The emerging vocabulary of a human "right" to a dignified death is discreetly rising in UN texts and reports, establishing its terms as "non-opposed language". Over time, this might become "consensual language".
However, the notion of inherent and universal dignity is one of the corner stones of the Human Rights system. Dignity does not change or alter with illness or age. If inherent, it is not qualifiable. To speak plainly, there is nothing dignified in assisted suicide. The killing of another human being is always a tragedy. In all UN texts, dignity is supposed to be objective, universal and undeniable, not linked to the actual capacity of an individual to perform autonomous acts.
Yet, the push for recognition of legal forms of euthanasia at the national level is quickly transforming the fundamental assumption of inherent human dignity. This is not the road forward. This is not progress, but a regression, a loss of humanity, a painful crawling backwards in term of human rights. This working paper argues from three different perspectives – legal, philosophical and theological – the reasons we oppose such a move. It shows what is at stake and why we should avoid walking down the road towards the recognizing of a human right to "dignified death".
Photo Credit: Marcin Mazure
