Right-to-die excludes morality in lieu of “individual rights”


This Nov. 1 will mark 29-year-old Brittany Maynard’s date with death. Diagnosed with stage four brain cancer, Maynard plans to take a pill prescribed by physicians to allow her to “die with dignity” on her own terms and avoid hospice care and the suffering to come. While her choice is a personal one, giving people like Maynard the “right” to die is not only morally unsound, but also dangerous.

Lili Scarlet Sedano | Daily Trojan

Lili Scarlet Sedano | Daily Trojan

 

Maynard wrote a piece for CNN reflecting on her choice. “Now that I’ve had the prescription filled and it’s in my possession, I have experienced a tremendous sense of relief,” she wrote. “I am not suicidal. If I were, I would have consumed that medication long ago. I do not want to die. But I am dying. And I want to die on my own terms.” Maynard and her family chose to move to Oregon, one of five states in the United States that has legalized physician-assisted death.

While seemingly reasonable, Maynard’s statements resound with the reigning philosophy of our times — the choice of complete autonomy and self-determination over any deeper considerations of community. It begs a troubling question: if people are allowed to kill themselves under the pretense of dignity, then what other acts of consent could make suicide a morally acceptable possibility? The impact on society, something that Maynard left out, is disturbingly significant.

As David van Gend, a Brisbane medical doctor, told Bill Muehlenberg of blog CultureWatch, “It corrodes community, so that when [someone] gets lonely and tired of life, the community comes to him or her not with encouragement and involvement, but with a needle.” With more than 40,000 cases of suicide a year in the United States, legalizing the right to die would only exacerbate the conditions.

The immediate circle of friends and family that an individual shares his or her life with is forced to bear an even heavier load of loss. In Maynard’s case, her decision would take away any of the numbered and increasingly precious moments her family would still have with her in the event of a natural death.

In a courageous step, Kara Tippetts, a mother of four who has terminal breast cancer, recently wrote an open letter to Maynard pleading with her to reconsider. She reminds us of our duty to keep living as long as possible — if not for the sake of ourselves, for the sake of loved ones. Her plea abounds with a love for life and a unique perspective on death.

“I too am dying, Brittany,” Tippetts wrote. “But in my whispering, pleading, loving voice dear heart — will you hear my heart ask you, beg you, plead with you — not to take that pill. Yes, your dying will be hard, but it will not be without beauty.”

Relieving suffering doesn’t have to translate to actively killing the sufferer. Palliative care is an alternative out there for the terminally ill besides assisted suicide. While euthanasia gives power to doctors, lawyers and even family members to determine who should live and die, palliative care goes down a safer road for which the physician withholds or withdraws undue treatment at the request of the patient. On the other hand, cases like Maynard’s undermine trust in the medical profession, bringing into question whether doctors are here to treat rather than terminate the frail, elderly and sick.

Euthanasia is a simple solution only in a society that champions individual rights above all else — even when it means setting detrimental precedents for the world that’s left behind.

 

Valerie Yu is a junior majoring in English. She is also the editorial director of the Daily Trojan. “Point/Counterpoint” runs Tuesdays.

 

2 replies
  1. b juardo
    b juardo says:

    I’m going to disagree with you, Yu. My younger brother suffered from stage IV gastric cancer, and eventually succumbed to it. He was physically so weak and frail, the last few months of his life, that if he requested to go in this manner, I would’ve fully understood and supported him.
    It’s easy to speak on behalf of those who you cannot vicariously live through. But when you watch them suffer physically, emotionally, etc. I don’t think it’s your call as to whether right-to-die is moral or immoral. It’s their call.

  2. Benjamin Roberts
    Benjamin Roberts says:

    This is a very interesting perspective. I like the argument presented. In the end, most people agree that “suicide” in any form is fundamentally selfish. I suppose the question then becomes: When is selfishness appropriate? Certainly there are times when one should assert their individual liberties, but I feel that modern society has bred a culture of unprecedented selfishness where rights trump responsibilities, Few people stop to consider one of life’s great maxims: Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

    I further find that modern society has cheapened and undermined the meaning and value of family, marriage, love, and even life itself. This slow but deliberate erosion of values makes the personal decision to end one’s life.. even in this context… that much easier, or certainly more acceptable to society. I certainly don’t envy this young woman’s position. My heart goes out to her, and her loved ones, who stand to lose no matter what choice is made.

Comments are closed.