One of the great and terrible jokes about assisted suicide/euthanasia is the old platitude that “guidelines” will protect against abuse. They don’t, of course. They are not even there to effectively constrain assisted suicide. Rather, in my view, they primarily exist to allow people to believe that the killing is under control.
The Swiss National Ethics Advisory Commission has now pursued this strategy by publishing guidelines intended to regulate their legally permissive assisted suicide policy. (It is worth noting that unlike the Netherlands, doctors are not permitted to assist suicide in their professional capacity—which at least makes sense since killing is not a medical procedure.) Among the “guidelines” are:
1. Adults must have mental capacity, meaning, apparently, that they can understand the circumstances that gave rise to their suicidal ideation. “Adults in possession of their mental faculties are generally best able to bear witness to and judge their own situation. They can tell whether their suffering is intolerable.”
2. The desire for suicide must be based on “illness”, which “is to be understood in a broad sense,” for exampling including “suffering arising from a accident or a sever disability.” Note that this doesn’t mean terminal disease, demonstrating once again that assisted suicide/euthanasia is not about “last resort” actions to alleviate suffering in the imminently dying.
3. The desire to die is enduring and consistent and not based on impulse, in the opinion of the “person carrying out the assessment,” which apparently doesn’t even have to be mental health professional. Nor is there even a minimal requirement that the suicidal person be seen by a mental health professional and/or engage in suicide prevention therapy.
4. The desire for suicide has arisen in the absence of external pressure, as if the “assessor” will be able to tell. It is worth noting that a similar Oregon guideline did not protect Kate Cheney.
5. All other options have been considered. What can one say but, yadda, yadda, yadda.
6. Repeated personal contacts between the assistors and the suicidal patient. This is meant to stop suicide tourism. It won’t.
These guidelines don’t have the force of law, and even if they did, they would not be effectively enforced. Moreover, they seek to legitimize the concept of “rational suicide.” As such, they constitute the utter abandonment of suicidal people.
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.
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.
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
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
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…