Humans are free by nature. They enjoy right to self-preservation given the notion that humans themselves are the owners of their lives. This ownership of life bestows the right to make decisions on individual life solely on the owner of life; that is, the right to life and the right to die. As a result, individuals make decisions on whether their lives worth continuous existence or not on the basis of their encounter with the challenges of life, society, and health. To many, pains, agonies, indignities, and poor health vitiate good life. Therefore, continuous existence in such a situation debases the quality of being humans, according to many people. As a result, euthanasia and/or suicide are at the top of the decision ladder of such people in the above category. The question of whether or not individuals have right to end their lives by themselves or through another is subjected to moral, philosophical, and societal debates with different literature, policymakers, and professionals questioning the rationale behind the decision to end one’s life by oneself or through the help of another person. This paper aims at expanding the debate by asking whether ownership of life leads to the right to die.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Euthanasia and Suicide: the brief historical context
3. Suicide: between rationalization and philosophy
4. Euthanasia and the Arguments
5. Active vs. Passive Euthanasia
6. Right to life vs. Right to Die under Ownership of Life
7. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper explores the complex moral, philosophical, and societal debates surrounding euthanasia and suicide, specifically questioning whether the inherent ownership of one's life confers a legitimate right to die. It examines historical contexts, legal perspectives, and the ethical dilemmas faced by medical professionals and society when individuals perceive their lives as worthless due to suffering or indignity.
- The relationship between self-ownership and the right to die.
- Historical perspectives on self-killing and the classification of "feeble-minded" individuals.
- The philosophical and moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia.
- The role of the state and medical institutions in end-of-life decisions.
- The impact of pain, suffering, and hopelessness on individual end-of-life choices.
Excerpt from the Book
Euthanasia and the Arguments
While suicide involves direct actions and behaviors by an individual committing suicide to end his life, Euthanasia involves actions taken by another individual in response to a decision or request by the owner of life to end his life or a decision taken on the life of an individual on his behalf. In assisted suicide, for example, the owner of life may request suicide pills from someone with the aim of ending his life. However, whether it is self-suicide or assisted suicide; the actions to cause self-death are basically taken by the owner of the life himself. It is not clear whether a request made by one person to another to inject the former with lethal substance with the motive of ending his life could be called assisted suicide or euthanasia. In the medical profession, euthanasia raises new concerns as regards the issue of dying and the medical responsibility and ethics of a physician to prevent death. On this, Williams argues that pain and hopelessness should not be the basis of justification for the practice of euthanasia because pain alone, no matter how unbearable it may be, cannot justify shortening of life. And also, hopelessness should not justify the hastening of death (Lavi, 2009:42-43).
Euthanasia, unlike suicide, is more of public policy. In the history of euthanasia, the debate has always been between morality and right. Those against euthanasia view it from the point of view of morality and less from the point of view of the right. If they had concentrated more on right, they probably would be stuck in the dilemma of justifying why someone who has a right to his life should suddenly be criticized for deciding to end a life owned by him. Legislations in countries where euthanasia is allowed, however, consider the practice of euthanasia from the point of view of the right to life which could extend to right to die because the argument mostly focuses on the vulnerable or vegetative patients in the society who are neither useful to themselves nor to the society to which they belong.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Discusses the foundational concepts of natural rights and the state's role in protecting individual life while setting the stage for the debate on the right to end one's life.
2. Euthanasia and Suicide: the brief historical context: Examines how historical interpretations of natural rights and specific 20th-century events have shaped contemporary views on euthanasia and the definition of "feeble-mindedness."
3. Suicide: between rationalization and philosophy: Explores the philosophical definitions of suicide, distinguishing between various motivations and analyzing historical/religious perspectives on self-death.
4. Euthanasia and the Arguments: Compares suicide and euthanasia, focusing on the involvement of third parties, medical ethics, and the shift from morality-based to right-based arguments in public policy.
5. Active vs. Passive Euthanasia: Differentiates between active and passive methods, discussing traditional versus radical ethical views on the moral significance of biological life.
6. Right to life vs. Right to Die under Ownership of Life: Analyzes the tension between the state's interest in preserving life and the individual's autonomous claim to decide the end of their own existence, citing legal precedents.
7. Conclusion: Synthesizes the arguments, asserting that the liberty to make decisions regarding one's own life should reside with the owner of that life, free from unnecessary interference.
Keywords
Euthanasia, Suicide, Right to Life, Right to Die, Self-Ownership, Natural Rights, Bioethics, Physician-Assisted Suicide, Medical Ethics, Political State, Human Dignity, Passive Euthanasia, Active Euthanasia, Autonomy, Suffering
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this work?
The paper examines the moral and philosophical legitimacy of euthanasia and suicide, specifically questioning whether the concept of individual self-ownership of life implies a legal and moral right to end that life.
Which central topics are addressed?
Key themes include natural rights, historical attitudes toward self-killing, the differentiation between active and passive euthanasia, the role of medical professionals, and how public policy influences end-of-life decisions.
What is the primary objective of this research?
The main goal is to expand the current debate by exploring whether the intrinsic ownership of one's own life effectively leads to a right to die, challenging traditional paternalistic views.
Which methodology is utilized?
The author employs a qualitative, analytical approach, synthesizing philosophical, historical, and legal literature to evaluate the ethical arguments surrounding life-preservation versus self-determined death.
What is covered in the main body of the text?
The body analyzes the historical context of euthanasia, the distinction between suicide and euthanasia, the medical ethics regarding physician-assisted dying, and the legal implications of individual autonomy versus state intervention.
How would you characterize this work through keywords?
The work is best defined by terms such as Euthanasia, Suicide, Right to Life, Right to Die, Autonomy, Bioethics, and Self-Ownership.
How does the author define the difference between active and passive euthanasia?
The author defines active euthanasia as the administration of lethal substances to cause death, whereas passive euthanasia involves the refusal of life-sustaining treatment or the withdrawal of medical support.
What role does the case of Helga Wanglie play in the author's argument?
The case serves as a legal example demonstrating that the right to make end-of-life decisions can be transferable to proxies (such as a spouse) when an individual is unable to make these choices themselves.
Why does the author discuss the "radical view" regarding biological life?
The radical view is used to contrast traditional moral positions, arguing that because human existence involves aspiration and biographical meaning, there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia.
- Citar trabajo
- Mr. Sesan Adeolu Odunuga (Autor), 2019, Euthanasia and Suicide. Does Ownership of Life Lead to Right to Die? Still on the debate, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/458019
