In answering this, it can be said that indeed, it is within the free will of people to determine the circumstances to which they must exercise their duty to die. It is the personal choice of people to place their death as among the list of their duties because it is only the self who can determine when it needs rest. However, it can not be seen as a right because in this manner, it would be subject to abuse by the people. Second, what happens to the duty to die if people can not make decisions? For example, this problem occurs for illnesses where the person has slipped into comatose.
In this regard, the person can not express the duty that is seen as appropriate for this instance, according to the beliefs of Hardwig. However, the people considered to be of close affinity or consanguinity should consider the implicit need for this duty to be given to the person to relieve the suffering and pain. Third, the assertion of the duty to die is against the goal of the society for a better quality of life for all. However, it is seen that alleviating people from being a burden or causing more harm to the self and to others is seen as a better means of achieving a better life for the society.
Lastly, the family, being a part of the social institutions, can be seen as among the providers of care for people and should not consider its members to be a burden. However, as can be discerned from the two previous arguments, the duty to die gives the person the chance to have a greater chance of relieving the self from harm, as well as other people. Preventing him/her from doing it means more pain and agony for the people who are involved. References Hardwig, J. (1997). Is there a duty to die? The Hastings Center Report, 27(42), 34-42.