Liberty lovers found a kernel of positivity in Trump’s 2018 State of the Union address in his support for legislation allowing terminally ill patients the “right to try” experimental treatments. The embedded principle is controversial (obviously, else it would be law already), with detractors asserting that it could create false hope or possibly do harm by deflecting patients from best treatments.
The complexities of medical care in such instances are likely beyond the ability of a layman to fully understand, and so those of us not educated (formally or informally) in the particular subset of medicine dealing with a particular illness are almost invariably reliant on expert guidance. That starts with a doctor or doctors you trust, but extends to those that the doctor trusts, because he himself will be reliant on other experts.
Government has chosen to take a big role in all this, principally through the Food and Drug Administration. And, in the case of terminally ill patients, the FDA already has some protocols in place to allow greater access. Trump’s proposal, embodied in legislation already passed by the Senate and recently taken up for consideration by the House, wasn’t an enormous leap into the land of anarchy. It required that a physician’s a request and that the desired treatment have already cleared a Phase I clinical trial.
But, in a mildly surprising (and not so much in retrospect) rebuff, an attempt to fast-track the legislation though the House (which requires a 2/3 majority) failed. The bill had near-unanimous Republican support, but only a few Democrats voted in favor.
The partisans on social media immediately leapt to the attack, mocking the Left’s “your body your choice” mantra. Liberty lovers already know that this maxim is meant to apply to only one matter, the euphemized “reproductive rights,” and is actually a demand of entitlement, i.e. others must pay for birth control and abortion, rather than an assertion of individual liberty. The Right isn’t free of hypocrisy in this, given how many drug warriors there are in its ranks (and given how many conservatives I’ve seen openly advocating that drug addicts be left to die), so I’m not swayed by the Right’s momentary discovery of the right of self-determination.
But, hypocrisy is so universal that calling it out has become boring. Instead, lets contemplate what opposition to “right to try” tells us about the opposers’ overall political thinking.
In short, the message is “we’d rather you die by our rules than have a sliver of a chance to live by breaking them.” The stated reason is “you might get it wrong,” but if you’re going to die anyway, so what? Thus, we dig deeper, to ponder the real reason. And that is where we find the hatred of individual liberty that is at the core of today’s progressivism. The concern for possible adverse messaging and false hope given to others outweighs the individual’s very life. This is the Spock Principle i.e ” the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,” corrupted away from voluntary altruism (Spock chose to sacrifice himself) to apathetic coercion (you mustn’t stray from the path we define so that we can benefit the collective).
It is often argued by progressives that libertarianism is a cold and callous, dog-eat-dog philosophy, that abandons the weakest and focuses on selfishness. We can only conclude, however, that these progressives consider merely wanting to live as “selfish,” because others might get the wrong idea from those who dare stray outside the lines.
Caring for others is a personal trait, and it’s exhibited by voluntary individual acts of kindness and charity. Caring for others is not about forcing them to conform to your set of rules, no matter how well intentioned or carefully researched. If someone wants to act in a way that you believe is self-destructive, you can show your caring by offering counsel and trying to convince them that you’ve got better information. But, that’s as far as you can go while respecting their liberty and autonomy. Imposing your will upon another, individually, is a violation of that other’s rights, and can often (as it should) result in legal repercussions and criminal prosecution. Unfortunately, imposing your will upon another, collectively via the force of government, is something that is openly supported by many who purport to care, without a whiff of understanding about how it violates every objective measure of caring and liberty. It is in liberty, not in coercion, that we find true caring for others. Keep that in mind, my libertarian friends, next time you’re accused of callousness or apathy by some big-government shill.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters