| My position on this is abivalent (my position on most things has a degree of ambivalence -- so that's not surprising).
In general, I don't think we have a right to die. I do think we have a right to life -- and we can surrender that right. What we cannot do is transfer that right to another person (or entity). The US consitution refers to these sort of rights as inalienable.
By focusing on the inalienable right to life, it shifts the obligation. If you suggest that people have a choice to end their life, then surely you are the one who has to ensure that this choice does not conflict with the inalienable right to life. That means that you have to ensure that the decision to end your life is yours and yours alone. If that is not ensured, then you appear to be creating the possibility that the right to life be transferred to another person -- where they make the decision to end your life. I would think if you want to argue for a right to die, you need to ensure that this doesn't conflict with other rights.
This sounds simple enough, but let's look at an option that's currently legal in most countries: a Do Not Resuscitate order. Under this order, medical people should not take extreme measures to preserve your life. Like any legal document, it assumes that you have agreed to it of your own free will (that you are not under duress).
But what if it's suggested to you by your family -- is that duress? Under what conditions is it acceptable? Under what conditions is it not? |