The Right to Live and Die
A basic philosophy that I hold dear is that every person should have the right to do essentially anything that he or she wants to do, as long as it doesn’t cause harm, except possibly to him or herself. Causing harm in this case includes physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual damage to people or animals, as well as damaging the environment, including the land, air, water, and plants.
Obviously, any kind of sweeping statement like that is going to be fraught with challenges. For example, at what point does caring for someone with a chronic condition turn into harmful, prolonged torture? I doubt there is an answer that could satisfy everyone, and any law attempting to dictate such standards must allow for exceptions that will occasionally come up.
It is said that from the moment they are born, people have the right to live. Benjamin Franklin stated that “in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes” (Letter to Jean-Baptiste Leroy. November 13, 1789. Wikiquote/Benjamin_Franklin). Hopefully, there is much that happens to a person in between birth and death: primary and secondary education, romance, love, procreation, fulfilling work, charitable contributions, and the formation of a personal value system. Just as nobody’s path through life is the same, nobody’s personal value system can develop identically. Every person feels a little differently about what is ethical and what is not.
It is possible to poll the consensus of the collective population and determine the majority opinion on a wide range of topics. In a democratic society, the election process puts that possibility into practice. It is important to remember, however, that the views of a person holding a minority opinion are every bit as valid as the opinion of the majority. Something that seems outrageous to many, might be the clearly ethical choice given an individual’s unique personal value system.
Take the case of a vibrant, 44-years young educated linguistics professor, who ends up in a bicycle accident resulting in full-body paralysis and the loss of speech. She has to remain on a ventilator to breathe. While she may not be able to express verbally her utter despair in words to her loving husband, he can see the pain in her soul. The doctors have informed the husband that his wife will never regain her speech, leave her hospital bed, or be removed from the ventilator, but she is otherwise in remarkably healthy condition and should “live” for many years to come.
Is that really living? When every passion you love in life is denied to you, can that really be considered living? When a machine keeps your body in a state of artificially maintained life, is that life?
I would argue that the professor’s life ended in the accident. Indeed, if it weren’t for the marvels of modern medicine, the woman would have stopped breathing and died shortly thereafter. Naturally, we want to help a person who is hurt and save his or her life if possible. Sometimes we fail, and the person dies anyway. Other times, we succeed, and the person makes a full or partial recovery, and can become an inspiration to others. Christopher Reeves was an excellent example of that. Our hypothetical linguistics professor is the worst possible outcome. She is a person for whom we managed to save the body, but we lost the soul.
Eloise, a tender soul of 72 years has been wracked with pain from recurring bouts of leukemia for the past ten years. Her children and grandchildren have active, happy lives of their own. She feels that she is becoming a burden on her children, and she knows that any chance of recovery will require more chemotherapy, radiation, and other terrible treatments her doctors can throw at her. She is tired of it. All of it. She has considered suicide several times, but cannot face the thought of leaving her children with all that pain. She wishes that she could just take a cruise, and as they return to port, the ship’s doctor could give her a little pill that would carry her to heaven. Her children would be happy knowing that she had enjoyed the last of her days in the tropical sun and that she had passed away peacefully and never had to face another round of chemo again.
Of course, if that were to happen, the ship’s doctor would probably be charged with malpractice or even imprisoned. If the professor’s husband asked the doctor’s to turn off his wife’s respirators, he would be harangued as an unloving partner to end the life of a woman with many years of life left. That assumes that they would even consider his wishes in the matter.
Death is the most final decision a person can make. Short of possibly reincarnation, there is simply no changing your mind after that decision is made. However, living out a lifetime in pain, as a “vegetable”, or in utter despair is not really living. It can be torture. Torture can and should be prevented because it denies a person their dignity and value. It is inhumane to keep a person living in suffering.
Doctors should be permitted, when they feel it is in the best interests of their patient, to assist the person in passing on. This should never be done in a moment of extreme angst. Death should not come because of impulsive decisions or during times of acute emotional stress. Careful consideration and time should pass before such a decision is made.
Family members who decide to “pull the plug” should never be made to feel guilty for the decision. They already have made a tough decision, one they will have to live with for the rest of their lives. Supportive hospice nurses can help them with coming to terms with their grief and move on with their own lives.
Any law on this topic is sure to be controversial. A well thought out law that allows for personal reflection and decision making and mandates that medical insurance continue to pay while the decisions are made (and thereafter if the life is to be continued), probably would be helpful.
Tags: death, ethics, laws, right to die, women's health
