suicide

Assisted suicide legalization is bad medicine and even worse public policy. It abandons the sick, destroys human equality by creating a killable caste of people, and cheapens the intrinsic dignity of human life. Moreover, the supposed “strict safeguards” are neither strict — for example, relying on doctor self-reporting — nor particularly protective. Besides, as soon as the law goes into place, the safeguards are quickly redefined as “obstacles” to a good death and the process of loosening the law commences.

These and other myriad problems have gotten the attention of Senators James Lankford (R., Okla.) and Tim Kaine (D., Va.), who along with two representatives sent a letter to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. asking for oversight over the practice in the hospice context. Among their expressed concerns (citations omitted):

• “There are grave informed consent issues within physician-assisted suicide. Patients spend little time with the physician providing physician-assisted suicide relative to the course of their disease.”

Gallup just issued its annual poll on “moral acceptability.” I was struck by the dramatically different results in the two questions about suicide.

The first question asked about “doctor assisted suicide.” Close to a majority, 49 percent, of respondents answered that committing suicide with a doctor’s help is morally acceptable, while 45 percent responded that it is not.

The other question asked simply about the moral acceptability of “suicide.” Strikingly, only 21 percent said that it is morally acceptable to take one’s own life, while a whopping 70 percent said it is not. Indeed, suicide was one of the lowest “morally acceptable” behaviors in the entire poll. Only cloning humans, polygamy, and extramarital affairs had a lower moral acceptability rating.

That’s quite a paradox. So, what’s going on? Why the wide disparity in answering two questions that are about the same issue?

What do you do when the questions never go away? Suicide doesn’t just leave grief in its wake. It leaves silence, confusion, and questions that don’t have clear answers. Could I have done something? Did I miss something? Where was God? In this deeply personal conversation, Dr. Brick Lantz, orthopedic surgeon, bioethicist, and author of Raw Musings: Journaling Following My Son’s Suicide, shares what it was like to lose his son, and what it means to keep living after the unthinkable. This is not a conversation with easy answers. It’s a conversation about grief that doesn’t resolve neatly, faith that wrestles, and the slow, difficult path forward. We discuss: If you or someone you know is struggling, you don’t have Read More ›

A Canadian activist has argued that the mentally ill must have access to euthanasia to prevent their committing suicide. From the National Post story: A leading MAID advocate argued to parliamentarians last month that Canada must legalize assisted suicide for the mentally ill, lest those same patients commit suicide. The statement was made at a March 24 parliamentary committee debating the legalization of MAID for Canadians whose “sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness.” Jocelyn Downie, a leading MAID activist since 2004, warned that if the federal government keeps excluding mentally ill Canadians from accessing assisted suicide, the result will be more mentally ill Canadians dying by suicide. The idea here is that a “suicide” will be potentially messier Read More ›

As the West lunges toward propagating a right to be made dead, the deleterious societal impacts of being legally “MAIDed” (killed by “medical assistance in dying”) are becoming increasingly clear. A recent professional analysis published in the Psychiatric Times illustrates the lethal influence on mentally ill suicidal people — including youth — in the Netherlands. From “Psychiatric Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Young People, Procedural Medicine, and the Limits of Psychiatry” (citations omitted): Requests for euthanasia on psychiatric grounds have risen sharply, with a disproportionate increase among young adults and, more recently, minors. The Dutch model, once presented internationally as careful and balanced, is now attracting attention for a different reason: growing uncertainty about whether psychiatry has crossed a boundary it 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?

Geriatric suicides used to be considered a tragedy. But these days, increasingly, they are celebrated — whether Compassion and Choices (formerly, the more honestly named Hemlock Society) teaching elderly people to starve themselves to death (VSED), joint lethal jabs of aged married couples in places like the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada, or suicides facilitated at Swiss death clinics. These clinics are proud of their toll. One Swiss clinic even “prioritizes people who are elderly but not seriously ill,” while others willingly engage in geriatric assisted suicide of depressed elders if they have other conditions. From the odious Exit International’s newsletter: “Conscious suicides are different from others,” says Jean-Jacques Bise, Co-President of Exit in French-speaking Switzerland. The figures from RTS suggest Read More ›

I previously wrote about pending Oregon and Vermont legislation to do away with the requirement that only doctors be allowed to legally assist suicides. Now, it’s Washington’s turn, with a proposal to allow “qualified medical providers” to prescribe poison, defined as a licensed physician, physician’s assistant, or advanced practice registered nurse. I previously opined about why I think this is a very bad idea, so I won’t belabor the points further. The Washington bill also speeds up the waiting period between the first and second request for poison pills for some suicidal patients: Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, if, at the time of the qualified patient’s initial oral request in subsection (1) of this section, the attending qualified medical Read More ›

Previous studies have shown an association between states legalizing assisted suicide and increases in suicide rates for other suicides. Now, pro-euthanasia activists are touting a new study which claims no impact. But the study actually finds a significant impact in the raw numbers. From the study published in the American Journal of Bioethics: 927,929 Suicide deaths were represented in the study. Ten states and the District of Columbia had legalized MAID within the study period. In an univariable analysis, states that legalized MAID differed significantly from non-MAID states with respect to mean monthly suicide rate (non-MAID States: 1.46; MAID states: 1.78; p < 0.0001), as well as several covariates. Oh. But wait, adjustments were made: We constructed geographically-weighted regression models controlling for annualized state-level sociodemographic factors, such Read More ›

Suicide is at a crisis level in the United States and around the world. According to the World Health Organization, more than 700,000 people committed suicide in 2019. In 2022, there were 49,476 self-inflicted deaths in the U.S. alone, or 14.2 per 100,000 people.

At the same time, assisted-suicide activism enjoys ever higher visibility, continually promoted in the media and popular culture as the best way to “die with dignity,” resulting in an increasing toll. Each year, well over 20,000 people around the world die by assisted suicide or euthanasia — which are generally not included in suicide statistics.

It is into this disturbing and paradoxical paradigm that The Lancet Public Health medical journal devoted an entire issue to suicide prevention. This should have been a welcome boost to saving lives. Instead, the mostly facile articles focus substantially on expanding government and promoting liberal policies as the best means of reducing suicides. Indeed, taken as a whole, the edition reflects the latest trend in medical-journal advocacy to transform political controversies — i.e., climate change, racism, and the like — into public-health crises to enable increased regulation and the imposition of left-wing public policies.

That is not to say that public health doesn’t have a significant role to play in suicide prevention. Of course it does. But the authors advocate shifting primary responsibility for suicide prevention from normal public-health activities and patient-centered clinical settings to an “all population approach” in which “all parts of government” will be “accountable” for the “social and commercial determinants of suicide risk.” In other words, everything government plans and executes would become ultimately about suicide prevention.