As I explained, liberty regarding your own body is a pretty fundamental basis of our entire system of rights, shows up in every modern legal framework, and is specifically protected in the constitution.
It’s simply not an ABSOLUTE right… but none of our rights are absolute.
And so forcing them to die when their doctor believes that an uncertified drug is an option, is better… because of reasons?
I think on some level maybe I’m just entirely at odds with some of you, in that I do not believe that the government forcing decisions upon a person, which affect only that person, is beneficial to society. Even if those decisions are the ones that I myself would make, forcing others to do something just because I may think so is oppression. Letting people control their own lives is better, if it doesn’t harm others.
Some of you guys really think that humans are all little children who need to have their lives dictated to them, and that it’s better to let them have no choice, for fear that they may make the wrong one. But if we were to go down that road, all kinds of terrible things could be dictated to people with the same notion… Because once you remove the decision from the person it most directly effects, then figuring out whose decision is the “right” one becomes problematic. Many women are psychologically damaged after abortions… not to mention the fact that some think they are morally wrong. Maybe we shouldn’t let them have that choice, for fear they make the “wrong” choice?
But no, we’ve established that is not how it works. You have a right to control your own body, and that right cannot be infringed unless the benefit to society outweighs that infringement. An abortion is legal because, presuming the fetus is not a human being deserving of rights, the law prohibiting it does not pass the notion of substantive due process.
And in this case, where adults are choosing a course of action for themselves, with the aid of a trained physician, suggesting that they may make the “wrong” decisions (which you cannot actually know) and thus should not be able to make any choice at all, is without merit in my opinion.
This is not a valid counterargument, because the notion of liberty does not in any way depend upon some notion of perfect knowledge. You are incorrect in that assertion.
Not only does liberty not require perfect knowledge, but the argument itself can easily be flipped around and shown to be false from multiple facets. Saying that you cannot be trusted to make choices about your life, due to some lack of knowledge, implies that the government organization which makes those choices somehow has perfect knowledge itself, or at least better knowledge than an individual, and this is not even remotely plausible in the general sense.
Again, making a choice which you or others may believe to be wrong but which harms no one else, is not legitimate rationale for removing the freedom to make that choice. That’s tyranny.