Choosing Death

Sep 9, 2014 Peter Singer

Beyond a certain stage of dementia, the person we knew is gone. If the person did not want to live in that condition, what is the point of maintaining the body?

PRINCETON – “I will take my life today around noon. It is time.”

With these words, posted online, Gillian Bennett, an 85-year-old New Zealander living in Canada, began her explanation of her decision to end her life. Bennett had known for three years that she was suffering from dementia. By August, the dementia had progressed to the point at which, as she put it: “I have nearly lost me.”

“I want out,” Bennett wrote, “before the day when I can no longer assess my situation, or take action to bring my life to an end.” Her husband, Jonathan Bennett, a retired philosophy professor, and her children supported her decision, but she refused to allow them to assist her suicide in any way, as doing so would have exposed them to the risk of a 14-year prison sentence. She therefore had to take the final steps while she was still competent to do so.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one to read two commentaries for free? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

Peter Singer

Writing for PS since 2001
185 Commentaries

Peter Singer is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and founder of the non-profit organization The Life You Can Save. His books include Animal Liberation, Practical Ethics, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), Rethinking Life and Death, The Point of View of the Universe, co-authored with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek, The Most Good You Can Do, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, One World Now, Ethics in the Real World, and Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction, also with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek. In 2013, he was named the world's third "most influential contemporary thinker" by the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 6 in all 6 Comments on this article

Amber Malinowski Apr 12, 2016

I agree with the argument for euthanasia that suggests “that there is nothing wrong with feeling that you ought to die for the sake of others as well as for yourself.” If one’s quality of life has diminished to the point where they no longer desire to live and are suffering from a terminal illness or disability they should have the option to choose death. Often patients are forced to stay alive, degenerate, and then are kept in vegetative states for the sake of their families. Once in this state a patient’s choice and free will are taken away from them. Once one loses their free will some would argue that they lose meaning to their life and lose all reasons to want to live. Some patients want the choice to die before mental decline overwhelms them and they no longer feel as though they are the person they once were. Just as one patient says in the being of the article, “I have nearly lost me.” Additionally, I would like to advance the argument that since health care system resources are limited one should focus these recourses on patients who desire them and from which the patient will benefit. Patients in vegetative states do not benefit from being kept alive. These patients have no awareness of themselves or the environment around them. People should be offered the choice to die when facing degenerative illnesses. People suffering from these illnesses should not be forced by law to suffer and degenerate if this is not how they want to live. With medical advances where will we draw the line of keeping people alive and prolonging the lives of terminally ill patients.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Edward Yeong Oct 3, 2014

Hi Dr. Singer

Fantastic article on such controversial topic. I work at the Memory and Aging Center at UCSF. We do research with as well care for people who suffer from dementia. I had a chance to observe in the clinic and it was very emotionally overwhelming to see someone who was able to read, communicate and walk one year ago who could only babble on a wheelchair when I saw her. The patient had handful episodes of crying and sadness during the 3-hour assessment. If someone is at a late stage of dementia with symptoms such as anomia, memory lost, depression and motor problem, do you think life for this person, by in large or from an existentialist perspective, is worth living? I also think that it's important to raise both awareness and funding for research in dementia and Alzheimer's disease, it would be such a breakthrough if we can find a cure for it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gerry Hofman Sep 16, 2014

Excellent article on a very difficult subject. People have been disenfranchised from their rights long enough, it is time to take it back. I will also claim the right to determine the time of my own death, in the event that it should become necessary, rather then becoming a mindless husk or a victim of medical technology. I would prefer to remain a strong and happy person forever, but let's face it there is a lot that can go wrong. The strong and fearless will choose the time of their death, the weak will be kept alive a lot longer, in most instances to their continued detriment. There is nothing wrong with making such a choice, the injustice lies in criminalizing those who would be of assistance. There are many ways of insuring that everything is done correctly, that there is no miscarriage, and allowing someone who would make this choice the assistance of a physician and the support of their loved ones would finally enable us to face the subject with pride and dignity.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bobby Elkin Sep 14, 2014

What about people such as myself, a 63-year-old who suffers from a severe mental illness (resistant to treatment), and knows (although no one will confirm it) that he is a burden on the family. Should we have the right to die?
- Peter Singer Sep 16, 2014
  
  To Bobby Elkin:
  Yes, if your mental illness does not vitiate your competence to make such decisions, and has proven resistant to treatment for a long time, I think you should have that right. But if your reason for taking this step is that you believe yourself to be a burden to your family, it is possible that your mental illness leads you to take a more negative view of this than is truly the case. You say that no one will confirm that you are a burden on your family. Isn't it possible that this is because you truly are not?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Varsha Gupta Sep 9, 2014

Wouldn't legalizing euthanasia make more people feel like a burden? What if some families start faking it? Is their some way to ensure the free will?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.