The Pulse
Featured Image
Philip Nitschke Wikimedia Commons
Wesley J. Smith

The West is quickly becoming a pro-suicide culture

Wesley J. Smith
By Wesley Smith

We are quickly becoming a pro-suicide culture–indeed to the point now that organizations like the Hemlock Society Compassion and Choices, bioethicists, and the mainstream media promote suicide by self-starvation as the new big thing in making oneself dead.

Philip Nitschke is one of the international rock stars of euthanasia advocacy. He is also its most candid. He believes that everyone owns their own body absolutely and thus have a right to suicide whenever they want and for whatever reason. Indeed, he told NRO’s Kathryn Lopez that suicide pills should even be made available to “troubled teens.”

I clashed with Nitschke in Australia when I traveled the country on an anti-euthanasia tour in 2001. First, I busted him for the above assertion. It created a media fire storm.

While there, I also made front page news by revealing that he was importing and distributing suicide bags. I am proud to say, my effort led to the passage of a law that forced Nitschke to move his suicide industry offshore. It was one of my most successful public advocacy campaigns. 

Now, Aussie medical authorities want him struck off as a doctor because of the suicide of a healthy but depressed man which he facilitated. What. Took. Them. So. Long?

As for troubled teens and other young people, a study showed that many used his favorite method of suicide–and Nitschke doesn’t care. From a column by anti-euthanasia campaigner Paul Russell:

It is this supposed right-to-die that is the false over-arching philosophy by which the death of a young person can be somehow ‘rationalised’ by Nitschke and Exit. In 2010, in response to a Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Report showing that two thirds of deaths in the preceding decade using the Exit drug-of-choice, Nembutal, were for people under the age of 50 with nearly one-third being younger than 40 and six being in their 20s,

Nitschke said: ”There will be some casualties … but this has to be balanced with the growing pool of older people who feel immense wellbeing from having access to this information.” Tell that to the families of the two men featured in the 7:30 Report! Suicide prevention should never accept the notion of acceptable casualties!

Nitschke just oozes compassion, doesn’t he?

But it isn’t just Nitschke. All suicide promoters know–or should know–that their work will lead to the suicides of some people who are not the prime targets of their advocacy. And they don’t care.

For example, Derek Humphry’s New York Times best selling how-to-commit-suicide book Final Exit–what does that tell you about our degrading culture!–has been found next to the dead bodies of troubled teens, and he could not care much less.

Compassion and Choices pushes self-starvation for people tired of life, not just the sick.

In Belgium elderly couples receive joint euthanasia and a psychiatric patient sexually exploited by her psychiatrist was killed by another psychiatrist. And the world shrugs its shoulders.

Most assisted suicide promoters know that there will be deadly consequences from their advocacy–I mean beyond the suicides they support, and it doesn’t matter. They want what they want and don’t care who gets hurt.

The rest of us should care, but increasingly, we don’t. Why? As I wrote above, we are quickly becoming a pro-suicide culture.

Reprinted with permission from the National Review Online.

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:

Share this article

Featured Image
Why would it matter how many abortions there were, if it were just another operation, akin to wisdom teeth removal or a tonsillectomy? The answer, of course, is: it's not just another operation. Shutterstock
Sarah Terzo

Pro-abortion writer: There should be more abortions

Sarah Terzo
By Sarah Terzo

(LiveActionNews) - How many times have you heard a pro-abortion person say that abortion should be rare? The oft-repeated words, notably spoken by pro-abortion president, Bill Clinton, are “safe, legal, and rare.”

Pro-abortion advocates often say this because it makes them look like moderates. But they are also acknowledging that they, like most people, feel uncomfortable about abortion. They may say that abortion should only be a last resort for women, but the policies they support, namely, abortion without any restrictions, actually encourage abortions to be more common.

One response to the “safe, legal, rare” mantra is to ask the pro-choicer why they feel abortion should be rare. They are tacitly admitting that they know abortion is a bad thing (or why should it be rare?), but why is it a bad thing?  If abortion is only the removal of some tissue or cells, why would it be a bad thing? It shouldn’t matter if there were 1,000, 4,000, 10,000, or 50,000 abortions a day.

Why would it matter if it were just another operation, akin to wisdom teeth removal or a tonsillectomy? In response to this question, the pro-abortion advocate may be forced to admit that abortion is a bad thing that should be rare because it kills babies.

Claiming that abortion should be rare allows pro-choicers to appeal to those who are ambivalent, or on the fence about abortion. Many pro-abortion writers, activists and politicians have clung to the “abortion should be rare” rhetoric.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

But not RH Reality Check’s Aimée Thorne-Thomsen. In a 2010 article that I recently stumbled across, Thorne–Thomsen describes how, instead of there being too many abortions, there are too few.

…if those 1.21 million abortions [performed every year] represent only the women who could access abortion financially, geographically or otherwise, then that number is too low. Yes, too low. If that’s the case, then what is an appropriate response? How do we best support women and their reproductive health? Do we dare admit that increasing the number of abortions might be not only good for women’s health, but also moral and just?…. We say we care about women and want them to have access to all the information, services and resources necessary to make the best decisions they can for themselves and their families. That is at the core of reproductive justice. Not reducing the number of abortions. Safe – yes. Legal– absolutely. Rare – not the point.

Emphasis in original.

Abortion should be “absolutely” legal and, instead of rare, perfectly common. Because apparently, more abortion is “moral” and “just.”

Just to give a reminder of what Thorne-Thomsen believes should be more common, let me share this description from former abortionist Dr. Patti Giebink. Describing an abortion late in the first trimester, at a time when many abortions still take place, Giebink explains how part of the baby is too big to go through the suction tube that connects to the jar which will hold the aborted remains:

And so you could also see that the hands and the feet are going to come through okay. But sometimes the head, which was also known as the calavarium, would not come out through the suction cannula, and I would have to use a forcep or a tool to grasp the head; to pull it out.

One has to wonder why Thorne-Thomsen thinks that this is “moral” and “just.”

Should there be more abortions? The answer is no.

Pro-life groups need to reach out to women who are in crisis and offer them life-affirming solutions. Women in a crisis pregnancy need hope, counseling, and ongoing help with their pregnancies. This is what the pro-life movement must continue to do for them. In contrast, the pro-abortion movement can only offer them a dead baby.

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews

Share this article

Featured Image
Alex Schadenberg Alex Schadenberg Follow Alex

UK nurse sentenced to life for killing two patients and poisoning 20 more

Alex Schadenberg Alex Schadenberg Follow Alex
By Alex Schadenberg
Tracey Arden, Derek Weaver and Grant Misell

A British nurse was sentenced to life in prison (35 years before parole) for killing 2 people and poisoning 20 others.

Victorino Chua, a nurse from Stepping Hill Hospital in Stockport UK, was convicted on Tuesday of killing Tracey Arden (44) and Derek Weaver (83) and poisoning 20 more people by intentionally putting lethal amounts of insulin into Saline bags to poison patients. Grant Misell, who was one of the 20 poisoned patients who survived was brain damaged from the insulin poisoning.

Investigators also learned that Chua was not a qualified nurse.

According to the Daily Telegraph Justice Oppenshaw stated in sentencing Chau that:

"It is a striking, sinister and truly wicked feature of the case, he did not personally administer contaminated products directly to most of these patients but having left saline bags contaminated with insulin he did not know which nurse would unwittingly collect them and still less to which patient the nurse would then unwittingly administer the poison."

"It is as if he left it to fate to decide who would be the victim."

The euthanasia lobby claims that legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide decreases the number of deaths without request by physicians. The facts do not back up their claim.

Cases where a doctor or a nurse intentionally cause the death of a patient is not uncommon.

A recent NEJM study on the practice of euthanasia in the Flanders region of Belgium found that 1.7% of all deaths (more than 1000 deaths) were hastened without explicit request in 2013.

The Lancet study analyzing the Netherlands euthanasia experience found that there were 310 hastened deaths without explicit consent in 2010 in the Netherlands.

Several cases have been reported in the media in the past such as the death of David Gray, in which the doctor received a nine month suspended sentence for negligence causing death.

Several medical professionals have intentionally killed patients, such as: Dr. Harold Shipman,Charles CullenDr Virginia Soares de SouzaAino Nykopp-Koski and Dr. Michael Swango.

It is not safe to give doctors, or others, the right in law to cause death of their patients.

Reprinted with permission from Alex Schadenberg's blog.

Share this article

Featured Image
Nancy Flanders

Watch: Mom, raped at 16, reunites 77 years later with the baby she gave up for adoption

Nancy Flanders
By Nancy Flanders

It was 1928 and 16-year-old Minka Disbrow was picnicking in the woods with a friend when three men approached. One of the men acted as the lookout. The other two men raped them.

A few months later, Disbrow, described as an innocent farm girl, discovered she was pregnant.

She gave birth to a baby girl, whom she named Betty Jane. And Disbrow made the tough decision to place her daughter up for adoption, saying: “It hurt. It hurt to give her up because you’d been with her for a whole month. But you knew it was the best for her and I had to go on. I had to go on.”

Disbrow continuously and faithfully wrote letters trying to find out about her daughter, but no news ever came. Finally, after 77 years, Disbrow prayed one more prayer to God to just let her see Betty Jane. She promised she wouldn’t interrupt her life or bother her, but said she just wanted to see her— to see what she looked like, and what her grandchildren and great grandchildren looked like.

It was around that time, in 2006, that a judge finally released the sealed adoption records and Betty Jane, now called Ruth, found her mother.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The two women were reunited and say that it’s as though they were never apart. Disbrow was able to meet not only her daughter, but her daughter’s family, as well – generations of people that wouldn’t exist without Disbrow’s brave decisions to choose life and give her daughter the best chance she could through adoption.

Cathy LaGrow, Disbrow’s granddaughter, has written a book about the reuniting of mother and child called “The Waiting. ” You can see a video about the reunion here.


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook