Wesley J. Smith

There is an old joke: What do you call the medical student who finished last in his class? Answer: “Doctor.”

The increasing legalization of assisted suicide has accorded that joke a disturbing pertinence. A doctor who prescribes poison need not be an excellent medical practitioner. He or she need not specialize in treating patients who present with particular life-threatening conditions, and indeed, can prescribe even if never treating the patient’s underlying condition at all.

For example, Jack Kevorkian was a pathologist who never treated a living patient after medical school. But if assisted suicide had been legal in his time, he would have been qualified to lethally prescribe. Along similar lines, before assisted suicide was legalized, the California death doctor Lonny Shavelson was a part-time ER doc who mostly pursued a career as a photojournalist and author.

The “nature rights” movement continues to advance. Now, a bill has been presented for consideration in the U.K. House of Lords by a member of the Green Party to redefine “nature” as a “subject” with enforceable “rights.”

The “Nature’s Rights Bill 2026” is as radical as it is long. It recognizes “Nature” (capital N) as “a legal subject and rights bearing entity” that essentially includes everything that exists on the planet:

“Nature” means the interconnected community of living organisms, ecosystems, habitats, species, landscapes, seascapes, geological processes, waters, soils, atmosphere, climate systems and natural cycles, including the evolutionary and regenerative dynamics of life on Earth.

The putative rights of Nature are all-encompassing:

(1) Nature has the following inherent rights—
(a) the right to exist, persist and evolve;
(b) the right to maintain and regenerate ecological integrity;
(c) the right to restoration and regeneration where harm has occurred;
(d) the right to be free from pollution, contamination and degradation that threatens ecological integrity, resilience or health;
(e) the right to maintain natural cycles, functions and processes, including hydrological, climatic, geological, soil, nutrient, reproductive, evolutionary and ecological processes;
(f) the right to maintain ecological connectivity, diversity, abundance and resilience; and
(g) the right to exist, regenerate and flourish within safe ecological limits, including Planetary Boundaries and Earth System Boundaries so far as applicable.

AI gets most of the attention, but biotechnology may be even more impactful on the human future. Indeed, I think it is the most powerful technology since the splitting of the atom — perhaps even in history, as it has the potential to literally alter the human race or any cell/organism — which could cure diseases or unleash an unstoppable pandemic. Attention must be paid. Some biotechnologists are intent on pursuing radical biotechnologies — whether to eliminate disease, or as I expect to become the bigger, more remunerative draw, to create designer babies enhanced to be smarter, more beautiful, or otherwise made to order — regardless of the ethical questions. A long piece in The Guardian illustrates the stakes we Read More ›

In a newly released paper in the prestigious journal Bioethics, three prominent bioethicists argue that when someone decides to commit suicide via self-starvation and dehydration — known in euthanasia movement parlance as “voluntary stop eating and drinking” (VSED) — doctors should be allowed to “terminally sedate” the person trying to die when necessary to prevent intractable suffering. Patients who commit VSED are often not terminally ill. In fact, euthanasia organizations promote self-starvation to the elderly who are not dying and as a means of becoming eligible for assisted suicide where it is legal by making oneself “terminal” via lack of sustenance. VSED must be distinguished from the common circumstance when actively dying people stop eating. That’s a natural process and Read More ›

Environmentalism is growing increasingly radical and irrational, epitomized by the “nature rights” movement that seeks to declare geological features, flora, and fauna to be rights-bearing beings. Nature rights activists proselytize neoearth religion. Advocates often invoke mystical beliefs of indigenous peoples as justifications for their advocacy, including the invocation of “Pachamama,” the Incan earth goddess. Some activists even claim that the earth is alive. Now, an article in the environmental journal PLOS Climate claims that “glaciers are more than human beings” — what I guess we could call glacier exceptionalism: In the context of accelerating climate change and widespread ecological degradation, there is growing academic and legal interest in reframing natural entities—such as glaciers—as more-than-human beings. This conceptual turn challenges anthropocentric Read More ›

In Lane County, Ore., an attempt to grant rights to nature — specifically, to grant “watersheds” the right to “exist, flourish, regenerate and naturally evolve, free from contamination and degradation,” was rejected by voters, 63-37. Why did this attempt fail where nature rights referenda have elsewhere succeeded? Because opponents took it seriously. From the Your Oregon News story: Rob Dickinson, spokesperson for proponents of the measure, attributed its defeat to the ubiquity of advertisements raising fears about the initiative’s effects. Betsy Schultz, grass roots coordinator for opponents of the measure, said the healthy fundraising to defeat the measure reflected the strength of the arguments against the initiative. “Both the breadth of the coalition and the amount of funds that we Read More ›

Serious moves are afoot to allow ending the lives of dementia patients, either by allowing them to be killed by lethal jab euthanasia if requested in a written advance directive (where legal), or to allow a document to be signed requiring caregivers to withhold sufficient food and water to sustain life. New Jersey seems to move subtly in the latter direction with a vaguely worded bill, S.B. 4186, that could open the door to intentional legal undernourishment. From the bill: It is the public policy of this State to respect the dignity, autonomy, and previously expressed wishes of individuals living with dementia by authorizing Dementia-Specific Advance Directives (DSADs), establishing clear standards for “comfort feeding only,” and ensuring that such directives Read More ›

The attacks on one of the fundamental essences of being human — free will — continue apace. The latest example can be found in the BBC’s Science Focus feature, in which Stanford biology professor Robert Sapolsky — a recipient of the MacArthur Genius Grant for his work on the physiological effects of stress — redefines us as merely robotic biological machines incapable of making truly free decisions. We only think we “could have done otherwise” than what we did, claims Sapolsky. From the BBC interview: Acting on something and knowing you could have done otherwise is often necessary and sufficient to decide that free has just happened. Where I come in pulling my hair out is that doing that misses Read More ›

These days, it seems that everything is about bioethics. Case in point: A zoologist named Sam Zeveloff has criticized RFK Jr. in Stat News for disrespecting a dead raccoon back in 2001 by allegedly dissecting its penis. This act, the emeritus professor claims, raises “critical questions” that must be addressed.

Oh my. One wonders about the possible moral stakes of this historical cadaveric mutilation.

Such phallus-collecting, we are told by Zeveloff, is fine so long as it’s done for a valid scientific or educational purpose. In fact, the author brags that he has collected raccoon phalluses himself, some of which are displayed at the Icelandic Phallological Museum. Okaaay.

But Kennedy’s cadaveric collecting wasn’t, from a bioethical standpoint, properly “scientific”:

If Kennedy collected a racoon specimen without a defined scientific or educational purpose, the ethical justification becomes less clear. Indeed, the public has no idea about why he would stop a car filled with his family members and cut out a raccoon’s penis from a carcass.

Canada has gone hog wild for euthanasia. But the pro-death tide may — may — be beginning to turn. The province of Alberta just passed a bill that significantly restricts eligibility for euthanasia (medical aid in dying, or MAID), soon to be signed into binding law. The biggest change in Bill 18 ends the eligibility of non-terminally-ill patients to be MAIDed (known as Track 2). Among the provisions of Bill 18 (“Safeguards for Last Resort Termination of Life Act”), as summarized by the government: Eligibility in Alberta to individuals 18 and over with capacity to make their own health care decision whose natural death has been determined by a physician or nurse practitioner as being reasonably foreseeable, also known as Read More ›