German Identical Twins Die by Death on Demand

This article was published by National Review online on November 18, 2025.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

In 2020, the Federal Constitutional Court, Germany’s highest judicial body, conjured a fundamental right to commit suicide, to assist, and be assisted therein. The ruling called suicide a “self-determined death” — i.e., death on demand — regardless of the reason, and perhaps even, age of the person who wants to die, as the court ruled that the right to suicide “is guaranteed in all stages of a person’s existence.” Youth is a stage of a person’s existence. (Estonia’s highest court recently issued a similar ruling, while requiring competence.)

Now, famous German identical twins have committed joint assisted suicide — reported by the notorious assisted suicide pushers, People magazine — which oohed and aahed about the death of Brittany Maynard, publishing several cover stories on her doctor-prescribed death. From the story about the deceased twins:

Alice & Ellen Kessler

The Kessler twins — renowned German sisters who reached international stardom for their post-war entertainment in the 1950s and 1960s — ended their lives together.

On Monday, Nov. 17, Alice and Ellen Kessler died at age 89 in their home near Munich after choosing medical aid in dying, German newspaper Bild reports.

According to the outlet, the sisters “no longer wanted to live” and “they had chosen to end their lives together.” Police were reportedly notified after the process was completed.

Did you get that? They just didn’t want to live — so they accessed death on demand.

For many among us, suicide is no longer considered a tragedy but is viewed as an empowering act. This is precisely the darkness into which the euthanasia movement is taking us, some jurisdictions faster, some slower. We should be debating whether becoming dead should be deemed a fundamental right, not the expedient nonsense we too often hear that it’s all about terminal illness (it isn’t) and that strict guidelines protect against abuse (they don’t).

Assisted suicide activist appears to have died by suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Florian Willet with Philip Nitschke

Florian Willet, who was the co-chair of the last-resort suicide organization, reportedly died by suicide last month in Cologne Germany “with the help of a specialised organisation”.

The suicide death of Willet is tragic, but I recognize that Willet was not terminally ill or physically suffering, but rather it was stated that: “Florian’s spirit was broken.” after serving 70 days in jail after being arrested in the "suicide pod" death of a 64-year-old unnamed American woman.

On September 24, 2024 I published an article stating that the Swiss police had made arrests related to the Sarco suicide pod. Willet was one of the participants who was arrested and held in jail in the Sarco suicide pod death, while Swiss police investigated.

The Sarco suicide pod kills a person by releasing nitrogen gas into the pod causing the person to die of asphyxiation. On September 29, 2024 I published an article explaining why the Sarco suicide pod method constitutes torture.

Miriam Kuepper and Elena Salvoni reported for the Daily Mail, on October 28, 2024 that strangulation marks were found on the 64-year-old American woman who died in the Sarco death pod. 

The investigation related to the strangulation marks ended when the strangulation marks were attributed to the jerking of the victims muscles and her arms while she was dying of asphyxiation.

An article by Adam Sage that was published by the Times on June 3, 2025 stated that:

A euthanasia activist who was arrested for providing a suicide pod in which a woman took her own life in Switzerland last year has died after developing a psychotic disorder.

Florian Willet, 47, is thought to have taken his own life. He was a “broken” man after spending 70 days in custody in connection with the death of an American woman in a specially-designed capsule in a Swiss forest, according to The Last Resort, the right-to-die association he jointly chaired.

Sage further explained that:

Swiss prosecutors initially suspected Willet of murder after discovering strangulation marks on the neck of the first user of the capsule — a 64-year-old American suffering from skull base osteomyelitis. He was the only person beside the pod when she died.

Although he was released from detention in December when prosecutors discounted the murder allegation, the investigation has continued into claims that he and other people close to The Last Resort incited the pod user to take their own life.

The Last resort assisted suicide group claimed that Willet was a victim. Sage wrote:

The Last Resort sought to depict Willet as a victim of Swiss justice. A statement from the organisation said: “He knew that he did nothing illegal or wrong, but his belief in the rule of law in Switzerland was in tatters. In the final months of his life, Dr Florian Willet shouldered more than any man should. Florian has now paid the ultimate price — his life — for his compassion.”

Willet's death is tragic but he was not a victim and certainly not a hero. His death underlines the goals of the assisted suicide lobby. He died with the assistance of a "specialised organization" even though he was not terminally ill and was experiencing a treatable condition. The goal of Philip Nitschke and the assisted suicide lobby, as stated by Wesley Smith is:

Death on demand, for any reason, at any time, by anyone — with the possible exception of children — and assisted by whomever for any reason. This is the ultimate destination of the euthanasia movement, whether by design or simple logical consequence.

The Sarco suicide pod was invented by Philip Nitschke, who had lost his medical license in Australia. A 64-year-old American woman died in the Sarco pod in connection to The Last Resort Swiss assisted suicide group that was led by Florian Willett, a former spokesperson for the euthanasia group Dignitas and Fiona Stewart, the wife of Philip Nitschke.

Estonia Supreme Court Declares a "right" to suicide.

This article was published by National Review online on May 6, 2025

By Wesley J Smith

Five years ago, the highest court in Germany declared that committing suicide is a fundamental right — for everybody and for any reason — and that being assisted or assisting others in the act are ancillary rights associated with that liberty. In other words, death on demand. Now the Supreme Court of Estonia appears to have followed the same course.

Here’s the context: A man who provided a suicide machine to those who wanted to kill themselves was acquitted of any culpability. He was charged, among other crimes, with providing health services without a license. But the Court ruled — quite logically and correctly — that helping someone commit suicide is not health care. From the ERR News story:

The Supreme Court noted that Tammert’s actions did not serve any of the legally required purposes of providing healthcare services. Current law does not recognize as treatment any activity that intentionally harms health. Therefore, causing death cannot be considered the provision of a healthcare service.

I wish our courts understood that assisted suicide — despite its being called euphemistically “medical aid in dying” — isn’t health care. It is simply suicide, or helping someone commit suicide.

If the Estonian court had left it at that, it would be one thing. But it ruled that committing suicide is a right, as is assisting and being assisted in doing so:

The Supreme Court further emphasized that every competent individual has the right to end their life voluntarily. Criminal liability for assisting in such an act can only arise if the person is unable to carry it out themselves or lacks full understanding of the significance of their actions.

The court called on the Estonian parliament to issue regulations to guide non-medical suicide facilitation. In other words, once again: death on demand.

At least these rulings candidly cut through the toxic smoke so often generated by assisted-suicide advocates who claim that the death agenda is about terminal illness or, indeed, physical illness or disability at all.

Here is the debate we should be having.

• Should suicide be a right?
• If people want to be dead, should they have a right to be assisted in terminating their lives?
• Are there any limits to personal autonomy?

Bottom line: The high court rulings in Estonia and Germany demonstrate that the real goal — or, at least, the destination — of assisted suicide advocacy is a right to death by any competent person for any cause and assisted by anyone.

So, let’s stop pretending that any of this is about medicine or health care. That conceit merely corrupts the medical profession.

And let’s face the fact that, to an increasing degree, the West is no longer an anti-suicide culture.

Assisted suicide, the non-medical model.

This article was published by National Review online on September 5, 2024

By Wesley J Smith

Certain strains of the euthanasia-advocacy movement believe doctors don’t need to be involved when someone wants to die. For example, the fanatics of Final Exit Network have taught people how to kill themselves, with a couple convicted of assisting via helium.

More infamously, Dr. Philip Nitschke of Australia, who has traveled the world teaching suicide courses, once told NRO’s Kathryn Jean Lopez that he thought “troubled teens” should have access to “suicide pills,” which, he opined, should be sold in supermarkets. He even conjured a suicide pod by which people can make themselves dead using nitrogen.

The idea of a nonmedical model for assisted suicide was just pushed again by bioethics professor Eric Mathison. From the assisted-suicide-boosting Thaddeus Mason Pope’s Medical Futility blog (an excellent resource on these issues, reported by Pope objectively):

Eric Mathison proposes a non-medical model of assisted dying.

The current, dominant model of MAID requires patients to get approval from healthcare providers before getting access to assisted suicide and euthanasia. This is problematic for a couple of reasons.

First, there’s a theoretical problem — namely, it’s paternalistic because it requires a healthcare professional to be convinced that the patient is suffering intolerably. And second, there’s a practical problem because there aren’t enough healthcare professionals who provide the service.

In response to these problems, Mathison believes that (1) the only requirement that a patient needs to meet is that they are making an autonomous choice, and (2) that non-medical personnel should be able to assist in their deaths.

That’s only logical. Killing/suicide isn’t a medical act. So why should it be restricted to doctors and nurse practitioners?

Some might think I’m being alarmist. Kooks propose all kinds of things. It will never actually happen!

Sorry, it’s already come to pass. Germany’s highest court declared a fundamental right to commit suicide, to be assisted in suicide by any willing accomplice, and to assist a suicide — without regard to why someone wants to die, meaning no health reasons required. From the decision (my emphasis):

The right to a self-determined death is not limited to situations defined by external causes like serious or incurable illnesses, nor does it only apply in certain stages of life or illness. Rather, this right is guaranteed in all stages of a person’s existence. . . . The individual’s decision to end their own life, based on how they personally define quality of life and a meaningful existence, eludes any evaluation on the basis of general values, religious dogmas, societal norms for dealing with life and death, or consideration of objective rationality. It is thus not incumbent upon the individual to further explain or justify their decision; rather their decision must, in principle, be respected by state and society as an act of self-determination.

The court wasn’t done. The right to suicide also includes a right to assist suicide:

The right to take one’s own life also encompasses the freedom to seek and, if offered, utilize assistance provided by third parties for this purpose. . . . Therefore, the constitutional guarantee of the right to suicide corresponds to equally far-reaching constitutional protection extended to the acts carried out by persons rendering suicide assistance.

Death on demand, for any reason, at any time, by anyone — with the possible exception of children — and assisted by whomever for any reason. This is the ultimate destination of the euthanasia movement, whether by design or simple logical consequence.

If we keep boosting the propriety of some suicides, we will eventually reap what we sow.

German Bundestag rejects assisted suicide bills

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Protesters at the German Bundestag

DW.com reported on July 6 that the German Bundestag rejected two proposals to legislate assisted suicide. According to the DW.com report:

Two groups of parliamentarians put forward proposals on the issue, which were subject to a free vote.

For one group, Katrin Helling-Plahr of the business-focused Free Democratic Party (FDP) said there were many people who wanted to decide to die when the right time for them had come, and that they should be able to do so without fear of legal repercussions.

Center-left Social Democrat (SPD) politician Lars Castellucci, speaking for the other group, said it was important to make assisted suicide possible without encouraging it.

He said anyone providing organized possibilities for suicide without adhering to a fixed concept of protecting the vulnerable should be liable for penalties.

Both proposals shared the aim of creating a legal framework for giving those wanting to commit suicide access to the lethal drugs they need. They would also allow assisted suicide only in the case of those who have reached legal maturity.

In addition, the two groups proposed increasing suicide prevention aid services, including with a nationwide hotline for those having suicidal thoughts and their relatives.

In February 2020, Germany's high court overturned the assisted suicide law by creating a "right to a self-determined death" 

Section 217 of the German criminal code which prohibits assisted suicide was changed by the February 2020 German Supreme Court decision recognizing a right to self-determined death, which included the freedom to take one’s own life.

Section 216 of the German criminal code which prohibits euthanasia "killing on request" was not changed by the German Supreme Court decision.

In February, 2022 a German court in Münster upheld a restriction to assisted suicide by deciding that people do not have the right to purchase lethal drugs for suicide.

DW.com explained the current situation:

The two initiatives arose from a landmark ruling of Germany's Consitutional Court in 2020 that overturned a ban on organized assisted suicide as being a violation of the right of any individual to die on her or his own terms.

That ruling means that assisting someone to die at their own wish is legal in Germany, but that there are currently no laws regulating how this can be done.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition believes that passing an assisted suicide bill will create a framework for approving assisted suicide. The court struck down the German law prohibiting assisted suicide in February 2020, but there have been very few assisted suicide deaths. Creating a legal framework will lead to more deaths by assisted suicide and the law will inevitably be challenged in the courts by groups wanting to expand it.

Previous article: German Bundestag may debate three assisted suicide bills (Link).

German Bundestag debate three assisted suicide bills

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

What the euthanasia bills are about, by David Sadler, was published by Globe Echo on June 13, 2023. This article, about the German assisted suicide debates, provides an outline for the three assisted suicide bills.

In February 2020, Germany's high court overturned the assisted suicide law by creating a "right to a self-determined death" In February, 2022 a German court in Münster upheld a restriction to assisted suicide by deciding that people do not have the right to purchase lethal drugs for suicide.

Section 217 of the German criminal code, which prohibits assisted suicide, was changed by the February 2020 German Supreme Court decision recognizing a right to self-determined death, which included the freedom to take one’s own life.

Section 216 of the German criminal code prohibits euthanasia "killing on request" and was not changed by the German Supreme Court decision.

Three assisted suicide proposals are being debated.

Sadler, reporting for the Globe Echo explains the following proposals:

First proposal

The draft law by the Castellucci group wants to regulate assisted suicide through criminal law and provides for a general ban on commercial, i.e. organized, euthanasia. Violations can be punished with a prison sentence of up to three years or a fine.

Commercial euthanasia should not be unlawful if certain counseling obligations and waiting times have been met. In concrete terms, those who wish to die should usually undergo at least two examinations by specialists in psychiatry or psychotherapy and at least one further consultation. In addition, a ban on advertising for suicide assistance is planned. According to reports from the editorial network Germany, this draft law was signed by 111 MPs.

Second proposal

The draft law by the group around FDP politician Helling-Plahr provides for the establishment of a network of state-approved counseling centers that are intended to inform those who are willing to die in an open-ended manner. The central point is an amendment to the Narcotics Act. Doctors should be allowed to prescribe medication for suicide no earlier than ten days after the consultation.

It should also be stipulated that third parties have the right to provide assistance to people who commit suicide and to accompany them until death occurs. In addition, no one should be prohibited from providing this assistance or support on the basis of his or her professional affiliation. This draft has apparently had 69 supporters so far.

Third proposal

The group around the Green politician Renate Künast has proposed a “law to protect the right to self-determined dying”. A distinction is made between those who are willing to die in a medical emergency and those who are not in a medical emergency.

In the first case, doctors should be responsible for both the prescription and the advice. In the case of those who wish to die who are not in a medical emergency, those affected should submit an application to an office to be determined by the respective state. Another prerequisite is, among other things, two consultations in a state-approved consultation center.

The draft also provides for regulations for the work of aid providers, for example for the delivery of deadly drugs. A license is required for service providers. In addition, anyone who provides incorrect or incomplete information in order to obtain a certificate for dispensing the narcotics for others or for misuse for criminal offenses is to be punished with imprisonment for up to five years. Among other things, “grossly offensive” advertising should be punishable as an administrative offence. Apparently 45 supporters have signed this draft so far.

Eugen Brysch

Sadler reports that Eugen Brysch, Chairperson of the Patient Protection Foundatio, is concerned that Germany already has 10,000 suicide deaths per year which would be added to by "organized suicides." Brysch believes that psychotherapy and end-of-life care is lacking, and suicide prevention is far too often neglected in Germany.

The German Society for Human Dying, a euthanasia group, wants a permissive option for assisted suicide and they don't support mandatory counselling.

Germany needs to examine what has happened in Canada and not follow Canada's lead. Canada legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2016. In a few short years, the "safeguards" have been essentially removed, and the reasons for killing people have exponentially expanded, to now include  euthanasia for mental illness.

German Bundestag debates assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The German Bundestag

The German Bundestag is debating three draft laws to regulate assisted suicide.

In February 2020, Germany's high court legalized assisted suicide by creating a "right to a self-determined death" In February, 2022 a German court in Münster upheld a restriction to assisted suicide when it decided that people do not have the right to purchase lethal drugs for suicide.

Section 217 of the German criminal code which prohibited assisted suicide was changed by the February 2020 German Supreme Court decision which recognized a right to self-determined death, which included the freedom to take one’s own life.

Section 216 of the German criminal code which prohibits euthanasia "killing on request" was not changed by the German Supreme Court decision.

A recent report explains that the first proposal, being debated by the Bundestag, would regulate assisted suicide by requiring, among other things, mandatory counseling, it would prohibit the commercial promotion of assisted suicide and it would expand suicide prevention programs. The second proposal would regulate assisted suicide but it would only require, among other things, mandatory counseling.

The first and second proposals make distinctions between medical emergencies and non-medical emergencies and require assessments of the person's health condition.

The third proposal, which is supported by Left-wing politician Petra Sitte does not require a medical assessment. It is described as "open-ended" and only requires the person to have an “autonomously formed, free will”.

Petra Sitte, who opposes restrictions on assisted suicide reportedly stated:

However, this must absolutely be open-ended in order to guarantee this right of self-determination without restriction. Access conditions like illness or even building up expert hurdles is wrong.

The German Foundation for Patient Protection which opposes assisted suicide stated that the legislation must ensure that a person is not influenced or pressured to die. They also stated that the legislation must not allow a blurred line between euthanasia (active injection) and assisted suicide.

Germany needs to examine what has happened in Canada and not follow Canada's lead. Canada legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2016 and in a few short years the "safeguards" have been essentially removed and the reasons for killing people has exponentially expanded to include euthanasia for mental illness alone.

German court decides that people do not have the right to purchase suicide drugs.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In February 2020, Germany's highest court created a "right to a self-determined death" and therefore legalized assisted suicide. 

On February 2, 2022 a German court in Münster upheld a restriction to assisted suicide by deciding that people do not have the right to purchase lethal drugs for suicide. According to the DW news story:

The decision was the result of a case in which three chronically ill people requested special permission from the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM) to be allowed to buy the drugs needed to die by suicide.

The regional higher administrative court said the institute was not "obliged to allow seriously ill people who have decided to commit suicide the purchase" of lethal drugs for this purpose.

The court acknowledged that people could die by suicide with the assistance of a doctor or they could receive treatment for their symptoms, but the court upheld the law which prohibits people from purchasing controlled substances.

The Eugen Brysch, the leader of the German Foundation for the Protection of Patients, which opposes assisted suicide, stated:

"It is good that lawmakers cannot be forced to soften the clear prohibition of the provision of lethal agents,"

I am concerned that this decision will be appealed to Germany's highest court. Nonetheless this judge correctly decided that only a democratically elected government could change the law. Too bad Germany's highest court didn't follow that rationale 2 years ago.

Germany: You Must Be Fully Vaxxed before dying by Assisted Suicide

This article was published by National Review online on November 28, 2021.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

The ironies of assisted suicide never end. Germany allows suicide on demand — including assistance — as a fundamental constitutional right. But now, you must be vaccinated against COVID before a euthanasia group will help you kill yourself. From the Spectator story:

As European countries battle to limit the spread of the virus, Verein Sterbehilfe – the German Euthanasia Association – has issued a new directive, declaring it will now only help those who have been vaccinated or recovered from the disease. In a statement, the association said:

“Euthanasia and the preparatory examination of the voluntary responsibility of our members willing to die require human closeness. Human closeness, however, is a prerequisite and breeding ground for coronavirus transmission. As of today, the 2G rule applies in our association, supplemented by situation-related measures, such as quick tests before encounters in closed rooms.”

‘Close encounters in closed rooms’ – what a fabulous German euphemism for assisted suicide.

Sometimes words even escape me!

What is the "good" of euthanasia, Part III: A true system of choice

Gordon Friesen

By Gordon Friesen, EPC Board Member.

Necessary comparisons 

I have stated, on many occasions, that I am categorically opposed to euthanasia and assisted suicide and I will continue to struggle, on the most fundamental level, for a complete prohibition thereof. However, this article is based on being faced with the necessity of choosing some rational framework, to accommodate assisted death as a fait accompli.

Some time around 2013, approximately two years after I first decided that my various writings in opposition to medically assisted death should be organized into an actual book (still incomplete to this day), I attended a public meeting, in Montreal, of the Physician's Alliance Against Euthanasia. Many very valuable things were said about the dangers of what was then mainly feared as "physician assisted suicide". In the post-presentation question period, I had the opportunity of advancing an unconditional right-to-die position according to which any rational person should be allowed to choose the time, and the manner, of their own death, with no medical criteria and in fact: with no criteria of any kind, other than a true ability to choose.

I didn't take this position because I wished to see assisted suicide legalized in Canada. Quite the contrary. However, I had become convinced that the principle of choice would inevitably prevail (as it subsequently has done), and that frankly embracing choice is the only possible way of preventing that much, much worse alternative, which consists of inaugurating a scheme of euthanasia, normalized as benign medical care (such as that which we see in Canada today).

I realize, of course, that this is counter to all intuition; and that most readers would naturally assume that assisted death, restricted by medical criteria, must still be preferable to a full-on right-to-die. And yet most sincerely, after multiple decades of considering these questions, I would wish to argue that this is not logically the case; or at least, I would wish to invite the reader to undertake a comparison of relative harms in each case (right-to-die, versus medical euthanasia), according to a very simple standard ("What is the worst that can happen ?"), applied fairly to each.

A summary quantitative analysis

Unfortunately, from the moment we accept any form of assisted death, people are going to die. That is the inescapable fact. Therefore, In order to choose our poison (that is: to choose any form of assisted death), we must mainly consider the effects of those deaths on the rest of society.

The first and simplest measure, of social impact, would be quantitative: for more deaths must produce more effect. And on this score, we see that the very permissive Swiss system, of largely choice-based assisted suicide, produces only about half as many deaths as the heavily medicalized euthanasia system of neighbouring Netherlands; and also, the number of physician assisted suicides in the relevant American States, is truly trivial in comparison with the volume of euthanasia, per capita, as already performed in Canada, only five years after legalization (2016).

And yet there is a deeper measure of harm involving the damage wreaked upon the moral compass of individuals, and indeed, upon the moral fabric of society. And it is upon these injuries that I would wish to insist in what follows.

The German example : Moral implications of a free choice of death

On February 26, 2020, the German Federal Constitutional Court struck down a recently passed law which had been intended to prevent private organizations from offering assisted suicide as a quasi-commercial service. The logic was simple : people have a (constitutional) right to commit suicide and to seek aid in so doing; but to stop the operation of organizations offering such assistance, would be to effectively nullify that right; and therefore, such organized (and presumably even commercial) activity must be allowed.

As far as the underlying moral case is concerned, it is simply recognized, in this ruling, that different moral opinions exist in a pluralist society; that it is not the role of the High Court (of a constitutional state) to make judgments of a moral nature; that such a role must be limited to ensuring the constitutionality of legislation.

Simply stated then: despite enabling assisted suicide, the German State will not affirm that assisted suicide is "good" (either in general, or in any particular case). And above all: there is no suggestion, explicit or implied, that the German government, German society, individual German citizens, or any professional group, in Germany, have the slightest obligation to provide assisted death.

Free assisted death, and protection of the sick and disabled

In keeping with this general approach there are a number of especially significant elements in the actual judgment, and in particular the following (quoted from the official translation):

"The right to a self-determined death is not limited to situations defined by external causes like serious or incurable illnesses, nor does it only apply in certain stages of life or illness. Rather, this right is guaranteed in all stages of a person’s existence. Restricting the scope of protection to specific causes or motives would essentially amount to a substantive evaluation, and thereby predetermination, of the motives of the person seeking to end their own life, which is alien to the Basic Law’s notion of freedom."

In other words, Germany does not opine on the value of motives. There is no limit on the personal freedom to die, medical or otherwise. And this, paradoxically, is precisely what protects others, in such a system, from "death by association". For to state that a person "should" be allowed to die in situation "A" (but not situation "B"), is the same thing as saying that it is "right" for "A" to die. And thus, to affirm, for instance, that only a person with a grave medical condition "should" be allowed to die, is functionally the same as saying that it is "good" for such a person to die (in a way it is not for others); which, to be sure, is only a hairsbreadth away from simply stating that such a person "should", in fact, die. The German model, however, avoids these grossly discriminatory implications entirely; and thus avoids placing a significant moral pressure towards precocious death (backed by the full authority of the State) upon particular vulnerable groups, which is to say: upon the ill and disabled.

Freely assisted death and the medical profession

To judge the independent and pluralist nature of medical ethics in Germany (and the freedom of individual doctors to practice as they wish) we note that in spite of the assumed constitutional right to die, the following were actually given as reasons for why independent suicide services are indeed necessary:

"Without (assisted suicide services) the individual is reliant on physicians ... at least in prescribing substances. ... willingness of a physician can only be expected in exceptional cases. ... physicians have shown little willingness ... and cannot be obligated... The prohibition of suicide assistance from physicians... has been incorporated into the professional codes of most State Chambers of Physicians,... (and this) guides the actions of physicians in practice even where the relevant codes are not considered legally binding."

Quite clearly, also, there is no expectation that any of this will (or should) change. For under this paradigm of mutual freedom, it is simply assumed that the protection of assisted suicide services in no way places any obligation, or demand, upon individual doctors, upon doctors' regulating bodies, or upon the medical profession as a whole.

Assisted suicide and the State

Because the German State has declined to recognize any moral validity to the constitutionally protected right to die, that State retains its own right (and assumed obligation) to do the following:

"taking measures of general suicide prevention. ... establishing that the individual’s resolution to commit suicide is sincere and final ... expanding and strengthening palliative care ... counter dangers arising from current and foreseeable living conditions capable of influencing the individual to choose suicide ... preventing assisted suicide becoming recognized as a normal way of ending life... counteract developments that create social expectations pressuring individuals to take their own life, e.g. based on considerations of usefulness."

The very last sentence, of this historic judgement protecting the operation of independent assisted suicide organizations in Germany, is the following detached statement:

Regardless (editor's italics), there can never be an obligation, on anyone, to assist in another person’s suicide.

Standing as a paragraph all of its own, this statement apparently means "regardless" of any consideration whatsoever, and the term "anyone", would logically include individuals, professions, and the State itself.

In conclusion

The measure of the value of any moral system lies in its internal coherence. The coherent implications of a free right to die (including the right to seek assistance in dying) lead logically to a position such as that of the German Federal Constitutional Court described above: with no explicit discrimination against the ill and disabled; no obligation of the medical profession; no moral association of the state; and thus, providing an optimal environment for positive regulation, and for the development of countervailing measures.

I have stated, on many occasions, that I am categorically opposed to assisted suicide and I will continue to struggle, on the most fundamental level, for a complete prohibition thereof. However, faced with the necessity of choosing some rational framework, to accommodate assisted death as a fait accompli, I find the non-medical right-to-die interpretation comparatively appealing. In a future continuation of this text, I hope to analyze, also, the rational implications (and practical results) of the medical euthanasia system, as adopted in Canada. I will then invite the reader to look, dispassionately, at the respective advantages of these two models, when laid side by side.

One might suggest, of course, that we Canadians no longer have the leisure of choosing between these paradigms. For, as a practical matter, we are already saddled with both. However, I would argue that this actually makes it all the more important to clearly distinguish between the two, in the hopes of preventing the worst properties, of one, from enabling (and enhancing) those of the other.

Gordon Friesen, Montreal, September 20, 2021

http://www.euthanasiediscussion.net/ (français)
http://euthanasiadiscussion.com/ (english site in development)
http://hopeandfree.com/ (personal philosophical musings)

Biden’s Suicide Prevention Day Proclamation Fails to Repudiate Assisted Suicide

This article was published by National Review online on September 10, 2021

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith 

Yesterday was World Suicide Prevention Day. You didn’t hear about it? If so, that’s pretty typical, which is why I call this annual event, “Invisible Suicide Prevention Day.”

Once again, the obligatory official proclamations didn’t mention that suicide is now promoted widely in the media, popular culture, and by political activists seeking to legalize so-called “death with dignity” or “aid in dying.”

These euphemisms seek to convince people that committing suicide because of serious illness or disability, is not really suicide. But that’s a sophistic advocacy trope. Suicide is the act of self-killing. The reason for killing oneself has nothing to do with the nature of what was done. In other words, suicide is suicide is suicide.

A truly effective suicide prevention strategy must seek to prevent all suicides, which would require repudiating the pro-some-suicides messaging of the assisted suicide/euthanasia movement. Instead, prevention proclamations ignore the issue — perhaps for fear of being controversial — which undercuts most prevention efforts’ general effectiveness.

Joe Biden’s proclamation is no exception. First, it points out the extent of the suicide crisis. From "A Proclamation on World Suicide Prevention Day 2021":

In 2019, suicide was the 10th leading cause of death in the United States, and the second leading cause of death for young people between the ages of 10 and 34. And that was before the COVID-19 pandemic compounded, for many, feelings of isolation, exhaustion, and economic and public health-related anxieties. Increased rates of depression have sparked concern that we will see a further increase in suicide rates.

And note, since the laws legalizing assisted suicide dishonestly redefine those deaths as not being suicides, the actual number of suicide deaths in the U.S. is hundreds higher than the official national count.

The proclamation barely mentions serious illness as a suicide cause:

My Administration is committed to treating suicide as the public health problem it is and helping to address the underlying risk factors for suicide. . . . While there is no one cause of suicide, we know there are many factors that increase a person’s risk for suicide, including the loss of a job; serious illness; and financial, criminal, legal, and relationship problems.

And of course the official pabulum makes no mention that laws allowing facilitated suicide impede the effective prevention of those suicides and insidiously sends a wider nihilistic message that self-killing as an acceptable answer to suffering.

We already know where this ideology ultimately leads. Germany’s highest constitutional court declared a fundamental right to commit suicide, have help in so doing, and to assist in suicide if requested — without regard to the whys or reasons. Just wanting to die is all that matters.

That’s death on demand folks, which makes effective suicide prevention a truly Sisyphean endeavor. If we truly want to prevent suicide, we must reject the suicide-promotion movement, because that’s what euthanasia advocacy really is. Until we do, prevention proclamations are just so much window dressing.

German Medical Association changes their position on assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The German Medical Association have changed their charter by removing the statement: “A doctor may not provide any assistance for suicide.”

People may think that this is a normal reaction after Germany's high court decision, last February, that struck down the nations law prohibiting assisted suicide and stated in their court decision that people had the "right to a self-determined death"

In October 2019, the World Medical Association re-affirmed its position that euthanasia and assisted suicide are unethical acts. 

Just because the high court has ordered assisted suicide to be legalized does not make it ethical for doctors to participate.

According to an article by Derek Scally published on May 6 in the Irish Times:

The federation said it accepted its members’ “individual questions of conscience and no longer want to pursue this as breach of professional obligations”

German Doctors’ Federation president Klaus Reinhardt insisted that, even after the vote, assisted suicide would not become a standard service for his members – a position reflected in a second motion accepted by members.

According to Scally the German Patient Protection foundation  stated:

“It is no wonder that the support for death on demand is rising in a time of pandemic with suffering, loneliness and doubt,”

The German Bundestag next month will debate two assisted suicide legalization bills.

Austrian Court Creates Right to Assisted Suicide

This article was published by National Review online on December 14, 2020

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

A bit ago, Germany’s high court created an absolute right to commit suicide and the concomitant right to have help in making oneself dead.

Now, an Austrian court has said that committing suicide is a right of “self determination” and that obtaining help is part of that right. From the Tribune story:

The court said that the right to self-determination includes the right to a “dignified death,” and also the right of a person who has decided of their own free will to kill himself or herself to get help in doing so from another person.

But it remains unclear what exactly will be allowed in Austria starting in 2022.

I don’t think this was the highest court, so there may be an appeal.

Also, notice the court ruled that the state can attempt to ensure no undo influence.

The court said legislators will have to take measures to prevent abuse and ensure that “the person affected does not take the decision to kill themselves under the influence of third parties.”

Yeah. Right. Good luck with that. Guidelines do not protect against abuse.

More as I know more.

Germany’s Highest Court Creates Right to ‘Self-Determined Death’

This article was published by National Review online on February 26, 2020

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

The logic of euthanasia/assisted suicide has always pointed towards a right to death-on-demand. Assisted-suicide activists deny it for reasons of expediency. But the logic is irrefutable. If there is a “right to die,” how can it be limited to restricting categories?

Well, the Federal Constitutional Court, Germany’s highest judicial body, has gone there and without equivocation. In overturning a legal ban on “professional assisted suicide,” i.e., by doctors, the court ruled that there is virtually an unlimited right “to a self-determined death” — and to also receive help from others in achieving that end. From the AFP story (my emphasis):

Federal Constitutional Court

Judge Andreas Vosskuhle at the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe said the right to a self-determined death included “the freedom to take one’s life and seek help doing so”. 

The court also surprised observers by explicitly stating that the right to assisted suicide services should not be limited to the seriously or incurably ill. 

The freedom to choose one’s death “is guaranteed in all stages of a person’s existence”, the verdict read.

This right to receive help dying wouldn’t be limited do doctor-assisted suicide, by the way. An earlier ruling legalized assisted suicide for reasons that did not include a financial consideration.

In what seems more of an afterthought than a principled concern, the court said brakes could be tapped to delay a planned suicide, such as waiting periods. But ultimately, if somebody wants to commit suicide, the right to do so is apparently absolute based on the German constitution’s guarantee of the right to personal freedom and dignity:

Judge Vosskuhle acknowledged that the ruling would not please everyone but said the decision of those wishing to end their lives had to be respected. “We may regret their decision and try everything we can do change their minds but ultimately we must accept their freedom to choose,” he said.

It cannot be denied any longer. The long-predicted (here’s a 2007 warning from me) lethal logical end of accepting the values that underlie the assisted suicide/euthanasia movement — death for virtually anyone who wants to die for any reason — has officially been reached. This would seem to include at least mature children, since childhood is a stage of a person’s existence. Right?

So no more telling us that assisted suicide is only for the terminally ill! No more telling us that rigid guidelines will protect against abuse! Basta! Germany is now officially a suicide culture. If we keep hearkening to the siren song of death emanating from assisted/suicide euthanasia advocates here, sooner or later, we will be too.

Somewhere, Jack Kevorkian is smiling.