[Disclaimer: This is simply a philosophical debate, not medical information!]

 Perhaps it is time, to offer a new approach to death through the lens of a Second Enlightenment by allowing ourselves to debate, ponder, and consider fresher attitudes about death. It is particularly important to look at the naturalness of death with an open mind and imagination.

All things are finite and all sentient beings die. Human beings learn about the inevitability of death by seeing other people die. Naturally all persons die, but many may unconsciously would wish that their death be uncomplicated and painless. Animals die through sheer force of nature, but humans have a complicated consciousness that does not function like that of animals, and perhaps it is time to consider the idea of planning one’s own death time. One could argue that because of the complex mind we have inherited in the course of our evolution, as mature human beings we have the right to die at a chosen time of our life whether due to old age, terminal illnesses, life-fatigue and other reasons – because we remain the owner of our own life.

Why is planning one’s own death illegal? Why does society not give that freedom to its citizens to have a say in their own destiny?

Perhaps, first we must look at why has the topic of death has been a taboo and negative undesirable topic of conversation throughout the centuries, even during the Enlightenment. Perhaps the avoidance of the topic of death has to do with deep psychological links to the dark side of the psyche. In the Enlightenment, the idea of life had primacy, and death was seen almost exclusively as evil and dark and the end of life, and was therefore rejected. Death was never fully treated or explored in the first Enlightenment.

The attitude of avoiding death was strengthened in the 20th century with the scientific developments of medicine and life-saving discoveries. People began focusing more and more on prolonging life and avoiding death through the prevention and curing of diseases, and even attempts to stop aging. But this approach came at a cost: the psychological separation from the naturalness of death, and the suffering that comes from denying the real and unavoidable processes of existence from its beginning to its end.

A Right Time to Die is Not Immoral

So the idea of choosing the timing of one’s death has been portrayed by moralists and religious thinkers as a betrayal of one’s God-given life, and therefore blocked by lawmakers until recent times, when only a few countries began allowing it. In our current era, the right to die whether due to illness or planning one’s own death before the difficult and critical stages of old age arrive, has been stigmatized with hopelessness, cowardice and immorality. Obviously the older one gets, the greater risk of chronic and terminal illnesses. But because self-deciding death has long been considered illegal, the individual is left with no choice but try to live as long as possible, despite the emotional, social and financial costs for the individual, for the family members, for society, and on the medical establishment.

For those above age 65, 70 or so, the option of planning when to die based on existential and philosophical reasoning would NOT be considered ‘suicide,’ which is stigmatized as stemming from desperation and depression.

Instead, this new idea takes the approach of developing the ‘art of dying’ supported by a ‘philosophy of dying’ which requires a deeper appreciation for life, its resources, and for those in line who will have to use the same resources for their life. It requires a wider social acceptance of death, and legislation that supports a new realm of freedom.

A critical tenet in the Second Enlightenment is the expanded view of freedom, and in this case, it means embracing the freedom of both life and death. The goal here is to consider the option of planning one’s own death at a reasonable age if desired, not as a painful decision made in despair but as a rational, personal decision made while in good mental health. The right to die in our modern era means we can be brought back to living in harmony with the cycles of existence consciously, and this can include a fuller and conscious embrace of the eventuality of finite life and death.

The idea of being able to plan one’s death can certainly be difficult to fathom, blocked by the emotional reactions to facing death as well as being blocked by the resistance of family and friends. The more modern the human ego becomes the more we become conditioned to saying ‘no’ to death. We say ‘no’ to the death of ourselves due to fear –the fear of nonexistence as well as our fear of missing out on life. And we say ‘no’ to the death of others due to the natural and painful feelings of loss. Such emotions are real and natural and must be acknowledged, but liberation can come gradually when one realizes that planning an anticipated death means embracing a natural phase of the life cycle.

Lamentation and sadness have been part of the culture of how death is handled, and are still expected. To counter the conditioning and expectation of a particular mourning behavior does not mean we wouldn’t mourn or feel sad. But with a new attitude to understand the recurrent phenomenon of death and embrace the wider cosmic cycle, one’s experience of death could flow more naturally, rather than cause debilitating sadness or an unhealthy unemotional or indifferent reaction.

We are humans and we have choices due to what we have created as societies. The reason we make choices such as using medicine to live better and longer is because we are not animals who “are lived” through the inexorable forces of nature, but we are humans who decide “to live” – or die. This means we can make choices to improve the quality of our life through a wide variety of decisions, and planning death means another choice we can make. Designing the trajectory of one’s life has the potential to greatly improve the quality of life by raising the value of each moment and living in the present – one can enjoy life more when one is already alive. It can also improve relationships simply due to the awareness of our own projected mortality, and not taking a single hour and day with each other for granted. Life and death are two sides of the same coin. Both sides have the same value and in the bigger picture of existence, both are worthy of celebration.

Cultural Resistance  

While this may sound like a shocking endeavor, perhaps it is worth suspending judgement for a moment and first identifying the source of one’s resistance to the idea. Then try imagining for a moment what it could be like: imagining a society where voluntary death planning would be an accepted, healthy practice for those who choose it. Besides improving the quality of the individual’s life, voluntary death planning could change the nature of our institutions, change the societal order and financial order. Planning one’s own death can be the ultimate liberation. The decision to end one’s life for realistic and judicious reasons at a reasonable age and stage of life is in fact to counter fear, to counter the risks of irreversible illnesses with long-term suffering, and to live harmoniously with the inevitable fact of death.

 Deciding on the timing of one’s own death should not be seen as a betrayal of hope and life, but instead can rather be seen as a shift in the social structure and cultural psychology. Hope is a wonderful thing to create in life but realistically, hope should not turn into forged and ephemeral or empty expectations. The egalitarian nature of death, the fact that all sentient beings and all humans die, creates a bond of sympathy and support among the members of the community – the kind of support system so that those who die or wish to die are given a loving hand and words of confirmation rather than denunciation or judgement.

Death Literacy: Conscious death and a journey into oblivion!  

“Whatever we obtain (life) is due to coming of time. Whatever we lose (death) is also due to the arrival of the turn. We must be content with the ‘time’      and accept the ‘turn’. Then neither the ‘sorrow’ nor ‘joy’ will creep in. Such an attitude used to be called among the ancients ‘Loosening the tie’. If man cannot loosen himself from the tie, it is because things bind him fast.”                                                                                                                                — Zhuangzi, Daoist Master of 4th century BCE

Having a healthy approach towards death that might also include the idea of planning one’s death requires a kind of ‘death literacy.’ The skill of death literacy would begin with developing an objective awareness of death during childhood and youth, learning early on to create a vibrant and joyful life rather than postponing the privilege of living the irreplaceable days of life for later and older stages (so-called after the retirement). Ongoing discussions of death in the family, in schools, and in universities, especially for those members whose emotions and attachment demand domestication, will build up a psychological stamina which dilutes death’s heaviness. Death literacy means holding a true personal understanding, respect for and acceptance of the infinite cycles of birth and death to which we all belong. Vacating a place for a new birth is the rule of existence. The role of doctors is important here as well: Medical schools bear responsibility for teaching about the unspoken aspects of death so that doctors could be trained to leave behind medical jargon of pathologies for some moments in order to communicate the realistic anticipation of death with their patients in an elegant and tasteful philosophical manner.

For this evolution to occur, religious, political and legal divisions of societies in the Second Enlightenment will have to put behind their own dogmas and provide older citizens the freedom to choose and plan their own death. It must be understood that for many older people, the scenario of suffering combined with the anxiety of a sense of waiting, being on ‘standby’ so to speak, is definitely not a noble or desirable thing, and neither is the hard choice of dying voluntarily. No matter what the considerations are, the fundamental freedom of life of a modern individual in a modern society will have to be guaranteed. The ingrained, familiar cultural and religious approaches to death should not act as cords that limit a person’s freedom and wellbeing. The Second Enlightenment can be a new opportunity for learning death literacy in order to be more aware of the nature of life, while securing the right to die based on individual choice and a conscious engagement with the cycle of existence.