Henry Imler April 26th, 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:”The Unsound Argument(Is there a Duty to Die? by John Hardwig)”:http://unsoundargument.com/ethics/is-there-a-duty-to-die-john-hardwig. 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.

• Ethics
• Comments(0)