If suicide of the infirm were a stand-alone question, without connection to issues such as the availability of medical care or involuntary “suicide” under pressure from medical personnel or family, it could be discussed simply as a liberty question. However, we know from the experience of other countries that the option of suicide quickly because the duty to die and the opportunity to kill.
This issue is similar to homosexual “marriage,” in that our discussion of both often proceeds in a philosophical vacuum, as if there is no real-world data about the practical outcomes. In both situations, there is a lot of data available, and very little of it supports the contention that suicide or homosexual “marriage” will add to the liberty and prosperity of the society.
Nevermind the practical results; gay marriage isn’t an issue of liberty at all. No one’s stopping them from having sex, cohabitating, vowing to spend their lives together, raising children, etc. What they’re asking for is the state to intervene and grant them special status. Which has nothing to do with liberty.
If I find out I have Alzheimer’s...I’m checking out. I don’t even have health insurance. I’ll end up in some state run hell hole in a diaper not even knowing who I am.