I have some sympathy for Jackson’s insomnia since I had that symptom along with several others that for years no doctor could diagnose. I suspected a thyroid/adrenal problem and was told by seven different endocrinologists that I was wrong. Eventually, on my own, I researched, experimented, and treated the problem as a thyroid/adrenal problem and resolved the insomnia and other symptoms safely. It has been my experience that American doctors like Keynesian economists very often don’t know what they are talking about.

Jackson’s insomnia may have had a real physical cause that he was trying to address by self medicating with Murray’s help after other doctors failed to help him. Unfortunately it cost him his life.

The second thing that I think Jackson had reason to expect was some competence in the safe administration of the dangerous drug in question. Otherwise why have Murray spend the night. If Murray misrepresented his competence (the prosecutor has offered some evidence to support this) and administered all the doses then Jackson was the victim of fraud resulting in negligent homicide–a proper interest of the state.

If however, we conclude that Jackson self administered the final dose then the state has no legitimate interest here.

Unfortunately no contract was signed to give us more information as to both party’s expectations and responsibilities. It is also unfortunate that the others in the house did not see who administered the fatal final dose.

Murray is certainly an “unsavory character” but that is not evidence that the state should be granted permission to initiate force against him. But evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of negligent homicide is.

I haven’t followed this case of the pathetic drug addict man-child and his doctor closely enough to know who’s at fault.

It may not be directly at issue so much in this case, but the issue of mind-altering or addictive drugs does nevertheless raise a dilemma in my mind for the libertarian on the basis that their effects compromise reason and voluntary choice. The assumption that a free adult is given the opportunity to freely choose to act in the marketplace in their own best interest is a threshold requirement of honoring their choices and a necessary precondition to expecting that the libertarian society will realize maximal benefit and utility. We couldn’t make the same assumption if compulsion or force were employed on them to make their decisions. At least at the individual transactional level, though, could it not be said that the addict, once so addicted, is compelled or forced to buy drugs? Their minds are twisted and their bodies will inflict pain on them if they do not partake. I think that the proper response would probably be to institutionalize such people, at least until the worst phase of their addiction has recovered and their reason and ability to make rational decisions about drug use has returned. Presumably, a libertarian society wouldn’t let minor children or the insane wander the street either to fall victim to their limited capacities to reason and care for themselves. I still raise the issue just to point out the free choice dilemma that drugs would still raise.

On the other hand, your point is well taken that Mr. Jackson did not need the doctor to administer the fatal dose. His night table was literally covered in drug containers of all types. Can any doctor understand the long term effects of such combinations?

When folks hire their own physicians, it is not generally so they can live better, but die more comfortably.