Forum: Person’s worth can be decided only by the individual

I refer to Wee Shiou Liang’s letter “What is a 120-year life for?” (June 8), which was a response to Ravi Velloor’s commentary “Preparing for a time when living to age 120 is commonplace” (May 27).

Wee said that Singapore needs to build a compelling account of what a long life is for, particularly when an individual is no longer useful by conventional measures. However, such a narrative cannot be constructed by anyone but the person himself.

The meaning of life is a deeply personal matter.

Everyone has a unique take on what is worth living for, right up to the end.

It should not be decided by others, nor should it be viewed purely from an economic perspective.

One thoughtful way to protect this individual autonomy would be to legalise voluntary euthanasia. This would allow mentally capable individuals to decide if they would choose this option upon a clinical diagnosis of severe cognitive impairment.

Such an instruction could eventually be incorporated into the existing Advance Medical Directive framework.

This approach would naturally invite policymakers to re-examine the legal boundaries of end-of-life care and outline strict clinical safeguards.

Families and society would then be empowered to accept these directives as the sacred, personal wishes of the individual, made when they were of sound mind.

This directly and compassionately addresses plans for one’s sunset years when a person may no longer be independent.

Goh Ee Kiat