Wesley J. Smith

In 2020, the Federal Constitutional Court, Germany’s highest judicial body, conjured a fundamental right to commit suicide, to assist, and be assisted therein. The ruling called suicide a “self-determined death” — i.e., death on demand — regardless of the reason, and perhaps even, age of the person who wants to die, as the court ruled that the right to suicide “is guaranteed in all stages of a person’s existence.” Youth is a stage of a person’s existence. (Estonia’s highest court recently issued a similar ruling, while requiring competence.) Now, famous German identical twins have committed joint assisted suicide — reported by the notorious assisted suicide pushers, People magazine — which oohed and aahed about the death of Brittany Maynard, publishing Read More ›

Editors of many of the world’s top scientific and medical journals are destroying or — better stated, perhaps — have destroyed the public’s trust in scientific and medical leadership because these journals can no longer be deemed objective purveyors of truth.

Nature and its associated science journals (Nature Portfolio), supposedly the most elite of the lot, are among the worst offenders. For example, in 2024 Nature endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for president in part because of her support for abortion. Nature also endorsed Biden in 2020. To say the least, blatantly engaging in partisan politics is not wise for a supposedly objective science journal.

It isn’t just politics. Ideological bias can also skew what should be scientifically objective studies, in favor of desired conclusions. In 2023, climate scientist Patrick T. Brown admitted in the Free Press to having tailored a paper he had co-written, to erase proper nuance. Why? He believed that Nature would not publish a paper that did not follow “correct” climate narratives all the way down the line. Brown warned that such ideological contamination of the scientific discourse has consequences:

The biases of the editors (and the reviewers they call upon to evaluate submissions) exert a major influence on the collective output of entire fields. They select what gets published from a large pool of entries, and in doing so, they also shape how research is conducted more broadly. Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted. I know this because I am one of them.

The New England Journal of Medicine is again promoting failed progressive public policies. This time, it is “harm reduction.” From “The Erosion of Harm Reduction,” by Joshua Barocas, M.D. (citations omitted):

Unlike the targets of many other recent attacks on public health and medicine in the United States, harm reduction is not a formal bureaucracy, but a philosophy and an approach to health care. As defined by the Drug Policy Alliance, it is “a set of ideas and interventions that seek to reduce the harms associated with both drug use and punitive drug policies.” Harm reduction is embodied in syringe-services programs (SSPs), naloxone distribution, overdose education, overdose-prevention centers [i.e. “safe injection sites”], and decriminalization of drugs.

Barocas decries the Trump administration’s executive order that limits such policies:

Perhaps most concerning, an executive order focused on homelessness and civil commitment issued on July 24, 2025, prohibits federal SAMHSA discretionary grants from being used to fund harm-reduction activities, proposes a freeze on federal funding to organizations that provide “drug paraphernalia,” and threatens legal action against harm-reduction organizations. The executive order states that these approaches “only facilitate illegal drug use and its attendant harm.”

My wife, the Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Debra J. Saunders, covered San Francisco’s harm reduction drug policies extensively back when she worked for the San Francisco Chronicle. It started with “needle exchange,” which she initially supported as a means of preventing the spread of HIV. The idea was for addicts to “exchange” dirty needles — a prime source of HIV transmission — for clean ones. The rule was: no used needle, no free clean replacement. Unfortunately, the program led to greater drug abuse. “Harm reduction” zealots eventually dropped the exchange requirement, which resulted in dangerous used needles littering San Francisco’s sidewalks and even children’s playgrounds.

Transhumanism offers a (delusional, in my opinion) hope to blaze a materialistic path to immortality. Transhumanists yearn, for example, to upload their minds to computers, thinking that will do the trick. It won’t. Even if the “mind” could be uploaded, it would merely be software that mimicked a person’s beliefs. The “uploaded” subject would still be dead.

Now, according to an interesting story in the New York Times, China has apparently jumped onto this longevity train and is devoting much energy and many resources to the life-extension project:

China, eager to catch up with and, whenever possible, surpass the West in biotech, artificial intelligence and other advanced technologies, has made the longevity industry a national priority, pouring billions into research and related commercial spinoffs.

“They have improved very rapidly. A few years ago, there was nothing here and the West was still far ahead,” said Vadim Gladyshev, a Harvard Medical School professor who has done pioneering work on longevity, including an experiment that extended the expected life span of old mice by connecting their circulatory systems to young mice.

Chinese researchers, he said during a recent trip to China to attend two scientific conferences, “are rapidly catching up.”

Well, that sounds ominous. Are we really going to use the blood of the young to keep the old from dying? Why, yes. Some of the hyper-rich in Silicon Valley are already doing that, including Larry Ellison, who receives blood transfusions from his son. Imagine the exploitive possibilities!

The Illinois Legislature has just passed an assisted suicide legalization bill, tying a black bow along with New York’s legalization bill passed a few months ago. Both measures still await signing by the states’ respective governors, which I fear is quite likely as the death agenda is firmly ensconced in blue state liberal/progressive policy on assisted suicide.

Should the bills get signed into law, more people will live in jurisdictions (including three of our most populous: California, New York, and Illinois) that validate some suicides and allow doctors to facilitate such deaths than live in states where assisted suicide remains illegal.

The states are nationalizing assisted suicide as well. New York’s bill has no residency requirement. Vermont and Oregon did away with theirs. And the Illinois bill’s residency requirement is so weak that one could become a resident in a day by, say, renting an apartment and registering to vote.

Assisted suicide is not yet legal in Scotland — I have traveled there three times to fight that agenda — but it is a looming threat again. And now, an amendment to the legalization bill has been proposed that would prohibit prevention efforts at or near places where suicidal people’s lives would be ended. From the ADF International press release: A Scottish parliamentarian and member of the Health Committee, Patrick Harvie MSP, has proposed an amendment to Scotland’s controversial “assisted suicide” bill that would criminalise discussion of suicide prevention within a large, undefined public area surrounding any building where an assisted suicide might take place. The vague proposal would forbid any attempts to “influence” a person’s decision to undergo an Read More ›

A Green member of the House of Lords plans to introduce “nature rights” legislation. Not only would — basically everything — have rights, but these supposed liberties could be enforced against “individuals.” The authoritarian possibilities are unquantifiable.

First, “nature’s” definition is so broad it includes just about everything in existence. From Draft 8 of the Nature Rights Act of 2025:

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

Anything in the world missing from that definition? Not that I can see. Thus, everything on earth — including the air — would be deemed a “legal person.” And notice that “nature” is personalized with a capital N:

Recognition of Nature as a Legal Person:
a. Nature is recognised as a legal person and subject of law.
b. The rights of Nature established by this Act shall vest in Nature as a single legal entity.
c. These rights shall be enforceable collectively on behalf of Nature to prevent fragmentation of legal claims.

When assisted suicide is first proposed for legalization, we are assured by death activists that strict guidelines will protect against abuse. But they don’t mean it. Once the laws pass, the supposed protections — which are always flaccid to begin with — are soon redefined by activists and the media as “barriers,” et voila, the laws are soon loosened. It’s all a con, but people seem to fall for it every time.

This pattern can be seen vividly playing out in Victoria, Australia. The state was the first in that country to legalize assisted suicide, and now the government is making more people eligible for legally hastened death. From the premier’s announcement:

The new legislation will remove unnecessary barriers to accessing VAD, improve clarity for practitioners, strengthen safety measurements and make the system fairer and more compassionate.

See what I mean? “Strengthen safety,” (!!!) and “fairer and more compassionate,” really just means more people can become dead much sooner.

As I have noted here before, NYU Law School’s radical MOTH (More Than Human Life) program embraces neo-earth mysticism as part of its efforts to promote “nature rights.” Here’s the latest example. MOTH participants are seeking to force the Ecuadorian Copyright Office to grant a copyright to a forest as the supposed co-composer of music called Song of the Cedars. From “Giving Back to Nature,” published on the MOTH website: The aim of the song and its accompanying legal petition is to recognize—legally and culturally—the inextricable agency and participation of the natural world in the making of art. The song could not have been made without Los Cedros, legally and philosophically justifying the effort to acknowledge the forest’s “moral authorship” Read More ›