Question
Is the "right to die" a human right?
Answer
My direct experience here is limited to signing off on euthanizing a cat. It was gut wrenching to do that, but there was never a single doubt in my head that it was the right thing to do. My cat's quality of life had clearly become absolutely terrible and seeing him suffer in the last couple of days was probably one of the most traumatic experiences I've been through.
I suppose I am kinda odd in that I genuinely cannot relate to people differently than I do to animals. So for me there is again no question that I'd feel the same way about humans and most importantly about myself. I have had a couple of death-scares and very brief experiences of serious pain. Nothing worth talking about, but they were enough to tell me that I personally have a very definite go/no-go point at which I'd give up fighting for life and ask to be put out of pain.
That said... I can kinda see the logic of the anti-euthanesia lobby. It is not just a religious argument about the sanctity of life etc. (those are irrelevant to me personally). The problem has to do with the fundamental paradox of a society where it's okay to off yourself. Doing so under (say) the intense pain of a terminal illness may seem like a no-brainer, but it is also the start of a slippery slope towards a society that is seriously pain-averse. While any line you draw between morally/ethically acceptable vs. unacceptable conditions under which you end your life (with/without help) will of course be arbitrary (kinda like the "when does life begin?" question in the abortion debates), it seems clear to me that if the line is drawn too loosely, you've effectively signed the death warrant for the society itself.
Suicide is one of the two decisions (the other being the choice to not have children) that strongly undermines the foundation of an enduring society. So the argument that it is a selfish act has some legs. It is easy to see this via a reductio ad absurdum (if everybody under 22 today suddenly decided to not have any kids, and the entire population decided to choose suicide for a very low threshold, the society would last about 10-20 years before killing itself).
Both suicide and being child-free are very individualistic decisions. So individualism is a socially nihilistic position. If too many people do it, everything goes to hell. Fortunately only a fraction of people want to be that individualistic, and they mostly try to "pay their dues" in other ways, so for practical purposes, it all seems to work out.
We'll see though. Japan may conduct national hara kiri within our life times, if they don't succeed in building those robots they're dreaming of, that would allow them to continue without importing Filipino migrant labor.
I suppose I am kinda odd in that I genuinely cannot relate to people differently than I do to animals. So for me there is again no question that I'd feel the same way about humans and most importantly about myself. I have had a couple of death-scares and very brief experiences of serious pain. Nothing worth talking about, but they were enough to tell me that I personally have a very definite go/no-go point at which I'd give up fighting for life and ask to be put out of pain.
That said... I can kinda see the logic of the anti-euthanesia lobby. It is not just a religious argument about the sanctity of life etc. (those are irrelevant to me personally). The problem has to do with the fundamental paradox of a society where it's okay to off yourself. Doing so under (say) the intense pain of a terminal illness may seem like a no-brainer, but it is also the start of a slippery slope towards a society that is seriously pain-averse. While any line you draw between morally/ethically acceptable vs. unacceptable conditions under which you end your life (with/without help) will of course be arbitrary (kinda like the "when does life begin?" question in the abortion debates), it seems clear to me that if the line is drawn too loosely, you've effectively signed the death warrant for the society itself.
Suicide is one of the two decisions (the other being the choice to not have children) that strongly undermines the foundation of an enduring society. So the argument that it is a selfish act has some legs. It is easy to see this via a reductio ad absurdum (if everybody under 22 today suddenly decided to not have any kids, and the entire population decided to choose suicide for a very low threshold, the society would last about 10-20 years before killing itself).
Both suicide and being child-free are very individualistic decisions. So individualism is a socially nihilistic position. If too many people do it, everything goes to hell. Fortunately only a fraction of people want to be that individualistic, and they mostly try to "pay their dues" in other ways, so for practical purposes, it all seems to work out.
We'll see though. Japan may conduct national hara kiri within our life times, if they don't succeed in building those robots they're dreaming of, that would allow them to continue without importing Filipino migrant labor.