My Life: Claiming It Is Not Defending It

As one who advocates Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand) and who has had to watch a loved one die from a long illness, I must express my indignation and outrage at the raving, hysterical attack posted at RealClear Politics and penned by Michael Janocik against the Ayn Rand Institute for its support of assisted suicide. I am not affiliated with ARI, but am a long-time supporter of their work.

Janocik and others, upon hearing of my personal philosophy might object that I have an "agenda" to push. They are correct. And they might dismiss my argument simply as so much psychological wreckage pursuant to such a great personal loss. They would be wrong, and obscenely dishonest to do so besides. As for my agenda, though, it is simple. Like Mr. Janocik, I will die one day. In fact, I may become terminally ill and die. If that happens, I would like the greatest possible latitude in the way I die.

Since my life is my own, how it ends should be up to me. However, this will not necessarily be the case until my right to have assistance in ending my life is finally protected by law. If Janocik feels threatened by my agenda, he should rest assured: He is the only person who could decide to end his life under such a law. He would still be free to make a different choice than I might. Just as my life is not his to decide what to do with, neither is his life up to me. But this idea bothers Janocik so much that he feels the need to speak out against the almost commonsensical notion that my life is mine, his is his, and yours is yours.

Notice that I did not say that he made a rational case for his point, however. Unfortunately, Michael Janocik deliberately obfuscates many important issues in trying to convince as many other voters as possible of his take on assisted suicide. Yes. I am accusing Mr. Janocik of being intellectually dishonest just as a detective would finger a criminal in an investigation. As Ayn Rand once pointed out in her essay, "Philosophical Detection" (in Philosophy: Who Needs It), "A philosophical detective must remember that all human knowledge has a hierarchical structure; he must learn to distinguish the fundamental from the derivative.... If the foundation does not hold, neither will anything else." One should remember this when reading any opinion piece, especially Janocik's: Accept his essay and you may well die of slow torture. Literally. It's your life after all.

What are the hallmarks of a dishonest argument, then? Generally, anything that doesn't quite add up is a good candidate, and Janocik's essay has more than its share of such arguments. The most glaring one is this: Janocik makes dire predictions of doom should the right to assisted suicide be legally recognized -- after first claiming that man does not have the right to suicide at all! That much is correct since the first question is in fact the fundamental one. But if man has no such right, then Janocik ought to make an unassailable case for that point before moving on to explore the consequences of having assisted suicide codified into law. That's what I would do if I agreed with him. All the doomsday scenarios in the world will come off only as so much clucking by Chicken Little if the more fundamental point remains unaddressed.

But if I wanted to pull a fast one, I'd do exactly what Janocik did. I'd pretend that the case hadn't been made at all for assisted suicide, I'd slip in a quick justification for why people should be made to endure their terminal illnesses for as long as possible, and then, before my readers could catch their breath, I'd portray a doomsday scenario as the "consequence" of assisted suicide. If you haven't read Janocik's piece, read it now, then come back. I will show you that this is exactly what he did.

It is interesting that Janocik chooses as his first target, not the idea that man has a right to die, but its most effective proponents: Ayn Rand and ARI. His first paragraph is little more than an attempt to discredit Rand and, by implication, ARI. Most tellingly, there is neither a citation nor a hyperlink to any Objectivist argument in favor of physician-assisted suicide and yet, he launches an attack against Atlas Shrugged, the novel where Rand most extensively puts forth her philosophy. This, too, is telling. It shows that Janocik knows that the arguments put forth by ARI are based upon Rand's philosophy and that if this philosophy is found to be incorrect, so will the arguments. But does Janocik deliver a refutation or just a smear?

Janocik calls Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged "a reliable screed against the oppression of collectivism," but then arbitrarily calls its ethical thesis of individualism "dangerous," "unfounded," and "radical." He is correct about the ethics being radical, but implies that this is not merely "different," but "bad " by preceding this with the other two terms. His claim that the book's "devotion to "radical individualism" is "unfounded" is just that. Assuming he read the book at all, Janocik is either (a) unable to follow an explicit argument, (b) not very adept at inductive reasoning, or (c) pretending that Rand made no argument in favor of individualism in this book. The answer is (c). Otherwise, why bring up some decades-old novel about railroads whose characters ramble about money, sex, and philosophy?

Still don't believe me? Janocik deliberately misinterprets the title, which essentializes the driving force behind the plot. Janocik says, "The book’s provocative title suggests the image of a strong man casting off his responsibility to protect and care for the weak - indeed, casting off the world." No. It merely suggests that a giant is unshouldering the burden of the world. Rather than jumping to silly conclusions about why Atlas shrugged, most people become curious upon seeing the title and many read the book. When they do, they learn that the Atlases of the world have been enslaved to the morally weak by their own acceptance of altruism. The Atlases had accepted a moral code that made them into slaves and become free when they finally rejected this code. It is this code, the code of self-sacrifice, that Janocik wants you to accept when he tells you that you have no right to end your own life, even if you are in excruciating pain and will not be cured.

Janocik summarily dismisses as "unfounded" the arguments and conclusions of a 1000-plus page book (not to mention numerous other works by Rand). He then would have us decide that we have no right to end our own lives on our own terms if we wish -- on the basis of a single paragraph (below) in an essay! He may not be able to put together a coherent argument, but credit the man with gall!

Opposition to assisted suicide need not employ religious beliefs. Assisted suicide contradicts fundamental natural and moral principles [such as? --ed] that are deducible by observation and reason. Human beings, by nature, are community beings with an abiding instinct, desire, and biological response to live even in the most insufferable of circumstances. Flowing from this fact are inseparable individual and societal obligations that do not include recourse to suicide or killing innocent human life. By definition, suicide is a deliberate act or omission against the self that causes the death of the individual.

How does one know "fundamental natural and moral principles?" And how do we know the nature of man? Is instinct (the opposite of a volitional consciousness) really part of our nature? On what basis do we have "societal" obligations?" And, for that matter, what the hell "individual obligation" do I have to suffer needlessly if I choose not to? Why does Janocik not address a single one of these questions?

Janocik has offered absolutely no argument in this entire paragraph. It is all arbitrary assertions, and as such it cannot be accepted in any other way than on faith! Maybe Janocik runs his own life that way, but my life is too important to blindly trust what someone else says. Particularly someone who is telling me I can't die on my own terms.

Janocik's take on "[w]hen a person desires suicide" succeeds in being both mawkish and obscene, starting with his derivation of the word "compassion." His derivation is right, but his evaluation of suffering as something that should be prolonged is obscene. Janocik preys on our fear of being left alone when we are sick, so that we will take the bait of the "compassion" of "society." But what does that entail? The dissolution of the necessary and appropriate personal boundaries that exist in a rational society and the dehumanization of everyone involved. If you regard yourself as a conscious, volitional being, that will bother you. But if you regard yourself as a mere collection of "impulses" and "instincts," it might not.

For example, in a rational society, one's friends and family presumably care about you because of who you are. In Janocik's "compassionate," Borg-like entity known as "society," they are presumably programmed to love you out of some collective instinct. But we're all a bunch of automatons moved by instinct, so who cares anyway?

In a rational society, your doctor may or may not be a personal friend, but his desire to profit (monetarily and in terms of personal interest) from a job well done will very effectively motivate him to cure you, alleviate your pain, or (ideally) allow you to die with dignity if need be. In Janocik's world, your doctor might be a government slave, for all we know, after "society" (incorrectly) decided that socialized medicine would deliver more care than the profit motive.

Or "society" might have better uses for medical funds than the expensive cure for your particular terminal affliction. So you will not be cured. But, hey! That's okay! "[S]ociety recognizes that the sick and frail are often vulnerable to destructive impulses or even prolonged suicidal desires resulting from severe depression." You'll be kept alive and treated for depression. And if "society" needs the antidepressants for some other purpose, a straightjacket and a rubber room should keep your life and its "intrinsic dignity" afloat!

In Janocik's society, friendship is causeless, and does not reflect in any way that another person has chosen your companionship because it is valuable to him. Remember, we're just creatures of "instinct."And in Janocik's society, a physician's livelihood and sense of accomplishment do not depend on his caring for you to the best of his ability. No. The physician has no personal stake in your life or well-being whatsoever. Again, he's just a volitionless cog in the machine.

And where is the individual in all this? Where are you? You may have "dignity and worth," but apparently this "dignity" does not extend to the right to end your life on your own terms. Nor do you, consistent with the idea the man has "instinct," really have volition anyway. "[P]ain, suffering, and ... depression typically are at the root of the suicidal impulse." So the desire to die with dignity is a symptom of pain or mental illness? And such a desire is merely an "impulse?" So a living will and the temporary throes of depression are one and the same?

Indeed, if an individual human being has "dignity and worth," to whom is his life valuable? Ayn Rand answered that question eloquently in Atlas Shrugged: One's life is one's own. Janocik gave quite a different answer when he suckered his less-careful readers with the bait of collectivism. The problem with accepting collectivism is that one must surrender himself to the collective. One forfeits his own life and lives to see the consequences. In Janocik's "compassionate" society, that may well be your own agonizing death. Your family will get to watch, but they will be powerless to put you out of your misery even if you want them to. As Janocik points out, "'Compassion' literally means 'to suffer with'." Suffering is the coin of the realm in Janocik's "compassionate society." If suffering together is what life is all about, I think he has the right formula!

The rest of the piece is scare mongering. If we are allowed to die on our own terms, it somehow follows that, "Every mother, father, and sibling will be a qualified accomplice to a killing," as if we will not have the legal apparatus in place to ensure that a person actually wants that kind of help. Or that, "Life-giving options will be available only to the rich," as if there is no financial incentive for physicians to treat more patients rather than fewer. Or that, "Because of this 'burden' on their families, many will sense a duty to die and the 'right' to assisted suicide will become death by coercion," as if there is no such thing as medical coverage. And all of this is presented as a doomsday scenario, as if being forced by a "compassionate" society to lie suffering on a deathbed while your loved ones watch (and suffer) powerlessly is not a doomsday scenario!

As we have seen, Michael Janocik is being dishonest on many levels. He arbitrarily attacks Ayn Rand's arguments for individualism as "arbitrary." He claims that, "Opposition to assisted suicide need not employ religious beliefs," just before asking us to accept his rationale on faith. He portrays a "compassionate" society whose hallmark is that it will do anything for the miserable except let them end their own misery if they wish. And finally, Janocik has a straw man (scare crow?) version of assisted suicide destroying our society. And if I am accusing Janocik of being an intellectual criminal, I would also include what I think is his possible motive. This is the easiest part of all because he lays it out for all of us to see: He wants "society" to be able to prevent you from ending your life with assistance if that's what you want. This directly contradicts the very notion that your life is yours, and yours alone. Janocik is claiming a piece of your life and hoping you won't notice. In fact, he is hoping you will do it for him by accepting his moral premise -- that you do not exist for your own sake -- and then act accordingly.

I lost my father several years ago to a long, degenerative disease. Although I was amazed by the equanimity with which he faced his illness, I was also personally devastated to see him worse and worse every time I visited my parents. The last time I saw him, he was a frail shadow of his former self and was in enough pain to warrant a prescription for morphine. I do not know what Dad would have chosen to do at that point, but if he had wanted to die, I would have understood and at least been able to take solace in the idea that his suffering had come to an end. I do not know what he would have chosen. The law as it is now -- the law that Michael Janocik is such a ghoulish fan of -- made my father's wishes totally irrelevant. I do not know what he would have chosen, but I know that I would like the option of physician-assisted suicide were I in his shoes. Both of my brothers, who are not Objectivists but Christians, also now support the right of a terminally ill patient to end his own life.

What do you have against my father, Mr. Janocik? And what do you have against me? My life belongs to me. It is not yours to turn into a medieval torture chamber. You protest that you are defending my life when you are in fact laying claim to it. Get your filthy hands away from it. And keep them away.

-- CAV

Crossposted to the Egosphere
emailed to RealClear Politics