Not merely does the suicidist seek to eat his cake and have it too, but, by becoming a pursuer of euthanasia, he perverts the integrity of the free market by introducing a coercive element into it. What is the initiation of force, one may ask? It is an arbitrary, subjective, coercive imposition in defiance of reality, effectively barring rational pursuits by inflicting pain upon those who undertake them while leaving inherently destructive irrational pursuits as the only alternative for the victim. It is a double bind of death, and it is instituted via the defiance of objective reality, by temporarily rewarding the aggressor with some manner of service from the victim in return for the inexorable eventual demise of both for having deviated from rationality, which is the sole means of consistently maintaining life. The physician who assists in suicide participates in such a coercive imposition, for the reason that he is rewarded with the suicidist's money for having performed an act contrary to all value and, hence, to the only pathway to reality having been available to the individual thus destroyed. This is identical to the plunderer who robs an industrialist and then briefly flourishes from the automobiles that he did not manufacture, effectively defying reality by an arbitrary and subjective confiscation. Neither of the two trade value for value. Instead, they receive value for non-value, a supplement to their lives in exchange for another's death, and could thus rightly be dubbed parasites.

The parasite does not survive for a significantly protracted period of time beyond the life of his prey. As soon as he finishes pillaging his victim, he possesses no other means of sustenance and must search for fresh deaths to cause and fresh non-values to foster. Thus, a euthanasia doctor (a Death Doctor), instead of earning money by ameliorating or curing his clients, will earn it by killing them, and the amount he earns will be in proportion to the clients he robs of their lives. In a coercion-free, laissez-faire capitalist system, the blending of force with economics is barred, and money is therefore earned by physicians through the rendering of services beneficial to doctors and patients alike. Doctors tend to maximize the swiftness of their cures, the civility of their relationships, and the technological finesse of their facilities in order to maximize profit in a scheme purely compatible with reality. In a laissez-faire system, the sole purpose of government is to prevent or punish the imposition of force, i.e. to counter parasitism and thereby foster a purely rational economic system. However, should reality be defied through the legalization of euthanasia, of money-making murder, then certain doctors will employ it to, in their irrationality, earn something for nothing, to earn life for death (as the sole purpose of such legalization will be to permit them to do so). In order to maximize profit, those depraved creatures will seek to kill their patients in the most efficient way possible, and because they earn money for the killing, they will frequently persuade their patients to commit suicide even absent the case of a terminal illness or irreversible disability. Death rates will soar, as will the inpouring of cash for Death Doctors, which will result in ever more dramatic escalations of hospitalized killing for ever more trivial purposes. Only when the amount of patients available for killing, i.e. all of humanity, will expire, will the parasites perish themselves.

Additionally, it is a fundamentally flawed conception that there exist lives which are "not worth living". No matter what the degree of a person's disability, he is still capable of performing certain elementary as well as complex actions (depending on the nature of the particular disability). A man who had been blinded can still sing in a choir. A man who is mute can still write treatises. A man who is both can still perform athletic feats such as sit-ups or push-ups which do not require extensive spatial orientation. Or he can specialize in the reading of Braille texts. Every human being possesses certain limitations of ability due to the choices he had earlier devised as well as certain both advantageous and unfortunate circumstances that had affected him during his life. This does not in any manner bar him from accessing all categories of life, nor does it stifle all aspirations for greatness and extraordinariness. Even a terminally ill man still, until the time of his death, has values open to him. He is able to engage in discourse, spend valuable time with friends and family, pursue his milder hobbies, and even create lasting intellectual products, such as essays, poems, musical compositions, or even his own will. Because he is aware of the fact that his pursuit of values is temporally limited by his physical condition, instead of committing suicide he should on the contrary live his last days to the fullest, furnishing an inextinguishable legacy and self-amelioration to the maximum extend of his capacities. Moreover, he should strive to prolong his existence, and, thus, his pursuit of values, for as great a time as possible. He should pay for the most advanced life support systems and containment drugs, for money outside his own life needs possess no value to him. (Money is but a means to self-amelioration.) He should, with all the efforts of his mind and body, combat the menace within and aim toward a cure to his ailment. Values are still open to him, even when he lies unconscious, his lungs' functionality maintained by a respirator. He lives, after all, and he has chosen with his rational faculty to uphold the essential health of his organs and thus paid his hospital to imbue his lungs with life. The value he receives is the consequence of such a decision, his existence. 

The calculus that one would wish to die in order to "not burden his loved ones" is but another example of the sacrificial altruism/collectivism of the death premise. A rational man will prioritize his values in the following manner: his own life, then that of the people from whom he derives friendship, comfort, assistance, and pleasure. Therefore, all of the financial resources that are legitimately his should rationally be devoted to prolonging his own life and pursuit of values. To love one's family is a virtue; both parties receive material and emotional commodities from the relationship. To sacrifice to one's family is a vice; one surrenders one's own existence, prosperity, and integrity to receive nothing in return from those one supposedly "loves". One transforms his family into parasites, who, in one's eyes, require one's death to achieve a transitory financial alleviation. It is a service to the death premise on both sides. If, say, one of my parents or grandparents had chosen to apply to a physician for their destruction, I would condemn them for warping me into a plunderer of man's most precious commodity against my consent.  Moreover, I would feel gravely insulted at their thoughts that my sole possible means of survival entail the consumption of the corpses of my family.

If we accept the contrary premise, that "some lives are not worth living", then so-called "voluntary euthanasia" (as I had explained, no such concept exists in reality, because any form of assisted suicide is an inherently coercive practice), the murder of a patient with the latter's consent, will not be the extent of Death Doctors' practices. Every statistical figure within boundaries that have legalized euthanasia testifies in support of such a conclusion. Wesley J. Smith, anti-euthanasia activist, attorney for the Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, and author of the book, Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America, reveals a frightening scenario currently in place within the very borders of the United States. "Oregon has legalized assisted suicide where studies show that most who swallow prescribed poison do so in order not to 'burden' their families. Meanwhile, beneath the media's radar, 'futile care' protocols are being quietly implemented in hospitals across the country that arrogantly give doctors and ethics committees the right to refuse unwanted life-extending treatment unilaterally if the doctor believes the patient's quality of life is insufficient to justify the cost of care. At the same time, cognitively disabled patients-- both conscious and unconscious-- are made to die slow deaths by dehydration in all 50 states by having their tube-supplied food and water withheld or withdrawn on the basis that their lives are no longer worth living. In such a cultural milieu, is it really surprising that some medical professionals would take the extra step of 'mercy' killing  dying, elderly, and disabled patients or that a few evil psychopaths would use 'compassion' as a front for the fulfillment of their homicidal obsessions?" Any time a man acquires the perception that his own life is not worth living, he commits the immoral deed of destroying himself. However, the more destructive mindset is within the healthy, middle-aged, fully capacitated man who assumes such a mindset in regard to the lives of "some others". This creates an inherent distinction between his standing and that of another man, it places him, whose life is "worth living" in the position to dispose of the lives of others and impose destructive force upon them. Such a mentality subverts the doctrine that man must place no authority above his own rational mind, that the disabled or the terminally ill ultimately have only the fruits of their own syntheses and deliberations to rely upon. It places those people in subjugation to the entrenched elites of leftist academia who scoff at the notion of equal human rights and an inherent distinction between a human being (who cannot be assailed or violated unless he is the initiator of force) and an animal (whose exploitation as a resource is acceptable, as he is not a being of volitional consciousness). This new breed of bioethicists ultimately seeks to bring about a scheme for social engineering, coupled with government-controlled managed care and medical resources. The patients who can afford in a laissez-faire environment to sustain themselves from their own pocketbooks, but whose lives are too costly under a rationing environment will be euthanized to "alleviate financial burdens" from the State. It is not collectivism which holds a man back from suicide, as Mr. Daleford claims. It is collectivism, instead, which fuels the assisted suicide movement by having regulated health care in the first place, now seeking a rationale for rationing which it does not possess under a calculus which recognizes the absolutism of individual life.

Let us examine another instance of legalized euthanasia so extensively lauded by its proponents. Mr. Smith writes on the matter, "We need only look to the Netherlands for proof that widespread acceptance of the culture of death leads inexorably to non-voluntary euthanasia. The Netherlands has permitted doctors to kill patients who volunteer to die since a court decision essentially decriminalized the practice in 1973. Since then, Dutch doctors have skied down the steepest of slippery slopes, normalizing medicalized killing in the process. Today, Dutch doctors lethally inject dying people who ask for it; chronically ill people who ask for it; disabled people who ask for it; depressed people who ask for it; and disabled babies whose parents ask for it." Early advocates of "death with dignity" had merely asserted that a terminally ill patient should possess the ability to hasten his already inevitable demise via a physician. While this is a horrendous suggestion, what occurs in the status quo is far more disturbing. With the legalization of any assisted suicide, the scope of eligible victims shall inevitably broaden. The most alarming of these instances is the murder of already born infants with nothing but their parents' consent as the sanction. Now, my stance concerning the illegitimacy of abortion is known, due to considerations of futuristic certainty in the development of the fetus's volitional consciousness. Here, however, not mere futuristic certainty, but consciousness already existent from the moment of birth, is being eradicated from the caprice of parents who, only in the most primeval of societies, hold the power of life or death over their progeny. The legalistic positivist will argue that children are yet incompetent to fully manage their lives, and therefore the law assures parental guardianship and supremacy over them until a certain age. While this is true and proper, such guardianship is strictly limited in scope and must prescribe to the same Hippocratic Counsel that Death Doctors have systematically violated, "First, do no harm". The parents, entering into a value-exchange with their children, are obliged to exercise rationality to ensure life, not death for young ones who may yet not have fully developed to assure such conditions through full independence, but for whom the latter is a necessary goal. Any interpretation to the contrary would legitimize the termination of sixteen-year-olds, still technically susceptible to parental guardianship, on grounds no less fallible than are the arbitrary whims of their custodians.

Moreover, physicians have taken the dreadful next step in the Netherlands to euthanize fully conscious adults against their consent. According to Terence Monmaney, Medical Writer for the Los Angeles Times, "Chris Rutenfrans, a criminologist in the Department of Justice in The Hague, said that their analysis shows that nearly half of all doctor-assisted deaths in the Netherlands in 1995 (2844 out of 6368) were not voluntary. 'In too many cases,' he said, 'it is the physician who decides.'" So much for "do no harm" and the purely consensual relations of laissez-faire capitalism. Both go down the drain along with the blood of euthanized corpses in any society which sanctions murder and protects the murderers.

So, as a result, not merely is suicide objectively and metaphysically immoral, but a decision to seek assistance in the commission thereof will inevitably reflect upon other others in the form of imposed suicide, murder, as death becomes profitable and life no longer remains so. This is the hallmark of a feudal, statist, collectivist society, not an individualist one in which coercion is banned and only free mutually beneficial economic exchanges are "let alone".  I must emphasize that, like Mr. Daleford, I am an atheist and I do not advocate the imposition of religious beliefs upon men living in a free, Constitutional country. However, I dare say Mr. Daleford is mistaken in assuming that the only pro-lifers are religionists or need-calculus liberals. I am a secular Objectivist conservative, and I condemn suicide as incompatible with the fundamental individual right to life. A "right to die" implies a right to have someone kill you, which that someone can easily and logically (under such a premise) transform into their right to kill you, whether or not you choose to allow it them. Again, this is because any suicidal inclination holds within it the delusion that the victim is undeserving of life. This automatically subordinates him to society or to any tainted creature who profanes the good name of "doctor", and such entities may do with him as they please.

In order to defend the sanctity of human life and the individual rights therefrom derived, it is essential that the law retain its rightful purpose of enforcing only peaceful value-trading and prosecuting the initiation of force that is euthanasia.

Interactive Discourse:

MR. DALEFORD: I shall begin with a question to you, Mr. Stolyarov. You may recall my example of Dr. Bridgman's gruesome suicide as the consequence of the law's prohibition of euthanasia. What disgusting sights that must have yielded the man's relatives and friends! What trauma they must have undergone in transforming his condition from that of a bloodied corpse to that of a properly buried man! Is that not a coercive imposition on their welfares and a source of suffering for them due to the fact that the law did not allow Dr. Bridgman the ability to die tranquilly?

MR. STOLYAROV: You are correct in stating that this act was a coercive imposition upon his loved ones. Any suicide is. Only here they were forced to clean up his remnants and experience mind-wrecking distress, and in the event that Dr. Bridgman were euthanized, they would be branded with the status of parasites, thriving from his death. Both cases are a result of Dr. Bridgman's deviation from the facts of reality, which prescribe for every man not merely a course of action (reason), but also its purpose (life). You may recall my essay, "An Objectivist Condemnation of Abortion", in which a similar double bind of death was demonstrated. Either the mothers who sought to murder the children within them performed underground pregnancy terminations which rendered them susceptible to infection, puncture, and loss of blood, or the law did it for them, neatly, cleanly, tidily, but still murdering an innocent human being. Any time that the absolutism of life is denied (as is the case in terms of suicide by definition), death and force are the only logical consequences.

MR. DALEFORD: But in asserting that you are essentially dictating that men must abide by your preference that they live. Do you not by that rob them of mastery over their own lives?

MR. STOLYAROV: By no means. Life does not belong to God or to society. It belongs to the individual. However, the individual possesses no right to violate the rights of others. In committing suicide within a home that one shares with his relatives, one is violating the relatives' right of free association. (No one honestly would wish to clean up blown-out brains or a pool of blood, and in this case, the suicidist is no longer capable of paying for the "service".) In the case of euthanasia, the doctor is violating the patient's right to life (by defying the Hippocratic Counsel), and so is the patient's family forced to violate his rights (by parasitically thriving on his death). Moreover, the family's right to liberty is being violated, since each individual relative of the suicidist no longer possesses the authority to preclude the breach of integrity which has transformed him into a parasite. Suicide is not a demonstration of self-ownership, but rather one of anti-selfish destruction.

MR. DALEFORD: But by that same logic, would you not also prohibit substances such as narcotics or tobacco which are slow inducers of the consumers' deaths?

MR. STOLYAROV: As a matter of fact, I would encourage the prohibition of such substances, but only under the firm conviction that no beneficial uses are to be found. I would support, for example, the use of marijuana and morphine as pain killers in medical facilities, or the consumption of chocolate, fatty foods, and miscellaneous sweets in moderation. It is up to the consumer's discretion to administer to himself quantities which are beneficial to his existence (as chocolate, fat, and even alcohol have been found to exhibit desirable effects if not abused). However, I do not wish for legal sanction to be granted to substances whose sole purpose is to destroy, be they in the meantime instilling an illusion of euphoria or not. Tobacco, cocaine, and heroin fall into that category, and their manufacturers and distributors must be targeted as parasites that thrive off the deaths and suffering of others. Such drug traders are plunderers, not capitalists, for capitalism is an economic system based on free association, not coercion. When one is addicted to death, one's association can hardly be called free.

MR. DALEFORD: Then, let me place a more overt question before you. Do you see it as a proper function of law to prevent men from acting on the death premise when such actions do not affect others?

MR. STOLYAROV: In that case, no. Neither private individuals nor society in general are obliged to maintain an entity's life gratuitously. I would consider it a moral virtue to dissuade suicidists, as, according to my impression, would you. Nevertheless, I cannot force a man not to consume a box of Twinkies in one sitting, even if that will quicken the pace at which his organism disintegrates.  However, as outright suicide (not masked by any motives, such as pseudo-pleasure or a pseudo-life premise) is not an act that affects solely the victim, its apprehension is within the functions of law. Of course, police officers cannot enter into the home of every citizen and monitor him for "tendencies", but they can detect attempts to seek outside assistance for the commission of suicide and prosecute mostly the physician who agrees to provide the "service", although imprisoning the victim or referring him to a private rehabilitation center (i.e. one not sustained at taxpayers' expense) are also suitable remedies.

MR. DALEFORD: So, you are essentially leaving to the man who no longer wishes to live the only choice of brutally destroying himself as Dr. Bridgman had done, for he will know that the only means of successful suicide will be through a gun or a kitchen knife at home.

MR. STOLYAROV: It is precisely because such a choice is most repulsive that it is preferable in the realm of suicide choices to a clean and tidy euthanasia. Do you understand the deterrent effect it would create for men inclined toward self-destruction? How many people would have the courage to blow their brains out who, when offered it, would have willingly gone along with a needle in their vein? The ultimate effect of a prohibition of euthanasia would, therefore, be a dramatic reduction of suicides due to the psychological inability of most to pull the trigger on themselves.

MR. DALEFORD: And what of those who do possess the courage to pull the trigger? Will they still not inflict massive discomfort if not damage?

MR. STOLYAROV: At least they will be the sole culprits in the violation, who will already have been punished by their own deaths, unlike the Death Doctors who would have continued to euthanize more victims, often against the consent of the latter. Law is not an efficient force in the realm of perpetrators such as Dr. Bridgman, and the optimal means of dissuading those individuals from committing suicide is through discourse and (private, uncoerced) education.

By the way, Wesley Smith expresses some profound words on the matter: "The most effective weapons in the pro-assisted-suicide arsenal are fear-mongering, distortion, euphemism, half-truths, and lies, all deployed to the drumbeat of 'choice.' False arguments are gladly spread by the contemporary media, which avoid depth and context, preferring 30-second sound bites, tabloidism, and soap-opera shallowness. The best defense against this propaganda onslaught is to be constantly about the business of spreading truth. After six years in the moral struggle against the culture of death, I can state confidently that the more people learn about assisted suicide, the less they support it. The key to victory, then, is education, education, education.”

For example, men inclined toward seeking a Death Doctor may find it frightening that the cultural shift toward the perception of death as a solution and of some human beings as inherently “unworthy” was precisely the one that had occurred during the early days of Nazi Germany. Nat Henthoff, a liberal commentator for the Washington Times, who nevertheless espouses a pro-life standpoint, offers insight into the matter. “In a prophetic article in the July 14, 1949 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, [Dr. Leo Alexander, an agent for the chief counsel for war crimes during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial] examined the initial causes of the Holocaust. The beginnings, he wrote, were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as ‘life not worthy to be lived.’ The Nazis described the patients they killed as ‘useless eaters.’ Not long before Alexander's death in 1984, he warned that the same lethal attitudes were taking root in this country. He cited the rise of the death with dignity movement, which advocated what later became more widely known as assisted suicide doctors providing the means for patients to kill themselves, which is now legal in Oregon.” Under the guise of individual choice (the rhetoric of which appeals to irrationality only, for, as I have proven, no man can rationally choose to seek death under any circumstances), the suicidists are being exploited for the purpose of adding fuel to the fire of statism and gradually fostering an implicit tradition of eliminating the terminally ill, the disabled, or even men whom the dominant elite (be it the National-Socialist Party or some affirmative action pressure group) judges to be inferior by no reason other than that of arbitrary polylogist hogwash.

MR. DALEFORD: Yet I by no means advocate involuntary euthanasia or any societal controls over the way an individual disposes of his own life. It is unfortunate that the mainstream of the current euthanasia front seeks to win this cause for a wicked end, the elimination of “unnecessary burdens” to a government rationed care system. They are like a plunderer using a gun to rob money from an innocent. But a gun can also be a useful tool for self-protection and simply because it can be abused, does not mean that it must be abolished altogether.  This sort of employment of euthanasia as a “puppet doctrine” would not have been a viable weapon for centralization advocates under a laissez-faire system in which medicine would no longer be related to government in any way. Both of us support uncoerced medicine, which implies no Medicare, no federal rationing incentives, and no "futile care protocols" imposed upon hospitals. It implies that a patient would not be euthanized without his explicit, voluntary, written consent, and the government, fulfilling its proper role of enforcing negative obligations, would without any reservations prosecute a physician who presents any sort of unwanted treatment.

MR. STOLYAROV: I doubt that the gun analogy is applicable to the matter at hand, particularly because a gun can be a tool for preserving one’s life, while suicide by definition cannot serve such a purpose. Moreover, you claim, Mr. Daleford, that all the past examples of euthanasia’s abuse and the inevitable transition from “voluntary” to “involuntary” sorts is a result of petty bureaucrats overthrowing the genuine functions of a laissez-faire capitalist system. It may seem that you have a powerful argument here: absolute liberalization of markets had never before been completely attempted, hence the follies of euthanasia’s overstepping proper boundaries which a laissez-faire society would lack. But I will counter it with this: No past society has been fully laissez-faire. However, those elements within it that pertained to a capitalistic society (free enterprise, the stock market, price deregulation) had all resulted in prosperity for that society in proportion to their presence. Therefore, elements of pure capitalism are functional even in a system not purely capitalistic. If euthanasia were such an element and a true representative of the right of free choice and voluntary association, cases of abuse would have been virtually non-existent or sporadic. In the Netherlands, however, the figure of involuntarily euthanized patients is near one half of all men having participated in assisted suicide. This links to my contention that this cultural transition to social planning of human lives as a result of the euthanasia movement “opening the door” is not an accidental phenomenon, but a necessary philosophical extrapolation if, even on an individual level, one accepts that the death premise, one stating that some lives are not worth living, as valid. It is also due to the fact that any form of assisted suicide is inherently coercive and parasitic for all parties involved.