"Right to die" should be given to those with fatal illnesses
Aside from perhaps abortion, there is no debate conducted with as much solemn purpose as the one surrounding euthanasia. The right to die, as this argument is sometimes framed, is one that presents itself to all of us at some time or another.
One has to think about it. It is not uncommon for parents to tell their children whether or not to allow them to die, in the case that the parent is incapable of communication and is in constant pain.
The hardest thing a family has to face is the slow death of a loved one, especially if his or her parents are still living. Cancer is probably the most common cause of this phenomenon. Two of my grandparents died of that disease. I met neither.
The case of Brittany Maynard is, perhaps, the most pitiful recent example of someone exercising his or her right to die.
Maynard, 29, has been diagnosed with the form of brain cancer that you don ’ t recover from. She has only a few weeks left to live, and has explained her choice to die in a YouTube video that has received millions of views.
There is no serious person who isn ’ t aware of the conflict of rights and interests in this debate. Maynard is someone who, in the face of a long and painful death, is choosing to opt out early. Her choice is heartrending, if simple. She exacts some form of control over the circumstances of her death, even if she can ’ t escape it in the long run.
But, if that ’ s the argument, why shouldn ’ t anyone be able to choose death? Why do we spend resources on suicide hotlines and police suicide rescue personnel?
There are a few solid responses. Because euthanasia is so easily confused with simple suicide, endorsing the former often is compared with endorsing the latter.
The difference is, in my opinion, that euthanasia is related to assert power over one ’ s situation. It is recognizing that death is coming, accepting that fact and doing what one can to take control of it.
Suicide, on the other hand, is a turning away from life. It ’ s the emergency exit on the amusement ride.
It ’ s often seen as some sort of escape. When Robin Williams died, there was a bunch of fatuous stuff like this flying around on the Internet. Disney itself put out a photo on Twitter implicitly comparing the suicide of a sad man dealing with a terminal illness to the freeing of Aladdin ’ s Genie from his lamp.
This kind of idea is dangerous. It reinforces the belief that suicide is freedom from the turbulences and responsibilities of life, instead of running away from them. (I would rather have Robin Williams still alive. Does that mean I would wish Genie to stay in his bottle?) It ’ s one reason why suicide rates jump when a celebrity kills his or herself. When Marilyn Monroe died of what is suspected to be a suicide, the national rate jumped up 12 percent.
This is also why some people see what Maynard is doing is similar. By trying to reinforce the idea of “ choosing death ” in some situations, she is — intentionally or not — encouraging others to follow her lead in less dire situations.
She isn ’ t innocent in romanticizing the notion to some extent: “ I will die upstairs in my bedroom that I share with my husband, with my mother and my husband by my side and pass peacefully with some music that I like in the background.
But, these notions aside, I think that a person ’ s life should be put into his or her own hands if faced with a debilitating physical illness. However, promoting for others what is essentially a personal choice could have major consequences on those in dissimilar situations.
Because, in the end, it is a personal choice. None of us were born into the world with our consent.
With this in mind, seems only fair that, in certain situations, we be able to control the circumstances of our death.