Assisted Suicide Advocacy is Really About Death on Demand

Assisted suicide advocacy rests on two fundamental ideological premises. First, that we own our bodies and hence, it is the “ultimate civil liberty” to decide on the time, manner, and place of our own demise. Second, that killing is an acceptable answer to the problem of human suffering. Once these values are accepted, limiting assisted suicide to the terminally ill becomes logically unsustainable.

The death on demand agenda, usually kept opaque for political reasons, is now being openly voiced by Ludwig Minelli, the head of one of Switzerland’s infamous suicide clinics. Apparently, the healthy wife of a terminally ill, suicidal husband, wants to die alongside him via assisted suicide. From the story :

The founder of the Swiss assisted-suicide clinic Dignitas revealed plans today to help a healthy wife die alongside her terminally ill husband. Ludwig Minelli described suicide as a “marvelous opportunity” that should not be restricted to the terminally ill or people with severe disabilities . . . He said that he expected to go to the Swiss courts to seek a ruling in the controversial case of a Canadian couple who have asked to die together. “The husband is ill, his partner is not ill but she told us here in my living room that, ‘If my husband goes, I would go at the same time with him’,” he said.

It is worth mentioning here that Minelli’s group already won a ruling from the Swiss Supreme Court declaring a constitutional right to assisted suicide for the mentally ill.

Back to the story:

Mr. Minelli, a human rights lawyer, tells The Report on BBC Radio 4 tonight that the British had an “obsession” with the requirement to be terminally ill. “It is not a condition to have a terminal illness,” he said. “Terminal illness is a British obsession.

Actually, it is a political tactic, also employed here in the U.S., to get people accustomed to the idea of suicide as a human right.

Death on demand for anyone with a non-transitory desire to die is the inevitable outcome of assisted suicide advocacy given its ideological premises. So let’s—finally—have an honest debate about this issue. As Lincoln said about America being unable to remain half slave and half free because it would eventually become all one or the other; so too, assisted suicide.

Dear Reader,

Can I be direct with you?

War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.

First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.

But we can’t do it without readers like you.

Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.


Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.

Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.

GIVE NOW

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.

Next
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

The Church in the Age of Therapy

Matthew Loftus

In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…

Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot

Anna Farrow

On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…

The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen

Mike Aquilina

Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…