When we are young and strong, we don't think about mortaly. Unless you are personally afflicted with a condion that requires life support measures or degrades your qualy of life to the point of unbearable pain, the right to die issue may not be of major concern. If you ponder the suation of people faced with such choices, 's a painful concept that, in the end, remains a philosophical question. Yet, the argument of the right to die is a question we cannot morally ignore.
In ancient times, people with afflictions that led to death had to endure their pain and suffering until death occured.
A person with diabetes can now be kept alive by means of dialysis. How does this person feel about being kept alive with daily blood changes? The terminally ill cancer patient may be relieved of pain with strong pain medications. Other people may be in the hospal, unable to speak for themselves, hooked to a number of machines that keep them alive in name only. Their families are faced with the choice of hoping their loved one might recover from, say a coma. If the patient has not explicly stated that they do not wish to be kept alive by artificial means, the family must decide for the patient on the right to die issue. This is surely a torment.
The case of Terry Schiavo painfully brought the right to die issue to the attention of the general public. Her parents insisted that she was able to communicate with them, expressing her love and sometimes happiness. Terry's husband insisted that she was brain dead and should not be made to stay alive, possessing no qualy of life. with both parties battling, the religious element came into the equation. The media followed the case closely and television viewers were divided on this prominent right to die case.
Unless you are the patient, the quotient of suffering cannot be quantified. How can anyone know the degree of pain experienced by this helpless person or even their level of awareness and lucidy?
Is the right to die question different from the so-called assisted suicide? In the case of assisted suicide, a person consciously decides to end their own life rather than continue living what the patient determines to be an intolerable state of pain and suffering. On the other hand, people on life support may or may not be conscious. Does this mean that the family is effectively murdering their loved one by removing artificial means to sustain life? If the patient directs their family to not use artificial means to keep them alive, is that patient effectively comming suicide?
The question of a person's right to die is a thorny moral dilemma which may never have a definive moral resolution.
4:54 AM