I was clearing things off my hard drive while getting ready for APEE and I came across this essay I wrote some time ago on suicide. I wrote it for an essay contest and so was severly limited on space and what exactly I could say (hence the random book mention). I am not sure how much I am persuaded by the arguments I put forth, but I thought I'd share it regardless. I've put the essay below the fold.

Suicide, Assisted and Otherwise

The principle of equal freedom – the notion that every woman has the freedom to do as she likes provided she does not infringe upon the equal rights of others – is the basis of our constitutional republic. As explained by Roger Pilon in David Boaz’s The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Readings from Lao-Tzu to Milton Friedman, this fundamental principle is embedded in our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is from this fundamental principle that all concomitant rights specified in the United States Constitution flow. Those rights flowing from the principle of equal freedom not specifically mentioned in the Constitution are generally protected by the Ninth Amendment, which gives the presumption of liberty and equal freedom. These unalienable rights

These natural rights are not absolute. Rights can and do come into conflict with one another. For example, individuals are not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theatre as their right to free speech infringes upon the right of others to be secure in their persons. Rights can also conflict with the governmental powers as enumerated in the Constitution.

From this perspective, the question of whether or not a person has the right to end her own life therefore appears to be an easy one. As an individual taking their own life does not infringe upon the rights of others, there appears to be no role for government intervention. This seems to conform to the principle at the heart of a free society, the idea that we are free to live our own lives regardless of how others may view feel about our choices.

At the same time, the right to do as one pleases as long as it harms no one else has generally not included the right to sell oneself into slavery. Certain rights are considered inalienable, meaning that an individual cannot transfer or give them up in a voluntary exchange. In the case of voluntary slavery, the paternalistic concern is that an individual consenting to a slavery contract at time t might regret having done so at time t +1. Since she has relinquished her unalienable rights, however, she cannot legally exit the contract and thus her past self has constrained her future self in an irrevocable manner.

The same paternalistic concern arises when considering whether an individual has the right to take their own life. Assuming that an individual does not suffer from any mental illness, it is clear that an individual committing suicide is doing so voluntarily and thus is merely exercising their basic right to act as they deem appropriate. While their actions do not infringe upon the freedoms of any individuals at that point in time, it is clear that they irrevocably infringe upon equal freedom of their future selves. Thus there appears to be a case for government declaring that the right to life is an inalienable right and thus suicide should be illegal.

As a practical matter, however, there is little that government can do to prevent individuals from taking their own life. Thus the primary effect of declaring the right to life an inalienable right will be that it makes assisted suicide illegal, as an individual will be unable to give another individual permission to legally violate their right to life. And unlike an unassisted suicide, an assisted suicide leaves someone who can be punished, thus making it possible for government to deter assisted suicide.

The practical application of the perspective that the right to life is an inalienable right will therefore have a different effect on individuals, depending upon whether or not they are able to take their own life. From a policy standpoint, this makes sense because the primary concern is deterring individuals from constraining their future selves should they change their mind. In the case of assisted suicide, there is no assurance that the individual did not changer her mind after giving consent. Due to the irrevocable nature of the act, the presumption should be that all such contracts are invalid, just as voluntary slavery contracts would be.