The right to die is again in the news. This coming Wednesday, the Montana Supreme Court will consider the case of Robert Baxter, who, afflicted with incurable lymphocytic leukemia, claimed that a doctor’s refusal to help him die abrogated his rights under the state’s constitution.
But what about the federal constitution, or the Declaration of Independence? Do rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” imply an individual’s power to exit life on his own terms, and in her own time? What did the Founders think about assisted suicide, or ending one’s own life in the face of incurable illness?
Our nation’s founding generation often drew their ethics from classical rather than Christian sources. Many especially admired the Roman philosopher Lucius Seneca. So John Adams admonished himself in his diary to “Study Seneca, Cicero, and all other good moral Writers.” A listing of Washington’s library from his Mount Vernon estate shows a copy of Seneca’s Morals, published in London in 1746, among the collection.
In those moral essays, Seneca advised that “mere living is not a good, but living well.” A wise man ought to be prepared to end his own existence whenever it grew unduly burdensome. “He always reflects concerning the quality, and not the quantity, of his life. As soon as there are many events in his life that give him trouble and disturb his peace of mind, he sets himself free.”
Some goods were superior to survival, Seneca held, and some evils worse than death. He tells the story of a young Spartan taken into captivity. When ordered by his master to perform an undignified act—fetching a chamber pot—the boy cried “I will not be a slave!” and dashed his own brains against the wall. The illustration was likely to appeal to patriots ready to lay down lives on the altar of freedom. “Life, if courage to die is lacking, is slavery,” according to the Stoic teacher.
Clearly, though, bashing your own brains out was an unpleasant way to exit. Seneca preferred less painful means. He tells another story of a contemporary philosopher, Tullius Marcellinius who “fell ill of a disease which was by no means hopeless; but it was protracted and troublesome, and it demanded much attention; hence he began to think about dying.”. After distributing his meager belongings to his circle of friends, Marcellinius then stopped eating. “For three days he fasted and had a tent put up in his very bedroom. Then a tub was brought in; he lay in it for a long time, and, as the hot water was continually poured over him, he gradually passed away, not without a feeling of pleasure, as he himself remarked.”
That was the sort of gentle finale Thomas Jefferson probably had in mind when he wrote to Dr. Samuel Brown in 1813 about a lethal concoction of the herb Datura Stromonium, or jimson weed, which he praised as bringing on death “as quietly as sleep,” without the least distress. “It seems far preferable to the Venesection of the Romans, the Hemlock of the Greeks, and the Opium of the Turks. I have never been able to learn what the preparation is, other than a strong concentration of its lethiferous principle. Could such a medicament be restrained to self-administration, it ought not to be kept secret. There are ills in life as desperate as intolerable, to which it would be the rational relief, e.g., the inveterate cancer.”
Jefferson had already reached the Biblically allotted three-score and ten at that point. Strategies for the end game were beginning to occupy his thoughts. That same year, at the age of seventy-seven, John Adams wrote to the physician Benjamin Rush, in a letter penned under the persona of his horse “Hobby.” Wouldn’t it be a kindness to the old man to simply stumble one day, “Hobby” wondered, and end a tottering life like Adams’ quickly?
Nine years later, at an even more advanced age, Jefferson wrote to his friend in Braintree, “When all our faculties have left, or are leaving us, one by one, sight, hearing, memory, every avenue of pleasing sensation is closed, and athumy, debility and malaise left in their places, when the friends of our youth are all gone, and a generation is risen around us whom we know not, is death an evil?
One suspects they both endorsed Seneca’s answer: “The wise man will live as long as he ought, not as long as be can.”
16 comments:
Nice post. I enjoy the occassions when contributions lie into current events.
Although you should fix the typo in the conclusion: “The wise man will live as long as he ought, not as long as he can.”
Well, let's not overshoot the text here, Mr. Kowalski, although there's a thread of truth here.
First of all, Jefferson is speaking of somebody on their way to the guillotine with the "lethal concoction of the herb Datura Stromonium," in their pocket, and further that Condorcet used it to escape the guillotine.
See page 311.
But Jefferson does indeed allow that self-administration [only] is preferable to "[the] ills in life as desperate as intolerable, to which it would be the rational relief, e.g., the inveterate cancer.” [Inverterate = chronic, of long duration]
However, we should not conflate such a "euthansia" justified by the mere loss of faculties as described in your second passage, which is from a different letter.
And neither should we take Thomas Jefferson as our moral authority of the Founding. His opinion is relevant, but no more than that of the other 100 or so Founders. Personally, I don't admire Jefferson the man all that much, and far prefer several others like James Wilson, as previously noted.
The "right to die" is an individual right to write a "living will". No one should be allowed to make choices about the "end of life" issues, except the person, himself.
Would it be feasible for everyone to be required to have a 'living will"? Then, if an accident happens the individual would be treated accordingly. We do this in some states concerning organ donation. The desire is put on the driver's license.
There would probably be much "outcry" from the religious right, as they would deem it necessary to protect life, as God-given (direct cause). But, affirming life is in quality, as much as quantity. That must not be decided by some "committee".
I am still on the side of the individual's right to self-responsible choice and behavior. And the government can be in the place of "correcting', if I take another's life away from him.
Definitely thought provoking, but think on this: Man does not give himself life, so what would cause him to believe he has the right to take it from himself when he is faced with the difficult certainties of earthly existence?
Jakeman, you brought to mind that John Locke wrote exactly the same thing:
"But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it.
The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges every one; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker-- all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business -- they are his property whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's, pleasure; and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy another, as if we were made for one another's uses as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours.
Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice to an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of life: the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another."
[Bold face mine.]
There are some very strong parallels between Locke's words and Jakeman's. However, Locke does not state the Man is not within his right to take his own life because he did not give himself life.
If I understand correctly, Locke argues to preserve life when it has a use more noble than bare preservation. If a life has no use more noble than bare preservation, or is burdensome, the Locke's argument for presevation would not apply.
It also appears to me that while Locke places reason in the seat of authority, his words are an appeal to reason as opposed to a definitive judgement. As such; what is the reasonble thing for another to do if one encounters an individual who desires to take his own life? No doubt a well reasoned answer would depend heavily upon the context.
Locke does not state the Man is not within his right to take his own life because he did not give himself life.
Um, I guess we'll have to get a referee, because my plain reading is that he certainly does---"they are his property whose workmanship they are."
Moreover, although he equates natural law with reason, the link to God [the Maker] is explicit.
In fact the one thing that surprised me about Founding era natural law arguments was how they were more directly linked to God than those of earlier thinkers like Grotius and Suarez [the latter being a priest!], who both maintained that if there were no God, natural law would still be in force.
And by "some nobler use" I read that as heroism---sacrifice in battle, or in the case of "creatures," I suppose being eaten by man.
[As opposed to killing creatures for the mere pleasure of it.]
Certainly not any reason to drag in the idea of "burdensome."
As such; what is the reasonable thing for another to do if one encounters an individual who desires to take his own life?
No doubt a well reasoned answer would depend heavily upon the context.
I don't see Locke remotely arguing that, or allowing for it. It's in the hands of He who gave that individual life---"made to last during his, not one another's, pleasure."
Tom, I am able to walk about the issue and position myself in a perspective that is consistent with your words, but I don't see conclusive evidence that Locke shares that perspective in it entirey.
Meaning that I don't see Locke as claiming to be an ultimate authority, but only an authority upon his own reasoned opinion.
Regarding Locke's opinion, I acknowledge your perspective is more consistent than the one I offered ... It's a Friday and I've learned something new ... that's a rather nice way to end the week!
I understand the point which bpabbott is trying to make when he says, "If a life has no use more noble than bare preservation, or is burdensome, then Locke's argument for preservation would not apply."
However, a problem arises when one wonders about when life truly is burdensome, and when, if ever that burden outweighs the value which a particular life might provide to others, even those who are forced to dedicate themselves to preserving or prolonging that life.
Jakeman, your comments reveal the difficulty of such decisions ...
... Decisions which (I think) are often left on the table (debated, ignored, but not made) until the ultimate result of death renders the decision moot.
Personally, I hope to be able to determine my time to pass, and am more hopeful that those around me will be convincing of why I should continue in the event my will faulters ... but I also hope to remain committed to a "noble" exit! ;-)
p.s. I'm bad with names ... and don't recall seeing you comment before. If my memory is not fautly, welcome, and hope to you continue to comment.
Like the pic of Buckethead. When TVD and I went out drinkin' we talked about such guitarists.
Our profiles have a lot of similar musical tastes as well.
On a somber note, Kerry Livgren from Kansas, whose work with them I cherish, suffered a stroke earlier this week.
Meaning that I don't see Locke as claiming to be an ultimate authority, but only an authority upon his own reasoned opinion.
Of course. Natural law arguments are built on reason. "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges every one; and reason, which is that law..."
But I don't think Locke was immodest enough to claim his reason to be infallible.
[Although I get the sense Jefferson was...]
Jefferson not modest?
... hmmm ... well he pretended to be ... much like me ;-)
...we talked about such guitarists.
Guitarists are OK, but keyboardists are, as the kids say, the cat's pajamas. At least one FF had the right idea (p 363):
Jefferson TO [JOHN FABRONl] 1
Williamsburg, Virginia, June 8tk, 1778
".... If there is a gratification, which I envy any people in this world, it is to your country its music. This is the favorite passion of my soul, and fortune has cast my lot in a country where it is in a state of deplorable barbarism. From the line of life in which we conjecture you to be, I have for some time lost the hope of seeing you here. Should the event prove so, I shall ask your assistance in procuring a substitute, v/ho may
be a proficient in singing, &, on the Harpsichord."
Now, back to death.
If had been an accordion, JRB, the choice between that and death would have been a toss-up.
Buckethead, BTW, is what Frank Zappa called a "stunt guitarist." Not that Zappa minded---he hired such guys who could do the impossible, like Steve Vai.
Oh, and BTW, J---I love Dynamo Hum.
I couldn't say where she's coming from
But I just met a lady named Dynamo Hum
She stroll on over, say look here, bum,
I got a forty dollar bill say you cant make me...
Etc.
[You just can't do it.]
I think you get the wrong impression around here sometimes. We're up on all the classics.
Post a Comment