This blog post takes a closer look at the right of humans to decide their own death, focusing on the right to die with dignity and the freedom of choice.
“I have the right to destroy myself.” This is what the famous French novelist Françoise Sagan said. As long as it does not harm others, it is your freedom to bring yourself to death or even make your life miserable. Human life and freedom are unique rights that each individual must decide for themselves, which may sometimes include extreme choices.
What are some of the human freedoms? The most representative of these is the right to live as a human being. The right to live as a human being includes the minimum of food, clothing, shelter, and social activities, which are the core of human rights and essential conditions that must be guaranteed to all people in modern society. In addition, all humans have mental and spiritual freedom and the freedom to make choices that go beyond simply material security. Living like a human being means leading one’s life independently through one’s own choices, and this can include the choice of when to die.
This is exactly what the advocates of death with dignity argue. Humans have the freedom to choose their own lives. This means that when it comes to choosing life or death, all humans have the freedom to choose and shape their own deaths. For patients suffering from terminal illnesses, death with dignity is a choice that ends their suffering and, furthermore, gives them the dignity of being able to make their own decisions, at least in their final moments. How, when, and in what manner to die is a decision that each individual can make. As long as the choice of death does not infringe on the protection of human rights, humans have the right to enjoy unlimited freedom as long as they do not harm others about themselves.
On the other hand, those who oppose euthanasia are concerned that euthanasia may be used as a tool to infringe on human rights, rather than a means to protect human rights. This also implies that the right to choose life may be entangled with economic logic at some point and distorted in a wrong way. Human life may be weighed against economic principles. In fact, most patients who want to give up treatment cite the economic burden that will be placed on their families as the reason. Dignity death can cause a situation in which people want to live but cannot, and in which money is more important than life. This economic pressure can lead to a situation in which life is sacrificed for economic reasons if the dignity death system is operated incorrectly, so the concerns of those who are worried about this should also be taken into serious consideration.
People all look for the meaning of life in happiness. Living humanely, freely, and happily is the meaning of life. However, for most critically ill patients who have no choice but to choose a dignified death, happiness is a luxury and a mockery. They face pain every day, endure pain, and live with the burden placed on their families and the guilt of being a burden to them. For them, even death is a part of life, and even the last moment of life has meaning as one of the options for alleviating pain. For them, every day of life is not a blessed time, but an extension of suffering. It is difficult to say that the daily life of a person with a condition that cannot be cured and helplessly waiting for death is a human life. Even the basic necessities of life, such as food, clothing, and shelter, and even freedom are not properly fulfilled. If the meaning of human rights is the right to live as a human being, then these people are constantly violating human rights just by living. This is a principled argument that they should not die.
Death is a process of life that all humans born into the world cannot avoid. Just as we grow and age, death also comes to us naturally and naturally. The meaning of death is not simply the end of life, but one of the many stages of life, and therefore the manner in which death occurs can also be evaluated as a part of the dignity of human life. The process varies from person to person, and death sometimes comes suddenly in the form of a sudden accident, and sometimes painfully in the form of a chronic illness or a life of fighting against it. Some people will want to endure that pain, and some may want to give up. But it should all be a personal choice. If a person cannot choose the end of their life because of laws made by humans even though they are actually suffering so much without causing any harm to others, it is no different from a violation of human rights.
Of course, if a dignified death is only carried out with the consent of family members or guardians, there is clearly a risk of abuse. However, the law should provide a way to prevent the human rights of critically ill patients from being violated by others, not prevent them from choosing death. The reason for the existence of the law is to protect and promote human rights. Also, while euthanasia may be rejected by certain religions or cultures, in order to remain a universally accepted choice for all, we must move toward respecting the rights of individual human beings regardless of their various views. Therefore, various legal devices are needed to be more cautious in the implementation of a dignified death. For example, a dignified death should be implemented only when there is direct consent from the patient. Although the efficiency of the system will be reduced, the life of a human cannot be compared to the efficiency of the system. Even the right to die with dignity, with the patient’s consent, can help many critically ill patients who are reaching the end of their lives in hospitals, with an average of 180,000 patients a year.
There is also a method called advance medical directive. An advance medical directive is a document that is prepared in advance for medical staff to refer to when making treatment decisions in the event that a patient is unable to make their own treatment decisions in the near future. Such documents can reduce the risk of euthanasia by promoting it in various ways, such as signing up for organ donation, and receiving it in advance before becoming ill or having an accident. If there is evidence that the critically ill patient has previously made such a firm statement, it will be possible to provide the patient with a dignified death that is at least partially in accordance with the patient’s wishes.
The evils of euthanasia cannot be ignored. However, just as all rules in the world need to take into account the side effects, there are reasons why euthanasia is necessary despite its side effects. Just as the right to pursue “how to live well,” or well-being, is given to individuals, shouldn’t the freedom of the “how to die well,” or well-dying, and the means to do so also be left to the individual?
