I'VE BEEN thinking lately about death -- not of expediting my own or anyone else's, but rather of countenancing death the same way I think about life. That is, do we, as humans in control of our own lives, have the right to die? A colleague of mine posed a similar question to me after a discussion last week about same-sex marriage. We were talking of how religion informs people's views of homosexuality and the institution of marriage and how that distorts the underlying issue, that marriage is a civil right. We had just finished the argument when someone asked, "Why do we spend so much time thinking about our rights in life, but never our right to die?"
At first consideration, the answer seemed fairly simple: We do think about it, but the only people for whom it matters are either dead or dying, so why should I care? If, for me, the right to die ever becomes a serious issue, presumably, juridical theory will be the least of my concerns. Upon further consideration, however, the issue seemed less about life and death and more about the fundamental concept that human life belongs only to the individual.
Individuals ought to have the right to live and die as they choose, as long as neither life nor death infringes upon the rights of others. This sounds like a simple point. But, as in the case of same-sex marriage, religious dogma seems to have seeped into the broader discussion -- to the point where hardly any Western nations permit terminally ill people to seek assistance in ending their lives, legally.
Before defending my point that religion, in this case, poisons sensible debate, it's worth explaining exactly what one means by "the right to die." One certainly doesn't mean states should encourage ritualistic suicide as a means for population control. Nor would terminally ill patients be summarily executed. Nor would death become a "treatment option" for patients with cancer, HIV, neurological disorders or mental illness. And only an idiot would equate ending a life of unbearable suffering with "taking the easy way out."
So, for a more realistic, empathetic view of physician-assisted suicide, one ought to read Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, passed by referendum in 1994, which allows terminally ill patients to seek a doctor's help in obtaining a lethal dose of medication with which to end one's life. (The law endured two attempts to overturn it, making Oregon the first government in the world to legalize physician-assisted suicide.)
I realize, at this point, that I haven't yet addressed how religion distorts this issue. When the Bush administration alleged that the law violated federal controlled substances legislation, the Supreme Court ruled six to three in favor of Oregon, prompting the administration and religious to attack the laws morally, rather than legally. "The legislation is disturbing and dangerous," said Pat Robertson. Robertson's loyal cadre of braying lunatics repeated similar condemnations. The Family Research Council deemed it a "perversion of medicine."
True, it's unfair to quote reactionary psychotics and pretend they represent general opinion, but even moderates opposed to Oregon's law often cite religion as a source of their discomfort. Put simply, if your life belongs to God, individuals no right to end their lives or ask a physician to help.
Of course, not every objection stems from religion directly. Since our lives belong to (choose your favorite) government, nature or God, one might say, the only rightful death must come thusly -- either in the form of capital punishment, natural causes or eternal hell-fire, respectively.
If human life belongs to humans, however, governments have only limited capability to interfere. We spend so much time considering the rights of life, liberty and property, we end up neglecting the fundamental principle that makes those rights worth protecting -- that we, as humans, control our destinies and that governments exist to protect and enshrine liberty, not to grant it.
This may sound annoyingly pontificating, but this idea will only become more important as advancements in medicine and technology make terminal illness a choice rather than a nonnegotiable death sentence. Technology for healing can also transform fatal illness to a torturous ordeal of treatment and pain, with only the hope of prolonging life for months, maybe years.
People ought to have the choice to end their lives on their own terms. Our lives are our own; so should be the choice to live or die. That choice, within the reasonable constraints of the Oregon legislation, represents a person's final measure of human freedom -- the freedom to end one's life as he or she chooses, with dignity.
Dan Keyserling is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at dkeyserling@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
