The new invention for suicide through the Sarco capsule breaks the dam to protect life.
Canada's euthanasia program is now being followed by what critics have long feared: The rapid increase for "death on demand".
Switzerland, which has long been known for its liberal regulations on assisted suicide, now has to contend
with another new business model of self-chosen death.
The legal conformity of the controversial "Sarco-Pod" suicide capsule is currently the subject
of heated debate in the canton of Schaffhausen.
The Sarco capsule, a coffin-shaped, fully automated gas capsule produced using a 3D
printer, is designed to enable self-determined death.
After taking part in an online survey to determine your free will, you receive a code for
access and can climb into the killing capsule.
Inside you will find a lever that you simply flip. After about 30 seconds you will lose consciousness.
On September 23, 2024, the first fatal use of the capsule occurred in a forest in the canton of Schaffhausen.
A 64-year-old American woman died as a result. The woman had deliberately traveled to Switzerland for this purpose.
Philip Nitschke, the inventor of the capsule and president of the company "Exit International", watched the
woman's death via live video transmission from the Netherlands.
The Schaffhausen police then arrested all the people present at the scene - for incitement and aiding and abetting suicide.
Nitschke was also arrested and his computers and a Sarco prototype were confiscated.
Nitschke is in custody until 8.10.2024. 371 other people are still on the waiting list to die in the capsule.
The authorities still need more clarification. One thing is certain: politicians are trying
to clarify the legal framework for Sarco deaths.
The discussion is in full swing, and you can hear various, sometimes very moving reasons and
stories for using the capsule from all sides.
"Self-determination" is a big buzzword here.
But let's listen to the example of Canada's Maid program : It has long since ceased to be "just" about euthanasia for adults.
Even children without a minimum age limit are allowed to use a "self-chosen", "self-determined" end to their lives.
Babies are to be aborted with "postnatal killing". And which moral authority decides where the line is drawn?
If Swiss politicians are unable to put a stop to things like facilitated suicide, all that remains is to
watch the dam break and we here in our European neighborhood legally sacrifice children again.
But listen to the following program to find out how far Canada is already leading the way.
[Are you poor, depressed, disabled or otherwise socially unacceptable? Then choose a beautiful death instead!
[Anyone who hears a statement like that thinks they've heard wrong!
However, this or something similar could soon be the slogan of the Canadian government's
euthanasia program - Medical Assistance in Dying.
Plans have been expanded in the Canadian euthanasia industry to specifically assist suicide.
This state-sanctioned and organized suicide, which has existed for several years, is taking on ever more abstruse forms.
It cannot be denied that there is a certain similarity here to the science fiction film "Soylent Green", in
which people are happy to die for the common good instead of being inconvenient ballast.
Canada has decided to define suicide by lethal injection as health care.
Not only are there calls for this option to be made available to children as young as 12. Now two philosophers from
the University of Toronto are even arguing that the euthanasia of the poor should be socially acceptable.
Kayla Wiebe, PhD candidate in philosophy, and bioethicist Amy Mullin, professor of
philosophy, write in the Journal of Medical Ethics:
"It is unacceptable that people who are already suffering from unjust social conditions are
forced to wait for these conditions to improve.
The recommended solution should be recognized as a damage limitation approach and seen as a
"lesser evil" between two more or less ideal options."
In plain language, the two ladies say that there are only two options: a miserable life with no hope
of help or improvement, or a "beautiful suicide".
Although Wiebe and Mullin refer to this as a "worst case scenario", the strict implication is that
such disadvantaged people have the right to make their own decisions about their lives.
In her opinion, everyone should have the right to decide whether their life is worth
living, and this decision should be respected.
Although she said this solution was tragic, it would still be the best "approach to damage limitation".
This inevitably raises the question of for whom such inhumane solutions are most damaging.
The two ladies use frightening stories of Canadian citizens who have to resort to euthanasia due to a lack of social
assistance to support their "ethically acceptable" suicide.
Given the rapid development of Canada's assisted suicide regime and the Trudeau government's determination to expand it further,
proposals like this should be treated with deadly seriousness.
Instead of the political leadership doing all it can to remedy the situation and make the lives of such sufferers
more livable at all costs, "suicide" is not only favored here, but proposed as the most acceptable solution.
[Anyone who puts death before life for the citizens of his people is committing a crime.
And anyone who does not fight to protect the lives of their fellow human beings at all costs and help to
make them more liveable should not call themselves or act as a representative of the people.