Dr. Death: who decides when life should end

What is morality? According to Google, it is "a system of beliefs, norms, and principles that governs human behavior in a society by defining what is good or bad, right or wrong, based on shared ideas about values and appropriate behavior." But still, it is primarily a social construct. Philosophically speaking, like other social constructs, this idea is only valid when society itself exists. If other norms and principles were formed in society, could we do something that we now consider morally unacceptable?

Does this give us the right to do whatever we want? As David Allen said: "You can do anything, but not everything". I can't answer this question yet. Given my knowledge, I still cannot formulate a clear, understandable, and satisfactory answer in its full form.

I recently learned about a man named Jack Kevorkian. He was an American doctor who was called "Dr. Death". Jack helped terminally ill people to die by euthanasia so that they would not suffer. He is a very controversial figure: a hero to some, a murderer to others.

He was convicted for his activities, but won one of his trials, defending himself without a lawyer. This caused huge divisions in society. And now people are increasingly thinking about the humanity of free access to euthanasia.

Euthanasia is a method of ending the life of a person who is usually seriously ill and in great suffering in order to relieve them of pain. It can take place in a number of ways: either through active actions, such as administering a lethal injection, or through inaction, when a doctor or family member deliberately refuses life-sustaining procedures (such as a feeding tube or a ventilator).

The debate about whether this procedure can be performed at all is still ongoing. On the one hand, there is a risk of dividing people into "classes": the lives of some are considered more valuable than others. Healthy people are perceived as "full-fledged," while those with serious illnesses, disabilities, or even mental disorders, such as depression, may be considered "secondary." In this logic, their lives seem to have less value and can be deliberately shortened.

Similar questions about the value of life have already arisen in history. For example, in the twentieth century, some ideas about the "quality" of life were associated with eugenics, a pseudo-scientific approach that tried to determine whose life was more valuable.

On the other hand, euthanasia is seen as a manifestation of human freedom. It gives the right to choose the moment and method of ending one's life, especially when the disease is incurable and the suffering is increasing every day. In this logic, euthanasia does not deny the value of life, but rather allows preserving human dignity and avoiding the last days of life becoming torment.

Euthanasia is also perceived as an act of mercy. For those who suffer from constant pain and have no hope of recovery, it can be a way out, allowing them to get rid of physical and mental torment. In this case, death does not appear as cruelty, but as help - relief that medicine can no longer provide by other means.

Jack Kevorkian has become a symbol of disagreement in modern society because his work has touched upon the main ethical question: who decides when life should end. This question goes far beyond Kevorkian's personality and touches on the essence of human morality.

On the one hand, there is the belief that life is an absolute value, and no one has the right to interrupt it, not even the person himself. On the other hand, there is the idea of the right to a dignified death, freedom of choice and control over one's own body. These positions collide when it comes to suffering, incurable diseases, and the possibility of avoiding pain.

The conflict is based on different views of morality: some rely on religion and laws, considering life sacred and inviolable, while others rely on humanism and personal autonomy, putting the human right to decide one's own fate at the center. That is why the discussion of euthanasia splits society and remains one of the most difficult moral dilemmas of our time.

Майя Птущук

Posts in the "Blogs" section display exclusively the point of view of the author. The position of the editors of Intent may not coincide with the author's position.