While Western societies are generally suicide-averse, Canada is moving in the other direction. There are accounts from the Great White North of the euthanasia law used as advocacy for, not horribly painful terminal illnesses, but even mental illnesses, like depression.

Now there is a suicide machine that will, apparently, allow a person to remove themselves from the mortal coil after answering three questions.

Dr Philip Nitschke, founder of the suicide advocacy group Exit International, originally introduced the device, which he calls the “Sarco machine”, in 2019. In an interview with SWI swissinfo.ch given in 2021, Nitschke said “It’s a 3-D printed capsule, activated from the inside by the person intending to die. The machine can be towed anywhere for the death”.

“The person will get into the capsule and lie down … They will be asked a number of questions and when they have answered, they may press the button inside the capsule activating the mechanism in their own time”.

Describing the actual manner of death, Nitschke said “The capsule is sitting on a piece of equipment that will flood the interior with nitrogen, rapidly reducing the oxygen level to 1 per cent from 21 per cent in about 30 seconds. The person will feel a little disoriented and may feel slightly euphoric before they lose consciousness. Death takes place through hypoxia and hypocapnia, oxygen and carbon dioxide deprivation, respectively”.

It's important to note that an Alabama death row inmate was recently put to death by nitrogen hypoxia, and the method has been subject to controversy before and after that event; it's not at all clear that a final exit with this technique will be as Dr. Nitschke describes. And as a practical matter, human euthanasia doesn't always work as advertised, the story explained:

While Nitschke suggests that death would take 5-10 minutes, physicians from countries that have already made assisted suicide and euthanasia legal tell a different story. Dr Brick Lantz, orthopaedic surgeon and state director of the American Academy of Medical Ethics, emphasized that it is not uncommon for an assisted suicide to go wrong.

“The failures are brutal when someone fails assisted suicide and the failures are not infrequent. In fact, there was one that woke up from a coma after multiple days. There was a nurse at the bedside of one who ended up putting a plastic bag over the patient to kill the patient because they weren’t dying”, he said.

Dr Lantz also pointed out that the safeguards in Oregon that are intended to protect the vulnerable do not work. “The safeguards in Oregon are not being followed. That includes the psychiatric referral, second opinion and the 6 month time estimate for death”, he said.

Setting aside, for a moment, the practical aspects of suicide, what about the ethical aspects? As should come as a surprise to no one, I have some questions.

1. In the case of assisted suicide, presumably the "assistance" comes from a physician, who oversees the procedure. The Hippocratic Oath, which as far as I know all physicians still take, reads in part: "Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free." How would a physician square the square peg of "abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm" with the round hole of providing aid to someone in taking their own life?
2. Are there legal issues involved? The suicide pod mentioned above is designed to be moved from place to place; what if it is moved to a place where human euthanasia is illegal? Suicide itself has been illegal in various societies at various times; until the late 20th century, in the United Kingdom, attempted suicide was a crime. If this pod, for instance, is transported and used to such a jurisdiction, who faces punishment? The physician who oversaw the suicide? Is he an accessory? The person who transported the pod? There could be some very sticky legal issues here.
3. What limits should be put on the procedures? There's an argument to be made for a person suffering from a painful terminal illness. Some years back, a dear friend of ours died of bone cancer, and his last few weeks were a constant, horrible agony, to the point where his death was a welcome release. But what about people who suffer from depression, or other mental issues, but who are healthy physically?
4. What about those who are unable to make this decision for themselves? The mentally disabled, someone in a coma? In that second case, it's not always a final state; some people do, unexpectedly, inexplicably, joyously, wake up and recover. And there's another sticking point: For these people, who decides? What if no family member holds a medical power of attorney? Should a doctor make this decision? A government bureaucrat? I would argue that nobody is qualified except, possibly, someone who has been authorized by power of attorney to make medical decisions for the patient in advance - and that power would have to specifically authorize that final step.
5. And finally, what are the chances of governments taking control of this process and applying it in a manner that is, to put a fine point on it, horrible? There is a troubling trend, even here in the United States, of government taking control of our physical beings - or that of our children.

See Related: Montana Government Kidnaps Child From Parents Who Reject 'Gender-Affirming Care'

Montana's Governor Defends Stealing a Teenager From Parents Over Not Conforming to Transgender Agenda

As a staunch minarchist, I'm generally in favor of people having autonomy over their selves, from their opinions to their bodies. But something like this - making suicide an easy out - seems a bridge too far. Suicide is, of course, always available to anyone who is really determined, and is as readily available as the nearest tall building or closed garage with a car inside. But having it not only allowed but encouraged by the government, seems like a very bad idea.

Death is the final pass to which we all come in time. We are all dying of life, although I have always said I intend to live until the end of time - and from my perspective, I will. But life is also precious, every day a gift, and it seems to me to be something we shouldn't be in a hurry to have over with.

This seems appropriate.