Suicide Boosters

The Economist & the Euthanasia Agenda

The world's most influential news magazine, The Economist, has a new editor-in-chief, Zanny Minton-Beddoes, the former business affairs editor. One of the very first issues on which she has chosen to campaign is the legalization of euthanasia. The cover story for the June 27, 2015 issue was, "The right to die: Why assisted suicide should be legal." With the flair that distinguishes The Economist's coverage, it was illustrated by a snuffed candle and a smoking wick.

Does this matter?

It does, because more than a magazine, The Economist is an institution. Edited in the heart of London, it is a relic of the Victorian era that has adapted superbly to modern times. In the postmodern age of fragmentation and doubt, its stock-in-trade is rock-ribbed certitude.

But with flair: its covers are often hilarious; its style sober, garnished with sly humor. Headlines in Latin pop up from time to time; allusions to Shakespeare and English poets pepper the text.

Its circulation is more than 1.4 million, more than four-fifths of it outside Britain. Americans account for over half of the total. So the opinions of Zanny Minton-Beddoes help shape public policy around the world. In 1996 The Economist began a campaign for same-sex marriage. The very idea seemed outlandish. And now, in America, it is the law.

Backing the Boldest Scheme

So what about euthanasia?

In a podcast, Minton-Beddoes sketched three reasons for her stand. First, assisted dying is one of the great moral questions of our time, especially in the light of increasingly aging populations around the world. Second, it fits neatly into The Economist's philosophy of promoting autonomy and reducing government meddling in individuals' lives. And third, public opinion can truly make a difference.

So, the magazine's leader (the editorial) contended that while life may be sacred and suffering may confer its own dignity, autonomy is the truest manifestation of human dignity:

The most determined people do not always choose wisely, no matter how well they are counselled. But it would be wrong to deny everyone the right to assisted death for this reason alone. Competent adults are allowed to make other momentous, irrevocable choices: to undergo a sex change or to have an abortion. People deserve the same control over their own death. Instead of dying in intensive care under bright lights and among strangers, people should be able to end their lives when they are ready, surrounded by those they love.

But the headline on that cover was misleading. Minton-Beddoes and The Economist are not merely backing assisted suicide; they are urging readers to accept the boldest scheme on offer: Belgium's euthanasia for almost anyone who asks for it. No chronic or terminal illness would be required. Mentally ill and depressed patients would be eligible. Lonely people would be eligible. Children of any age would be eligible with the consent of their parents.

In the words of Minton-Beddoes, come-one-come-all euthanasia constitutes "the maximum respect for individual liberty."

The Economist has a reputation for asking hard questions and for informed commentary based on deep background research. So it is astonishing how readily it has accepted paternalistic reassurances of doctors in Belgium that its systems function well. The cover story glosses over the issues of "bracket creep" in eligibility for euthanasia, the increasing number of non-voluntary deaths, and the substantial proportion of euthanasia deaths that are never reported to the authorities. In mentioning "terminal sedation," it fails to point out that the patient dies of starvation and thirst. And it brushes asides the fears of disabled people that they will be pressured to die.

A Freedom-Distorting Ideology

What accounts for this blinkered view of euthanasia?

In a word, ideology. An ideology is a set of convictions that are held as unquestioned first principles, regardless of the facts that can be arrayed against them. "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" said the economist John Maynard Keynes. An ideologue does precisely the opposite; he ignores or denies the facts.

Politically, The Economist prides itself on its lack of dogmatism; it claims to sit on neither the right nor the left but in the "radical center." But morally it is in thrall to the liberalism of John Stuart Mill, the nineteenth-century British philosopher and political analyst. Mill argued that preventing harm to others is the only legitimate basis for restricting individual freedom. This is an ideology that distorts freedom just as Communism distorted the idea of the brotherhood of mankind.

On this principle, The Economist has campaigned for the legalization of abortion, the legalization of hard drugs, the legalization of prostitution, the legalization of surrogacy, and now for the legalization of the world's most radical model for euthanasia. Although The Economist is one of the last places in the world where one would expect to find religion, every week its leading editors offer fragrant offerings and sacrifices to the god of autonomy.

The fifth-wealthiest person in the world, former Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, once remarked, "I used to think. Now, I just read The Economist." No doubt that was said tongue-in-cheek, but there is some truth in it. Thus, for opponents of euthanasia and assisted suicide, The Economist's campaign sends an ominous message. As intellectual wet nurse to the global elite, the magazine is setting the agenda on end-of-life issues around the world.