The right to die

Following the recent announcement of an upcoming vote on the contentious issue of assisted dying, many social commentators were quick to decry the potential for individuals being pressured into ending their lives early.

Their concerns should not be dismissed. There are plenty of greedy grandchildren who would like to get their hands on Gran's inheritance early. Plenty of children, who exhausted by the emotional and financial cost of looking after an aged parent, would consider it a mercy (for themselves) to suggest a one-way trip to the clinic.

Perhaps even darker is the potential for State misuse of assisted dying rights. How long will it be until the infirm are told that they have become a burden on the NHS, and their GP informs them that their treatment should be withdrawn for the benefit of others? How long until an expectation to die is forced on those who are not terminally ill, but simply disabled? Canada is a case in point, where people have been offered access to assisting dying in response to requests for a wheelchair ramp at their property.

It is therefore imperative that robust safeguards are put in place to make sure any decisions to end one's life are made entirely freely and of sound mind. Some may criticise such safeguards for being too restrictive, others that they are not restrictive enough. The precise nature of these regulations will need to be discussed after we have dealt with the case in point- whether the individual has the right to end their own life.

The State will have to have a role in enforcing such safeguards. That is indeed one of the few legitimate roles of The State- safeguarding the freedoms of individuals from others, in this case possibly state institutions themselves. Unfortunately history shows that trust in the moral conduct of The State necessarily comes with a healthy dose of naivety. We must therefore be prepared, if and when the time comes, to reign in the State when assisted dying becomes an expectation rather than an option. What we should not do, is restrict the rights of the individual today in response to a potential abuse of that right in future.

If we accept that the individual is sovereign, the life of the individual belongs to the individual and no one else- not even close family members. The right to death is as immutable as the right to life. If one has the right to do with their property as they see fit, they have the right to do so with their most valuable possession- their life. The individual's life is the property of the individual.

Writing now not as a Libertarian, but as a grandson: some years ago I was living with my grandparents and was involved with their end of life care. I will never forget my grandfather's repeated cries of "let me die" during his last days, while my grandmother lay bed-ridden with advanced dementia in room next door, unable to comprehend the suffering and impending passing of her husband of over 50 years just a few metres away, unable to say goodbye. She herself passed the following year, in her final moments gasping for breath, her face contorted in agony despite the best efforts of the amazing palliative care nurses. I refuse to entertain for one moment the notion that this is how they, or indeed any of us, would have chosen to end their lives- had the choice been available to them.

Moral opposition to assisted dying, be that from religious conviction, or fear of misuse, is valid and should be heard. Nonetheless, preventing another human being from ending their own life, to suffer in agony, sometimes for years, to satisfy the moral convictions of others represents at best misguided paternalism, at worst the evil of collectivism.

The moral concerns of those opposed to assisted dying, the vast majority with many years of healthy life ahead of them, simply cannot be considered superior to the right to a peaceful death on one's own terms.

The individual is sovereign. For the Libertarian, assisted dying must be preferable to enforced suffering.