouts and fainting spells. A week later you are in the hospital, brain dead, hooked up to a heart and lung machine which is pumping ‘life’ into your body because the tumor in your brain has gotten so large that it cut off your fundamental functions. Is this how you would want your last days on earth to be? Hooked up to a machine that is keeping you alive?
As said in this article, “Life isn’t just about breathing, it’s about living.” The person hooked up to machines in the hospital is not living, at least not in the sense of expressing emotions and experiencing life. In fact, if it wasn’t for the machines they wouldn’t be alive at all. Just because we have the ability to keep people alive doesn’t mean that we should.
People seem to face a wall when they come to this issue, believing that by taking patients or loved ones off the machines that they are in fact committing murder. However, this is not the case. It is a greater crime to keep these people alive with artificial and low quality of life than to take them off and let them die a natural death. I understand that it is hard to see a loved one die, but isn’t it better to see them pass peacefully than to see them hooked up to humming machines? Allowing someone the right to die is not murder. It is their life and if they wish to end it over being kept alive on machines their decision should be honored. If they are unable to make this decision because they are brain dead and do not have a written will, quality of life should be chosen over quantity of life.
Once again, I have to say that I tend to ride the fence on this issue somewhat. I stated before that I do realize only the person going through the terminal illness understands the kind of pain they are in. But this is THEIR decision to make, and I understand what you said about taking someone off of life support being a better alternative to keeping them alive and suffering. I still believe that the decision depends solely on the patient and that the doctors and family should be a source of encouragement for the patient and try to create the best quality of life that they can for the person while they are still here.
Those who are brain dead is a different ballpark in my opinion. If the person is, in fact, brain dead that means that they in essence are no longer here. They cannot communicate, they do not know where they are at and they do not know who is in the room with them. In this case, when a person is that far gone, I don't see a problem with taking a loved one off of life support. It is prolonging the inevitable...and reality will do nothing but prolong agony and heartache for the loved ones left behind. But if the person is still sound in mind then I think doctors should do everything in their power to alleviate pain so that the patient CAN spend time with their families during their last few weeks of life. If this is not possible....the patient should be the only one with power over the decision.
I also believe, as you have said, that people who are still showing brain function and therefore life, should be kept alive. I didn’t mean to sound like I believed that everyone that is on a machine should be taken off. There are people who need machines to do certain functions for them, yet they are otherwise functioning on their own. In these cases, as you have also said, it is the doctor’s job to keep them alive and as free of pain as possible, while it is the family’s job to spend time with their family member and care for them like only a family can.
I do not believe that we should go around taking everyone off machines because they are bound to die eventually, because in fact, everyone is bound to die. We need to enjoy the time we have. I just feel that if one has no mental function that their life has already dimmed, and machines are only keeping the body alive, not the person. And in this case it is cruel to keep them alive this way. But the choice to keep them alive really comes down to their will, and if they do not have one, to their family. And I know that it is a hard decision, I would not want to make it, but it is one that people are faced with everyday, and one that faces great opposition.
Actually, in some cases, there is a written will where a patient has stated that they do not want to be kept alive by a machine, yet their family will fight it, trying to keep them alive. While this is all done because they love their family member and cannot bear to let them go, the ultimate choice should be left up to the patient, it is their life after all, and their decision should be honored.
No one likes being told what to do, therefore, no person should be denied the fundamental right to die if they are terminally ill. Walk a mile in someone elses shoes. Would you want to live or die? Do you measure life by the time you spend on earth? Or the quality of a life in general? Human beings live life because its instinct, what else is there? When life gets to the point at which there is a limited amount of time left and there is no hope, then life, which is already limited, should not have to be prolonged. Life is a fundamental right, we protect it to the best of our ability. If some person is dying and in enough pain to want to die then they have the fundamental right to.
I do not believe that anyone can tell another person what to do with their body. Only the person suffering through the illness knows what kind of pain they are in. Who would I be to say that their pain is not significant enough for them to wish to die? That is not my judgement to make. While I am a Christian and I do personally believe that God gives life and has the authority to take it away, I also do not believe that it is MY right to tell someone else that they can not die. If the patient has religious convictions that causes him or her to feel that they should NOT just give up and allow themselves to die then that should be for the individual to decide as well.
As far as the issue of euthanasia is concerned, I do not condone a doctor helping a patient die. I have a hard time getting my mind around the idea of "assisted suicide," because to me it looks a lot like murder. I can not see why a moral person would try to help someone else die. However, if a patient wants to refuse treatment and be sent home to die a natural death, then I believe that is acceptable.
In forming my opinion on this issue I tried to put myself in the place of a terminally ill patient. If I was lying in a hospital waiting to die, running up medical bills for my loved ones to have to struggle to pay after my death, then I would more than likely make the decision to halt treatment and go home to spend the remainder of my time with my family and friends. If being in the hospital was only prolonging the inevitable, what quality of life would that be? To me, it would only make sense to use what life I had left to MAKE the rest of my time "quality" time.
It makes perfect sense to give the terminally ill the right to die, im not sure how i feel about suicide, but i dont think its wrong at all to let someone who is in pain and bedridden to end their life sooner than later.
Call me biased for my religion, but human life is the most valuable, sacred, and precious thing in existence, and under NO circumstances, should it be ended prematurely. Yes, you are reading the comments of an extremely right-wing conservative, who also thinks abortion is wrong, but I break away from the rest of my kind on the issue of the death penalty, which i think is also wrong because it ends a life prematurely. People should never give up hope, and cling to the last strings of life no matter what. You ALWAYS have the opportunity to make a positive impact on the world around you. ALWAYS.
Ask yourself, what is it about each life individually that makes it "valuable, sacred and precious"? When you bring up the topic of "value", you must answer the questions - Of value to whom? Of value for what purpose? Why? What is your argument that the value you place on another life supersedes the value that life places on itself? Is your argument factually correct and logically consistent? If you truly believe "life is the most valuable, sacred, and precious thing in existence" then, to be consistent, you must also believe that a life belongs to itself without question. If a life isn't at liberty to develop, grow and express itself without requiring permissions from others, then the value of that life both to itself and possibly to others is greatly diminished. Do you fully understand what happens to a life when you convince that life it is subordinate to the wishes of others? Is not our fullest health determined by the amount of liberty we enjoy to find our own path? Considering the wealth of experience and personal abilities, talents, skills, understanding, etc. of the typical individual, no other individual could possibly understand all that comes together to make that individual happy. You can claim you know what constitutes the best "happiness" for another but, I can assure, you do not and cannot. You claim to be able to do an impossible thing. You may certainly be similar to another life, however, you can never be identical to another life and without precise similarity, you cannot possibly know how another defines happiness. The fact that every single one of us redefines "happiness" for ourselves from moment to moment, i.e., our definition of "happiness" is contextual and context is forever changing, the probability you will understand fully what is "best" for another individual in any one moment, let alone at all times diminishes to zero.
Although I agree that "life" and possibility" go hand in hand, i.e., in death there is no possibility for choice, there are no options, I disagree with the viewpoint that a life should cling to the last strings of life "no matter what". That is a savagely broad statement consider the many horrors that would be included in the "no matter what". In your estimation, would it be wrong of a human being to wish for death while they are being roasted alive? How much suffering do you insist others endure before you give them permission to abandon their lives? On what basis do you insist on that level of suffering? If you find yourself in the very same predicament, will you gladly accept the insistence of others that you suffer until they decide you've had enough, or do you believe you ought to have the liberty to decide that limit for yourself? If you personally are willing to grant others that authority over your life, on what basis do you insist others must grant the same?
What Naumadd said. Nice.
So, you obviously believe in "God." And that means you obviously think that you will never die.
Sounds weird, doesn't it? But yet that's your belief - that you will have everlasting life. That this is just an earthly shell and your real life is waiting for you. With "God."
Well, then... if you think that life is so precious why are trying to keep people from going to where there is no longer any earthly suffering?
Why would claim that people should never give up hope? If you believe, THAT is your hope. Why would tell people they should "cling to the last strings of life no matter what"? Obviously, your life doesn't truly begin until you die.
That's the whole point about you religious types. Which is also why I don't understand why you people get so upset when someone you love dies. That should be a cause for celebration to your kind of people. Halleh frikken lujia and praise the LAWD! I'm not making fun of you or anyone likethat... it seriously makes no sense. If you really had that joy joy joy down in your heart, you would honestly believe that you Will Not Die... and this is just an earthly shell.
So. If you say people don't have a right to end their earthly suffering, you're saying they don't have a right to choose to go to their true place - home. And isn't that defeating the point?
wow, you claim in another debate here that no one should have the right to tell you what you can and can't eat then you come over here and want to force your religious views on others via the government. Why do you bemoan others wanting to impose their view on animal rights yet you want to impose your views on suicide?
"wow, you claim in another debate here that no one should have the right to tell you what you can and can't eat then you come over here and want to force your religious views on others via the government."
I guess if you feel that's a problem then you probably favor legalizing murder right?
"Why do you bemoan others wanting to impose their view on animal rights yet you want to impose your views on suicide?"
Gee, I think it MIGHT have something to do with viewing people as far more exceptional as animals, but I could be dead wrong on that one.
Your statement about murder makes no sense.
Regarding exceptionalism, viewing humans as "exceptional" animals does not lead to the conclusion that it's OK to force a particular religious view about suicide on others. Especially in light of the exact opposite stand on a different issue on this site.
"Your statement about murder makes no sense."
That made no sense.
"Regarding exceptionalism, viewing humans as "exceptional" animals does not lead to the conclusion that it's OK to force a particular religious view about suicide on others."
What does religion have to do with my views? straw man
"Especially in light of the exact opposite stand on a different issue on this site."
Which is?
The right to life is indeed fundamental. It is the source of all other rights. Without it (and the corollary decision to end one's life), no other rights are possible.
While one may morally object to a particular individual's decision to end his life, it is not the government's proper function to dictate what people can do with their bodies.
I have seen someone suffer tremendously due to pain that was beyond his human control. He always said he never desired to suffer if he were to end up in a situation where that could potentially happen. We generally never give much thought to it until it happens to someone we love. My family and I wasn't prepared to bury our brother/son. If we're allowed to have access to guns that allow many individuals to take their own lives, we surely could help the ones who are suffering have a more comfortable passing.
If individuals have the right to choose what they do with their own bodies (whatever that means), does this extend to things such as suicide? What relationship does euthanasia and suicide have?
There is a difference between suicidal people and the terminally ill. Suicidal people often have a chemical imbalance. They aren't of sound mind. The terminally ill are often of sound mind. They know there is no cure to their illness, they'll have to endure pain and a lower quality of life. I think as far as quality of life goes, that can be personal opinion. However, who are we to tell someone of sound mind that they can't make their own choices with their body?
I honestly don't understand why we lock up suicidal people in mental institutions. It is their body and their life to do what they want with it so long as they aren't hurting anyone else. So yes, the right to die does extend to the right to commit suicide for whatever reason the person deems fit, and I do not believe we have any right to intervene.
What if the suicide is due to a mental imbalance like depression? What if the person has everything to live for but is sad nonetheless?
What does it say about our society if we declare we don't care if people take their own lives?
We just care about different values. You value living above everything, even above quality of life. Those on the other side of the argument value personal liberties and and quality of life. Surely the answer is somewhere in the middle.
What does it say about the mental institutions who are over medicating individuals at an alarming rate? The side effects to some medicines have caused some to actually commit suicide. Individuals that suffer from depression are at a high risk due to the medicines that are difficult to stabilize a patient with. What type of drug, what dose, and how much??? Unfortunately to many commit suicide that were suffering from depression and could have received the proper treatment had they either had the proper doctor or taken the medicine that was prescribed to them, which is common with many.However, someone who is suffering in agony in a hospital bed should have the right to choose rather they wish to end their life. They are usually terminally ill at this point and deserve to die in peace. You did bring up a good question though. I have asked it for years myself.