In John Hardwig’s article A Duty to Die?, the author makes an excellent argument that we all have a duty to die in certain circumstances. First, Hardwig supports his concept by tracing the socio-cultural construction of death and dying among various cultures. Western culture is opposed to preparation and support for taking one’s own life when living is only possible by being a great burden to loved one’s or through artificial, medical means with little lifestyle improvement or chance for restoration of health.
Hardwig claims that many are opposed to a duty to die because of believing we are individuals who “own” our own lives. The facts are contrary to this as Hardwig asserts, “the fact of deeply interwoven lives debars us from making exclusively self-regarding decisions” (294). Hardwig argues that the fundamental insight underlying a duty to die is directly related to the burdens our individual illness causes others, “A duty to die is more likely when continuing to live imposes significant burdens—emotional burdens, extensive care-giving, destruction of life plans, and, yes, financial hardship—on family and loves ones” (297). Hardwig argues we have a duty to die in such circumstances because all of the bonds and love we share with our family and friends (solidarity, altruism, bearing the burden of misfortunes, etc.) are all two-way streets. Thus, in some cases the individual who is fatally ill must make sacrifices to spare disproportionate burdens to others. With respect to society and its dereliction in responsibility to provide for the incapacitated, the author argues we must also pick up our responsibility and duty to make provision for such lax social policies by maintaining our duty to die.
Hardwig also undermines the three conventional arguments opposed to euthanasia, but admits he is pretty much making his argument to feel out the issue himself. In so doing, he pr
...