UK newspapers have just carried the story of a man who killed himself in a clinic in Switzerland be-cause he was afraid of becoming paralysed. He was diagnosed with a tumour near the spine and had been told that paralysis was possible. Although he had not yet experienced any neurological problems, he “could not contemplate a future as a quadriplegic” and “wanted to be in control of the final stages of [his] life”. He said he was “exercising his human right to dignity”.

This death raises an important question. Should his subjective interpretation of “dignity” constitute a human right? He perceived that an involuntary subjection to suffering would be a loss of “dignity” and preferred suicide to the risk that his “dignity” could be lost.

The word “dignity” can be defined as “the state of being worthy of honour or respect”. It is how we are seen and judged by others. However, our dignity in the eyes of those who love us is not lessened by our outward appearance, even if we are in pain, paralysed or disfigured. We have dignity just from the fact that we are human and this cannot be lost.

“Dignity” nowadays has a much less enduring connotation. It increasingly seems to refer to other people’s perception that a person is not in pain or embarrassed. The suicide mentioned above shows that loss of “dignity” is now being extended to the fear of being unable to control our bodies. That inducing our own death is considered the remedy shows that this control is considered crucial.

How have we reached a situation that we would rather kill ourselves than lose control?

There seems to have been a gradual change in how society thinks, arising from the loss of spirituality and faith and an increase of the “I want... I can… therefore I do” mentality. Rather than “ought I to do?” We now consider it a “right” to assert our freedom to choose what we do and the possible loss of this through illness is enough to trigger suicide.

In reality, this “freedom” we value so highly is not freedom at all. It causes us to demand “rights” that are not real rights. Real human rights do not conflict with other people’s rights as assisted suicide does. Assisted suicide devalues life and so conflicts with others’ right to life.

Human rights cannot be based on a definition of “dignity” that changes as people increasingly define new subjective perceptions they feel are imperative for their chosen way of living.

This re-evaluation of the concept of “human dignity” has also spawned a new range of “gender and gay rights”. A case in point is that of persons who choose to be female when their sex chromosomes are XY, as Bruce Jenner did. This devalues the family.

The courts are also being infected with the “freedom” to create new “rights”. Judge Isobel Brownlie determined that Ashers baking company in Ireland were guilty of discrimination against homosexuals.

They refused to put a pro-gay “marriage” message on a cake which was against their Christian beliefs. The person asking for the cake did not say he was gay and Ashers did not refuse to make the cake, therefore there were no grounds for discrimination.

To insist, as the judge did, that Ashers should have written a message against their beliefs makes her judgment discriminatory against the bakery. It seems the judge was so eager to support gay “rights” that it distorted her judgment.

Politicians too have felt the need to be “free” to bestow new “rights”. In Malta, a further “breathtaking” revolution occurred when both sides of the House were in full agreement to make it legal to change your declared sex by a simple registry office declaration.

In their rush to support the new mythical gender ideology, our politicians are breaking down the very fabric of society that they were elected to support. They are also betraying the democratic process that elected them, their own dignity and that of their elected office.

The abandonment of the intrinsic value of dignity that is now open to arbitrary interpretation will have far reaching negative consequences on society.

Patrick Pullicino is professor of clinical neurosciences at the University of Kent.