Switzerland Wrongly Pushes Assisted Suicide for Mentally Ill Patients

LIfe News ^ | 02.19.07 | Wesley J. Smith, Esq.

[Coleus]

LifeNews.com Note: Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture. Visit his web blog at http://www.wesleyjsmith.com.

The Swiss Supreme Court recently ruled that people with mental illnesses can be legally assisted in suicide. The case came about when a member of Dignitas, an organization, which, for a fee, provides a safe house for—and assistance with—suicide, brought a lawsuit seeking the right to die.   The man does not have cancer, AIDS or other physical illness, as that term is popularly understood. Rather, he is depressed from bipolar disease. But this did not prevent the court from giving its imprimatur to his assisted suicide.

According to the International Herald Tribune, the Swiss high court ruled, "It must be recognized that an incurable, permanent, serious mental disorder can cause similar suffering as a physical (disorder), making life appear unbearable to the patient in the long term."   No one should be surprised by the Swiss ruling.   The two weight-bearing ideological pillars of euthanasia/assisted suicide advocacy—a radical individualistic notion of "self ownership" and the deemed propriety of killing as an acceptable answer to the problem of human suffering—virtually compel this result. After all, many people suffer more intensely and for far longer than people who are dying. And, if "choice" is the be all and end all of personal freedom, then who can gainsay a suffering person's decision to die? Hence, rather than being a radical extension of assisted suicide ideology, the Swiss court decision is simply its logical outcome.

Indeed, the Swiss court is not the first to issue such a ruling. More than ten years ago, the Dutch Supreme Court reached a strikingly similar conclusion in a decision interpreting the parameters of the Netherlands' euthanasia program.  The case involved the 1991 assisted suicide of a depressed woman named Hilly Bosscher. After Bosscher's two sons died, she became obsessed about being buried between them. She approached the Dutch psychiatrist Boutdewijn Chabot, an assisted suicide advocate, seeking his help in killing herself.    Chabot met with her on four occasions, but did not attempt treatment. Instead, believing that she would never improve, he assisted Bosscher's suicide. The Dutch Supreme Court subsequently approved, finding, like the Swiss court after it, that the law cannot distinguish between suffering caused by physical illness and that caused by mental anguish.

These European cases are consistent with ongoing advocacy among some American mental health professionals for the recognition of what is called "rational suicide" or "permitted suicide." Under this view, if a patient is deemed by a psychiatrist or psychologist to suffer from a "hopeless illness," and if the patient has a sustained desire to die, the mental health professional is not duty-bound to engage in suicide prevention, and indeed, may even be permitted to facilitate a patient's demise.   This begs the question: What is a hopeless illness? The term has been defined broadly in mental health literature as "including but limited to people with:

Terminal illnesses, [maladies causing] severe physical and/or psychological pain, physically or mentally debilitating and/or deteriorating conditions, and circumstances where [the] quality of life [is] no longer acceptable to the individual."

We can thus see that rational suicide advocates seek to implement a policy of suicide permissiveness. After all, "severe physical or psychological pain" could include almost any sustained illness, injury, or emotional malady; from multiple sclerosis to chronic migraine headache, from clinical depression to schizophrenia, from rheumatoid arthritis to cancer. Indeed, hopeless illness could even be reasonably interpreted to apply to almost anyone with more than a transitory desire to die, since by definition, a suicidal person believes that his or her "life is no longer acceptable."  For political reasons, savvy euthanasia advocates, aided and abetted by the media, continue to pretend that "the right to die" is about last resort "escape valves" for the dying few (which would be wrong in any event). A few may even believe it. But the evidence demonstrates that the ideology of "death with dignity" leads inexorably to "death on demand."

[nmh]

How AWFUL!

There is no low for Satan.

[NY Attitude]

Pretty soon the standards will be lowered to include all types of aging disease.

[Anti-Bubba182]

I bet Switzerland sees some miracle cures.

[Zuben Elgenubi]

solyet green is next

[CholeraJoe]

Hmm. Asisted suicide for refractory depression? Cheaper than a vagus nerve stimulator.

[ex-Texan]

Why not? The Swiss also stole billions from families of holocaust victims and hid the truth for over fifty years. They also engaged in massive insurance fraud to deprive these same families of insurance money. The Swiss are experts at hiding things, especially bank accounts filled with stolen cash. God forbid they would act to save lives of the mentally ill. No surprise here. They are just acting like Nazis again. Time to move on.

[justche]

this is the problem with assisted suicide, it starts to become "mandatory" or institutionalized suicide.

Thought the whole idea behind "assisted" suicide was the person got to chose someone to help murder them, not for someone else to decide it's time for them to die.

[massgopguy]

How do you know you don't want to die? You're crazy, remember.

[massgopguy]

"Switzerland: Chocolate and Secrecy."

[-YYZ-]

"a radical individualistic notion of "self ownership" "

Is the concept of "self ownership" really so radically individualistic? If I don't own my body, who does? I would suggest that the opposite viewpoint, that my person belongs to "society", is the radical one. If society owns me, than they can just as easily decide I should be dead as they can insist that I stay alive.

[Incorrigible]

Could these people not be our answer to the suicide killers of our enemy?

(Yes, it's sarcasm)

[Valpal1]

And yet, everywhere on FR, there are posters who insist we must support RINO candidates who are pro-choice because they are fiscal conservatives, they can win, the social conservatives are wrecking the party, losing the election, spoilers, blah, blah, blah.

They will never understand that if life is not sacred, then their guns, wallets and property certainly aren't.

Conservatism begins with the protection of life, it is the foundation of western civilisation and the cornerstone of inalienable rights.

[Valpal1]

God, your creator owns you. That is the radical 3rd way that avoids both the tyranny of the individual and the tyranny of the collective.

[sockmonkey]

I would suggest that the opposite viewpoint, that my person belongs to "society", is the radical one.

Lifesite news is a Pro-life website. Their philosophy is a Christian one-the belief that life, from conception to a natural death is a gift from the Creator, aka God.

Since Mr. Smith's article is on their site, I assume he also shares a pro-life stance, even perhaps that their is some merit in suffering.

[gcruse]

" perhaps that their is some merit in suffering.'

You can always find merit in the other guy's suffering.

[jveritas]

Nazism is still well alive in Switzerland. These evil morons proud themselves of being "peaceful" and "neutral" but they are doing the evil that the Nazis did to Germany mentally ill patients i.e. " Extermination".

I expect many countries of Europe to follow the evil path of Switzerland.

[lazypadawan]

These people have never given up their love for eugenics. Only the victims have changed.

[tearlenb]

Euthanasia for the mentally ill? Perhaps I should send brochures to the Democratic Congress....