The Right-to-Die is Not a Sacred Act

The Right-to-Die issue appeared in the headlines recently with the death of Ludwig Minelli, who died at the age of 92. He was the founder of a Swiss organization, Dignitas (a Right-to-Die organization), in 1998. He died, no surprise, by assisted suicide.

But it’s worthwhile taking a closer look at the choice; a person who elects a Right-to-Die outcome for their life may not realize that it violates certain moral and religious laws. A Right-to-Die choice for Jews and perhaps Christians, too, opposes the tenets of both religions.

Most of the arguments for supporting Right-to-Die focus on alleviating the suffering of the patient. The decision then raises the question of whether the person has been coerced into dying.

The Right to Die Movement first began in 1975:

In 1975, Derek Humphry helped his wife, who was dying from breast cancer, take her own life. Five years later, Humphry founds the Hemlock Society, the first right-to-die organization in the U.S., in his garage in Santa Monica, Calif. Its mission is to help terminally ill people die peacefully, and advocate for laws backing physician-assisted suicide. Humphry comes to be considered by many to be the father of the right-to-die movement, and within 12 years, the group grows to 80 chapters. ‘And everybody said I was crazy — America was not ready for physician-assisted suicide. And I said, ‘Oh, I think it is.’ And so I started out on a lonely path back in 1980, campaigning for the right to choose to die when terminally ill.' —Derek Humphry

If we look carefully at this choice, there are a number of factors that conflict with the decision to pursue this path.

For one, we are told that this approach allows a patient to die with dignity. When we consider that we are created in the image of God, that image includes all our struggles, deformities, and the decision to choose life. No matter our condition, we are innately dignified as human beings in our journey toward death. How we look, the difficulties we suffer, don’t compromise or damage the truth that we are ensouled bodies. That essence never changes.

Another premise for Right-to-Die advocates is to relieve suffering. So, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are seen as options. This is the reasoning, for example, used for killing Ludwig Minelli:

While in his own country, assisted dying was permitted under Swiss law since 1942, under strict condition, of course, Euthanasia still remains illegal there. The main difference is that in Switzerland, a physician cannot administer a lethal injection, which is what euthanasia is. However, a physician can provide the means for a person to end their own life, and the individual must perform the final act themselves. The legality of assisted suicide is based on Article 115 of the Swiss Criminal Code from 1942, which prohibits assistance only if motivated by selfish reason. The conditions for assisted suicide include that the assistance must not be for selfish motives and must be provided to someone of sound mind who has made a self-determined and enduring decision to die. The person must also be suffering from an unbearable and uncontrollable condition.

If we parse this quote, a number of questions arise. Regardless of the law, the physician would be aiding and abetting the killing of a human being. Is the physician not obliging the patient for selfish reasons, to relieve himself of the burden of watching the patient’s suffering? And who decides that the patient’s condition is sufficiently “unbearable”?

But more than these arguments, a decidedly spiritual issue can arise. For example, Judaism requires that every possible effort be made to keep the person alive—life is sacred, a gift given by God, and can’t be ended. So, Jews are not permitted to follow the Right-to-Die. This determination also applies to some of the Christian faiths. Here is a partial description of the Jewish position:

The preservation of life [pikuach nefesh] is considered to be of paramount importance, surpassing virtually all of the other commandments of the Torah. One may and must violate Yom Kippur or the Sabbath, eat non-kosher food, etc. if there is the slightest chance that human life may be preserved or prolonged. [snip] Keep in mind, however, that a Jew believes in a soul and that the body is simply a receptacle for the person's true spiritual essence. Souls come to earth for many, many purposes and we don't know why G-d sends souls into this life. Sometimes it could be that the spiritual destiny of a soul is to elicit certain responses on our part. The soul exists to teach us certain things about the meaning of life and love and how we relate to the dignity of a human being and when we fail to respond with sensitivity and respect for the unconditional value of that person's life, we kill off a small part of ourselves as well. Judaism rejects the notion of unlimited personal autonomy. Our bodies and our lives are not our own to do with as we will. They are temporary bailments given to us by G-d for a specific purpose and duration which only G-d can terminate and just as we don't have the moral right to kill or harm others, we don't have the moral right to kill, maim, or injure ourselves or to authorize other persons to do those things to us.

Even Buddhists and Hindus may view the taking of life as having karmic repercussions:

In both Buddhism and Hinduism, the concept of karma plays a significant role in shaping attitudes towards end-of-life care. Karma refers to the idea that an individual's actions have consequences in this life and the next, with positive actions leading to positive outcomes and negative actions leading to negative outcomes. In the context of end-of-life care, karma can influence decision-making around issues such as euthanasia and assisted suicide. For example, some Buddhists and Hindus may view euthanasia or assisted suicide as a negative action, potentially leading to negative karmic consequences.

Ultimately, assuming the law allows for it, people can choose to enable the Right-to-Die. But if they are religious, it might be wise for them to review the tenets of their faiths before they make this irreversible choice.

[originally published in American Thinker]