Editing Right to die (section)

==Ethics==
{{See also|Suicide#Social and culture}}
The preservation and [[value of life]] have led to many medical advancements when it comes to treating patients. New devices and the development of [[palliative care]] have allowed humans to live longer than before. Prior to these medical advancements and care, the lifespans of those who were unconscious, minimally unconscious, and in a vegetative state were short as they were unable to receive assistance with basic needs such as breathing and feeding. The advancement of medical technology raises the question about the quality of life of patients who are no longer conscious. For example, the right to [[self-determination]] questions the definition of quality and sanctity of life—if one had the right to live, then the right to die must follow suit.<ref name = "Calabrò_2016">{{cite journal | vauthors = Calabrò RS, Naro A, De Luca R, Russo M, Caccamo L, Manuli A, Bramanti A, Bramanti P | title = The Right to Die in Chronic Disorders of Consciousness: Can We Avoid the Slippery Slope Argument? | journal = Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience | volume = 13 | issue = 11–12 | pages = 12–24 | date = December 2016 | pmid = 28210521 | pmc = 5300707}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Johnson LS | title = The right to die in the minimally conscious state | journal = Journal of Medical Ethics | volume = 37 | issue = 3 | pages = 175–78 | date = March 2011 | pmid = 21084355 | doi = 10.1136/jme.2010.038877 | s2cid = 9594783}}</ref> There are questions in ethics as to whether or not a right to die can coexist with a right to life. If it is argued that the right to life is [[Inalienable right|inalienable]], then it cannot be surrendered and therefore may be incompatible with a right to die.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Feinberg J | date = 1 April 1977 | url = https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/f/feinberg80.pdf | title = Voluntary Euthanasia and the Inalienable Right to Life | journal = The Tanner Lecture on Human Values | volume = 7 | issue = 2 | pages = 93–123 | publisher = The University of Michigan | pmid = 11661543 | access-date = 20 June 2018 | archive-date = 19 October 2016 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20161019133552/http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/f/feinberg80.pdf | url-status = dead }}</ref> A second debate exists within [[bioethics]] over whether the right to die is universal, only applies under certain circumstances (such as [[terminal illness]]), or if it exists at all. It is also stated that 'right to live' is not synonymous to 'obligation to live.' From that perspective, the right to live can coexist with the right to die.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.humanistischverbond.nl/beginselverklaring-humanistisch-verbond|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180620205213/https://www.humanistischverbond.nl/beginselverklaring-humanistisch-verbond|url-status=dead|title=Humanistisch Verbond: 'Recht op leven, plicht tot leven' (translated: Dutch Humanist Association: 'Right to live, obligation to live')|archivedate=June 20, 2018}}</ref>

The right to die is supported and rejected by many. Arguments for this right include:

* If one had a right to live, then one must have the right to die, both on their terms.
* Death is a natural process of life thus there should not be any laws to prevent it if the patient seeks to end it.
* What we do at the end of our lives should not be of concern to others.
* If euthanasia is strictly controlled, we can avoid entering a slippery slope and prevent patients from seeking alternative methods which may not be legal.<ref name = "Calabrò_2016" />

Arguments against include:

* It can lead to a slippery slope; if we allow patients this right, it can expand and have dire consequences.
* Give rise to pressuring those to end their lives or the lives of others; ethically immoral by human and medical standards.
* "Throwing away" patients who are deemed no longer capable to be part of society.
* Decrease in palliative end-of-life care due to the expectation of terminal patients to exercise their right to die.<ref name = "Calabrò_2016" /><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = McCormick AJ | title = Self-determination, the right to die, and culture: a literature review | journal = Social Work | volume = 56 | issue = 2 | pages = 119–28 | date = April 2011 | pmid = 21553575 | doi = 10.1093/sw/56.2.119 | doi-access = free }}</ref>

A court in the American state of [[Montana]] for example, has found that the right to die only applies to those with life-threatening medical conditions. [[Physician-assisted suicide]] advocate [[Ludwig Minelli]], [[euthanasia]] expert Sean W. Asher, and bioethics professor [[Jacob M. Appel]], in contrast, argue that ''all'' competent people have a right to end their own lives. Appel has suggested that the right to die is a test for the overall freedom of a given society.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/assisted-suicide-for-heal_b_236664.html|title=Next: Assisted Suicide for Healthy People|work=The Huffington Post|access-date=14 December 2014|date=16 July 2009}}</ref> A professor in social work, [[Alexandre Baril]], proposed to create an ethic of responsibility "based on a harm-reduction, non-coercive approach to suicide. [He] suggest that assisted suicide should be an option for suicidal people."<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Baril|first=Alexandre|date=2020|title=Suicidism: A new theoretical framework to conceptualize suicide from an anti-oppressive perspective|url=https://dsq-sds.org/article/view/7053/5711|journal=Disability Studies Quarterly|volume=40, 3|pages=1–41}}</ref> He argued that the voice of suicidal people is viewed as illegitimate and that there are 'injunctions to live and to futurity' where suicidal subjects are oppressed and silenced.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Wedlake|first=Grace|date=2020|title=Complicating Theory through Practice: Affirming the Right to Die for Suicidal People|url=|journal=Canadian Journal of Disability Studies|volume=9, 4|issue=4|pages=89–110|doi=10.15353/cjds.v9i4.670|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Baril|first=Alexandre|date=2017|title=The Somatechnologies of Canada's Medical Assistance in Dying Law: LGBTQ Discourses on Suicide and the Injunction to Live|journal=Somatechnics|volume=7, 2|issue=2|pages=201–17|doi=10.3366/soma.2017.0218}}</ref> Baril suggests the word suicidism to describe the "[...] oppressive system (stemming from non-suicidal perspectives) functioning at the normative, discursive, medical, legal, social, political, economic, and epistemic levels in which suicidal people experience multiple forms of injustice and violence [...]"<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Baril|first=Alexandre|date=2018|title=Les personnes suicidaires peuvent-elles parler? Théoriser l'oppression suicidiste à partir d'un modèle socio-subjectif du handicap|url=https://www.academia.edu/37980381|journal=Criminologie|volume=51, 2|pages=189–212|doi=10.7202/1054240ar|doi-access=free}}</ref> He suggests creating safer spaces and listening to suicidal people without forcing the 'will to live' upon them.<ref name=":1" />

The 1991 [[Patient Self-Determination Act]] passed by the [[US Congress]] at the request of the financial arm of Medicare does permit elderly Medicare/Medicaid patients (and by implication, all "terminal" patients) to prepare an advance directive in which they elect or choose to refuse life-extending and/or life-saving treatments as a means of shortening their lives and thus suffering unto certain death. Under the Act, the treatment refused in an advance directive does not have to be proved to be "medically futile" under some existing due-process procedure developed under state laws, such as TADA in Texas.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Kelley K | title = The Patient Self-Determination Act. A matter of life and death | journal = Physician Assistant | volume = 19 | issue = 3 | pages = 49, 53–56, 59–60 passim | date = March 1995 | pmid = 10141946 }}</ref>

The right to die, also known as the right to death, is an ethical and legal concept that supports the freedom of a human being to end their life or undergo voluntary euthanasia. This right is generally associated with individuals suffering from a terminal illness or lacking the will to continue living, and it may allow them to terminate their own life, refuse life-prolonging treatment, or opt for assisted suicide or euthanasia. The question of who should be able to exercise this right is often central to the debate.

Some scholars and philosophers, such as [[David Benatar]], approach this debate in terms of [[antinatalism]]. Since human beings do not have the power to act at the time of their birth, no one should have [[authority]] over a person's decision to continue living or to die.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Benatar |first=David |date=2017 |title=The Human Predicament: A Candid Guide to Life's Biggest Questions |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=9780190633844}}</ref>

Supporters of the right to die often connect it to the idea that a person's body and life belong solely to themselves, and they should have the [[freedom]] to dispose of them as they see fit, understanding that the right to life does not imply a duty or obligation to live. However, a legitimate state interest in preventing irrational suicides is typically opposed. For example, Avital Pilpel and Lawrence Amsel argue:<ref>{{Cite web |last=A Pilpel |title=What is Wrong with Rational Suicide |url=http://www.avitalpilpel.com/uploads/What_is_wrong_with_rational_suicide_April_2010.pdf |access-date=2010-06-11 |archive-date=2018-02-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180218222656/http://www.avitalpilpel.com/uploads/What_is_wrong_with_rational_suicide_April_2010.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>

"Contemporary advocates of rational suicide or the right to die generally demand, for reasons of rationality, that the decision to end one's life be an [[autonomous]] choice of the individual (i.e., not due to pressure from doctors or family to 'do what is right' and commit suicide), that the choice be 'the best option in these circumstances' (desired by Stoics or utilitarians), as well as other natural conditions, such as the stability of the decision, the absence of [[impulsivity]], the absence of mental illness, deliberation, etc."