Humans Have a Right to Die

Perspective Writers' Votes
Loading Discussion

Every human should have the right and means to decide when and how to die.

Pros
Cons
  • Public opinion favors euthanasia which suggests some support for a right to die.

  • If a person sees no exit out of the situation that he/she is in then that person should have a "right" to end his/her life.

  • Basic Libertarian and Capitalist ideology states that we each own ourselves. A consequence of said ownership is the right to determine how our lives are to be spent. This right ends only when our lives do, not some indescribeable measure of time before then. We therefore have the right to determine the time, place, and manner of our deaths, modulo any other end to which our lives may come which are outside of our purview.

  • Palliative care should be the first option, but there is human suffering in terms of pain and lack of mental lucidity that surpasses the ability of health providers to serve people. Anyone should have the right to take their own life when it is clear that they stand no chance to recover sufficiently.

  • If there is any such thing as freedom, free will, (free of religious rhetoric), an adult/person arguably has control over their life. Whether you believe in a higher being or not, it's irrelevant, as we exist in a law based society. Real freedom is free of any construct. If you have choice, you can chose to die, if you feel that is the answer. Of course, you like anyone has any right, you control your life and your choices. 'Human rights' an enigma in this modern world.

  • People are able to commit suicide regardless of whether there is a right to die or not. Legalizing suicide would get rid of various problems that plague the status quo.

  • It is central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity that each person is able to embrace a timely and dignified death on their own terms.

  • Introducing a right to die will be beneficial for society.

  • Having a right to die brings about benefits for individuals as well as their families.

  • The state has no right to interfere with an individual's decision to die.

  • This would unfairly limit society's ability to punish prisoners by allowing them to choose death over other sentences.

  • There are huge difficulties in determining whether people can give true consent to die. Consent is necessary for the successful implementation of a right to die.

  • There is no country that punishes suicide. Killing oneself is not illegal. The right to die in this context really means forcing others to kill someone, who is not able to commit suicide or forcing others to help someone to commit suicide. That would take away freedom instead of increasing personal freedom.

  • The motion, as described here, is too liberal: most unsuccessful suicide attempts don't try again (hsph.harvard.edu). With that in mind, there should be obstacles: medical expert opinion and long-term consent (not just acute consent).

  • There is no right to kill an innocent person, even oneself. There are limits to what one can rightly do to his own body: one has no moral right to addict it to drugs, or to mutilate or disfigure it. Much less does one have a right to destroy his body or to end his own life. Our rights over ourselves exist so that we might do what is good, not so that we might do anything at all. Killing an innocent person is never good, and there is never a right to deliberately do it.

  • Legalisation of the right to die would lead to many people choosing to die imprudently.

  • Choosing to die is never rational.

  • Life is intrinsically valuable. This means individuals should not have a right to end theirs.

  • The modern state is responsible for the well-being of its citizens. Thus it should not allow them to hurt/kill themselves.