Dignity in Death

I believe in democracy.

I believe in human rights.

I believe in freedom of choice.

I do not believe that anyone has the right to constrain my freedom of choice as long as it does not affect the wellbeing of others.

This is sacrosanct.

No one has the right to tell me whom to love, where to live, or what to believe.

No one has the right to tell me if I can live or die.

That decision should always be left up to me as a free individual.

Today, eight countries recognize the right to assisted dying.

Eight out of one hundred ninety-four.

We put animals to sleep so they will not needlessly suffer when their time is at hand.

Yet, the majority of countries appear to prefer to have people suffer for months or years with incurable illnesses that only cause constant pain and suffering for the individual and stress and sorrow for their loved ones.

Is this right?

I believe it isn’t.

To condemn an individual’s right to die in the name of religious or spiritual beliefs is both immoral and wrong. No religion or law should give society the right to decide whether you live or die.

That decision belongs to you.

The effects of a wide variety of illnesses or chronic suffering must be addressed humanely. 

Today, the right to die in Canada, for example, is protected by a web of procedures that guarantee that the decision will be taken freely yet with checks and balances.

Several doctors must agree that the individual’s quality of life is compromised if they are forced to stay alive. 

After a number of doctors have agreed with the individual in favor of this option, the individual is then interviewed at length by a physician specialized in thanatology (the science of the study of dying) to ensure that the person is taking this decision freely and in full awareness of what is to transpire.

After this step is taken, at the person’s request, the family may be interviewed in order to provide them with an understanding of their relative’s wishes. This step plays no part in the final medical decision to approve the procedure although it helps the family support the individual throughout the process. 

On the day of the procedure, family members are encouraged to accompany their relative through the procedure. Surrounding a relative with love and affection is the most humane way to say good-bye. The procedure involves three steps. Before each step is taken, the attending physician asks the individual to confirm that he or she wants to continue. The individual must agree after each step. At any time, the individual is free to change his or her mind. As the individual surrenders to the inevitable, their wishes are fulfilled humanely, and they are surrounded by love.

For many, this is a desirable alternative to the suffering and pain of an illness or condition. 

This decision also allows the individual to maintain dignity and control over their life until the final moment.

I know some readers will find this disturbing or consider it immoral.

However, I believe that the opposite is true – that there is nothing as immoral than to wish for someone else to suffer so that our own moral or religious sensitivities can be spared.

The conscious decision to end life must be a basic human right for all.

If you don’t want to do it, don’t. But to prevent another from doing it is an egregious abuse of their human right – the right to decide whether to live or die on one’s own terms.  

Edición: Laura Espejo