by Rebecca Mikulin

Created on: January 23, 2009

According to the dictionary, suicide means "to intentionally take one's own life." By this definition, as well as by several other related definitions, signing a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order is, in fact, suicide. The Christian church will tell you that suicide is an unforgivable sin, and many people and governments adhere to the belief that suicide is always a grave offense. Does anyone want to explore the possibility that there's such a thing as an acceptable suicide? It is my opinion that DNRs are suicide because a person is willingly allowing their body to die. However, it is also my opinion that, in the situations where DNRs are allowed, this form of suicide is not wrong.

How can suicide not be wrong? I suppose it all comes down to personal belief about a natural life span and to what extent technology edges into "playing God." By the time someone signs a DNR, there is generally a very definite reason for this. Many times they are people whose bodies are already on the edge of death, right on the brink of failure, and the only thing that has kept them alive in the past has been machines and the unwavering efforts of highly-skilled doctors. In this age of so many possibilities for keeping the body alive, shouldn't people have the right to decide when the disparity between "alive" and "functioning" becomes too much for them to bear?

For many, a DNR is much more morally acceptable than euthanasia or other forms of inducing death. This order lets medical personnel know that should this person go into a coma or have a massive heart attack, they don't want those efforts being put out for them, they dont want to be kept from the natural course of events. These people recognize that their bodies have gone as far as they'll go and merely wish to keep living until that last fatal event finally claims their spirit.

Every person is entitled to the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We're taught these basic rights from a very young age and the recitation of them becomes second nature, but what might be the implications of these rights? Doesn't our right to life and the pursuit of happiness also entitle us to decide that we only wish to live out our natural lives, as opposed to technologically-extended ones, and to stop the pain when the latter is no longer possible? I am not condoning traditional suicide or euthanasia, but I do say that allowing the body to die a natural death is not wrong, even if it is still suicide by definition.

In the end, it all boils down to our own personal beliefs about where a natural life span ends and what technology does for us. In today's world it's easy, if expensive, to continue fixing people up, filling them with medication and swapping out body parts for an unbelievably long period of time. This can extend a person's life to some degree, and when their body has all but given up they can still be kept alive on life support. However, if the body can no longer keep itself alive, I believe everyone has the right to fulfill their wishes of turning those machines off and/or foregoing and life-saving operations that might be performed. These can prolong pain, amass astronomical debt for the next generation, and in the end it makes little difference because everyone will eventually die.

Learn more about this author, Rebecca Mikulin.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.