In October 1858, John Stuart Mill and his wife, Harriet, were traveling in Avignon, France, when Harriet fell ill. What initially seemed like a minor inconvenience rapidly worsened, leaving Harriet in excruciating pain and unable to sleep or lie down. In a desperate plea for help, Mill reached out to a doctor in Nice, urging him to come and see her. However, three days later, Harriet’s condition deteriorated even further, prompting Mill to telegram his stepdaughter with his fears. Tragically, Harriet passed away on November 3 in their hotel room.
Mill spent a day alone with Harriet’s body in their room, grieving the loss of their marriage. He wrote, “For seven and a half years, that blessing was mine. For seven and a half years only!” Later in the same month, Mill sent a manuscript to his publisher, which contained a heartfelt dedication to Harriet. He went on to describe Harriet as more than just his muse but as his co-author, stating that every sentence of the book had been thoroughly reviewed and edited by them together. This book, titled “On Liberty,” would become a cornerstone of our modern liberal world order.
According to the Mills, individual freedom and autonomy were fundamental rights. They believed that each person should have the power to make their own choices in life, from whom to marry and where to live to what to believe and say. As long as an individual’s actions did not harm others, the state had no right to interfere with their personal freedom. The Mills envisioned a society where this philosophy thrived, resulting in a diverse and vibrant community of creative and bold individuals. While they acknowledged that not everyone would agree with their way of life, they emphasized the importance of granting each other the space to live authentically. This concept of individual autonomy and freedom of choice formed the basis for building prosperous nations.
The liberalism advocated by the Mills is what we now experience in our daily lives. It is the foundation that allows us to encounter a variety of people as we stroll down the street and engage in diverse discussions and debates on the internet. It is this very liberalism that we champion when we support the Ukrainians in their resistance against Russian oppression, when we stand up against authoritarian ideologies on both ends of the political spectrum, and when we oppose efforts to restrict speech, ban books, or manipulate elections.
After sending in the manuscript, Mill purchased a house overlooking Harriet’s burial site and filled it with furniture from the room in which she had passed away. He made an annual pilgrimage to the house for the remainder of his life, gazing out the window at her grave. It is undoubtedly a somber image, but the intellectual legacy left behind by the couple continues to propel humanity forward in our quest for civilization.
However, like many good ideas, liberalism can become corrupted when taken to extremes. This holds true for the concept of freedom of choice. In some cases, the celebration of personal freedom can devolve into a rigid free-market ideology, concentrating economic power in the hands of the wealthy while neglecting society’s most vulnerable members. The pursuit of wild and creative self-expression can also lead to a narcissistic culture that prioritizes self-worship over communal care and support.
These extreme versions of liberalism have fueled a backlash, with some arguing that liberalism itself is devoid of spiritual meaning and too focused on individualism. Critics claim that it leads to societal disintegration and undermines the sanctity of life. In today’s world, we find ourselves surrounded by anti-liberals who reject the principles of liberalism.
To shed light on the current crisis facing liberalism and explore how we can reclaim a more compassionate and humane version of it, let’s examine one particular battleground. This battleground revolves around the issue of medical assistance in dying, which was legalized in Canada in 2016. The program, known as MAID, was initially founded on the principles championed by Mill. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that laws prohibiting assisted suicide restricted individual rights, questioning whether people should have the authority to control their own deaths and alleviate needless suffering at the end of life.
Initially, the MAID program had clear guidelines. It allowed doctors and nurses to administer lethal injections or medications only to patients who met specific criteria. These included having a serious illness or disability, being in an irreversible state of decline, experiencing unbearable physical or mental anguish, and being at a point where natural death was reasonably foreseeable. Authorities reassured critics concerned about the potential for abuse that psychologically vulnerable individuals who were not near death would not be eligible for assisted suicide. They cited studies from jurisdictions with similar laws around the world to support this claim. However, the program has unfolded differently in practice.
Over time, the eligibility criteria for assisted suicide expanded, leading to a broader range of individuals qualifying for the procedure. In 2021, the requirement that death must be “reasonably foreseeable” was removed. Media outlets began reporting stories of individuals receiving assisted suicide despite not fitting the original criteria.
For example, Alan Nichols, who had lost his hearing in childhood and suffered a stroke but was otherwise able to live independently, applied for physician-assisted death citing hearing loss as his sole medical condition. A nurse practitioner noted his vision loss, frailty, history of seizures, and overall decline in health. Despite concerns from family members, Alan’s request was deemed valid, resulting in his life being intentionally ended.
Similarly, Rosina Kamis, who had fibromyalgia, chronic leukemia, and other mental and physical illnesses, received approval for assisted suicide based on her symptoms. In a note addressed to her power of attorney, she expressed that her suffering was primarily mental and pleaded for more emotional support. She was put to death at the age of 41.
Another distressing case involved Kiano Vafaeian, a 23-year-old man who struggled with depression, unemployment, diabetes, and vision loss in one eye. Despite being in a vulnerable state, his request for assisted suicide was approved. Detailed instructions were provided to him, stating the procedure would take place at 9 am and that he could bring a dog if someone would care for it. Fortunately, shortly before the scheduled date, his mother intervened and contacted the doctor in a desperate attempt to save her son’s life.
These examples highlight the ethical complexities surrounding assisted suicide and the potential for the liberal principle of individual autonomy to be exploited. The original intentions of the MAID program were rooted in compassion, aiming to provide relief to those suffering from terminal illnesses. However, the program’s evolution has raised concerns about how it may be abused and whether it adequately safeguards the mentally vulnerable or those who are not nearing the end of their lives.
As we grapple with these issues, it is crucial to remember that a nuanced understanding of liberalism is key. By acknowledging its potential for both positive and negative outcomes, we can work toward a more balanced and compassionate liberalism that aligns with the Mills’ vision. Only then can we navigate the complexities of modern society and preserve the principles of individual freedom and collective wellbeing that underpin our liberal world order.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
