Euthanasia

Freedom of religion is on the ropes in increasingly authoritarian Canada — despite a specific charter guarantee of “freedom of religion and conscience.” Indeed, an Ontario court ruled previously that doctors can be coerced under threat of professional discipline to perform lethal jabs or abortions against their religious beliefs and conscience objections. Why? The court ruled that the unenumerated right of patients to receive any legal procedure paid for by the government superseded the specific charter protection. If doctors don’t want to kill, the court also ruled, they can either provide an “effective referral” — meaning soliciting a doctor known to be willing to kill — or get out of medicine. Now, in British Columbia, the family of a euthanized woman, who Read More ›

Once someone is considered killable or supported in suicide, they may become objectified so as to be used instrumentally. Such is the case with people requesting to be euthanized. The idea is that they are going to die anyway, want to die — even as they do not receive suicide prevention — so we might as well get good use out of them such as by conjoining their hastened deaths with organ harvesting. This abandonment (in my view) is rife in Canada, where in Ontario, a patient approved for a lethal jab will soon receive a call from the organ procurement society asking for their organs. The Netherlands and Belgium also permit conjoining organ harvesting — including of mentally ill Read More ›

With a scribbled signature by Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, the Land of Lincoln became the 12th state (plus the District of Columbia) to legalize physician-assisted suicide.

The new law, which takes effect in September, euphemistically describes assisted suicide as “medical aid in dying”—a pretense that prescribed poisonous overdoses are somehow equivalent to administering healing treatments. Give me a break. The point of “care,” is well, care. The point of assisted suicide is immediate death.

So, why do I insist on using “assisted suicide” instead of “medical aid in dying?” Because this issue is too important and too much is at stake to fall for propagandistic word engineering.

The term assisted suicide is both accurate and descriptive. “Suicide” means to take one’s own life. “Assisted” means to have help in performing an action, in this case, intentionally becoming dead. In other words, it describes what was done, not why.

In contrast, “medical aid in dying”—or MAID as it is usually called—is euphemistic and intended to deflect from the reality of what advocates seek to normalize. Ditto calling poisonous overdoses prescribed for suicide, “medication,” which these laws always do. How can we have a meaningful debate when one side hides behind terms that are designed to lull people into a dangerous complacency?

On Monday, December 15, Wesley J. Smith appeared on Ave Maria in the Afternoon with Marcus B. Peter to discuss the recent legalization of assisted suicide in Illinois.

Of course Governor Pritzker signed the assisted suicide bill. Was there ever any doubt? Assisted suicide has become part of the progressive policy agenda. The new Illinois law (SB 1950) contains many of the usual provisions and supposed safeguards. Once the law goes into effect next September, these putative protections will quickly be redefined as “obstacles” to a good death and the inevitable process of legal loosening will commence. This is the point at which I usually urge doctors to refuse participation in the killing of their patients. The law does permit doctors to refuse to actually prescribe poison (euphemistically called “medication”). But it still appears to require that all doctors assess whether a patient who has asked for assisted Read More ›

Medicine at Michigan is a medical news magazine that reports on activities of the University of Michigan Medical School. The magazine recently published a list of 175 “stories” of its “leaders and best” doctors that were affiliated with or graduated from the medical school.

The doctors so honored offered tremendous service to the profession, such as the great pediatric neurosurgeon, Dr. Ben Carson, and the developer of the first polio vaccine, Dr. Jonas Salk. But one of the listees — the late Jack Kevorkian — was a true villain and has no place being honored in any regard.

Kevorkian is listed under the section labeled, “Making a difference internationally” and “helping to serve the world.” This is how it begins:

“Dear Dr. Kevorkian, HELP! I am a 41-year-old victim of MS. I can no longer take care of myself. Being of sound mind, I wish to end my life peacefully…”

This letter from 1990 is typical of the correspondence received by Jack Kevorkian, who was the best-known advocate for physician-assisted suicide in the United States.

Yes he was. But let’s get real.

Kevorkian had an unremarkable medical career as a pathologist. He wouldn’t be remembered at all but for killing or assisting the suicides (mostly, with carbon monoxide) of some 130 people during the 1990s.

One of my greatest frustrations has been the general silence of suicide prevention organizations in the face of the legalization of assisted suicide in various jurisdictions. To me, this failure has been an abdication of such groups’ core responsibility because it ignores some suicides, does not oppose facilitation of the suicides of the ill and disabled, and does not grapple with the adverse impact that assisted suicide advocacy can have on suicidal people generally.

That silence has now ended. The International Association for Suicide Prevention just issued a (not quite strong enough) position paper that (equivocally) opposes legalization. From, the “IASP Position Statement on Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (2025)” (my emphasis):

At the present time, countries and jurisdictions are increasingly legalising and regulating assisted suicide, euthanasia, or both practices (sometimes called “Medically Assisted Death,” “Physician Assisted Death,” “Medical Aid in Dying” or similar terms). Assisted suicide is when a medical practitioner provides a patient who has asked to die with the means, usually prescription drugs, for the patient to self-administer to end their own life. Euthanasia is when the medical practitioner directly administers the lethal substance.

There is a strong potential for overlap or equivalence between what we consider to be suicide and euthanasia and assisted suicide (EaAS), particularly when EaAS is provided not at the end of life and instead to those with chronic conditions for whom death is not imminent.…

Read More ›

The Slovenian National Assembly tried to legalize assisted suicide. But the country’s voters had a different idea. From the Euractiv story: Slovenians on Sunday voted to suspend a new law to legalise assisted dying in a referendum held after critics mounted a campaign against the legislation. Around 53 percent of voters had rejected the law, while 47 percent voted in favour, meaning its implementation will be suspended for at least one year. Slovenia’s parliament had approved a law in July allowing assisted dying after a 2004 referendum supported it. But the new vote was called after a civil group, backed by the Catholic Church and the conservative parliamentary opposition, gathered 46,000 signatures in favour of a repeat, exceeding the 40,000 Read More ›

The future that some of us predicted about assisted suicide deployed as a resource saver has come to the U.K. Even as the House of Commons has passed a legalization bill — currently being debated in the House of Lords — the country’s hospice system is collapsing. From the BBC story:

Some 380 hospice beds out of around 2,000 lie empty in England because of financial pressures, say bosses.

Hospice UK has told BBC News this is up from 300 a year ago and illustrates the severe challenges facing the sector.

Beds are left empty to save money — since staffing and caring is costly — and so are unavailable to patients.

Do you know what isn’t costly? Assisted suicide. Poison is cheap.