euthanasia

Euthanasia conjoined with organ harvesting just took a particularly disturbing turn in Spain, where a woman was euthanized and then had part of her face transplanted. From the Catalan News story: Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona has performed the world’s first face transplant with a donor who passed away from euthanasia. Around 100 medical professionals took part in the partial face transplant, a highly complex operation using neurovascular microsurgery techniques that lasted about 24 hours. In presenting the milestone procedure, the healthcare director, Maria José Abadías, highlighted the “extraordinary generosity of the donor,” the “collective effort” behind the operation and the “pride” of all workers who took part in it. Don’t get me wrong. There is no inherent moral Read More ›

The modern hospice movement is one of the great humanitarian advances of the last hundred years. The story began shortly after World War II, when a young, devout Anglican medical social worker named Cicely Saunders befriended a Jewish émigré named David Tasma. Tasma had escaped the Warsaw Ghetto only to be dying at age 40 in a London hospital. He was alone in the world, and Saunders made a special point to visit with him every day. Their friendship changed how we medically treat—and perhaps even more importantly, perceive—people who are dying. I was honored to interview Dame Cicely (as she is affectionately known in the United Kingdom) in 1998 while researching my book Culture of Death. In reflecting on her Read More ›

Canada has leaped into euthanasia’s moral abyss with a smile on its face. Since 2015, killable categories have expanded dramatically, from those whose death is “reasonably foreseeable” — a category that was already so broad you could drive a hearse through it — to the chronically ill, people with disabilities, the frail elderly, and, starting next year, the mentally ill.

More than 16,000 Canadians were killed by doctors and nurse practitioners last year. It’s the fifth-most-common cause of death in the country.

Many commentators point to these and other facts about Canada’s euthanasia regime to argue against legalization. Defenders of euthanasia know this and have mounted counternarratives trying to convince us that so many killings of such a varied numbers of people is an excellent outcome of a humane policy. The latest example is in the Canadian Journal of Bioethics, in an article by bioethicist and philosophy professor Wayne Sumner, in which he argues that euthanasia should be considered a ho-hum question, nothing to worry about.

Sumner shrugs at the dramatic increase in the numbers killed since legalization because euthanasia is just another medical treatment and should not be considered to be extraordinary. Indeed, to Sumner, doctors’ killing patients is really no different than performing hip replacements. Ditto abortion. And since an increase in abortion rates (to him) is a good, and no one objects to more hip replacements, what’s the problem with the statistical increase in deaths by euthanasia? From “What’s So Special About Medically Assisted Dying?“:

If we regard an increasing number of joint replacements or abortions as success, with supply having risen to meet demand, why should we think that an increasing number of MAiD provisions is a failure, or somehow a problem? If more awareness, more providers, and more support are good things for these other services, why are they a bad thing for MAiD? Why should we think differently about MAiD than we do about other medical procedures? What’s so special about MAiD?

Let me count the ways.

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?

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 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.