The Liberty of Life and Death - Essay Example

?The liberty of life and death: Why is suicide illegal and what right does society have to keep us from ending our own lives. The inherent natural rights of man are important to the pursuit of liberty. Each of us has the right to life, to defend that life, unfortunately, in modern society it is not our inherent right to end our life if we should so desire that. John Stuart Mills outlined the Harm Principle in his essay, On Liberty. This principle stated, “The sole end for which mankind is warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.” (Mill, Pg. 18) Suicide is a personal decision that does not physically harm other individuals. Mill’s Harm Principle clearly applies to self-defense and strives to protect the individual liberty of each of us. As long as our decisions do not affect another’s liberty or life then why must we be harnessed by another’s morality? That is the question that an anonymous 80 year old from Ohio is posing as well. This is the question to be addressed in the following paper. The letter written in June of 2003 outlined the thoughts of an 80 year old individual. Through the letter one can easily grasp that they have lived a full life, which their life is complete and they simply wish to spare their children whom they love greatly the pain and suffering of a long drawn out fight against various cancers. The author of this letter says, “What I don’t understand is why people think it is wrong for someone like me to just call it a day, throw in the towel.” (Anonymous. Pg.1) the principle moral issue with this is the individual’s right to life, and the individual’s right to their own life. Mill’s clarifies his principle as affecting adults in the “maturity of their faculties” (Mill, Pg. 19) by his own declaration one’s personal “good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant” (Mill, Pg. 18) to prevent another from taking their own life into their own hands. The argument most often heard is that suicide affects the family, and yet we see that the true detriment here per the anonymous authors letter is the continuance which would cost additional monies and anguish from watching as one you love slowly and painfully drifts away. Mill’s point is that society or state has not the right to impose moral standards on an individual if that individual is not harming another physically. The argument can be made that by making it illegal to take decide when one should die, they are in fact presenting ownership of the individual. The very liberty that is proclaimed of body and soul is than repressed at the point of death if one dies as a result of one’s own hand. Mill’s presents the argument that each individual is the proper guardian of their own health; he states that this includes body, mental and spiritual. “Mankind is great gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to them, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.” (Mill, Pg. 24) The anonymous older gentleman outlines this by directly asking why it is someone else’s prerogative as to when he should end his own life. An individual’s liberty must include the freedom to decide when they die if they so choose. Unfortunately, the argument has been made that society must care for all lives within its grasp, and even more unfortunately, this is not the social argument as much as the state based society argument. They are able to make the case that the physical health and wellbeing is the prerogative of society and the state and cannot be left in the hands of the individual. This applies directly to the right to life and death, the stance chosen by some that wish to terminate their own life functions before what is deemed to be a socially acceptable amount of money and pain suffered. Because the state based society makes it illegal to take one’s own life it is in fact not allowing the full liberty it claims. While some may claim that the act of taking one’s life is a selfish one, in this case it is not. In fact as the author states, “but it seems to me a waste of money, why not pass my small savings on to my grandkids to give them a jump on college tuition.” (Anonymous. Pg, 1) In this particular case the act of continuing one’s life may in fact cause more harm to those around them then if those surrounding this individual are aware of the death and are aware that it is the decision of the individual alone. Regardless, if a society champions the idea of freedom and liberty but restricts the individuals decisions based in moral approaches that may not be accepted or endorsed by all involved than is it truly a free society? The individual’s right to choice with regards to their lives alone is an essential part of what makes up liberty. When we as a society restrict this we are in fact denying liberty and freedom to those involved within this society. The anonymous author makes the point that if he decides to terminate his own life he will be called a “suicide” and his death will become part of a statistic. He goes one to state that the fact that many more elderly people who attempt “suicide” are successful than those younger than they are should make the point that maybe instead of vilifying it we should embrace it as an alternative to long expensive hospital stays and painful drawn out deaths. (Anonymous. Pg, 1) The individual is the most important part of any society. Without the individual we are unable to progress in science, medical advancements and more. By further restricting individual expression and liberty a state ran society is unable to ensure that it will continue to advance its culture and achievements. Mill’s addressed this as well, the increasing inclination of the world at large to stretch the powers of society over the individual while strengthening the individual society diminishes the power of the individual. (Mill, Pg. 25) While this allows a stronger state it reduces the individual and rejects the idea of liberty and freedom. By taking the right to one’s own life from them the state effectively enslaves the individual. Is it necessary to establish new end-of-life laws or policies or should we as a society and state simply reject all laws that apply to the individuals self. If a law restricts the individual’s right to choose their life, what they eat, what they drink, what they smoke, when they die and more than shouldn’t we as a society based on the individuals liberty and freedom be willing to reject that law? When a new piece of legislation is born there is a certain air of mystery generally as a result of the added features each piece of legislation carries with it. However, there is also the mystery of how our society expects to enforce this new law, and when a new law directly impinges the individual’s ability to decide for themselves with regards to their life then is there a right way to adjudicate it? These are extremely difficult questions simply because each of us desires to be an individual and yet we all also desire to remain a part of society as a whole. In this case it would seem to be a simple matter of following the Harm Principle as it was outlined earlier. “He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.” (Mill, Pg. 18) It is not societies place to impose the values of a few on the individual simply because it may, and yet in our state run society we see this occurring regularly with the anonymous author of the letter being a perfect example. This gentleman is so concerned with the additional pain and suffering he may cause by remaining here that he spent the time to pen this letter in which he clearly elucidated his desire to be done with it and his wish that society would allow it to occur without ostracizing those he left behind by making him a statistic that reflects a negative connotation. Would a new law make a difference, or would it simply be better to repeal the old laws that restrict this and make it illegal. Will society allow the individual to be an individual regardless of their individual decisions affecting them alone? Unfortunately, this may not be the case and yet it does not change the sadness that many suffer when they realize they have completed the journey of life and simply wish to get off the ride. To appease society as a whole it would likely be beneficial to present a new law that allowed the self-termination or assisted termination of life as long as the individual wishing to do so completed an hour of “exit” counseling and had all of their affairs in order prior to departure. Obviously, this would cause many individuals to question society and the state and yet, if it were presented with the idea that each individual should have the right to decide for themselves than only those intent on depriving others of their individual liberty would take issue with it. One of the largest blocks to allowing this approach to individual liberty remains in the religious expression of others. Christianity is the predominate religion of the United States and as a result many of the laws reflecting morality, especially the laws addressing the right to end one’s own life are affected by this. Mill’s looks at this phenomena when he says, “What is called Christian, but should rather be termed theological, morality, was not the work of Christ or the Apostles, but is of much later origin, having been gradually built up by the Catholic church of the first five centuries.” (Mill, Pg. 91) Morality therefore is a result of tradition and not teaching. Accordingly the religious rejection of “suicide” or the termination of one’s own life is bedded deeply in the Roman Catholic belief that the individual who commits this will not be accepted into heaven. However, without the religious aspect there is still the accepted morality involved which again is based in traditions. Or as Mills says so well, “The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement…” (Mill, Pg. 133) The result of this journey of words is that it seems a pointless law that restricts the individual’s right to terminate their life’s journey if they have indeed prepared everything and are aware of the reasons and motivations. We see that society is never justified in restricting the individual’s decisions as long as those decisions are not meant to harm another. Additionally we see that by having these laws the individual is no longer in control of their own body, they are not free and liberty is not allowed. If we as a society want to continue the trend of reducing the individuals rights and liberties and instead promoting a hive mind approach then we should continue to support laws like this. However, if we as a society truly desire to have liberty and freedom for the individual than it seems apparent we must rid ourselves of these laws against “suicide” or the right to end-of-life. Read More