Objectivism and Euthanasia

🕯️

Why This Question Is So Difficult

Euthanasia sits at the intersection of fear, pain, morality, and control.

Some call it “murder.”
Others call it “compassion.”

Objectivism rejects both emotional shortcuts.

It asks a colder—but clearer—question:

Who owns a person’s life, and who has the authority to decide when it is no longer a value?

🧠

Life as a Value — Not a Duty

In Objectivism, life is the ultimate value — but only because it makes values possible.

Life is not sacred by decree.
It is not a loan from God.
It is not property of the state or the family.

Life is a value to the individual living it.

When life becomes nothing but pain, degradation, or irreversible loss of consciousness, the question is not “must it be preserved?”
The question is: does it still serve the individual’s values?

🗝️

Individual Sovereignty Over One’s Body

Objectivism holds bodily autonomy as absolute.

Your body is not a public resource.
Not a moral sacrifice altar.
Not a biological prison owned by the state.

This principle underlies many Objectivist positions:

— freedom of medical choice
— rejection of drug prohibition (see Objectivism and Drugs)
— opposition to forced pregnancy (see Objectivism and Abortion)

The same logic applies here:

If you have the right to live, you also have the right to refuse continued existence.

⚖️

Euthanasia vs Murder: Consent Is Everything

Objectivism draws a sharp line between killing and voluntary death.

Murder is the initiation of force against an unwilling victim.
Euthanasia, when properly defined, is the opposite:

— explicit consent
— informed judgment
— voluntary choice
— absence of coercion

Without consent, euthanasia is a crime.
With consent, it is an act of respect for individual sovereignty.

🏥

The Role of Medicine: Service, Not Guardianship

Doctors are not moral priests.
They are not guardians of “sacred life.”

They are professionals who provide services by consent.

In an Objectivist framework, a physician who assists in euthanasia is not “playing God.”
He is respecting a rational decision made by a competent adult.

The key requirements are objective:

— mental competence
— informed consent
— verifiable medical condition
— absence of external pressure

⛓️

Why the State Must Not Forbid Exit

A state that forbids euthanasia claims ownership over human bodies.

It says: “You may suffer, but you may not choose.”

This is the same moral error made by authoritarian ideologies, including those critiqued in Libertarianism and rejected entirely by Objectivism.

The government’s role is not to force existence, but to protect voluntary choice and prevent coercion.

🔥

The Slippery Slope Objection

Critics argue that euthanasia leads to abuse.

Objectivism answers: abuse is prevented by objective law, not blanket prohibition.

We do not ban surgery because malpractice exists.
We do not ban contracts because fraud exists.

The solution is clear standards, evidence, and accountability — not treating adults as wards of the state.

🧬

Life, Death, and Moral Consistency

Objectivism does not glorify death.
It glorifies life chosen freely.

But a life that has become unavoidable suffering, with no prospect of recovery or meaningful action, is no longer a value imposed by morality.

To force such existence is not compassion.
It is cruelty disguised as virtue.

🔍

In One Sentence

Objectivism defends euthanasia as a voluntary, rational choice rooted in individual sovereignty—because the right to live includes the right to decide when life is no longer a value.