Why the Right to Life Must Include the Right to Die

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The first sentence of the Declaration of Independence is etched into the psyche of each and every U.S. citizen. These words hold an almost sacred status in American culture. They inform our world view, are invoked in speeches, and arguably inform our policy viewpoints more than the first three articles of the constitution. Indeed, many citizens can not name all the amendments to the constitution but they most certainly recognize the above phrase. This is likely why conversations around the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness become so heated, and why we must rigorously engage with our understanding of these concepts, and how far these 'self-evident rights' extend.

In our current time, a movement known as Death with Dignity is challenging our understanding of the right to life with the right to die.

I argue that unlike how many right to life advocates see the issue, the right to die is fundamental to ensuring our right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

While the right to die is a broad movement worldwide - U.S. advocates have centered the conversation on end-of-life decisions surrounding aid in dying for terminally ill patients. This process is also referred to as physician-assisted death (PAD) or medical aid in dying (MAiD). It involves terminally ill patients (with less than six months to live) requesting medication from their physician that will end their life in a peaceful, humane, and dignified manner. These laws have been enacted in 11 states including - but are not limited to - Oregon, New Mexico, Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia. Advocates and detractors alike often focus on the practical aspects of the practice, the potential for a slippery slope, lack of abuse in the current MAiD system, measuring patient prognosis, etc. These are undoubtedly important to discuss and address, however, the underlying philosophical arguments are just as - if not more so - important to contemplate.

From my interactions as an advocate in favor of legalizing MAiD in Florida philosophical and moral arguments generally fall into one of two categories: religious belief and the balance of liberty vs. safety in society.

The former of these two categories is both easier and more difficult to address. Easier in the sense that the U.S. is a secular country, with a clear delineation between church and state. Therefore, any religious pontification for or against the subject should - theoretically - be excluded from legislative and political reasoning. However, as human beings who are part of a long tradition of faith it undeniably influences how we think, feel, and act personally, professionally, and religiously. Many faith doctorines - particularly Catholic and Christian ones - are adamantly opposed to any sort of aid-in-dying legislation citing folks 'playing God' and these decisions must be left up only to the lord or devaluing the sanctity of life.

As for the first one, the act of using human techniques and remedies to heal one who is sick is not exactly leaving it up to God, is it? We regularly engage in unnatural life-preserving techniques that prolong suffering and postpone a natural death. Why is taking a medication that alters the timing and nature of death so much different than the use of machinery that lengthens and changes the nature of death? Life support and aid-in-dying are roughly two sides of the same coin, both of which we should be able to control. A patient always has the right to deny procedures that will save or lengthen their life. Through this process of denial of further treatment one can also be considered to cause or hasten their own death. Why is a medication so different? Legally and morally speaking it shouldn't be considered much different. Each individual is allowed to decide for themselves what life preserving treatments they do or do not want, each individual is allowed to take actions that will undoubtedly lead to their death in the event they deny life-saving treatment for any reason.

As a Christian, I believe in the sanctity of life, and that death is a part of life. I hope that when the time comes I am treated with compassion and allowed to pass on to the next phase of life's journey in the manner of my choice.

- Desomnd Tutu

The idea that aid-in-dying laws devalue the sanctity of life could not be further from the truth. Those who use and support these laws have a great value and respect for all aspects of life. From the time we are born to the time we die every one of us tries to pursue happiness and avoid pain to improve our quality of life. Each person decides for themselves what makes a 'good life' and this process shows the diversity and beauty admist the human experience. Those who use MAiD options do not simply want to toss their life away rather they wish to have a peaceful, dignified death so they do not endure an intolerable quality of life towards the end. In essence they are dying the way they were living - with grace and dignity. The community support and love we see from faith communities should be extended to those exercising their life and liberty over the dying process when that process of dying becomes too painful to bear and are ready to embrace the uncertainty of death.

Finally, we come to the debate of liberty vs. safety in society. It is true no right is completely unlimited. There are barriers to each and every one of our rights, you can't shout fire in a crowded theater, bring a gun into school, or even have a speedy trial if none are available. There is a delicate balance between preserving our societal safety and fabric but also supporting the individual rights of folks. Many detractors point out that MAiD laws do nothing to help underlying problems with our medical system and that it is not a broad solution to end-of-life care. Both these points are true and well-taken. MAiD should never be considered as a complete substitute for counseling, palliative medication, or as a treatment for terminall illness. We should continue to work towards resolving disparities in health care and broadening options for terminally ill individuals. However, the dying do not have time to wait for a perfect society, nor are terminally ill people responsible for resolving all of society's ills. Rather, they are responsible for themselves alone, and for doing what is most fit for them. They are responsible for putting their affairs in order and finding an end-of-life option that conforms with their personal beliefs and lived experiences. Careful regulation has shown to balance the liberty of terminally ill people to choose how they die while also providing protections to prevent abuse in the system.

A right to life should mean that each person - each life - is solely responsible for matters related to length and quality of life. That each person has control over their own life and exercises respect for the lives of others. It means that wherever possible we grant dignity to those who want it.

The dignity of human touch.

The dignity of human compassion.

The dignity in one's quality of life.

And yes, dignity in one's death.