This article discusses human freedom and rights, centering on the debate about end-of-life care. It compares the arguments in favor of and against aid in dying, emphasizes the need for legal and social mechanisms, and addresses the implications and side effects of aid in dying.
‘I have the right to destroy myself.’
So said the famous French novelist François Sagan. ‘I have the right to destroy myself,’ said the famous French novelist François Sagan, ‘as long as I don’t harm anyone else, even if it means killing myself, and even if it means destroying my life in some way. This quote sparks a discussion about how far human freedom and choice can go. How much freedom do we have? And where should the boundaries of that freedom be set?
What are some examples of human freedom? Perhaps the most prominent is the right to live as a human being. The right to a decent life includes a minimum standard of living and socialization. All human beings have the right to live freely, with human rights guaranteed. Human beings decide, choose, and design their own lives. This right inevitably includes choices that determine not only the direction of life but also the quality of life. Among them, the choice to die with dignity raises profound questions about personal freedom and human rights.
This is the argument of right-to-die advocates. Human beings have the freedom to choose to live a human life. This is also true when it comes to choosing between life and death: every human being has the freedom to choose and shape their own death. It is up to each individual human being to decide how to die, in what way to die, and when to die. The choice of death does not violate the protection of human rights. Human beings have the right to unlimited freedom when it comes to themselves, as long as they don’t harm others. Only when this freedom is guaranteed can a person take full responsibility for their own life and pursue the way they want to live it.
On the other hand, opponents of the right to dignity fear that it will be used as a tool to violate human rights rather than a means to protect them. Human life could be weighed against economic principles. In fact, the financial burden of the placenta on the family is often cited as a reason for patients to abandon treatment. Dignity issues can lead to situations where a person wants to live but cannot, where money is more important than their life. Especially in socially vulnerable groups, these economic reasons can have an undue influence on life and death choices. There is a risk that a system of dignity deaths could force them to make unfair choices.
We all find meaning in happiness. To be human, to be free, and to be happy is the meaning of life. But for most seriously ill people who have no choice but to die with dignity, happiness is a luxury and a mockery. They live day in and day out, facing pain, enduring suffering, the burden they place on their families, and the guilt that they are nothing more than a burden to them. For them, every day they are alive is not a blessing, but an extension of their suffering. Every day that passes with no hope of healing and helplessly awaiting death is hardly a moment of human life. Even basic necessities and freedoms are not met. If human rights are the right to live as human beings, then these people are being violated by being alive. The logic of the cause is that they shouldn’t die.
Death is an inevitable part of life for every human being born into this world. Like growing up and aging, death is a natural and inevitable part of life. The process varies from person to person, with death sometimes coming suddenly and unexpectedly in the form of an accident, or painfully in the form of a chronic illness or dying. Some will choose to endure the pain, while others may want to give up. But it should all be a free choice. It would be a violation of human rights if an individual is not allowed to choose their own end of life because of man-made laws, even if they are not causing any harm to others, and even if they are actually suffering too much.
Of course, if aid in dying is implemented only with the consent of the family or guardian, there is certainly room for abuse. However, the law should provide a way to ensure that the human rights of the seriously ill are not violated at the hands of others, not prevent them from choosing to die. The law exists to protect and promote human rights, so the implementation of a death with dignity would require various legal mechanisms to be more deliberate. For example, it should only be carried out with the direct consent of the seriously ill person. Although the system would be much less efficient, human life is not worth the efficiency of the system. Even with the consent of the patient, a death with dignity program could help many critically ill patients, of whom there are an average of 180,000 in hospitals each year, who are dying at the end of their illness. Another option is an advance directive. Advance directives are documents that you fill out ahead of time to help your healthcare team make decisions about your care in the event that you are unable to make decisions for yourself. I believe that these documents can be promoted in many ways, such as signing an organ donation form, not only when death is imminent, but also before an illness or accident, so that the risk of dying with dignity is much lessened. If there is evidence that a seriously ill person has previously made such a clear expression of wishes, then it would be possible to ensure that dignified care is provided in accordance with the patient’s wishes, albeit imperfectly.
Implementing dignity with dignity through institutional mechanisms such as these will not only reduce the suffering of patients, but will also help them to maintain their dignity as human beings until the end of their lives. This is why the discussion of dignity with dignity must go beyond simply allowing people to choose to die, to the question of how we can fundamentally improve the quality of human life.
It’s impossible not to consider the end of life aspect. But just as we need rules because of the negative consequences of all the rules in the world, there are many reasons why we need death with dignity despite its negative consequences. Just as we have given individuals the right to live well and pursue well-being, we should also give individuals the freedom to decide how to die well, and the ways and means of doing so. Human beings have designed their lives from birth, and they should be given the right to decide their deaths as part of their lives. The ultimate goal of human rights is to make people human, and dignity is an extension of that.
