The Right-to-Die Movement

Stephen Kershnar

Physician-Assisted Suicide: Who Owns You?

Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer

October 8, 2019

The right-to-die movement argues that terminally ill people have a right to die via physician-assisted suicide, refusing life-saving medical treatment, or voluntary euthanasia. Their argument is sound. There is a moral right to die in these ways and there should be a legal right to it as well.  

Physician-assisted suicide occurs when a physician provides a patient with the knowledge or means (drugs) to commit suicide. Physician-assisted suicide is legal in nine states (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington) and in part or all of some advanced countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland, and United States). Some of the states with perennially loathsome governments criminalize it: Connecticut, Illinois, and New York.

In a pair of cases, Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) and Vacco v. Quill (1997), the Supreme Court held that there was no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide. In an earlier case, Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990), the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to refuse life-saving treatment and tried to distinguish this right from a right to physician-assisted suicide.

Voluntary euthanasia occurs when a person consents to have another kill him (for example, a physician). It differs from physician-assisted suicide only in terms of who acts last to bring about the patient’s death. There is no moral difference between physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia as nothing rests on who acts last. In both cases, the physician and patient act with the same goal, use the same means, and bring about the same result.

Physician-assisted suicide has safeguards. The patient must have a terminal illness, be competent, notified of an alternative to suicide (palliative care), and repeatedly authorize the drugs. One study in Oregon found that the most common reasons given for seeking physician-assisted suicide are the loss of ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable, loss of autonomy, and loss of dignity. In a Washington study, the majority had terminal cancer or a neurodegenerative disease (consider, for example, ALS and Huntington’s disease).

The argument for physician-assisted suicide is straightforward. A person owns himself. That is, he has a fundamental right to control his body. If a person owns himself, then he may shape his life as he sees fit. If he may shape his life as he sees fit, then he may end his life. This is especially true when he has a terminal illness that would otherwise make his future degraded, miserable, and short.

If a person has a moral right to end his life, then he may get others’ help in doing so. Thus, there is a moral right to physician-assisted suicide. In helping a person end his life, the physician does wrong the patient, himself, or a third party. In general, the state should allow people to exercise their moral rights except when doing so prevents catastrophic loss. Hence, there should be a legal right to physician-assisted suicide.

Self-ownership explains why the state grants people other legal rights. Consider rights to think and say what you want (for example, free speech and religion), determine your relationships with others (for example, sex, dating, and marriage), and be free of interference (for example, battery, unreasonable search and seizure, and trespass). It also explains fundamental legal rights in the medical context such as rights to abortion, contraception, and refusal of medical treatment. 

Legislators opposed to a legal right against physician-assisted suicide argue that there is good reason to criminalize it. First, they argue, the practice would endanger vulnerable people, particularly the disabled and mentally ill. For example, they note, some of the degraded-and-terminally-ill people who want to die are clinically depressed.

This reason is unconvincing. There are procedures to lessen this risk and the burden is on those who want to block a fundamental moral right to show that the procedures aren’t working. Even if they could show this, and the evidence doesn’t support them, free societies find ways to protect incompetents that are less restrictive than trampling on the rights of competent adults.

Second, opponents argue that criminalizing the practice prevents people from being pressured into suicide. Such pressure might come from loved ones who struggle with the crushing financial and psychological burdens of supporting someone who is dying in an expensive, painful, and slow manner.

This argument is paternalistic. It tells dying people that they are too much like children to decide what is and is not a good reason to die. Dying people are not children. They can decide for themselves whether being a burden is a good reason for dying, especially in the context of an otherwise degraded, miserable, and short future. Trampling on the fundamental rights of competent adults hardly seems a permissible way to prevent undue pressure in some families. 

Third, opponents argue, allowing such a practice will eventually lead to legalizing euthanasia, perhaps even involuntary euthanasia. Others argue that it might lead to legalizing suicide by people who do not have a terminal illness.

The first slippery-slope argument is neither conceptually nor empirically justified. Conceptually, there is a big difference between letting someone die who consents to it (via physician-assisted suicide) and killing someone who doesn’t consent to it (via involuntary euthanasia). Empirically, I cannot find any evidence of a slide into involuntary killing in states and countries that allow physician-assisted suicide. In addition, as noted above, the distinction between physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia is insignificant.

The slippery-slope claim that the self-ownership argument for permitting this medical practice also justifies permitting competent individuals without a terminal illness to commit suicide is correct. A person is not owned by his church, country, family, or government. Rather, he owns himself. Free countries permit people to shape their own lives, even if they do so poorly. As an empirical matter, the state will not recognize this additional right. Sadly. Americans just don’t love liberty that much.  

In summary, the right-to-die movement is correct. Terminally ill people should have a legal right to die.

Cultural Appropriation: No Big Deal

Stephen Kershnar

Cultural Appropriation: Appropriate Away

Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer

September 23, 2019

Cultural appropriation occurs when an individual from one culture uses another culture’s ideas. Often the ideas relate to artifacts, clothes, food, and symbols. Many academics and activists think that appropriation is theft. They claim that it disrespects minorities and smacks of colonialism.

The anti-appropriators decry the Florida State Seminoles’ and Washington Redskins’ use of Native American images. They get very upset over Halloween costumes involving Mexican sombreros, ponchos, and bandoliers and even more upset at Native American war bonnets and war paint. At Yale, debate over Halloween costumes caused massive turmoil. Some cultural critics take personal offense when white women wear Japanese-style kimonos and Chinese-style form-fitting dresses.

Two years ago in progressive Portland, two non-Hispanic white women were pressured into shutting down their burrito food cart because it was alleged that they culturally appropriated the type of food and stole the recipe from the Mexican people. It is unclear why Portlanders, including Hispanic ones, would be better off with inauthentic burritos. White people who allegedly pretend to be black or Native American (NAACP chapter president Rachel Dolezal, Black Lives Matter leader Shaun King, and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren) are criticized for appropriating a racial identity.

In art, many of history’s most important painters (Paul Gaugin, Henri Matisse, Pablo Picasso, and Henri Rousseau created primitivist art, which tries to recreate primitive experience. Other artists (for example, Amedeo Modigliani) drew inspiration for his sculpture from African art. Many art historians insist that such art is wrong or bad. In Canada in 2017, indigenous activists pressured an art gallery into shutting down a white woman’s show because her art was inspired by indigenous art.

Cultural appropriation is neither wrong nor bad. First, there is no one who is victimized when a person from one culture uses ideas, symbols, clothes, etc. from another culture. No individual owns a widespread cultural element, such as the archetype for a Central or West African mask, gaucho pants, Native American headdress, or sombrero. Specifically, no one has intellectual property rights to them (copyright, patent, or trademark rights). Nor does anyone have a moral right that is analogous to such legal rights. Just as no individual owns the archetype, nor does any group own it. There is no one, for example, who could sell, whether morally or legally, the rights to make and use gaucho pants. Nor could any person or group grant permission to others to make such pants or destroy all such pants. If an act does not wrong anyone, it’s not wrong.

Second, critics of appropriation inconsistently focus on context. No one would object to black teens in a Harlem drama club performing Fiddler on the Roof, Macbeth, or West Side Story. Some art is too good or enjoyable to be limited to just one people. Yet, if such cultural crossover is acceptable, then it’s unclear why white people may not play Asian characters. Consider, for example, David Carradine in the 1970’s show Kung Fu and Scarlett Johansson in the remake of an anime classic: Ghost in the Shell. If the concern is for ridicule or insult, then most of the above appropriation is fine. The Redskins and Seminoles adopt their symbol because they think their team namesake is dignified and full of fighting spirit. Gaugin, Modigliani, and Picasso thought that the African masks and Tahitian colors and people were aesthetically impressive. The white women selling burritos likely thought authentic burritos are outstanding.      

Third, the alleged wrongness of cultural appropriation is a one-way street. No one thinks African people wrong Western people when they use Western ideas (for example, rights protecting assembly, free speech, and the press), political structures (for example, separation of powers, parliaments, and congresses), medical discoveries (for example, polio vaccines), or religions and religious symbols (for example, Catholicism and Catholic iconography). If appropriation is wrong because it involves theft of ideas, it would be wrong in these cases. Theft does not become permissible merely because the victim is wealthy. If appropriation of political and medical ideas is good, the same is likely true for aesthetic ideas. In general, the free market with unlimited entry of people and products almost always benefits consumers.  

Also, no one objects to Notre Dame and the Boston Celtics appropriating Irish symbols or the Minnesota Vikings appropriating a Nordic symbol. Just as Notre Dame’s fans see the Leprechaun mascot as a positive celebration of Irish fighting spirit, Redskins fans similarly view their mascot. The Redskins’ fans view is bolstered by the fact that three predominantly Native American high schools name their sports teams “Redskins.”

Fourth, the boundaries of appropriation are unclear. Imagine a bunch of orthodox Jewish teens from Brooklyn who want to dress up in dreadlocks and play Reggae music. Are they appropriating? Intuitively, it seems so. Yet Bob Marley’s father was a white Reggae musician and, arguably, Jewish. There is an amusing picture of Marley wearing a chi while smoking a doobie. Here things get strange. On the one hand, history intuitively seems to make no difference here. No one cares about Marley’s lineage. On the other hand, it is odd that a group may not claim ownership over an art form when its most famous artist is from their group. The teens may wear Woody Allen costumes. The history-based permission gets murky though. May a Haitian teen dress up as Bob Marley? Perhaps it’s okay so long as he has 12.5% aggregate Jamaican and Jewish genes or heritage.

Similarly, imagine a group of Catholic white teens from Iowa having watched Bruce Lee’s Fist of Fury, decide to wear his character’s Chinese outfit and show off his famous moves. Is this objectionable appropriation? Lee is probably one-quarter white and attended Catholic schools. To make things more confusing there is a good chance that kung fu originated in India, not China. In any case, Bruce Lee’s preferred style was his own Jeet Kune Do, not kung fu, and he developed it when living in the U.S. It is hard to believe that any of these facts determine whether the teens may wear such an outfit.  

In general, it is mysterious as to why people may not display their enjoyment of art or other accomplishment by someone from another group. Many Asian, Hispanic, and white guys from the New York City area took pride in Lawrence Taylor’s relentless play for the Giants, especially those who played linebacker. No one blinked an eye when they wore his jersey.  

Cultural appropriation is neither wrong nor bad. No one owns cultural symbols and the unfettered free market in them makes the world a much better place. Rather than spending time denouncing cultural appropriation, cultural critics’ and academics’ would be better served by wearing a chi and smoking a doobie.

Immigration: The Country Club Model

Stephen Kershnar

Immigration and Country Clubs

Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer

September 2, 2019

The 2020 Presidential election will likely be about immigration. It should be. A Yale-MIT research team estimates that there are 22 million illegal aliens in the country today. If large numbers are amnestied and chain-migration remains in place, tens of millions of these aliens and their families will become citizens. This will reshape the country. 

The Democratic Party supports nearly open borders. Congressional Democrats, along with Republican establishment types, have back doored in a catch-and-release policy for illegal aliens. They’ve done so by ensuring that, as a general matter, illegal aliens who show up with a child or underage teenager and claim asylum are briefly held and then released into the country so long as they promise to show up to an immigration hearing. Because large numbers blow off the hearing and are not tracked down, they are in effect let into the country.

Democratic Presidential candidates announced that they want to amnesty illegal aliens, decriminalize illegal border crossing, eliminate Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), hand out medicine, education, and welfare to illegal aliens, and tear down the southern border wall. Among the candidates who support two or more of these policies: Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Bill de Blasio, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren.  

Earlier, President Obama put forth a nakedly unconstitutional order to amnesty one group of illegal aliens (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals - DACA - aliens). This term the Supreme Court will likely strike the order down. In negotiating with President Trump over the budget, congressional Democrats again made DACA aliens a priority. Many Democratic cities have declared themselves sanctuary cities. Fourteen largely Democratic controlled states give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. Democrat and establishment Republicans insist that the children of illegal aliens automatically become citizens, and thus become anchor babies, even though neither the text nor history of Constitution supports this rule. Nor has Congress ever voted to put the rule in place. 

The issue matters for a couple of reasons. First, if large numbers of illegal aliens were amnestied, politics in the U.S. will swing far left for decades. Second, the slow motion invasion will forever change U.S. identity. China, Israel, Japan, and Norway have an identity that is based in part on being constituted by a people with a shared history and sense of identity. Similar to these countries, the U.S. has an identity that is based in part on being constituted by a people with a shared history and sense of identity. Were it constituted by a different people, it is unclear if the American people would retain their identity. It is also unclear whether the country would remain as committed to political and economic liberty. The freest countries in the world are concentrated in Western Europe and East Asia. It is unclear whether tens of millions of illegal aliens and their chain-based relatives share this value and even less clear whether they’ll identify as American. Writing in evonomics, George Mason economist Garrett Jones argues after immigrating to a new country, immigrants and their descendants largely retain their attitudes toward markets, trust, and social safety nets and change governments accordingly. Demography is destiny.  

A good way to think about immigration in moral terms is via an analogy. Consider an exclusive Westchester County country club. It is justified by the consent of its members. The members jointly own its property. Consider, for example, its clubhouse, lands, and financial assets. As a moral matter, the members may run it for their own benefit. This is part of a more general feature of morality. Individuals may favor their families, friends, and neighbors over strangers. They may also spend their money on their own projects. Morally, the members get to decide who joins the club or uses its facilities. It is not decided by who sneaks into the club in the dark of night.

A country is similar to a country club. Its government is justified, if is justified at all, by the consent of its members. It members jointly own its property. Consider, for example, a country’s air space, financial assets, military assets, parks, and roads. As a moral matter, members may run it for their own benefit and get to decide who joins it or uses its facilities. Also, like a club, who gets to join a country or use its facilities should not be decided by who sneaks into it.  

What follows from this is that, as a moral matter, citizens should get to decide who becomes a member of their country. It may keep illegal aliens out for any reason or no reason whatsoever. Whether the aliens will likely cause the U.S. to be less free, enter more foreign wars, and have less respect for the Constitution is beside the point. On a side note, they will likely do so. Without the 1965 Hart-Celler Immigration Bill, Barack Obama, with his weaponized DOJ, FBI, and IRS and frequent unconstitutional abuses (Chrysler bailout, campus speech restrictions, Obamacare implementation, Libyan war, etc.) would likely not have been elected.       

There is a debate, albeit one that is often not publicly discussed, as to whether amnestying most, if not all, of the 22 million illegal aliens would be economically or culturally good for the American people or would increase their freedom. What there is no debate on is that the country’s owners did not consent to let them in and have not retroactively permitted them to stay. That’s really the issue.

There’s little debate that the aliens would not be as good for the American people as would 22 million immigrants who were let in on the basis of merit. Such immigrants might be let in because they invested millions of dollars into the economy or had the job skills, advanced education, or high IQ important to an advanced economy. Still, this issue is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the American people did not agree to let them in.