A free society respects individual autonomy, not just in how we live, but in how we face death.
Illinois’ newly enacted end-of-life options law affirms a fundamental libertarian principle: your body, your choice. For terminally ill patients who are mentally sound and acting of their own free will, the decision of how to confront unbearable suffering should belong to the individual, not the government, not politicians, and not institutions with religious or moral objections.
This law does not force anyone to act. It does not mandate physician participation. And it does not compel religious hospitals or providers to violate their beliefs. It simply allows competent adults facing a terminal diagnosis the option to choose dignity on their own terms.
Consent and Capacity Matter
Support for this law rests on clear guardrails. The individual must be mentally competent, fully informed, and make the decision voluntarily. Multiple medical professionals must confirm the diagnosis and prognosis. The medication must be self-administered. Coercion is prohibited.
These safeguards matter because liberty without responsibility is not liberty at all. The choice must be genuine, informed, and personal. When those conditions are met, denying someone this option is not compassion; it is control.
The State Should Not Own Your Suffering
Too often, the government intervenes in the most personal decisions under the guise of protection. But prolonging suffering against a patient’s will is not a moral high ground; it is an abuse of power.
A terminal diagnosis is not a hypothetical policy debate. It is a lived reality. Pain, loss of independence, and the erosion of dignity are not abstract concepts to those enduring them. The state should not have the authority to dictate that someone must continue suffering simply because lawmakers or interest groups are uncomfortable with the alternative.
Church and State Must Remain Separate
Religious organizations are entitled to their beliefs, and no one should be forced to violate their conscience. But in a pluralistic society, religious doctrine cannot be imposed through law.
The separation of church and state exists precisely for moments like this, when deeply personal moral questions intersect with public policy. Individuals should be free to follow their faith, but not compelled to live under someone else’s theology.
If a person’s faith leads them to reject this option, that choice should be respected. But faith should not be used as a tool to deny others their autonomy.
Choice Is Not Coercion
Critics argue that allowing medical aid in dying creates pressure on the vulnerable. That concern should be addressed through robust safeguards, transparency, and oversight, not by stripping everyone of the right to choose.
Choice empowers. Prohibition infantilizes.
Hospice care, palliative treatment, and emotional support must always be available and expanded. But those options should exist alongside the right to choose, not as substitutes enforced by law.
Liberty Until the Very End
A society that claims to value freedom cannot abandon that principle at life’s final moment. Liberty does not expire when a diagnosis is delivered. It does not vanish when someone becomes inconvenient to manage or difficult to treat.
Supporting this law is not about encouraging death. It is about respecting autonomy, limiting government overreach, and trusting individuals to make the most personal decision of their lives.
In a free society, you have the right to choose, even at the end.
