caregiver-holding-elderly-senior-patient-ageing-old-adult-pe-289837705-stockpack-adobestock
Caregiver holding elderly senior patient (ageing old adult person) hand in hospital bed or nursing hospice, geriatrician palliative home, while caretaker having medical health care service
Image Credit: Chinnapong - Adobe Stock
Humanize From Discovery Institute's Center on Human Exceptionalism
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Estonia’s Supreme Court Declares a Right to Suicide

Originally published at National Review
Categories
Euthanasia

Five years ago, the highest court in Germany declared that committing suicide is a fundamental right — for everybody and for any reason — and that being assisted or assisting others in the act are ancillary rights associated with that liberty. In other words, death on demand. Now the Supreme Court of Estonia appears to have followed the same course.

Here’s the context: A man who provided a suicide machine to those who wanted to kill themselves was acquitted of any culpability. He was charged, among other crimes, with providing health services without a license. But the Court ruled — quite logically and correctly — that helping someone commit suicide is not health care. From the ERR News story:

The Supreme Court noted that Tammert’s actions did not serve any of the legally required purposes of providing healthcare services. Current law does not recognize as treatment any activity that intentionally harms health. Therefore, causing death cannot be considered the provision of a healthcare service.

I wish our courts understood that assisted suicide — despite its being called euphemistically “medical aid in dying” — isn’t health care. It is simply suicide, or helping someone commit suicide.

If the Estonian court had left it at that, it would be one thing. But it ruled that committing suicide is a right, as is assisting and being assisted in doing so:

The Supreme Court further emphasized that every competent individual has the right to end their life voluntarily. Criminal liability for assisting in such an act can only arise if the person is unable to carry it out themselves or lacks full understanding of the significance of their actions.

The court called on the Estonian parliament to issue regulations to guide nonmedical suicide facilitation. In other words, once again: death on demand.

At least these rulings candidly cut through the toxic smoke so often generated by assisted-suicide advocates who claim that the death agenda is about terminal illness or, indeed, physical illness or disability at all.

Here is the debate we should be having.

  • Should suicide be a right?
  • If people want to be dead, should they have a right to be assisted in terminating their lives?
  • Are there any limits to personal autonomy?

Bottom line: The high court rulings in Estonia and Germany demonstrate that the real goal — or, at least, the destination — of assisted suicide advocacy is a right to death by any competent person for any cause and assisted by anyone.

So, let’s stop pretending that any of this is about medicine or health care. That conceit merely corrupts the medical profession.

And let’s face the fact that, to an increasing degree, the West is no longer an anti-suicide culture.

Wesley J. Smith

Chair and Senior Fellow, Center on Human Exceptionalism
Wesley J. Smith is Chair and Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism. Wesley is a contributor to National Review and is the author of 14 books, in recent years focusing on human dignity, liberty, and equality. Wesley has been recognized as one of America’s premier public intellectuals on bioethics by National Journal and has been honored by the Human Life Foundation as a “Great Defender of Life” for his work against suicide and euthanasia. Wesley’s most recent book is Culture of Death: The Age of “Do Harm” Medicine, a warning about the dangers to patients of the modern bioethics movement.