By Kavinda Ratnapala
- To halt the further curtailment of human and individual freedoms the right to life, within whose ambit abortion and euthanasia fall, must be made synonymous with that of citizenship rights.
- Debates over abortion and euthanasia must be de-medicalised as the path taken has compounded human suffering.
- Should atheists or those from sympathetic religions be limited by the majority’s religiously inspired laws that prefer to deny abortion and euthanasia?
Background fact 1
The right to life has been used as an argument by both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice advocates in the 50-year-long blood and guts extravaganza of which the last round was resoundingly won by the Pro-Life advocates. The last round was the overturning of the federal judicial protections offered for abortion access in the United States. Thus, galvanising their sympathises from across the world.
Background fact 2
In 2018, the term suicide tourism gained international notoriety to a level never seen before as assisted suicide was accessed by Dr David Goodall who travelled to Switzerland to be euthanised, as it was not legal and hence possible for him to access the service in his native Australia.
The vitriol surrounding the abortion debate has been nothing short of deafening since the overturn of US federal legal precedence Roe Vs. Wade. The singular question of what is meant by the right to life, though it may not have been self-evident, has been jousted by the proponents and opponents of abortion, with each making claims to represent its purest conception.
While the story of Dr Goodall has never been further than a stone’s throw away from my psyche, the events in the US have starkly brought to a head the question what does the right to life mean to me? I am by no means mistaken to believe that my views on abortion or euthanasia are shared by my readership or even the world. But for the sake of transparency, it must be said that my sympathies and more importantly political affiliations lie with the arguments that Dr Goodall proposed in his end-of-life media conference in 2018.
The issue I see with regards to the right to life debate whether it be at conception with the abortion debate or at the end of life with the euthanasia debate. Is one that has been explicitly coloured by religion and paternalistic social attitudes.
Fact is, while a majority of the world does not recognize abortion rights—the majority that does, limit access to only when the woman’s life is at risk in an emergency. All the while the said majority has few qualms with the legality of capital punishment or life sentences which in function is very capital.
Fact is, while the majority of the world cares for the unborn child’s right to life, a better part of the world does not care for the child or family post-birth hence the lack of comprehensive social benefits or protection, even covering the bare minimum of health to say nothing of other basic human needs such as shelter, education, transportation, nourishment and access to water. The mustard I am afraid to say simply does not cut here.
While it is undeniable that religious attitudes have governed civilizations’ response to both abortion and euthanasia, leading to its explicit banning in most jurisdictions. It seems a bit much that, the same religious values should govern the rights and lives of those who may not share the same religious sensibilities. It raises the question as to why atheists or those from sympathetic religions should be limited by the majority’s religiously inspired laws that prefer to deny abortion and euthanasia. Especially in a democratic society where the right to freedom of religion or lack there off is supposed to be assured.
What has become exceedingly clear is that whether it be the medicalization of the abortion debate or the outright zero-tolerance attitude towards euthanasia, the path taken thus far simply cannot hold going into the future. Pension systems around the world are expected to simply fail due to the lack of working-age adults paying into the system in comparison to the retired who draw from the same. The quality of life for the majority of the world’s elderly is expected to take a stark downturn and not all of them will have the profile and influence as Dr Goodall to seek a humane exit elsewhere.
A new paradigm of the right to life is sorely needed. One which precludes religiously motivated actors from claiming precedence by virtue of their historical standing, while simultaneously de-medicalizing the abortion and euthanasia debate which has explicitly hurt too many to count. It is due to this that a reconceptualisation of both these topics needs to be made under that of citizenship rights as opposed to health rights. In Switzerland, Euthanasia has been a citizenship right since 1942 and while it is an easy leap to allege its abuse by the powerful. Evidence does not justify such suspicions especially when the legal framework surrounding it is also geared to protect the individual’s right to choose from those who may wish to abuse the individual.
Compassion has to lead the way and in modern society which has placed a premium on the individual, it is kind of unfathomable that abortion and euthanasia continue to be looked at from a collectivist stance. The right to life must be supreme hence why capital punishment is so abhorrent as life is taken away against the wishes of the individual. The case I make for legalising abortion access and euthanasia as a citizenship right is not for the sake of petty politics but rather to further the highest value of the human right to life with the individual being the sole arbiter within a legal framework geared to protect individual choice. Thereby exercising the right to life to the very fullest.
The act of choosing is what affords humanity its greatest distinction from other animals. Everything that can be done to increase choice only increases the state of our collective humanity while actions to the contrary only subtract from it. While no one irrespective of creed or social standing had a choice in entering life. If we are to preserve individualism to actually benefit “this blameless life” and sustain the best that modernity has to offer, individualism, as practised, must be dismantled. For it has failed to do right by the person but furthered the basest objectives of the vested interests and profiting few. The millions of unsafe, underground abortions and lonely suicides that occur the world over are a damming indictment of our present course. They are the nameless as well as countless who have fallen through the cracks of society into destitute and despair. This is not compassion. This is the debasement of civilization, and it is the aggrandisement of malice and brutishness towards the weak.
To halt the further curtailment of human and individual freedoms, and if we are to realise a more peaceful union the right to life must be made synonymous with that of citizenship rights. Citizens must be made aware that the duties and rights of citizenship are not fixed or immoveable. They are as malleable as the citizens that embody them. Citizenship requires eternal vigilance and boundless imagination, for this is the only way to improve the stock of the one and all.
To access the full portfolio of articles see here.
Kavinda Ratnapala, has worked in a range of Corporate and Not for Profit roles from which he ideates and writes in the Sustainability and Governance space whilst occasionally dabbling in geopolitics and ethical conundrums of interest. He holds a Master in Environment and Sustainability with a Bachelor in International Relations.
You can email the author at kavindareads@gmail.com or find him on Twitter under the handle @kavinda937 or connect on LinkedIn.
