Henry Imler February 24th, 2006

John Hardwig, in his paper, Is there a Duty to Die?
suggests that sometimes people have an obligation to allow nature to
take it’s course. I read the article a couple of years ago and made
some rudementary notes from it. Here is his basic argument:

1. People’s needs and wants and goods are interconnected. (rejection of the indivualistic fantasy)
2. It is immoral to impose serious burdens on others to further one’s needs and wants
3. One is not relieved of their moral duties when they are sick and dying.
4. Sometimes continuing to live will place serious (and undue) burdens on loved ones.
5. ∴ Sometimes one has a duty to die

While it seems to fly in the face of all of our notions about old
age and death, I think he has a point. We are all mortal creatures. We
will all die at some point, why is the onus on everyone else to provide
individuals constant healthcare? I am not arguing against universal
healthcare, just artificially keeping people alive and draining the
energy and resources of the community for something that is ultimately
inevitable. The community can be one’s family, one’s town, one’s state,
ect…

Since this topic is a very sensitive one, Hardwig goes out of his
way to dance around specific instances of when a person has a duty to
die. He does this to avoid stepping on anyone’s toes.

Is a good death better than a prolonged, miserable life? Can anyone
make that determination for anyone? It is a good can of worms.

• Personal
• Comments(0)