The Ultimate Freedom
The UK Times Online (July 15) ran a story that began with these words:
The death of a leading British conductor and his wife at a Swiss suicide clinic has raised fears that couples will be encouraged to die together even when one of them is not terminally ill.
The article goes on to to say: Campaigners and church leaders renewed their opposition to legalising assisted dying amid fears that elderly couples were being inspired to make “together for ever” suicide pacts.
Suicide is always a contentious issue. In fact, many countries prevent the publication of suicide numbers – for various reasons.
Euthanasia – the right to terminate one’s own life – raises a most important philosophical issue. Do you have the right to kill yourself? And your own answer depends entirely on your fundamental philosophical and moral viewpoint.
If you believe, as I do, that your body and life is your private property – then any decision to end it is rightly yours to make. And for other self-appointed guardians of morality to suggest otherwise is to suggest that we are ultimately the property of someone or something else (tribe, society, the state, God?) – that we are not entitled to control over our own life.
I think the issue of suicide and euthanasia is a good litmus test of one’s commitment to the concept of freedom. If one does not have the freedom to control what happens to one’s body – then what is the use of “freedom” at all?
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
agreed. if people want to end their life then obviously they have a private reason to do so and the less said about it the better.
Wow, What you are saying is pretty scary, although I heard a story a few years ago about the same thing.
I also believe, that we actually suicide when we die anyway, and I have also noticed that most people when they die, die with a smile on their faces.
Figure that one out LOL.
It makes you wonder how manipulative governments have become and how unashamed they are at feathering their own nest! When it is time to go….. so be it. If I am sane or fit enough to have a say in it…… I will demand my own destiny!
This link to a video clip gives an insight as to where we are headed…… interesting……………http://bit.ly/2og75g
My ex-wife died in agony with a brain tumor, what love there would have been if she had been able to go on her terms. I would wish to go on my terms not die of terminal disease in which you lose control over your body. DIE WITH DIGNITY
Freedom!!!
I believe that too much of everything is bad, so too much of freedom is also bad, Moderate is the Best, let not pretend to say we want freedom and the same time use that freedom to harm ourself, we could rightly say we have freedom to make decision for our body, but we should also consider that we are not alone in the world so whatever decision we make in this world wether good, evil, or our right, the world must be considered, other people must be consider, we should not be self-centered, we are not alone in the world, a society is made of people and if all leave together to succeed, we must all leave together to make decision, and at always we must make decision that will better the overall society and the large interest of all humanity. Your Freedom End once it become a public issue or interest; I think we all must know and understand this point, basic freedom does not include killing yourself, Freedom is defined. Right To Life, it did not say Right to Kill yourself; until it is written and accepted by all it cannot be given, as a society we must agree to disagree and that is the good thing about our world.
The freedom to “harm yourself” is part and parcel of freedom. It’s like the drug question. Collectivists want to criminalise drugs because they see a social cost to personal drug use and justify intervention on those grounds. But in a society where people take responsibility for themselves, then certainly people should be free to take drugs – even if it does harm them. That is the nature of freedom – and those who harm themselves must bear the consequences directly.
A free society is one where all are free – and the freedom of others is respected. The minute you lay down some law that a person is not the owner of his or her own life, then you are treading on another’s freedom – denying it. And that road leads to tyranny.
Boy oh boy this is such a tough question. I mean I think people that are terminally ill in agony should have the right to choose.
What worries me most is the complete lack of credible leadership around the world and the idea that suicide clinics being established as the norm and having teenagers view it even more acceptable to committed sucide, because hey it’s ok with society.
I have a friend whose 17 year son killed himself, she has not been and never will be the same again.
Very difficult question to deal with.
If we do not have the right to terminate our lives ourselves but have to wait for a death to come and claim us, then is not the artificial prolongation of life also condemnable? Or am I missing something?
This Social Issue is very difficult to address. My opinion is a double standard with no clear-cut guidelines.
If someone is terminally ill and in agony because of their disease, my belief is that they should not be made to suffer. So many die a truly painful and agonozing death. I am a Christian and believe that Jesus Christ suffered for all of us. I do not wish mankind to have to go through this type of suffering.
On the other hand, if someone wishes to end their life because of mental illness, depression, etc. (and this includes everyone who is not diagnosed as terminal) then I do NOT support taking of one’s own life. Help must be made available and, if necessary, forcibly given (but lovingly and gently) so the individual becomes more hopeful and less despondent.
I totally agree with Terry. I don’t think assistance should be offered unless there is severe agony involved. Although those that are determined will always find a way to acheive the ends, assistance in doing so without considerable mitigating factors would establish a bad precedent in my opinion.
Hello Dear David, the freedom to “harm yourself” is NOT part and parcel of freedom at least as it is written in the constitution, if it was, you would have had the right to smoke cocaine and Heroin and at the end destroy yourself. I will really beg you to consider those who gave birth to you, it was their right to bring up a man or woman to life, but it was not their right to kill such live, the same thing apply to you. I will say it again; any freedom that include an individual killing himself is no longer a freedom; thus freedom is define.
Thank you
Best Regards to all freedom fighters, please do not spoil freedom for us, so we will not hate to have it.
You can’t give freedom to a 2 years old, please try it and you will see what will happen to your Mobile Phones and other gadgets close to him/her (little 2 years old Mike), now those who feel like terminating their life are like this little kids, be wise.
We need more freedom to do as we please. As someone who had family that felt mandated to take control of my life .. why ? Because so-called Doctors who are really just Medical Tecnicians felt empowered to judge my sanity. Well having major figures now accept I am sane, means the so-called Doctor’s sanity and indeed the sanity of the whole profession is now open to question.
Freedom to wear your seat belt, freedom to wear a helmet, freedom to get a license, freedom o pay taxes. Do you see a pattern here? Do what you are told! If you do not stand up for the little things the big things will follow. Freedom in America is the ability to do what you please so long as it does not affect others. In other words the government is to protect the helpless, BUT the helpless must be named. Examples are rape, robbery, and murder. Remember if there is no victim there is no crime because the constitution guarantees our right to face our accuser. Oh and freedom to be left alone. Google “challenge jurisdiction” and learn.