To the most excellent Norman Stephan Kinsella,
So I was having this discussion on X with a few people. It began off as “abortion is murder,” it devolved into “who has rights and why?” and then someone said: “because people in a comatose state have the potential to wake up and be able to form concepts again [which is what they’re using as a threshold for rights-bearers], then killing them is unjust.”
And this is something I hadn’t thought of before. I understand that when someone’s in a coma, they basically have to consent by proxy, with said proxy being whoever takes care of them: a family member, a friend, or even just a doctor; it depends. The thing is, though, can the proxy ask for the person to be disconnected from life support? Because, generally, we would assume that someone in a comatose state does not want to die.
Realistically, I suppose it’s contingent on a medical diagnosis. There’s this guy from the next town over who suffered a stroke and has been in a coma for over two years now. He’s shown improvements, but it’s unlikely he will ever wake up. Can he be disconnected from life support? Similarly, there are cases of people who end up in a coma, and while they might have chances to wake up, they’re disconnected because the chances are low, because they’d probably be left severely disabled after waking up, and/or because their family simply cannot afford to keep them on life support for too long.
How would this be solved in a libertarian society, as to avoid giving people the discretion to essentially kill anyone in a coma?
KINSELLA:
I imagine standards would emerge when some representative or agent of the decedent sues the person who kills the decedent and claims it’s murder since it was without consent. Then the euthanizer would come up with a reason why they had consent of the “victim”–tacit consent, other relevant evidence, power of attorney, prevailing practices and standards and customs, previous legal precedent, and so on. The first time someone is held liable on the grounds that they were not able to provide implied or express consent of the decedent, then in the future people will be aware of this and will tend to abide by these developing standards. So for example if it’s my wife or son, and I and produce medical evidence that there was no realistic chance of recovery, and/or that I have agency power either presumed or explicit, to decide on their behalf, and someone else–a stranger or relative–sues me, my defens would succeed. OTOH if have a tenuous connection to the victim and no power of attorney and the doctors say that the victim might have recovered, then a murder suit is more likely to prevail. I.e. people would tend to more careful and follow established procedures and presumptions.
