Dignity, Death, and the Law
On Thursday, the New Hampshire House of Representatives Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on HB1283. The bill provides for end-of-life options and would codify access to life-ending medication in limited circumstances.
Suicide is a tragedy. Life is precious, unique, and, on the grand scale, rare. The scarcity, value, and fragility of life are qualities that have led some to take a position against these so-called “right to die” policies by which a person may peacefully and painlessly end their own life with the use of doctor-provided and self-administered medication.
I do not dispute the aforementioned positive qualities of life. I am a fierce advocate for suicide prevention, but I also acknowledge that there is no just power to interfere with the choices other persons make with their bodies. It comes down to a question of ownership. Can a person be “owned” by another human without their ongoing consent? I say no, and encourage pro- “yes, I should be allowed to own a human” advocates to speak up and be known to all.
Those of us who are anti-“I should be allowed to own a human” agree that each person has decision-making power and final say over their person, up to the line where they violate the consent of another person, a line that is drawn in recognition that all other humans also have Rights. This is the basis of equal treatment under the law and a cornerstone of peaceful interaction. The power of law must be derived from consent to be just. Otherwise, the law becomes merely the initiation of violence and diminishing of others’ wealth under a variety of pretenses. The line of what is acceptable behavior becomes simply whatever is chosen by those in power.
People who have been deprived of their Rights not only have a just claim against their persecutors but are unlikely to long-suffer in peace for their oppressor’s convenience. “These violent delights have violent ends,” as it were. It is a well-known and ugly cycle human society can but has not yet broken.
Limiting another person’s rightful control over their own body and the product of their mind is an act of force and runs counter to the Principle of Human Respect, resulting in less happiness and prosperity.
Unfortunately, this particular infringement on human rights is happening in every American jurisdiction, including states like Vermont and Oregon which have already instituted a “right to die” policy but permissioned access only to those whom legislators and lobbyists deemed to have suffered enough to earn a permission slip for a peaceful end. New Hampshire’s HB 1283, if signed into law, would fall into the same category.
Not only is gatekeeping life and death a moral wrong, but it is also an exercise in futility, as evidenced by the suicides that occur despite the behavior being outlawed. Human ingenuity and creativity, even in macabre acts, will always outpace written law, which is dated communication from the past.
Certainly, the vast majority of people who choose to end their lives could be aided back to a happy and prosperous life, and I will continue to advocate for eliminating barriers to those ends. The problem is the same in both cases: our laws, and more importantly each person’s behavior when interacting with others, should refuse to initiate violence against others or diminish their wealth through theft, fraud, or destruction. Individuals who do want a way to end their pain must be allowed to do so painlessly and peacefully.
When it comes to ownership of oneself, property, and decisions of a personal nature Matthew 20:15, and later Fred Morgan Kirby, had it right: “Is it not mine right to do what I will with mine own?” To claim to control another person’s life is not a moral action among a free people or a people who aspire to live freely.
There are certainly arguments that start from a different place than the Principle of Human Respect, but any premise that claims nonconsensual decision-making power over peaceful persons can and should be dismissed in law. The systems that govern between people of different beliefs must accommodate for all peaceful and consensual actions, not play favorites based on who is holding the reins of power. It isn’t the most basic human right to self-determination that needs to be changed, merely the outdated and corrupt policy of all stripes created to limit human expression and realization of happiness.
