Switzerland Legalizes 3D-Printed Suicide Booths By:Blueapples Perhaps the only thing mankind has contemplated more than life itself is death. For as much as the social constructs of religion, law, and governance have encapsulated our attitudes about death, the superiority of natural law is impossible to curtail. Underlying philosophical positions skew a nation, people, or culture's outlook on the matter to the point that permeates into governance. Few better facets of dying convey this than suicide. In some nations suicide is viewed as an acceptable, if not honorable, way to die. Yet in most of the western world it is perceived as the gravest of sins. Balancing those interests through the rule of law is a delicate task which juxtaposes the state's interest in preserving life along with its respect for the autonomy of its citizens. The complexity of this moral argument is made particularly evident when examining the legality of assisted suicide. As governments of developed nations across the world have begun to confront this macabre issue, Switzerland's latest action on the matter illustrates the startling reality of the matter. The country's medical review board has authorized the use of a 3D-printed suicide pod as a method of legal assisted suicide. The Sarco Suicide Pod is a portable assisted suicide device made possible by 3D-printing. The device was invented by Philip Nitschke. With a surname bearing similarity to Friedrich Nietzsche, it should be no surprise that Nitschke has a strong philosophical position on the issue of assisted suicide. From the humanist position on dying with dignity to espousing the importance of personal autonomy in matters of life and death, he has advocated for the safe practice of assisted suicide through his public interest group Exit International. Nitschke is credited with performing the first doctor in the world to perform a legal lethal injection in 1996 following the passage of the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act by the government of Australia's Northern Territory in 1995. Once the law was repealed in 1997, Nitschke turned to advocacy by starting his foundation. Since the repeal of the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in Australia, other nations have legalized assisted suicide. In the United States, it's legal in 8 states (Maine, Vermont, New Jersey, Colorado, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon, and California) as well as Washington DC. In Montana, it is also legal for terminally ill patients to request lethal medication from a physician. In Switzerland, the legality of assisted suicide is made possible by Article 115 of the Swiss Penal Code which allows the act in instances where the motive of doing so is altruistic. This makes Swiss law on the matter much more ambiguous compared to other European nations where it is legal, namely Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. Unlike those countries, the statutory construction of Swiss law makes legal assisted suicide possible even without a physician. Switzerland's unique legal climate presents Nitschke with a unique opportunity given that he himself is not a physician. The inventor has expressly conveyed the importance of removing psychiatric review and other medical oversight in instances of individuals seeking assisted suicide. All Nitschke requires is that those who apply to use the suicide pod fill out a questionnaire which determines they are capable of consenting. From there, the portable device can be transported to a location of their choosing. Once immersed in the suicide pod, the person activates an AI process which gradually reduces the oxygen by flooding the interior with nitrogen. Once the process begins, all the person using the device has to do is lay down and die. As of its approval by the Swiss Medical Review Board, no Sarco Suicide Pod has gone into operation yet. The device is presently in development with just 3 prototypes to have been constructed thus far. No cost estimates for the device have even been calculated. Needless to say, there aren't any user reviews on the device available either. Though Switzerland's approval of this machine comes at a time where polling reflects a positive outlook on assisted suicide, that also intersects with a period of increased mental illness onset by restrictive government policies made under the pretense of protecting public health in the midst of a pandemic. This duality reflects that the changing attitude on assisted suicide by the government lacks the altruistic intent referred to under the Swiss penal code. Economic shuttering, rigid policies restricting the free association of individuals in public, and the mental strain of terror imposed by a medical technocracy demonstrate a callous disregard for human life and individual autonomy. While the Swiss have viewed legal suicide as a right under personal freedom, they have also recently upheld the use of vaccine passports which is a stark contradiction of law making done in the interest of protecting individual freedom, especially in consideration of medical care. Formative French sociologist Émile Durkheim is regarded as contributing one of the most compelling philosophical examinations of suicide through his aptly titled monograph Le Suicide. Durkheim's work was published in 1897 at a time where shifting views on suicide were happening within a much more conservative society. Influenced by his era, Durkheim's work takes a much more objective insight into suicide by cataloging it among four classifications: egostic, altruistic, anomic, and fatalistic. He also notes the varying suicide rates across different cultures and demographics. Le Suicide was innately expectant of criticism upon its release given the gravity of its subject matter. One of the foremost criticisms of his work was that Durkheim's view on individual autonomy was formed by the amalgamation of aggregate statistics from external factors. As such, given that individuals are choosing to commit suicide because of those external forces, there is reason to question how freely they are making the choice given the influence of the duress that they are under. This criticism provides a compelling argument seemingly absent from advocacy promoting assisted suicide in the most liberal conditions. It begs the question about whether or not a state that doesn't care whether you live or die is earnestly being altruistic in reshaping its laws on assisted suicide.