Assisted Suicide

Dr. Jack Kevorkian was recently released from prison after serving eight years in prison. This sparked a number of stories on NPR, including a segment on the national call-in show Talk of the Nation. The focus of the discussion was on assisted suicide in general rather than specifically on Dr. Kevorkian. Much of the discussion centered around the Oregon law that permits assisted suicide under certain conditions and a similar bill currently before the California legislature. Of particular interest was a comment by Gayle Atteberry, Executive Director of Oregon Right to Life. She pointed out that the campaigns for the law allowing assisted suicide made an appeal to provide an escape for persons with unbearable pain. However, the statistics show that pain is not a leading reason for seeking assisted suicide and that when it is listed as a reason it is may be because of concern about future pain rather than current pain. Thus the argument that the state should allow a person to put himself out of his misery is not an accurate representation of the reality of assisted suicide.

Most of the arguments presented in favor of assisted suicide rest on the concept that a person has sole rights over his or her own body. This, however, does not fit with legal precedent or common sense. Sole ownership of one's own body is not consistent with current law. Seat belt laws and bans on illegal drugs imply that the state has authority over the way one treats one's own body and life. The state uses this authority because it has an interest in keeping people alive. A right to kill oneself might be consistent with a purely libertarian ethic, but that is not what is currently accepted in this country. Sole ownership of one's life is also inconsistent with common sense due to the way in which human lives are inevitably intertwined. The dependence of family members on each other illustrates this well. Since one person's life affects other people, they have an interest in it as well.

Since I am highly sympathetic to libertarianism, I have to ask if it is inconsistent for me to oppose the legalization of assisted suicide. My real opposition to suicide is based on the belief that one's life does not belong to oneself or to the state, but to God. Suicide in all its forms is certainly a sin, but that does not mean it should be illegal. Coveting, using God's name in vain, and idol worship are all sins; but I do not think that they should be illegal in the United States. Libertarianism rests on the idea that one owns oneself and one's products rather than the state or other people owning them. It seems that a consistent libertarian system would have to allow suicide. Since most (non-assisted) suicide attempts are considered to be the product of mental illness or other loss of rational control, the argument could be made that the person in question should not be allowed to take his own life. This still seems to run counter to libertarian ideas, especially if the state is intervening; but I do not know what positions libertarians commonly take concerning the treatment of the mentally ill who pose a risk to themselves. However, that may be irrelevant to the discussion of assisted suicide since terminally ill patients who seek to end their lives are not generally assumed to be irrational or mentally ill. In the end, I think a consistent libertarian system would have to legalize rational assisted suicide. However, the current system is no where near consistent libertarianism; and I do not believe that legalizing suicide is the best first step in that direction, so for the time being I do not support it. This may seem inconsistent, but in at least some cases a similar stance is justified. I oppose the legalization of gambling because it can lead to problem gambling which causes a burden on social services like welfare. If taxpayer-supported welfare was removed first, I would be more inclined to support the legalization of gambling. If the nation starts moving toward consistent libertarianism, I may discover that I do not like it as much as I think I would. However, I am willing to give it a shot.

Another defense of assisted suicide is the idea of maintaining control over one's own life, but this is also a fiction. Most people do not get to choose how they die. A person with a terminal illness who knows that death is approaching already has more control over how they die than a person who dies in an automobile accident or of a sudden heart attack. It is the nature of death to be out of our control. Autonomy is a deception. All of us are under the control of the state, our circumstances, our employers, and our other relationships with other people. In fact, our lack of total autonomy is part of what makes us human. A person who seeks total control and independence will miss out on some of the most important parts of the human experience. Helping a dying person who has sought autonomy for his or her whole life maintain that illusion is doing him or her a disservice.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that the original Hippocratic Oath does not contain the phrase "First, do no harm," but it does say, "To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death." There is not much wiggle room there. The Oregon law is certainly a departure from the Hippocratic tradition for physicians.