The Right to Die

February 24, 2007 1:35 AM

anti asked what my opinion on doctor-assisted suicide is, so here it is.

First, I think it's helpful to make a little bit of a distinction between doctor-assisted suicide in the abstract and in the real world. In the abstract, if someone makes an informed decision that they want to die, for whatever reason, I think society should generally respect that decision. What I mean by this is that there shouldn't be laws against killing yourself. Of course, I hope that, if you decide that's what you want to do, your friends and family would try to stop you. I know I would. But the basic moral principle at work here, as far as I'm concerned, is that it's your life, you can do whatever you want with it--including end it.

So, now we can add the a complication in the abstract situation: doctors are supposed to help you get better, not kill yourself. But I think this concern can be easily dispatched. A doctor's duty should be to his patient. Although doctors are ethically bound to heal their patients, that duty is premised on the assumption that all clients want to get better and want to live. If that assumption proves to be false, then the doctor's duty is no longer to preserve life at all costs--his duty is to give his patient what he wants.

In the abstract, then, you have a right to kill yourself, and a doctor should be allowed to help you reach that end.

But now we have to deal with the real world. There are numerous problems: How do you know when someone really wants to die of their own free will, and isn't motivated by shame, depression, family pressures, or other external factors? How much proof that the patient wanted to die should be required before the doctor is not legally responsible? The fact of the matter, however, is that people are currently allowed to make decisions of equal importance. For example, a court properly, in my opinion, allowed Starchild Abraham Cherrix to refuse treatment for his cancer and, instead, pursue an alternative therapy that has, apparently, worked. Mr. Cherrix knew he might die without chemotherapy, but he made an informed decision not to continue with that therapy.

The point is that people make potentially deadly decisions all the time--and they have the right to do so. So, while I think that there should be a large number of procedural safeguards to ensure that someone is making the choice of their own free will, I also think that people should, in the real world, be able to end their lives peacefully, painlessly, on their own terms, and with the help of a physician.

2 Comments

Dee said:

i agree with you. it seems like the ethical question of whether a person seeks DAS on their own free will could be settled simply if more people drafted living wills.

February 24, 2007 3:21 AM

dicta said:

i agree with the conclusion, but perhaps disagree slightly with your analysis of the "external factors."

i'm not sure i consider things like shame and depression to be external. every person is different. some have these problems/characteristics, others do not. i dont think these characteristics can be separated from the person when decisions such as ending ones life is made. we dont separate them when these people are deciding what to eat, who to date, or what to wear, so i dont think we should do so in deciding their right to opt for death. autonomy is what makes humans great, and as long as they're not infringing on others' rights then they should be able to exercise it. of course, family and friends etc will be emotionally bothered by these decisions, but it's not clear to me that these people's emotional reactions outweigh the individual's right to exercise his or her autonomy. in fact, i would argue that if we let their emotional states upset this then the individual has in fact lost his autonomy.

February 24, 2007 10:07 AM

Leave a comment

Name

Email Address

URL

Remember personal info?

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)