Self-harm Under Mill
Mill argues that a man should be able to jump off of a bridge, lose all their money to gambling, even drink themselves to death as long as they do not harm another (or provide a significant risk of doing so). Mill argues that because one is the best agent of their volition, governments should not be the judges of oneâs health - the individual should. One can attempt to reason and persuade someone into another, a seemingly less destructive action, but ultimately one cannot exert harm (even if it is lower in magnitude to the self afflicted) to prevent them from achieving what they deem is best. However, if a father were to kill himself, he would leave family with no financial aid, at the time of writing families were entirely dependent on such men - thus the government is justified in intervening.
When under the duty as a police officer - or where there is some other societal obligation, inducing self harm, Mill claims, is also harming the sanctity and stability of the institution they represent. As a representative of the law, being drunk on duty for instance would present a harm against the populous is the law was rendered incompetent.