Don't Call It Suicide: What Words To Use In Right To Die Debate

Someone who is terminally ill and wants to die faster does not 'commit suicide,' says this German palliative medicine physician. Words matter.

The term 'suicide' is offensive to those who seek medical aid for dying
The term "suicide" is offensive to those who seek medical aid for dying
Gian Domenico Borasio


The Federal Constitutional Court held hearings in April about complaints against paragraph 217 of the German Penal Code, introduced in 2015. This law created the new offense of "business promotion of suicide", which is supposed to only prevent the activities of assisted suicide groups, but effectively prevents any possibility of medically assisted suicide. The law is in sharp contrast with the wishes of the vast majority of the population and is regarded by many legal experts as out of touch and unconstitutional.

Behind the sober legal text hides a world view that has much to do with the language used in this debate, which is in part downright inhuman. This can best be illustrated by the widespread use of the term "suicide" in Germany, whose intellectual origin is shown in the following story from the not-so-distant year of 2006.

An Italian named Piergiorgio Welby suffered from muscular dystrophy for many years. He was paralyzed and dependent on mechanical ventilation to breathe. He repeatedly asked to be unplugged and allowed to die. Finally, when a doctor followed his request, the then president of the Italian Episcopal Conference, Cardinal Camillo Ruini, denied the deceased a church funeral.

Those who commit suicide are no longer denied the Catholic burial because they are held to have committed the sin of "suicide" in a state of mental derangement. But the Cardinal declared that Welby could not be allowed a religious burial in this "attenuating circumstance" because he had asked for years to stop the ventilator. It was only marginally noted that this was not a suicide but a withholding of treatment, which is completely legal in Italy and Germany.

Old words still haunt our heads and influence our thinking.

In German criminal law, the term "murder" is defined as "manslaughter with motives' — thus one of the most despicable acts ever. As we have seen, the term "suicide" comes from a time when suicide was considered a mortal sin and those who had committed it could not be buried in consecrated grounds. Even though the gaze of society has changed fundamentally (thank God), the old words still haunt our heads and influence our thinking.

We should never forget that what we are discussing here is human suffering in some of its most extreme forms. On the one hand, there are mentally ill people who see no other way out of their desperation than suicide. On the other hand, there are people who are facing long, painful, inevitable deaths because of a physical illness and seek medical help for suicide. Stigmatizing these suffering people with the term "suicide" should be forbidden out of respect. From today's perspective, the term "suicide" used in such cases is downright grotesquely discriminatory, hurtful and unfair. It should be banished from the language.

But the issue doesn't just lie with the word on its own. Many more terms used in connection with the discussion about assisted suicide reinforce, more or less subtly, the impression that this is a reprehensible and fundamentally punishable act. In the explanatory statement to paragraph 217 (in which, thankfully, the word "suicide" does not appear), there is a lot of talk about "organized suicide assistance." The word "assistance" in German criminal law refers exclusively to the support of criminal offenses. The word "organized" in this context immediately resonates with the word "crime."

Piergiorgio Welby was denied a church funeral because he asked his doctor to unplug him — Photo: Luca Coscioni

In addition, one commits suicide. You can commit many things, but above all: mistakes, sins or crimes. Which brings us back to the linguistic connotations of "suicide."

Incidentally, the notion of "suicide" often used by suicide support advocates is problematic for another reason: here, there is a heroization of this act, behind which in turn hides a certain ideological position. We should, therefore, stick to the neutral term "self-death." As I said, the words we use shape our thinking.

Finally, a somewhat provocative thought in relation to the debate on suicide assistance. The word "suicide" goes back to the Latin sui caedere, which refers to suicide as the abrupt termination of a usually physically healthy life. The majority of suicides in Germany fall under this definition, most of which are due to potentially treatable psychiatric causes and must be prevented. It is in this domain that psychiatry, which is not always gotten praise, has made a lot of progress in recent years.

But what about those people who are suffering from an incurable physical illness and who are seeking medical help to cut short a period of dying that is considered distressing or unworthy? Is the word "suicide assistance" really appropriate in view of the stigmatization that goes along with the term "suicide"?

In some Anglo-Saxon countries, such as Canada, the term "medical aid in dying" is used in this context. This is not considered as an alternative to palliative medicine, but as necessary additional assistance in the few but unfortunately unquestionably existing cases in which even the best palliative medicine cannot alleviate suffering — both physical and existential.

Separating these extreme situations from suicidal thoughts could help create a discourse that is also free of any prejudice about how, as a society, we can best do justice to these suffering fellow human beings — it could be us one day, after all. To pursue this idea could well be worthwhile for the Federal Constitutional Court and perhaps also for the enlightened lawmakers.

Keep up with the world. Break out of the bubble.
Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!

Iran-Saudi Arabia Rivalry May Be Set To Ease, Or Get Much Worse

The Saudis may be awaiting the outcome of Iran's nuclear talks with the West, to see whether Tehran will moderate its regional policies, or lash out like never before.

Military parade in Tehran, Iran, on Oct. 3


LONDON — The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said earlier this month that Iranian and Saudi negotiators had so far had four rounds of "continuous" talks, though both sides had agreed to keep them private. The talks are to ease fraught relations between Iran's radical Shia regime and the Saudi kingdom, a key Western ally in the Middle East.

Iran's Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian has said that the talks were going in the right direction, while an Iranian trade official was recently hopeful these might even allow trade opportunities for Iranian businessmen in Saudi Arabia. As the broadcaster France 24 observed separately, it will take more than positive signals to heal a five-year-rift and decades of mutual suspicions.

Agence France-Presse news agency, meanwhile, has cited an unnamed French diplomat as saying that Saudi Arabia wants to end its costly discord with Tehran. The sides may already have agreed to reopen consular offices. For Saudi Arabia, the costs include its war on Iran-backed Houthis rebels fighting an UN-recognized government in next-door Yemen.

The role of the nuclear pact

Bilateral relations were severed in January 2016, after regime militiamen stormed the Saudi embassy in Tehran. Amirabdollahian was then the deputy foreign minister for Arab affairs. In 2019, he told the website Iranian Diplomacy that Saudi Arabia had taken measures vis-a-vis Iran's nuclear pact with the world powers.

It's unlikely Ali Khamenei will tolerate the Saudi kingdom's rising power in the region.

He said "the Saudis' insane conduct toward [the pact] led them to conclude that they must prevent [its implementation] in a peaceful environment ... I think the Saudis are quite deluded, and their delusion consists in thinking that Trump is an opportunity for them to place themselves on the path of conflict with the Islamic Republic while relying on Trump." He meant the administration led by the U.S. President Donald J.Trump, which was hostile to Iran's regime. This, he said, "is not how we view Saudi Arabia. I think Yemen should have been a big lesson for the Saudis."

The minister was effectively admitting the Houthis were the Islamic Republic's tool for getting back at Saudi Arabia.

Yet in the past two years, both sides have taken steps to improve relations, without firm results as yet. Nor is the situation likely to change this time.

Photo of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in 2020

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in 2020

Riyadh's warming relations with Israel

Iran's former ambassador in Lebanon, Ahmad Dastmalchian, told the ILNA news agency in Tehran that Saudi Arabia is doing Israel's bidding in the region, and has "entrusted its national security, and life and death to Tel Aviv." Riyadh, he said, had been financing a good many "security and political projects in the region," or acting as a "logistical supplier."

The United States, said Dastmalchian, has "in turn tried to provide intelligence and security backing, while Israel has simply followed its own interests in all this."

Furthermore, it seems unlikely Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei will tolerate, even in this weak period of his leadership, the kingdom's rising power in the region and beyond, and especially its financial clout. He is usually disparaging when he speaks of Riyadh's princely rulers. In 2017, he compared them to "dairy cows," saying, "the idiots think that by giving money and aid, they can attract the goodwill of Islam's enemies."

Iranian regime officials are hopeful of moving toward better diplomatic ties and a reopening of embassies. Yet the balance of power between the sides began to change in Riyadh's favor years ago. For the kingdom's power has shifted from relying mostly on arms, to economic and political clout. The countries might have had peaceful relations before in considerably quieter, and more equitable, conditions than today's acute clash of interests.

If nuclear talks break down, Iran's regime may become more aggressive.

Beyond this, the Abraham Accord or reconciliation of Arab states and Israel has been possible thanks to the green light that the Saudis gave their regional partners, and it is a considerable political and ideological defeat for the Islamic Republic.

Assuming all Houthis follow Tehran's instructions — and they may not — improved ties may curb attacks on Saudi interests and aid its economy. Tehran will also benefit from no longer having to support them. Unlike Iran's regime, the Saudis are not pressed for cash or resources and could even offer the Houthis a better deal. Presently, they may consider it more convenient to keep the softer approach toward Tehran.

For if nuclear talks with the West break down, Iran's regime may become more aggressive, and as experience has shown, tensions often prompt a renewal of missile or drone attacks on the Saudis, on tankers and on foreign shipping. Riyadh must have a way of keeping the Tehran regime quiet, in a distinctly unquiet time.

Keep up with the world. Break out of the bubble.
Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!