After the passing of the End of Life Choice Act and its imminent review, let's get provocative about the right to choose ones time of death. Disclaimer: I am a staunch and outspoken supporter of assisted dying.

What if, instead of living out our final days in the confines of illness, suffering, or the slow decline of old age, we had the ultimate power to choose when our time on Earth ends? Not in the way of suicide, nor under the grim shadow of terminal disease, but in a compassionate, dignified process where anyone, at any point in their life, could choose to die? Imagine the world where the decision to die isn’t bound by the medical profession’s prognosis, but entirely under the jurisdiction of the individual, as a simple matter of personal autonomy.

This isn’t an easy topic. Death remains a taboo, something we push to the periphery of our conversations. But what if, instead of fearing it or pretending it’s not a part of the natural order, we considered a radical shift in how we view life’s final chapter? What if we had the ability to choose death, when it’s the one thing about life we’re not allowed to control, including our birth?

The Right to Die: Not Suicide, But Choice

In this reimagined world, death is not something that must be suffered through a diagnosis, nor an event that happens when the body simply gives up. Instead, it is a conscious, carefully chosen decision. Not suicide—because there’s no mental health crisis pushing you to this choice, no unbearable pain to endure—but a process of assisted death where, at any point, an individual could choose to exit life.

For some, this would be the ultimate freedom, the right to say enough is enough, to end their life on their own terms without suffering or waiting for the inevitable. Rather than prolonging suffering or losing autonomy in the final stages of life, people would have the agency to leave when they feel their time has come. For those who wish to avoid the indignities of aging or the pain of a degenerative illness, this option would allow them to retain control over their existence until the very end.

But is this a dangerous idea? A moral catastrophe? Perhaps. But it’s worth exploring the profound positive implications this could have on both individuals and society at large.

The Ethics of Choice: Autonomy vs. Harm

At the heart of this experiment is autonomy—the right to decide for yourself when your life has run its course. The decision to die would be as personal and sacred as the decision to live. As philosopher John Stuart Mill argued in his harm principle, individuals should have the liberty to do whatever they please, as long as their actions do not harm others. So, what harm does choosing to die cause?

Mill's principle champions personal freedom, and when it comes to death, this could offer immense psychological and emotional relief. For individuals who have exhausted all their options and face an intolerable quality of life, the choice to die could be an act of self-preservation, not self-destruction. In a world where death is a right, rather than a taboo, people might feel empowered to live fully, knowing that if the weight of existence becomes too much, they could opt out peacefully and with dignity.

Critics often argue that the availability of such a choice might harm society, encouraging people to opt for death too easily. But is that the case? Or could it lead to a more profound respect for life, a deepening of relationships, and a culture of empathy? The act of dying on one’s terms could inspire people to live more intentionally, valuing each moment and treating others with greater compassion. Imagine a world where people chose to live not because they feared death but because they cherished the opportunities life provided.

Is Death Really a Choice?

We all make choices every day about how we live. But what about choosing how we die? In a world where people could decide to end their lives, we’re confronted with a stark reality: what would this mean for those who feel isolated, depressed, or hopeless? What if someone makes this choice during a moment of emotional crisis, a temporary storm of the mind? Should we allow that decision, or should there be safeguards in place to ensure that the choice is deliberate and clear-headed?

Here, the positive implications come into sharper focus. If people had the right to end their lives, they might also find the courage to seek help when they need it, knowing that they have an ultimate choice, but that it isn’t the only option. The knowledge that death is not an irreversible last resort could lead to fewer people taking their lives in moments of despair. Instead, they could feel the safety of having a choice and, potentially, more incentive to fight through difficult times. Far from encouraging death, it could act as a compassionate safety net that gives individuals more reason to value their lives.

The Societal Ramifications: A Culture of Death?

The psychological impact on others would be immense, but this too could be a positive force. Think about the fear that would arise, but also the dialogue it would spark—people would be more open about the nature of life and death, leading to deeper empathy and understanding. Instead of death being the unspoken specter in the background, it would become something discussed openly, something we prepare for and embrace as part of the human experience.

If people could choose to end their lives at any point, it could foster a society that places a higher value on the quality of life. Those struggling with mental health or terminal illnesses would no longer be faced with a future filled with hopelessness and suffering, knowing that an option exists where they can die in dignity. In this scenario, society might become more attuned to each person’s needs, more supportive, more present, and ultimately more humane. Rather than pushing the elderly and sick to the margins, this system would allow for a society that doesn’t just care for the living, but respects the autonomy of all its members—no matter where they are in life.

And consider the ripple effect: what of the people who are left behind? The loved ones, the families, the communities? While there will always be grief, the opportunity for a person to make their final decision with a sense of closure and peace might provide solace, sparing families from watching a loved one suffer in agony. In some cases, the decision to die could be a final act of love, sparing family members from watching their loved one deteriorate or lose themselves to disease.

People Die Suddenly Every Day: What's the Difference?

Every day, people die suddenly and unexpectedly—whether in accidents, natural disasters, or through other unforeseen events. The reality is that life and death are unpredictable, and often, we have no control over when or how we leave this world. The difference, then, between a sudden, tragic death and a dignified, self-chosen end, is the element of choice. In accidents, illness, or violence, we are often stripped of that choice, and the consequences can be painful and devastating for those left behind. What if, in our imagined world, we had the ability to make death our own decision—not something we’re passive in, but an active choice we could make when our time has come? Why should we only have control over how we live, and not over when we leave?

Conclusion: A Choice, But at What Cost?

We may never fully answer these questions, but it’s worth asking them, to imagine a world where we could choose the moment of our death. Would this autonomy empower us, liberate us, or bring us to a place of moral decay where death is no longer feared, but welcomed too easily? What would it mean for society, for relationships, for our understanding of life and death?

This thought experiment about choosing death isn’t a call to action—it’s a provocative exploration of what it means to truly live, and to truly die. If we embrace the freedom of choice, we must be willing to face the implications, the consequences, and the ripple effects that stretch far beyond the individual. Because in the end, the right to die might be a personal one, but the harm it causes, even indirectly, could never be entirely contained. And perhaps, just perhaps, it might give us all a new perspective on what it truly means to live.