Government shouldn't control assisted suicide choice

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness: From Rousseau to Locke, the foundational thinkers of our society have had their disagreements concerning our inalienable rights, but one has remained a centerpiece in the modern era - life. We enjoy the freedom to live and to exist, and this right is protected both by our government and from our government. The articulation of this idea has led to many societal debates, which continue today. When life actually begins is a crucial issue of the ongoing debate on abortion. Questions as to what qualifies as truly "living" have been brought into welfare policy disputes. Does the government have an obligation to provide a better life for its citizens? But the question that never seems to be asked is, does the right to have a life include the right to choose to end it?

In America, we often fail to understand the complexity of this question. It's not as simple as life vs. suicide. The issue of euthanasia is an important one for a society to hash out. Certainly we can see how supporting involuntary euthanasia, like the Germans utilized in World War II, would stand fundamentally at odds with our right to life. But voluntary euthanasia is another matter altogether.

There are two forms of voluntary euthanasia - active and passive. Passive currently is accepted widely throughout America and is not criminalized by the government. Passive euthanasia is a death when medicinal treatments are purposefully withheld, like cancer treatment or life support. The active form of euthanasia encompasses suicide and assisted suicide. A person is actively choosing to force their death.

We have sent doctors to jail and stripped them of their medical licenses for their participation in assisted suicides. We also have seen the practice legalized in Oregon. Some would call this a socially degenerate move to begin the practice of allowing people, in any condition, to actively end their life. I see it quite differently. After seeing my loved ones die slow, painful, expensive and exhausting deaths, I have seen the light. Stripped of their health and ability, some people simply need to hold on to the one thing they have left - control of their inevitable, impending death.

How far should this freedom extend? Who has the right to choose when they can end their life? Should it be restricted to only terminal patients? Should there be an age restriction? Regardless of what parameters we attach to who gets the "right to end their life," we give the government the power to define and control our lives.

Perhaps it is my libertarian bias speaking, but I feel the less control the government has in our life, the better off we all are. As stated earlier, the right to life is one protected by the government and from the government. This is where I stand at odds with the current policy. While I would never encourage outright suicide, the policy of criminalizing it seems like utter idiocy. If someone is good at it, you can't prosecute them. It is essentially a policy that prosecutes people who fail at committing suicide.

If we want to have programs in place encouraging a choice for life, perhaps allowing people a legal outlet through which to approach suicide is the answer. Maybe there should be a program that allows people who are considering committing suicide to work through and decide for themselves at the end. But, when the rubber meets the road, the government should never define life, it should never dictate what you do with it and it cannot infringe on your inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Toby Hausner is a junior political science major from Kansas City, Mo.