Here in my corner of the internet, I say that the news broke out on March 18 that Alain Delon would leave the world through euthanasia. It all started with the following headline from O Globo: “Alain Delon asks his son to arrange for his euthanasia: ‘It’s the most logical and natural thing to do’”. Was Alain Delon confined to a bed, with a tube, wanting to die and without the strength to blow his own brains out? None of that. In the article, we read that he started using a cane after having two strokes, and that, years ago, he declared that “getting old sucks”, because “you lose your face, you lose your eyesight. You get up and damn, your ankle hurts.” Well, ladies and gentlemen, old age itself is presented to us as a miserable condition to be cured by death. Let’s kill the old people, let’s free them from their misery.
In short, it wasn’t euthanasia at all: it was assisted suicide. As Luciano Trigo informs us, “Unlike euthanasia, in which the patient, usually in a terminal state of health, has his life shortened by doctors, with the authorization of the family, in assisted suicide it is the patient who injects himself with the lethal drug. . In this case, sodium pentobarbital, a potent barbiturate that depresses the central nervous system and causes death in a few minutes, painlessly.”
That suicide is confused with euthanasia is a sign of the times. And that libertarians and liberals consider this the highest level of individual freedom is a sign of the generalized imbecility among the literate. In the current state of affairs, suicide is not a crime. If a person tries to kill himself and fails, there is no law to punish him. Suicide is much older than that sodium pentobarbital; whoever wants to pose as a scholar, at least bear in mind the deaths of Socrates, Seneca, or, to be closer in time, Marat. So let’s make it very clear what the extra freedom the Swiss have: to help others kill themselves.
Inducing suicide is a crime
Inducing suicide itself is a crime in Brazil. Unlike in the days of Plutarch’s males, when the loss of war condemned men to slavery and women to rape, suicide today is often the result of mental illness. Throwing mud on an infected wound is a deliberate act that exacerbates a lethal physical illness. Likewise, incitement to suicide is a deliberate act that exacerbates a lethal mental illness.
Society has been more careful with this. Take as an example the journalistic practice of not reporting on suicides: this stems from the concern with the Werther Effect, that is, the fact that it has been well known since the 19th century that suicide is socially contagious. In this century, Goethe’s juvenile best seller was released The Sorrows of Young Werther , in which the protagonist kills himself. Fans of the book began to wear the same clothes as the young man and to have the same fate. It was Wertherfieber, or Werther Fever. Even so, in the glorious 21st century, Netflix launched a youth series 17 Reasons Why, romanticizing suicide of a troubled girl and showing her how to stick the razor. The result: an increase in teen suicides in the United States linked to the launch of the series. Netflix is not reported to have been punished.
Thus, there is relative disinformation about suicides, driven by the prevention of Wertherfieber. Saying that so-and-so killed himself like this in such a place arouses suicidal thoughts in those who are already predisposed and looking for a method, and then go there and imitate. It seems like a reasonable price to pay, if all the information is stored and made available to anyone who wants to look for it.
That is not what is happening. WHO and Brazil do not disclose suicide data for 2020. Normally, the WHO publishes data from the previous year – that is, it should have already been published 2021, but it didn’t 2013. We have no way of knowing whether the virus has killed more or less than the mental illnesses caused by the catastrophic policy of confinement.
So we are left with this: we censored the news of common suicides to prevent the Wertherfieber; authorities don’t release suicide statistics for who knows why. And cool journalism is committed to throwing confetti on suicide beyond progressive Alain Delon. It is now taught that it is a reasonable practice, and that life in old age is not worth living. I echo Luciano Trigo’s question: “why publicize this decision in the media and social networks?”. Lack of attention? Anyway, it was up to the media not to throw confetti.
And it’s not the first time they’ve done this. Things have changed in this pandemic. Actor Flávio Migliaccio’s suicide letter was reproduced by the media with seriousness, despite being an obvious depressed writing (he says, for example, having had “the impression that they were 85 years wasted… In a country like this.” You may not remember the name, but you certainly know the actor’s face. He had a very successful career and faced confinement alone in old age, under the terror of the news. Of course, it wasn’t 85 years thrown away. But anything goes because he spoke ill of the country, which is understood by a certain elite as synonymous with the president of the time ).
Although the correction came later, the fact is that Alain Delon chose the expression euthanasia. It is the same trickery that is done with the word “abortion” in “abortion at six months”. A typical advocate of the decriminalization of abortion defends it with embryos in mind. A typical advocate of euthanasia advocates it when the patient is so sick that he cannot take his own life. In the case of the girl who was raped at six months pregnant, the question raised even by pro-lifers was: why kill the fetus, if it is viable outside the mother’s body? Defending “abortion” of a formed fetus is not advocating abortion; is to defend infanticide. Infanticide is a practice that finds far fewer advocates than abortion (to find infanticide advocates, you have to go to Princeton to attend ethics classes. And I’m not kidding). Likewise, advocating “euthanasia” for people who are healthy enough to end their own lives is not advocating euthanasia, it is advocating assisted suicide or murder of people dissatisfied with their lives. This is a much more radical thesis than that of euthanasia.
Actually, Alain Delon’s “euthanasia” follows on from two more noteworthy cases. The first of these is that of Nancy/Nathan Verhelst, who requested euthanasia from the government of Belgium and succeeded, dying at 85 years in
. Verhelst was born female among several male siblings, was mistreated because of her gender, and tried to resolve her self-esteem issues by changing it. She took hormones, had surgery to cut off her breasts and create a fake penis. She felt terrible about the result, her body was irreparably damaged and asked for euthanasia due to her incurable psychological misery.
In 2019 , activist Noa Pothoven, just 17 years old, got a euthanasia substitute in the Netherlands. She claimed that, having been sexually abused as a child, she was also in incurable psychological misery. She campaigned for it with her mother’s support – and no one took custody of this madwoman. In the end, Holland let her die by sedated starvation, a practice considered different from euthanasia because it resides more in inaction (stopping food) than in action (giving poison).
Thus we learn that it is all right to kill victims of abuse, and it is quite likely that some future DSM will recommend euthanasia soon for those who feel bad about rape. Anyone who is not happy on death row will be considered an anti-science denialist, as a thousand papers will attest that so far the dissatisfaction rate of euthanized persons is nil.
Let’s see the lack of moral parameters in question. There are rape victims who kill themselves; there are others that turn around. Why say that one option is as good as another, instead of, as usual, considering that turning around is the goal? In the current state of affairs, the rape victim who wants to commit suicide is free to do so. It is we who are not free to help her commit suicide, nor to kill her, nor to incite her to commit suicide. Instead, our action is obliged to be guided by a comeback.
Alain Delon said that it is rational to have euthanasia at 91 years old. If we accept that this is rational, then Clint Eastwood being alive – and carrying out projects – at 85 years old is an irrationality. How long will the world guided by Science allow irrationalities?
And it is a macabre thing that the first such euthanasia is that of a detransitioned woman. At the time there was no term for it; today, in the rich world, there is a Detrans Awareness Day, or Detransitioned Awareness Day, which warns of the hasty way in which adolescents with mental problems are led to change their sex. Especially the female ones.
At least these girls were victimized in adolescence. In the United States, the struggle is to prevent gender ideology from being taught in preschool . Everything is done to take the children out of their parents’ custody and chemically castrate them. After the teens kill themselves, the deaths are attributed to structural transphobia – yet another reason to pull them out of transphobic families and inculcate gender ideology in society. Can you believe the good faith of these people? If the ethical parameters were the same as in the 19th century, the recognition of the social contagion of gender dysphoria would imply silence on the subject in the mainstream media, and this would be a matter for psychologists and doctors.
The drug demands of trans ideology have created a tremendous financial incentive for drugmakers. Thus, in the US, insurance is being forced to cover sex change; in Europe and Brazil, public health does too. From the carriage floor, we may well have the Minha Euthanasia, Minha Vida program, with public, free, high-quality, overpriced poison. TV will have a soap opera to fight prejudice against people who want to perform euthanasia. In children’s stories, a Non-binary Belle Asleeps prefers not to wake up to save the planet, reducing her carbon footprint, instead of subjecting herself to structural machismo and cisnormativity.
It is evident that something is very wrong in the West, and that progressivism is killing with impunity. It castrates teenagers, kills fetuses, incites obesity and now direct death. Even so, there will always be those who think that it is their role to think about the world only on the basis of abstract premises, without taking into account the facts that splatter before our noses. There’s no point in showing any of that. If the libertarian thinks assisted suicide is a logical consequence of his assumptions, nudging or changing them is out of the question. What matters is running to social networks and throwing confetti at Alain Delon along with the lacradores.
All based on a lot of science, a lot of progress. As if Wertherfieber were not a phenomenon known to science for a long time. And woe to anyone who tells them to have a flea behind their ear: these passive people think that every malicious person publishes a letter of bad intentions, and whoever picks up undeclared bad intentions is a conspiracyist.