My Position On The Right To Die
Also Referred To As Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia
Copyright © 2016 & 2018 by Wil C. Fry
First published 2016.02.11, Updated 2018.11.13
Home > My Platform > Right To Die
Introduction
Unlike my position on abortion, which changed over the years, I do not recall ever having a different position on the right to die. I always thought, even as a fanatic Christian, that humans should have the right to end their own lives.(Scroll down to see these arguments expanded, or use the More menu to navigate.)
What Exactly Do These Words Mean?
Part of the problem with this discussion is a tangle of different phrases and definitions.
Arguments Against The Right To Die Are Wrong
As with abortion, the arguments against the right to die are often religious in nature, though there are other types. Here in the U.S., they’re most often Bible-based. I still haven’t heard of one that’s valid.
Biblical Arguments
Of course, the main reason Biblical arguments fail here is that no nation is ruled by the Bible, nor should any be. In the U.S., we have specific constitutional safeguards against letting one religion or religious viewpoint overshadow all others. If indeed the Bible prohibited suicide, that would be a reason for followers of the Bible to not commit suicide, but should have no bearing on anyone else.
However (as noted in my Introduction), there actually is nothing in the Bible that prohibits — or even speaks against — suicide. Certainly nothing is mentioned about mercy-killing at a patient’s request.
The Bible is almost entirely silent on the subject of suicide, mentioning it only eight times — including the instance (Acts 16:25-28) when Paul prevented a suicide. In that case, suicide was not condemned. It does not appear that Paul prevented the guard’s suicide because suicide is wrong, but because the guard was mistaken about his reason for killing himself — the guard thought the prisoners had escaped, but they hadn’t. If the prisoners had escaped, he could have gone ahead and done it.
The Bible mentions seven people who actually killed themselves:
The first is included because Abimelek commanded the killing, but he did not do it himself. Like Saul, he asked his armor-bearer to do it. Unlike Saul’s armor-bearer, Abimelek’s armor-bear actually did run him through with a sword. Under current law and Western morality, this is murder, not suicide. However, it could be classified as a “mercy-killing”, since Abimelek had just had a millstone dropped on his head, which cracked his skull, and was likely about to die anyway. His reason: “So that they can’t say, ‘A woman killed him.’ ” Abimelek, though the son of a Bible hero, was despicable. He had already murdered 69 (or 70) of his brothers and generally went around killing people. But the Bible nowhere pronounces judgment on the manner of his death. It calls “wickedness” what he did to his brothers.
• Note: the Bible condradicts itself on the number of Abimelek’s brothers.
Samson is often excluded from this list, because his intent was to kill Philistines; I included him because he knowingly caused his own death. Again, the scripture does not condemn his murder-suicide. In fact, the language used makes it seem heroic: “So the dead whom he killed at his death were more than those whom he had killed during his life.”
Saul, mentioned in my Introduction, is also not condemned for killing himself. David afterward wrote a song mourning Saul, calling him “Your glory, O Israel”, and “beloved and lovely”.
• Note: the Bible contradicts itself on the manner of Saul’s death.
The death of Saul’s armor-bearer is also not condemned. The Bible gives a reason for why he didn’t kill Saul (he “was terrified”), but doesn’t give a reason why he killed himself; just that he watched Saul die and copied him.
Ahithopel hanged himself after he “put his house in order”. The given reason is that “his advice had not been followed”. No condemnation is offered for his manner of death. He was buried in his father’s tomb.
Zimri, who had been a palace official but stole the throne by killing a bunch of people, “set the palace on fire around him” and burned to death, after his own army named someone else king and attacked the city where Zimri was. The scripture adds: “So he died because of the sins he had committed”, despite having just said he died because of setting the palace on fire. But still, the “sins” referred to are his sins in life, not the manner of his death.
Lastly is Judas, the only suicide mentioned in the New Testament. The Bible says he was “seized with remorse” after having betrayed Jesus to the chief priests (for the sum of 30 pieces of silver), and so he hanged himself. In Judas’ case, the Bible says “woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man [Jesus]! It would be better for him if he had not been born.” This of course, refers to the betrayal, not to the suicide. Nowhere does the Bible say he was wrong to kill himself.
• Note: the Bible contradicts itself on the manner of Judas’ death, and several other particulars of this story.
So, the writers of the Bible took time and space to list seven separate suicides, and one attempted suicide, but never once thought to say suicide is wrong, or sinful, or that it was an “unforgiveable sin”. In most of these cases, the victims were evil men, and were clearly condemned for their wicked deeds, but not for taking their own lives. In at least one case (Samson), the way the story is written appears to justify the actions that caused his death.
If none of the actual mentions of suicide condemn it, then why do Christians say it’s condemned? Several explanations are offered, none of which ever rang true for me. (Feel free to search bible suicide to read various explanations from Christian sites, and you’ll see what I mean.) I will address a few of these in the following paragraphs.
“Suicide is self-murder”, one site says, and then refers to the biblical commandments against murder. This ignores the actual definition of murder, which is “The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another”, and ignores that the Bible never equates the two.
“God is the only one who gets to decide when and how a person should die” is another one, usually citing Hebrews 9:27, which says people are “destined to die once” (NIV) or “it is appointed unto men once to die” (KJV) and then will face judgment. I’ve read this in a dozen different translations and have never gotten out of it what they’re getting out of it. It sounds like it’s saying humans will face judgment after they die. (And, if you stipulate an all-knowing, always-existing God, then that God has always known when each person will die, and how.) I also cannot find any other scripture that says anything about God being the only one who can determine a person’s time or manner of death.
“Suicide rejects God’s gift of life” only sounds ominous until you think about it. Sure, according to the Bible, life came from God. But so did death. It would make just as much sense to say: “Continuing to live rejects God’s punishment of death.”
I’ve also heard arguments based on the alleged “sanctity of life”, a concept not found in scripture. It is said to be based on Genesis 1:26-27, which says God created mankind “in his own image” and in his “likeness”. This is, at best, a tenuous interpretation. While it is clear from the weight of the rest of scripture that human life is considered higher or set apart from other forms of life (plants, animals, etc.), it is not at all clear that “every life is sacred”. In the Bible, God imposes the death penalty for any number of crimes, including eating the wrong fruit, kidnapping, adultery, homosexuality, striking a parent, lying about your virginity (if you’re a woman), failing to scream for help when being raped, breaking Sabbath laws, living in a city where people don’t worship YHWH, owning an ox that kills someone, being a rebellious son, and more. Even the New Testament, certain acts are listed that “deserve death”, including slander, boastfulness, envy, gossip, arrogance, disobeying parents, and having no understanding. And of course, the worst crime is not believing in God — punishments too numerous to list here. Death is all over the Bible, the great majority of them attributable to God himself, including many thousands of children, both born and unborn. No, the Bible does not teach that every life is sacred.
I should also point out that to someone outside Christianity, it looks a lot like Jesus killed himself — performed actions which he knew would lead to his own death. John 10:17-18 has Jesus saying “I lay down my life... No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.” Yes, he was technically killed by crucifiction — according to the stories — but it is clear that this was his plan all along (and an omniscient God like YHWH/Jesus would have known trillions of years ago that this would happen). We still call it “suicide” when a person entices police officers to kill him, or when someone drives onto railroad tracks and stops intentionally, so it is not a stretch to say that God (in the form of Jesus) killed himself as part of his grand eternal plan — for those who believe the Bible is true, that God exists, and that Jesus is God.
Non-Religious Arguments
Here, I briefly list several arguments against the right to take one’s own life that I found on several websites, and briefly dismantle them. (Sentences in quotation marks were copied and pasted; they are the actual words of opponents of the right to die.)
“Choosing to take one’s own life demeans the value of human life.” No it doesn’t. I concede that the individual committing the act might place little value on his or her own life, but it says nothing of what they think of other people’s lives, nor can I be convinced their act will force other people to value life any less.
“Taking one’s own life reduces the chances for miracles and possible recovery” (in the context of a seriously ill person). If we define “miracle” in the divine sense, the chances are already zero and therefore cannot be reduced. Otherwise, this one is true — miracles can also be defined as “highly improbable or extraordinary events with welcome consequences”. Very occasionally, deathly ill people will make a recovery. If one of them had chosen doctor-assisted suicide, they would not have recovered. However, this is not a valid argument against the right to die, but an argument about why a person might not want to exercise that right. Having the right to die does not cancel your right to live; it only means you have that choice and that other people do too.
“Aid in dying (physician-assisted suicide) violates the Hippocratic oath.” First, we know that the Hippocratic Oath can change; it originally included “I swear by Apollo” and other gods and goddesses, and it has been modified several times. Second, not all physicians swear by it (only about half of U.S. medical schools use it, for example). Third, the Hippocratic oath is not legally binding. Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the current version of the oath does not include a prohibition against helping fulfill a patient’s wishes to end his or her life.
“Doctors make mistakes; the patient may not really be suffering, or could be cured, if instead he or she got a second opinion or different treatment.” This is an argument to get a second opinion or try different treatments. It says nothing to whether a person should have the right to die.
“It’s a slippery slope; will eventually lead to legalized murder.” Of course, murder (by defintion) can’t be legalized. Murder is the unlawful act of killing someone else with premeditation. But we can and do repeatedly decide what types of killing are unlawful, and regularly make exceptions for accidents, self-defense, etc. It would not be difficult to codify into law (as some states and nations have already done) that it is lawful for a doctor to assist in a patient’s suicide, provided certain guidelines are met. The fear is that doctors or loved ones will someday gain the power to end people’s lives who don’t want to die. That, of course, is a very scary concept, but in my mind is unrelated to people who do want to die. It is in fact the opposite.
“It’s a slippery slope; will lead to insurance companies pressuring doctors to help certain patients die.” No, because we’re not talking about killing other people. That would violate their right to stay alive. We’re talking about a person’s right to die. I don’t know how insurance companies “pressure” doctors, but in the end, the right to die is a right exercised by the patient, not by the doctor.
“Unethical doctors will help patients die for the wrong reasons.” Again, the decision is not up to the doctor, but up to the patient. If they mean the patient has “wrong” reasons for wanting to die, and therefore will search out a doctor who will help them, then yes, I assume this might be the case, just like some drug addicts currently search out doctors who are more willing to write prescriptions. However, this argument is only valid if the future assisted suicide law is written in such a restrictive way that only allows patients the right to die in very narrow circumstances and restricts their right to die in other circumstances. In that case, yes, it is likely that some people won’t meet the criteria but will still seek out doctor-assisted death. As with all laws that partially restrict our rights, I assume there would be an enforcement agency of some kind to check on such things. Ideally, there would be no such restrictions on a person’s right to die, so there could not be any “wrong” reasons.
“The elderly do not have the mental capacity to make such a choice, therefore it should not be allowed in anyone over a certain age.” A related complaint replaces “elderly” with “children” and “over” with “under”. Yes, it is understood in our societies that children are often not afforded the same rights as adults, especially when it comes to life-altering decisions. We don’t allow them to drink, join the Army, buy guns or spray paint, smoke cigarettes, own property, and so on. We have special and separate courts for non-adults and they are sentenced on different standards. Similarly lessened rights are also already the case for those with diminished mental capabilities — in some cases including elderly persons. In some states, these people aren’t allowed to vote, and in others they can’t even get married. To my knowledge, most right-to-die advocates acknowledge there are special circumstances in these cases, which can be handled three ways: (1) allowing them full rights anyway, (2) not giving them the right in any circumstance, or (3) setting up some legal method to handle them on a case-by-case basis.
• Note my Exceptions section below.
“The right to die has a socio-economic dimension to it. If it is legalized, then disadvantaged people will choose early death more frequently.” I suppose this is possible, depending on how the law is written. In real-life examples like Oregon’s “Death With Dignity Act” (passed in 1997), the law is fairly strict and limited to “terminally ill adult Oregonians”. The number of people taking advantage of the law has risen steadily, from 16 deaths in 1998 to 105 deaths in 2014. The state’s report (.pdf, 231 kb) doesn’t list economic status, but does show some statistics that indicate it. For example, 72.1% had “some college” or more education, and about 60% carried private medical insurance (about 40% had either Medicare or Medicaid). If the law is written similarly to Oregon’s, the path is open to anyone who meets the criteria, regardless of economic status. If the law is written more broadly, giving citizens the right to die even if they don’t suffer from a terminal disease, then it might become more likely that poorer people would take advantage of it. Even without such a legalized right, dying is cheaper than living. In general, economic status is indeed a predictor for suicide — both very poor and very rich people are at higher risk, and unemployed persons are more likely to commit suicide. In other words, they’re doing it anyway, often in very messy, traumatic ways. Providing a codified right and a legal medication simply removes the secrecy, trauma, mess, and shame from the equation.
Someone once commented to me: “Dying to prevent your own suffering is selfish”. I disagree, because it takes nothing from anyone else, especially in the case of a terminally ill patient. Is it selfish to eat, to stave off hunger pains? No, unless doing so prevents someone else from eating. I say it is far more selfish to force someone else to suffer until their death, if they would rather end it early.
If there are other arguments, I would be happy to learn about them and consider them. As it stands, I cannot think of any legitimate argument against a fundamental right to die.
Stigma Associated With Suicide
In many Western nations, there is a great deal of shame associated with suicide of any kind, not only because people wrongly believe their holy books are strongly against it, but also because of strong — and real — associations with mental illness. The stigma is overpowering. We’re taught to think of it as the “coward’s way out”, that an individual must be incredibly weak-minded to even consider it. Suicidal ideation (thinking about suicide) is considered, by itself, as a symptom of mental illness — usually depression, but other disorders as well.
Persons attempting suicide or who admit they are considering it are often hospitalized against their will. In some jurisdictions, they are jailed (I have anecdotal evidence for this, but could not find a solid online citation for it). One reason for this is clear: most people who survive a suicide attempt end up not committing suicide. If they can get past that momentary and very temporary impulse/urge, they go on to live quite a while, usually dying from something else — old age, diseases, or any number of other ways people die. But another reason for it is the stigma, encoded in our thought processes, legal system, and mental health industry — that it’s wrong to consider it.
Suicide was not always thought of this way, and in some cultures still is not. Most of us have heard of Japanese ritual suicide (seppuku), usually via movies. It apparently arose in the Samurai warrior culture, as a way to avoid capture after defeat in battle, possibly to avoid torture or to deny an enemy the pleasure of getting the kill, but later evolved into a more ritualized and stylized form of death. It could be performed to atone for dishonor or shame, but note that the act was the solution for the dishonor or shame, not shameful in itself.
There is evidence that many in ancient Greece considered suicide a heroic act, depending on circumstances, while others — including Aristotle — thought it “cowardly”, if done to “avoid poverty or desire or pain”. Some biblical scholars, based on the lack of condemnation of suicide in the Old Testament, have concluded that “in ancient Israel the act of suicide was regarded as something natural and perhaps heroic”. In ancient Rome, those wanting to die could petition the court and get hemlock for free if their reasons were sound, but soldiers and slaves were barred from suicide on economic grounds (source).
Thomas More, a Catholic philosopher in England, wrote in Utopia that people with “torturing and lingering pain, so that there is no hope either of recovery or ease” could “choose rather to die”, that they could “take opium, and by that means die without pain.” He was writing of a fictional land, suggesting a better way of life.
One of the reasons there is stigma attached to suicide today, even outside religious viewpoints, is the association of suicide to mental illness, as it often clearly is, and there is still a great stigma attached to mental illness, even as we continue to learn more about its causes and possible solutions.
I have hope, that as we continue to study mental illness and find better treatments for it, that we as a society will move away from stigmatizing suicide even as we learn to better prevent the impulsive attempts that are almost always regretted.
Differentiating Between Impulsive And Reasoned Suicide
As I noted above, suicide today is often the result of a temporary urge, an impulse. Regardless of the causes, of which we are still learning, we know that in most cases, if a person can be kept from committing suicide, then they will go on to live without trying again. For some, the impulse lasts only a few minutes, for others days or weeks. Often related to depression or substance abuse, this type of “suicidal ideation” is something I want to differentiate from the right to die, and I will try to explain why.
While yes, I believe people should have the right to die, I think it can be shown that impulsive suicide due to depression is not the same thing as people determining rationally that they want to end their lives. A perfectly healthy, non-depressed person like me can decide now — years in advance — “If I ever get [horrible, untreatable disease], I don’t want to keep on living.” The former is an irrational mistake that they would clearly regret — and almost always do, if rescued. The latter is a reasoned plan for end-of-life procedures.
This is why the “dignity in death” and “right to die” movements normally do not advocate for the normalization of all suicides, but focus on helping dying people go out peacefully, on their own terms.
A person is “not himself”, as the saying goes, when intoxicated or suffering from a hard bout of depression or other mental illness. Just as we (in the U.S.) have a Constitutional right to own and carry firearms, and that right does not extend to intoxicated persons, the same could be said for the right to die (if ever it becomes a protected right). If a person insists on a right to die, it should not be terribly difficult to write into law under which conditions they get to exercise that right. Someone who is drunk, high on some other substance, or clearly not in their right mind for other reasons, does not necessarily get the same rights as everyone else.
When I say “a person has a right to die”, I am not talking about sudden suicidal impulses, but rather a person who has thought about all the options, had time to decide, and come to a conclusion while in her right mind. And, of course, terminally ill persons, who might have less time to think about it, but more reason to want to end life on their own terms.
Forcing Someone To Live Against His Or Her Will Is Immoral
Everything I have written on this page comes down to this: It is my strongly held opinion that it is immoral to force someone to live against his or her will.Legal Suicide, Safer Than Illegal?
With abortion, there are well-known statistics showing it is much safer to have a legal abortion than an illegal one. For suicide, I could not find any statistics comparing the two. I’ve read that suicide isn’t technically illegal in the U.S. But if you’re caught attempting suicide, you can be held against your will, including taken to jail and subjected to mandatory mental health evaluations.There Are Conceivable, Legitimate Reasons
When I say we can conceive of legitimate reasons to kill oneself, I do not mean that most suicides today can be justified. I mean exactly what I said, that I (and you) can think of situations in which most of us would be okay with it.Exceptions
If you’ve read this far, no doubt you’ve thought of several needed exceptions to any future “right to die” law or amendment, regardless of whether you favor the idea. Don’t worry; I’ve thought of those exceptions too.Final Notes
If you’ve read my position paper on abortion, then you have noticed I approached the right to die in roughly the same way. So the conclusion is basically the same. (1) All the arguments against a right to die are faulty. (2) Forcing someone to live against his or her will is immoral. (3) Legalized suicide, including doctor-assisted suicide, would be safer and less traumatic than stigmatized, secretive suicide. (4) All of us can think of situations in which ending one’s life would be fine.EDITS
• Edit, 2016.09.29: Added this edits section. Added link to “Edits” into the More menu. Added links to other position papers into the More menu.