Abstract
John Hardwig, a professor of Philosophy in the United States of America, have argued "a duty to die" of the patient, in his paper 'Is there a duty to die? (1997)'. Four points at issue support his theory: the development of modern medicine; the imperfection of the health care system and the social negligence; the love to family; and the affirmation of patient's identity and the restoring her/his dignity. There are some criticisms to his theory on "a duty to die". But the aim of this paper is to criticize Hardwig's assertion from the viewpoint of our own. Hardwig puts a heavy stress on that "a duty to die" can be moral in so far it is, not imposed by a society or other peoples, but self-imposed voluntarily. A family is a sphere of close intimacy. Thus it is doubtful whether the possibility of voluntariness of "a duty to die" for other family members could be kept still after one decides on her/his early on death by self-awareness of that duty. In other words, when one declares undertaking "a duty to die" to the other family members, the individuals of family are necessarily bound by such a decision. Moreover we must inquire whether a pure spontaneity in itself could be realized. We think this problem bring us to more serious meta-ethical problems which underlie the ground of moral statement.
