The UK’s decision to legalize the righto die has reignited debate over autonomy, ethics, and the state’s role in life-and-death decisions. For libertarians, this policy is both a victory for personal liberty and a cautionary tale about the risks of state overreach. The issue highlights core principles of individual freedom and raises important questions about safeguarding vulnerable populations.
Libertarians often champion the right to die as an extension of personal autonomy. Decisions about life and death, particularly for those suffering from terminal illnesses or unrelievable pain, are deeply personal and should not be dictated by the state. For advocates, this legislation affirms human dignity, allowing individuals to reclaim control over their lives when suffering undermines their quality of life.
The policy also challenges state authority. Libertarians argue that governments should not impose moral or religious values on private decisions. If individuals are free to refuse medical treatment or make other life-altering choices, they should similarly have the right to choose the timing and manner of their death. From this perspective, the UK’s legislation is a significant rollback of state control, signaling respect for individual sovereignty.
However, the policy raises concerns about implementation and unintended consequences. Libertarians are wary of how the state regulates access to assisted dying. While safeguards like independent medical reviews and eligibility criteria aim to prevent coercion, they also grant the government power to determine who qualifies. Critics fear this could lead to bureaucratic overreach, where the right to die expands beyond its original intent or becomes normalized as an expectation rather than a choice.
Another concern is the potential for societal pressure. Vulnerable individuals, such as the elderly or disabled, might feel coerced into choosing assisted dying due to systemic issues like healthcare costs or insufficient palliative care. Some libertarians worry this policy could create a “slippery slope” where economic incentives, rather than true autonomy, drive decisions. Additionally, there’s a risk that normalizing assisted dying could devalue life itself. Opponents argue that legalizing this practice might reduce societal investment in improving the quality of life for those in distress. Margaret Thatcher once stated, “Watch your thoughts, for they will become actions. Watch your actions, for they will… shape your character. And your character will determine your destiny.” While not directly addressing the issue of assisted dying, her focus on individual responsibility and moral reflection offers a framework for considering the broader societal implications of such policies.
Libertarians who support this policy stress the need for safeguards to ensure that offering the right to die does not erode efforts to support and care for vulnerable populations. The UK’s decision represents a significant cultural shift, emphasizing individual choice in one of life’s most intimate decisions.
For libertarians, it is both a triumph and a challenge—proof that personal liberty can triumph over state control, but also a reminder of the vigilance required to prevent misuse. As this policy unfolds, its success will depend on balancing autonomy with protections for the vulnerable, ensuring that the right to die remains a deeply personal choice rooted in dignity and freedom.
Loading ...
I think it’s strange it is for a society to be absolutely opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances but to be quite willing to allow the state to kill you as a demonstration of your personal liberty. Those in favour of it should think how the law could be used by a government which insists the State be responsible for your healthcare and which makes up the law as it sees fit.
I say makes up the law as when you look at the actions of the law in the UK it is quite sinister. No, we definitely don’t have a law against blasphemy but we absolutely will not allow people to say bad things about a certain religion. Justice is blind, but we don’t mind certain religions being regarded as evil and are quite happy for people to march through the nations capital demanding the death of all adherents to the evil religion.
Everyone is subject to the law but we don’t enforce the law against followers of a certain religion if they assault police officers. Other people will be tried in a matter of days after their crime and put in jail if their crime is something very bad, like calling a police dog gay or wishing a certain religion’s building be burnt down.
The Prime Minister demands silence about a case to ensure justice is done but is quite happy to voice his opinion about other cases and what sentences be meted out.
So a pervert paid by the State commits a vile crime against children but is not subject to the law.
Let’s see how the case we are not allowed to talk about pans out. If the trial doesn’t happen for whatever reason, I’d be very careful about passing any law allowing the State to harm you.
Abolish the NHS, along with state pensions, and I could tolerate this bill, from a libertarian standpoint. Personally I want to retain the current protection I enjoy from anyone facilitating my suicide at the times I’m most vulnerable. But I do understand the libertarian argument.
As things stand though, where the state’s balance sheet has every incentive to facilitate my death, this bill is terrifying. It’s going to be me against the whole apparatus of the state at the moment I’m least able to fight it.
@Grist
I have the same concerns as you do. It is good to read a well written post which actually suggests addresses that, rather than just opposing the concept. I too am very concerned about the State being involved in this at all. As I am also about the Creeping Jesuses of all denominations who want to oppose people having control of their own lives on the basis of their own supposed “morality”.
For instance I am opposed to the conditions under which this right is proposed to be granted. The six months of a terminal condition & opinion of two doctors. That is exactly how this could slip into death under duress. I’m in favour of unconditional choice under any circumstances without reference to any other opinions by anyone.
Incentives, old boy, incentives.
It will save Our NHS money, free up the inheritance and get rid of bothersome dependent old folk. What’s not to like?
Of course we’ll be killing granny 😉
@Paul
Many elderly people carry a “Do Not Resuscitate” card in their purse or wallet. It should be possible to carry a card saying “Yes Please Try to Keep Me Alive”. Whether it works is another matter…
Of course we’ll be killing granny
I’d take that more seriously if people weren’t do determined to convince grannies to agree to other things very much against their wishes.
They did it to my mother. She was carted off & dumped in a care home because social services adjudged she was incapable of looking after herself. She was dead in three months. I know my mother & would never had agreed to that, voluntarily. But if she hadn’t, she’d have known what would have happened. They would have got a care order enabled them to sedate her & cart her off anyway.
Maybe if she’d seen her supposed doctor in the previous 12 years she’d have had a hearing aid so she could hear what people what people were saying & false teeth that fit so she talk properly.
Perhaps Rachel from accounts is already planning a progress chart – “Another pension we don’t have pay. We’ll soon fill that (mythical) £22 billion black hole.”
Penseivat: « Perhaps Rachel from accounts is already planning a progress chart – “Another pension we don’t have pay. We’ll soon fill that (mythical) £22 billion black hole.”»
Suddenly I spot a ray of sunshine peeking through the clouds: she’ll be euthanising the public sector ( to say nothing of benefit claimants and asylum hostel inmates) long before she gets to me.
Fess up – this article was written by ChatGPT, wasn’t it?
“The UK’s decision to legalise the right to die …”
(i) It’s only for England and Wales. You can bet the SNP are trying to work out what they should do on the topic that will give them bragging rights about being infinitely more virtuous than “the English”.
(ii) It ain’t law: you need an Act of Parliament for that.
May I add that I find “right to die” a ludicrous expression? We have no bloody alternative.
“strange it is for a society to be absolutely opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances but to be quite willing to allow the state to kill you as a demonstration of your personal liberty. ”
How is it strange? I mean, your wording of it is strange, but not the concept.
I know that, on the day the doc tells me it’s incurable and I’ll be in pain within a month or two, I want the freedom – for ME – to decide to celebrate a good life and then go to sleep.
But, damn, government should never have a hand in this. I simply don’t trust the incentives.
The right to die was legalised decades ago when suicide was decriminalised.
The current process is not providing a right to die, it is to provide a right to demand the state provide somebody with that death.
>Critics fear this could lead to bureaucratic overreach, where the right to die expands beyond its original intent or becomes normalized as an expectation rather than a choice.
This isn’t a ‘fear’ – this is just what happens everywhere its done.
A bit late to this. BiS/Grist – agreed.
jgh
“The current process is not providing a right to die, it is to provide a right to demand the state provide somebody with that death.”
Or as someone put it over lunch earlier: “it is giving the state the right to kill you”. At your apparent bequest, of course, but a right they did not have before.
Whereas, anyone can kill themselves, if they really want to, and were able to before, in practice. For example, a one way RyanAir ticket to Switzerland is – I believe – even cheaper than a return flight.
So, simply from a practical libertarian perspective, what are we – as individuals – actually gaining from this. Compared to what the state might gain.