Issues in Life and Death: Paper 3

Physician assisted suicide is gradually becoming more and more of an accepted practice across the world. Here in the United States, a few states have already legalized physician assisted suicide, albeit with certain safeguards. It appears that the sentiment behind this practice is evolving. People are starting to see that it is frivolous to needlessly suffer when you are faced with an inevitable death. Patients with cancer and other terminal illnesses have already taken advantage of this practice. Recently however, a Swiss assisted-suicide clinic known as Dignitas announced their intention to help a healthy woman die alongside her terminally ill husband. This has raised many eyebrows, as well as some pertinent questions with regard to the morals of our society. For example, is there a principled difference between letting this healthy woman die and letting her terminally ill husband die? I am proposing that in principle the wife in this case has just as much of a right to end her own life as her husband does. I believe that although this woman’s case is semantically different from her husbands (relative health vs. terminal illness), they are morally equivalent.
Humans are autonomous agents, capable of making rational decisions. As long as they are of a sound mind it can be argued that they know what is best for themselves. When someone imposes their will upon another’s ability to make their own rational decisions they are obstructing their freedom. This is otherwise known as paternalism, the practice of making decisions for people who are perfectly capable of making decisions for themselves. Of course, in order to make rational decisions, one has to be sound of mind. One must also make sure that their decisions do not infringe upon the rights of others.
Mills argues that the evil that comes from restraining someone’s liberty in an attempt to benefit them will always outweigh the good that can come from it. According to Mills, people should respect the wishes of others even if they believe they will regret it in the future. Thus, according to this logic, if this woman is of sound mind she should be able to make decisions for herself. If anyone tries to stop her from doing so, more evil will come out of it than good.
Opponents of this view may point out that this woman is not of a sound mind. She is clearly in an anxiety-ridden situation that puts her under a lot of stress. Her husband’s imminent death and the thought of living without him for the rest of her life may impair this woman’s ability to think rationally. She may be suffering from depression, which would negatively affect her mood, as well as make her feel hopeless, helpless and socially withdrawn. Also, recent studies on affective forecasting have concluded that people tend to underestimate how well they will cope with a tragic event. These studies have shown that people tend to underestimate their resiliency, or their ability to recover quickly from a difficult situation. Proponents of this view argue that, after some grief counseling or therapy, this woman may discover that, as difficult as it may be at the beginning, the best decision for her to make is to continue living her life without her husband.
This is a perfectly reasonable rebuttal. That is why it is my opinion that in order for Dignitas’s actions to be morally defensible, they should take every precaution in order to make sure that this woman has clearly thought out all the consequences of the decision she is about to make. This includes sending her to a psychiatrist to evaluate her and treat her for depression if it is necessary. Depression has become a very treatable condition that she may very likely recover from.
On the other hand if her suffering persists after her treatment is complete and she is not capable of living a content and fulfilling life, she may still decide that she no longer wants to live. If this is the case, it is morally permissible for the people at Dignitas to help her end her suffering.
It has been argued that the only thing one truly owns in this life is his or her body. Thus, when facing an issue as intimate as the end of your life others should be allowed to help you make this decision, but the final decision ultimately lies in your hands. People should be given a chance to end their life with respect and dignity. Their right to self-determination should be respected. As bad as it may sound, if someone decide to end their life because they cannot withstand some psychological suffering that is not terminal but weighs down upon them deeply, morally they should be able to do so. Although it may not be alright for her to kill herself in under her current circumstances because she may not be thinking rationally, she does have every right to do so if she is in the right frame of mind.
The obvious difference between this woman’s pleas for physician assisted suicide and her husband’s is that her husband is in a near death state and would otherwise die in agonizing pain if not for this procedure. His wife, on the other hand, is perfectly healthy, with a long life ahead of her. But given the fact that she is an autonomous being with the power to make rational decisions, she may conclude that living without her husband is too much of a psychological burden for her to deal with. She may decide that the best way to handle this situation is to end her own life. At some point, however, we have to decide what kind of a society we want to live in. Although reasoning has brought me to conclude that helping a physically healthy, sound of mind woman end her own life is the morally right thing to do, I still can’t help but feel that this type of practice does not belong in our society.