Where is the limit of a life?

The discussion about euthanasia always shifts further in a direction that frightens me. As a liberal thinker, I myself attach great importance to individual freedom of choice. As a Mormon, I also believe that God has given us moral agency. I am honestly glad that I have both in me to find a balance in this discussion, which makes it much easier for me than for others to say that I think it goes too far.

I do not believe that personal autonomy is infinite. You can often argue that as long as it harms no one else, you should be fully free to make your own choices. For example, not allowing pedophilia is normal, because you primarily protect the child. The eternal principle that one freedom stops where another begins. Even liberals agree with that.

But can a freedom go so far that you can freely dispose of your end of life? I believe that every life is connected to other lives. That every person influences the life of another person. Starting from that vision, it is much less obvious to selfishly decide about your end of life without taking others into account.

As a Christian, it is also true that your freedom of choice is a God-given right, but that your life is the greatest gift God has given you. Without your life, that freedom of choice would be meaningless. Does your life then entirely belong to you? Or do you have a moral obligation to Him who has given you life?

Apart from religious morality, there is also an ethical aspect to this discussion that frightens me. Euthanasia is becoming more and more normal. Stopping in time seems a more honorable end than continuing beyond that point. Where then does the social pressure begin to stop 'in time'? And above all, what is 'in time'? Your time is certainly not someone else's.

I always think back to my favorite series “Star Trek: the next generation” and more specifically to the episode “Half a life“A scientist who is close to finding the solution to save his planet from certain destruction must abandon his research as he turns 60. In his society, 60-year-olds are expected to lie down in bed and put themselves to sleep before they become a burden to the younger generation.

Is that the way we might tackle aging? Putting pressure on elderly people who are too “difficult” to indicate that “their time” to go has come? I know that a lot of people are now raising their eyebrows and saying “yes, it's always about someone's own choice”, but let's be honest: our choices are influenced every day by the society around us and especially by the people closest to us.

For years now I have seen euthanasia move from the point of “that person is almost dead” to people “still in the prime of their lives but know that they are going to decline”. Psychological suffering is already permissible, now we are also going to allow the criterion “I'm tired”?

On the other hand, we note that in our society more people than ever are suffering from depression. Sales of antidepressants have never been higher. At the same time, everyone is saying that there are too few resources available for psychological help. Everyone is finding that although we are literally more connected than ever before, loneliness is greater than ever before.

Do we really have to decide at this point in our timeline that assisted suicide is okay? Isn't the fact that people are asking about this a signal of a society that is failing to combat depression, to provide adequate help and to show charity?

I am always very careful to express views based on my ethical thinking as a believer, but for me it can now be said clearly. I would like to be the voice of those who think that it is enough and that we should fight the disease rather than the symptoms. Please let us first ensure that many people are less tired of life than simply offering them an exit clause.

That is simply my opinion as a human and as a Christian.