If there is one thing that we can count on in life it is that someday we will die. For most people, this is not a thought that is dwelt upon; it is simply a fact of existence. We know that someday, somehow, our life will come to an end. In most cases, the time and manner of our demise is not something which we can foretell, nor is it something that we spend a great deal of time thinking about. Rather, we go through our lives attempting to enjoy as many moments as we can without worrying about its ultimate end, assuming it is sometime far off in the future. Most of us yearn for a long, healthy life filled with unique experiences, or at least one with little strife. And we attempt to structure our lives so that they offer enjoyment and satisfaction not only for ourselves, but for our families as well.
The religions that guide humanity tend to teach us that life is sacred, something to be cherished and protected. These religious beliefs hold that life is a gift from God and it is only God that can determine when a life should end. For many religious individuals, the concept of taking ones own life is usually looked upon with great disdain, and the act of suicide promises eternal damnation in the ever after. There are no exceptions to this rule, no provisions for those whose quality of life has been degraded by health concerns or by circumstances that delete all happiness from life itself. (Readers may note that some forms of religion are currently encouraging suicide as a means of political expression, with their goal to take as many “infidels” to the grave with them as they can. I assert that the people who commit these types of suicidal acts are not doing so to relieve their own suffering, but rather are murderers.)
Despite modern advances in medical technology, there are people among us who’s lives become either too painful to continue living or that are, due to an unrecoverable illness, not worth waiting for the inevitable, at least in their estimation. Shouldn’t those individuals have the right to choose an end to their lives that would afford them the least amount of continued pain? According to the laws of society, the answer would be no. But does the prohibition against suicide, in all forms and under any circumstances, truly represent the values of a society based on the concepts of personal freedom and personal happiness? Does society even have the right to determine what constitutes happiness? Provided that the ending of ones own life does not also cause the end of another’s, what right has society to dictate when an illness renders life unlivable?
While it may be true that for cases of depression, suicide is often less a desire to end life than it is a cry for attention, for those suffering from a fatal illness, the desire to end life on ones own terms is often a well thought out decision to reduce the pain that their illness is causing themselves and their family. Society has the duty to respect these desires and to allow the suffering individual a legal option for ending their life, without punishing them or their survivors through punitive or criminal means. Society has the obligation to allow individuals, their families, and their physicians the option of bringing an end to their suffering in a way that is acceptable to them. With that in mind, laws prohibiting suicide for the terminally ill should be amended or abolished altogether.
Terminally ill people, should they decide to end their lives in order to spare themselves the increasing physical pain of illness or their families the mental pain of watching a loved one deteriorate before their eyes or their survivors the financial ruin often associated with the long term medical costs of prolonging a painful illness, should be allowed the option of ending their lives in a manner of their choosing, if they so decide. There should be counseling programs available that educate these folks on the least painful methods of ending their lives as well as offering ways to mitigate the anguish of their survivors. With the diagnosis of terminal illness, a person has many choices to make, and the fear of financial or legal retribution for themselves or their survivors if they decide to end their lives should not be among those that dictate what path they choose to take. This decision should rest with the affected person, their doctor, and their family.
Similarly, removal of legal restrictions regarding this kind of suicide would prevent the actions of disinterested parties (government) or non-nuclear family relatives from artificially prolonging the life of someone rendered incapable of making the final choice to end their life. Today’s Living Will provisions could be strengthened to include the circumstances whereby a person could assert the desires of a loved one to end life in cases of severe incapacitation, provided those directions were clearly set out prior to the cause of permanent injury, regardless of the religious prohibitions of other family members or the possible future medical remedies that may be years or decades away, if they ever appear at all.
Opponents of the concept of the right to die most often insert their religious doctrines into their reasoning for their objections. But just as often, opponents cite fears of suicide or euthanasia becoming just a means to rid society of the elderly and the infirm. They claim that terminally ill individuals will be pressured into prematurely ending their lives to spare their families the financial costs associated with long-term terminal care. However, due to the religious beliefs that are held by so many, the instances of this kind of practice would likely be only a small percentage of those suffering from terminal illness. Just as with other relaxations of so-called morality based legislation, the mere legalization of an act does not mean that many millions will choose this as a course to follow. In fact, Oregon’s Death with Dignity law (the nation’s first legal assisted suicide law) shows statistics of only 129 cases of this kind of suicide from 1998 to 2002. Surely, many more than 129 people were diagnosed with terminal illness in Oregon in those years. The argument is hollow when the facts are revealed. Simply making this option available does not mean that it will become the preferred choice for those facing imminent death.
Suicide is never an easy decision, and in cases not related to terminal illness, society has the obligation to try and treat those whose suicidal thoughts stem from depression or temporary malcontent. But for those whose time has run out, or is running out, due to disease, properly crafted laws that allow them to choose death on their terms would go a long way towards ensuring that the right to die is included in the other “inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
This entry was posted on Monday, February 14th, 2005 at 5:41 am and is filed under Common Sense, Crime, Health, Justice, Life, Politics, Reform.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 14th, 2005 at 6:09 am
It is odd to be the first to comment on your blog. Another high quality post. I agree. I don’t think that ending your own life has anything to do with morality or sin, and particularly in the case when you are facing a terminal illness, there is something to be said for ending your own life while the quality relegates you to a nursing home or hospice and the bills accrue for family and loved that keep them in hock on your behalf.
As there is a certain amount of dignity in living a high quality life and living with integrity, there is also dignity in dying before one slips into a vegitative state, and some governor steps in to stop your family from ending the pain and suffering (i.e. Florida).
The right to live, also includes the right to die. I have two examples. One, I know of at least one woman who says, “80 and out.” Once I hit 80, I want to go. That’s enough years and I don’t want to live past it for fear of becoming a burden on my family. Now, this doesn’t mean she won’t change her mind, but then again, I understand the logic. She and her spouse belong to the Hemlock Society – some of you may know of it, but if you believe in the issues, you may consider joining.
Another example is a friend I have known since first grade. She was recently diagnosed with degenerative MS. Not the stuff of holiwood – the real deal. She is my age – which isn’t that old. But, by some stroke of luck before she was diagnosed, she bought into a lifelong care insurance policy that covers things like hospitalization, medication, etc…
Even so, she will be faced with, very soon, making a decision that may cause her to break the law becuase they don’t live in OR. Like Albom’s book Tuesday’s with Moire, I can’t see living in conditions where you can wipe your own ass, or hold a conversation becuase there are too many life sustaining tubes shoved up your mouth and nose.
February 14th, 2005 at 6:12 am
Sorry, I should hit preview before posting. I reviewed my comments and found at least two typos – One, ‘Holiwood’ should read Hollywood.
the second one is just after the tuesday’s with moire comment – It should read – “I can’t see living in conditions where you can’t…[not can as it states now]
Please forgive me. It’s late.
February 14th, 2005 at 7:40 am
Pop up came from here.
http://www.bravenetmedianetwork.com/xmlcpc/click.php?ct=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&engine=241&keyword=24162&ctype=11&creative=202&pid=1&c=MC4wNA%3D%3D
February 14th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
Hey,
Just wanted to say thanks for some of your input on the American party
blog! I also wanted to make you aware that I have moved and redesigned
the site to here
http://theunitedamerican.blogs.com/the_united_american_party/
your continued participation is always welcomed!
Thanks Again,
The Bastard
February 14th, 2005 at 10:19 pm
I agree that life is the greatest gift from God. I also believe that He gave us the wits to make good decisions, and that prolonging an agonizing death would be a bad decision.
A close friend of ours had cancer and only lasted about a year, even with constant treatment. When it was time to “go”, his whole family was around him, they all said their goodbyes, and he was able to turn his own morphine up and went to sleep. It gave everyone peace. God is LOVE, and like any father, he doesn’t want to see his children suffer needlessly.
This concept of not taking anything into our own hands reminds me of that joke about the people in the flood waiting for rescue. They turned away boat after boat, and even a helicopter to get them off their roof, stating that “God will save us”. When they met their maker that same day, they asked why he hadn’t saved them. He said, “What do you want from me? I sent you three boats and a helicopter!”
He gave us intelligence for a reason!
February 15th, 2005 at 5:27 am
(responses to comments)
windspike~
Well said. Thanks for the comment.
FFF- thank for helping track that down. Word to the wise…avoid the Bravenet Affiliate program. It can cause pop-ups to occur on your blog.
BonJ-
Whether or not you choose to believe in God, the ability to decide when life is no longer livable due to terminal illness should be up to the individual in all cases. I am happy that your friend got the chance to make that choice.
If your religious beliefs prevent you from those actions, that is fine. But it’s not acceptable to legislate those beliefs onto others. So in the legal sense, the existence, intent, and/or desire of a God is not relevant. What matters is that people have the chance to decide either way without religion encroaching on the legal ramifications of their decisions.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
February 15th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
Well written and well rerasoned. I find your blog thought provoking and look forward to your posts. Also thanks for your visit and kind comments. Best regards.
February 15th, 2005 at 7:33 pm
Ken,
I’m actually pretty close to full agreement with you on this one. I think that the decision should be left to the individuals and never enacted by a physician. I’d hate for the US to turn into Sweden on this issue.
And on a side note. Regarding eternal damnation by suicide: see my essay “The Unforgivable Sin”. You may be surprised at what I have to say.
February 15th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
(response to M+)
I read your essay some time back and liked your explanation for those whose faith requires them to consider these points. I think you do yourself justice in your explanation.
Thanks again for visiting, as always.
February 15th, 2005 at 11:19 pm
I hope sometime soon you will post something I can disagree with so I can write a comment of substance for once.
Extremely well written and resoned. Keep up the good work.
February 16th, 2005 at 8:25 am
(response to spenwah)
Thanks for the comment. You know, you can always go back and read my old post. Maybe you’ll find something there we could agree to disagree on.
February 18th, 2005 at 2:22 am
I have been a proponent of the rigth to die since I did a speech in the 7th grade. As I have learned more, that is one of the few things never to change.
I went to Catholic schools for 12 years and we debated this very often. Along with abortion, this resulted in the most heated and informative discussions.
Simply put. I think it is a quailty of life issue. Life is precious(and for the religious, a gift from God), but at what point do we say a person has suffered enough. And if that person says it themselves, who are we as healthy people to stop them.