The other day I was thinking, like ya do, about how suicide (particularly of the non-terminal-illness variety) is pretty much viewed with universally strong disapproval up and down the American political spectrum. And it occurred to me: shouldn’t social libertarians, of whom I generally count myself one, be in favor of individuals having the freedom to choose to kill themselves, willy-nilly, in whatever circumstances, so long as no one else is physically harmed? Or, if not “in favor of” it, at least “not opposed,” in the same way that social libertarians tend not to be opposed to people choosing not to wear motorcycle helmets or seatbelts, or choosing to drink or smoke or do drugs? Shouldn’t the same people who chafe at mandatory seatbelt laws and who foment against the criminalization of marijuana also believe that it shouldn’t be a crime to attempt to inflict grievous harm upon yourself? Surely deciding to end one’s life is as much a province of free choice as deciding to experiment with heroin or go helmetless, yeah? If not, why not?
I’m in favour of people being able to drink or smoke drugs, provided there’s adequate (ie far better than anywhere has at present) provisions to both protect non-users, and to help addicts to recover. Seatbelts are not just about personal safety, but about that of other people as well, so I’ll discount that. Crash helmets I’m not so sure about - but then again, a true Libertarian expects socialised medicine, which means socialised care for non-helmeted bike-freaks, which seems like a burden being thrust on the many to indulge the choices of the few. Nobody has ever managed to develop a free-market model for heroin to be a viable element of society, so I don’t need to defend something that doesn’t exist. Heroin is bad. (Doesn’t mean we should criminalise addicts, though.)
Anyway, now I’ve presented my own left-wing response to everything else you mention: for a physically and mentally healthy person to kill themselves with no danger to others, why should we have any particular obligation to stop them? Of course, physical health can in such scenarios disguise mental illness, so we should take measures to ensure that the person in such a situation isn’t ill in this way. But then, what kind of suicide are we talking about? Bridge-jumping? Slow descent into alcoholism? In many countries, suicide is a legal term, giving it a very specific inflexible definition.
As for assisted suicide for the terminally-ill, I’m all in favour, in principle. The principle being the huge need for safeguards, second third and fourth opinions, etc.
I say, yes indeed. A person’s life is his/her own. It doesn’t belong to the government, the church, or anyone else.
A friend of mine is going through something of a decision process right now. And I’m glad he’s comfortable discussing this with me, knowing I won’t have the knee-jerk reactions of assuming he’s mentally ill or trying to get “help” for him or attempting to talk him out of it.
If he feels that now’s the time for his life to end, who am I (who is anyone?) to tell him he’s wrong? I don’t feel I could count myself a true friend if I tried to intervene to coerce him into continuing a life he doesn’t deem worth living. To do so would be selfish, even if I disagree with his motives. I’m not arrogant enough to believe I know better than he does.
I know, I know… his suicide would cause great pain to his family. But so be it. If you don’t want to risk losing a family member, don’t have kids. Sounds hard-hearted, but that’s simply the real-world risk you’re taking. Not everyone thrives. Is it love to hold someone hostage in their body just so you don’t suffer?
I fully support the right of free individuals to choose the time and manner of their own deaths.
I’m a social libertarian and I believe that all suicide should be legal. Those terminally ill should certainly have the right to end their life. I also believe that all laws against suicide (as stupid as they are) should be taken off the books.
However, saying that suicide should not be illegal is not the same thing as saying “go for it if you feel like it”. Most people that commit suicide are mentally ill at the time that they end their lives. Some do it as a cry for help and don’t really plan on succeeding. They are not thinking rationally. I am Bipolar and over 25% of people with Bipolar disorder commit suicide.
I spent some time with my cousin this summer. Her father committed suicide 11 years ago (he was Bipolar also) and she tried to explain what a profound negative effect it has had on her life.
I believe that the terminally ill should have a right to end their life but those about to attempt suicide or who have already should be committed to a psychiatric ward for evaluation and possible treatment. After they are treated, and they still decide to do it, then it is their choice.
GM: * Crash helmets I’m not so sure about - but then again, a true Libertarian expects socialised medicine*
Say what?!!? Just to forestall possible heart attacks on the part of “real” (i.e., political/economic/social) libertarians who may join this thread, I’ll pipe up that I think such libertarians are as a rule completely opposed to the concept of socialized medicine (at least, as provided by government entities). Socialized medicine is something that we liberals/leftists/progressives, as well as socialists, tend to support even if we are also social libertarians, but the “true” libertarians are agin it.
Anyhoo. Suicide. I don’t see anything wrong or contradictory in the position that society may disapprove of and discourage behavior that the government is nonetheless not allowed to prohibit via legislation. Do I, as a social libertarian, believe that the government has no business criminalizing suicide, including responsible euthanasia? You betcha. Do I believe that therefore society is not allowed to express negative attitudes about suicide and that doctors shouldn’t counsel against it and so forth? No way.
How is the state going to punish a suicide victim? Death penalty?
It is regrettable that suicides occur. But then again, it is regrettable that physical illness exists. I do not see how one can be ‘blamed’ for malfunctioning neurotransmitters. Indeed, pressuring one suffering from mental illness into pretending it doesn’t exist seems to me a sure way of increasing suicide rates.
And Libertarians can be socialistorcapitalist. The “true” Libertarians just don’t put sugar on their porridge.
Yay, if the suicide breaches no contractual obligations; nay, otherwise.
If the suicide was a crime (for example, the aforementioned breach), then the property of the criminal is distributed to settle all debt — just as if he were still alive. Restriction of liberty is obviously unnecessary since he has relieved government of that burden by himself eliminating the very source of his rights — his own body and mind.
True, but it is a fallacy of composition to assume two elements sharing a property are related in every way.
That’s correct (and a point I’ve made many times) so long as all are volunteers. Libertarianism is a poltical philosophy; socialism and capitalism are economic philosophies.
Not to answer for anyone, but physical harm can be defined more accurately. Some people get emotionally bent out of shape over any- and everything…others have a much higher threshhold of emotional pain. You can’t be held responsible for everyone’s emotional happiness.
Yeah. Otherwise, going helmetless, doing (and becoming addicted to) drugs, and any number of other arguably self-destructive behaviors can no longer be justified under a libertarian ethic of ‘an it harm none’ (helpfully distinguished by Lib from ‘an it breach no contract’ ), since such behaviors may cause reasonably foreseeable mental, emotional, and more attenuated forms of harm to loved ones and others. Sure, suicide might cause more emotional harm than these other things, but then again, it might not (if going helmetless leads you to die in a routine accident, or if snorting cocaine leads to a drug habit financed by desperation and theft)…and anyway, why engage in line-drawing when you have a nice, ostensibly concrete standard (of physical harm) at hand?
I’ll respond to other posts later, but one more point for debate: Posters have helpfully (and accurately) pointed out that those who consider suicide or other forms of self-inflicted harm are not acting rationally, or that there is a mental disposition to this behavior that must be guarded against if “free choice” is really the standard. In what way, other than the extremity of the result, is deciding to kill oneself any more irrational than deciding to engage in other demonstrably risky behavior that carries with it little objective marginal benefit? If a disposition toward suicide mitigates (or informs) someone’s freedom of choice to kill themselves, does a disposition toward addiction do the same for someone who wants freely to choose to try heroin?
SM:And Libertarians can be socialist or capitalist.
Well, shoooooo-hoot my dog and thanks for the links. Having encountered only North American capitalist libertarians, I had no idea that there even was a socialist variety. (I still don’t quite see how anarchists/socialist libertarians could reconcile fundamental opposition to the existence of the state with any workable form of socialization of medicine, but I obviously don’t know enough about them to draw conclusions.) Thanks for fighting my ignorance, Meat.
Coupla things. The libertarian ethic is not “an’ it harm none”; that is the Wiccan ethic. There is no ethical problem, libertarianly speaking, with harming someone in defense of yourself. Second, a breach of contract is harmful. Deception is a misrepresentation or nullification of intent. It is a means to the same end as physical force: to rob a person of his free volition. The entire foundation of human relations is undermined if there is no basis upon which to trust anyone else.
I too am thankful to Sentient for getting through in that regard. How you could have missed it before, given how many times it was said, is a mystery. A libertarian collective may have any arbitrary structural form or economic system so long as all are volunteers. Libertarianism and volunteerism are synonyms.
It is the Wiccan ethic. It is also a libertarian ethic. It forms the spine of social libertarianism as I (and most people) understand it: if I’m not hurting anyone by engaging in behavior X, the government (and the church, and other institutions) should keep its nose out of my business.
I don’t know that I’m a social libertarian, but I do believe suicide should not be frowned upon or stigmatized the way it is if for no other reason than that it would discourage people who already have esteem issues to come forward with their problem when it is a problem. However, they are not the only people who wish to end their life.
I don’t fit anybody’s handy classifications – I suppose I’m a “Polycarparian” which is something of a left-libertarian with subordinate clauses. I believe, for example, that we are all interdependent on each other to some degree, and that it is our moral obligation corporately to assure that what a person may need and is unable to make right for himself or with a little help from his friends, we as a society will make available. But subject to a couple of caveats like that and the classic no-force/no-coercion standard, a maximum of individual freedom is desirable.
That said, I believe it is a person’s right to terminate his own bodily life after due consideration with clarity of mind. The classic example of the man with a lingering terminal illness who chooses not to impoverish his family by instead choosing the time of his death and going out with dignity is an example of where that right is duly exercised.
At the same time, I believe it is not inappropriate (the litotes is intentional) to intervene when someone is actively moving towards suicide when the bolded condition above has not been met. A person with a bipolar syndrome or in the depths of teenage angst after an emotional breakup (in a real case of which I once had to intervene) would be examples of where I would see a necessity of overriding the judgment of another whom I deem not to have sufficient clarity of mind to make the decision – realizing that in doing so, I have asserted an improper “right” over him/her, and owe it to him/her in consequence to assist in resolving the situation that seemed to him/her to call for suicide as the proper course, after having denied him/her that out.