link to original reddit post by /u/existentialgoof
Just to add a disclaimer here; I would not identify as a libertarian myself, but share certain values with libertarians.
I believe that the most fundamental right of all is the right to choose whether one continues to exist. A person who is forced to continue to exist against their will is a slave, as everything that this person does in their life will be in order to maintain a burden that they are being forced to bear by society.
I believe that the majority of libertarians support the right to die; however, having browsed libertarian subs, I have seen a number of self-identified libertarians speaking out against the right to die.
There are a number of arguments given, and I'll give an overview of some of the most common ones I've seen, plus my rebuttal to those arguments.
- Suicidal people are suffering from impaired judgement due to mental illness, so by definition, are not able to consent to their own death.
My response to this: mental disorders do not have any empirical basis as diseases the way that physical illnesses do. Psychiatry determines what is classified as a mental disorder based on the level of psychological distress that a person experiences, and to what extent this prohibits them from functioning optimally. To be diagnosed with depression, you do not get a brain scan showing that your brain is not working properly, you answer a questionnaire, and above a certain threshold (determined arbitrarily, by fiat) that is considered to constitute clinical depression rather than mere sadness. The catch is that what the psychiatrist is basically doing is saying that because you're not enjoying life, then you lack capacity to decide whether you want to continue living it, because your valuation of life is negative compared to some non-existent 'objective' valuation of life, which says that life is always worth living. It's a catch-22. An opponent of assisted suicide might say that the desire to die can be rash and may not reflect that person's true will. In that case, I would be willing to accept a compromise whereby there is a waiting period that must be undergone, and perhaps counselling would be mandated. If the person has a persistent and unwavering wish to die over that period (say a year, for sake of argument), then it can be said that the choice to die reflects their settled desires, and there should be no further curtailment of their freedom to be administered a painless and risk free method of suicide.
- The right to life is inalienable, and therefore one cannot choose to suspend this right any more than you can choose to sell yourself into slavery.
My response: If something is forced upon you against your will, then that makes it an obligation, not a right. This view is predicated on the intrinsic value of life, which is a religious belief, not something that has been empirically verified. Therefore, the person who seeks to prevent suicide based on this argument, seeks to impose their unproven religious beliefs on people who don't share them. This must surely be incompatible with a belief in the right to personal autonomy.
- You do not have the right to someone else's labour, therefore you do not have a right to assisted suicide.
I would agree that I should not have the right to walk up to a stranger in the street and force them to kill me, and have that request be legally binding. However, I can't see where there would be a problem with someone voluntarily being willing to provide the means of suicide, or even direct assistance.
- There would be risk of people being coerced into choosing to die.
My response: There should be safeguards in place to prevent this from occurring. However, the right not to be a slave is something that should be absolutely fundamental, and therefore, perfect should not be the enemy of good. We allow people to drive cars and buy sharp knives, knowing that there are risks involved in this, even the risk of malicious harm being caused. And yet, a society in which nobody is allowed to operate a motor vehicle or own a sharp knife is not a society of slaves. But yet these freedoms are permitted to us, and not the freedom to choose whether we want to continue our unasked for existence?
Anyway, I welcome your thoughts on these arguments. If you consider yourself a libertarian, and you oppose the right to legal, risk-free suicide (assisted or otherwise) , please share your thoughts here.
For everyone else: do you think that a person can meaningfully be considered a libertarian, and be in favour of the government being able to use force to impede people who are looking to end their existence? And I don't mean in cases in which a person's suicide is going to endanger others (e.g. jumping off a tall building onto the pavement below). I just mean, allowing the person to have access to a reliable means of suicide that relieves them of the need to commit suicide in public and involve unsuspecting bystanders because the government won't allow them the means to reliably commit suicide at home, or in a clinical setting.