A short stay in Switzerland

Switzerland is often seen as a model of a well functioning modern democracy with one of the highest standards of living worldwide. Internationally the Swiss people are respected as law abiding and compassionate citizens with a deep seated sense of justice and fairness. Foreign tourists arrive daily in this alpine republic to marvel at its natural beauty and to savour typical Swiss hospitality.

More recently a different type of tourism has made headlines and has gained notoriety. A number of “non profit” organisations such as ‘Dignitas’ in Zurich have for some time used loopholes in the Swiss penal code to sell euthanasia packages to well to do but desperate and often emotionally impaired customers.
This has led to the mushrooming of an industry dubbed “suicide tourism”.

Death candidates from abroad, mainly neighbouring countries such as Germany, and Great Britain, in which assisted suicides are illegal, frequently knock on the doors of Zurich’s “death factories”.
This was highlighted in the English media by extensive coverage focusing on prominent British suicide cases.
Peter (80) and Penny (70) Duff, a couple from Bath both suffering from cancer took a flight to Switzerland to depart this life.
Another British suicide candidate, Dr. Turner (66), after being diagnosed with a degenerative neurological disease also chose to end her life in Zurich. Her compelling story was later made into a movie under the title: “A short stay in Switzerland”. In both cases the patients were terminally ill and on compassionate grounds one could be tempted to sympathise with their cause and the possible altruistic motive of ‘Dignitas’.
However there are other cases. Two more Brits, Robert and Jennifer Stokes came to Zurich for a short stay in Switzerland.
Robert in his late fifties suffered from epilepsy and his wife Jennifer in her early fifties suffered from diabetes and back problems. Neither of them was terminally ill and yet ‘Dignitas’ accepted their wish to die and was eager to help.

Dignitas alone has since its establishment in the late 1990’s “processed and canned” more than 1000 distressed human beings.
They dispatch their clients to Nirvana in a friendly, congenial atmosphere on the serene shores of Lake Zurich under the watchful eyes of professional “mercy-killer-assistants”. Recent evidence suggests that urns containing the ashes have in the past been dumped in the nearby lake.

A One-way ticket for this last journey including cremation and burial (in the lake) will set you back some 10’000 Swiss Francs. Clients are made to sign a release form giving the right of disposal of their personal belongings (Mobile Phones, Jewellery etc.) to the respective organisation. In a number of documented cases the death candidates have bequeathed large amounts of money to their death clinic. The founder of “Dignitas”, Ludwig Minelli, formerly a little known backyard lawyer is today a wealthy, although controversial, personality in the Zurich business community.

Last weekend the people of the canton Zurich voted in a popular referendum on two proposals. The first; to ban the practice of assisted suicide and the second; to limit assisted suicide to bona fide residents of Zurich. Both proposals were rejected by an overwhelming majority of more than 80%

The debate on this life and death issue is not limited to Switzerland and has been around for at least the past 2000 years. In Switzerland it has its roots in the early days of the previous century. Under the presumption that the freedom to choose between life and death is part of each individual’s fundamental human rights the Swiss lawmakers have legalised assisted suicide in 1918 provided there are no selfish, i.e. financial or other material motives involved. Therefore Swiss law does not consider suicide a crime or assisting suicide as complicity in a crime. It views suicide as possibly rational and condones assisting suicide for altruistic reasons. The law neither grants nor elevates physicians to a special status in an assisted suicide nor does it require the suicide candidate being a terminally ill patient.

Article 115 of the Swiss criminal code reads:
“Inciting and assisting suicide: Any person who for selfish motives incites or assists another to commit or attempt suicide shall, if that other person thereafter commits or attempts to commit suicide, be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding five years or to a monetary penalty.” (http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/rs/311_0/a115.html)

As in all cases of “unnatural death”, each suicide is required to be investigated by the attorney general. Since, in the absence of a selfish motive, no crime has been committed these are mostly open and shut cases.
With the sole reliance on a base motive (selfish reasons, material gain) rather than on the intent to kill to define a crime, article 115 is clearly at odds with legal standards in other countries. Under existing law the burden to prove “selfish motive” falls on the prosecution which, given the circumstances, is near impossible.

To the Swiss every individual’s right to make his own decision is paramount and they cherish their system of direct democracy in which the people vote on all major political decisions.
During the extensive pre-referendum debate the initiators of the referendum and opponents to assisted suicide ignored this simple fact and offered little else than old fashioned morality and the suggestion that “death tourism” is tainting the good image of Switzerland abroad. Not that I do think there is anything wrong with old fashioned morality - after all the three monotheistic religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam are unanimous in rejecting suicide – but it was clearly not enough to convince the voters of Zurich.

The proponents of assisted suicide on the other hand have recognised the voters near paranoid relationship with freedom and self determination. The focal point in their campaign was: “Freedom of choice”, and with it they struck the very soul of the electorate and won the day.

One question remains; Even if one believes in mankind’s absolute right to decide in all matters, including life and death, how far is too far in the quest to secure that right?

This question may never be answered but it can at least be addressed by thorough reflection and popular debate and by looking beyond the Swiss penal code. An equally important piece of legislation would be article 10 of the Swiss Constitution which charges the Federal state with the responsibility to protect the people’s lives as well as their physical and mental integrity.

Swiss politicians and lawmakers would do well to ponder the words of Hubert Horatio Humphrey, vice President of the United States of America under Lyndon B. Johnson from 1965 to 1969. In his last speech to the US Senate shortly before dying of cancer he said:
"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped...”

A truly free country measures itself not exclusively by the freedom of choice of its people but also by the degree of protection and security the most vulnerable in their midst enjoy – and who can be more vulnerable than the one standing on the threshold between life and death?
Freedom of choice is easily manipulated, history is full of examples. Bad habits can easily turn into the norm, especially so in a society with a plethora of choices. As easily as bad habits can become norm, norm can become law; particularly when the only test is democracy and freedom of choice.

Imagine a Switzerland in forty years from now when suicide cocktails are available in wending machines next to cigarettes and chocolate bars. Now that would be true freedom of choice and the lawmakers could fulfil their responsibility by insisting on a warning sign on the package; Barbiturates kill.
Utopia? - I hope so too!
J.S.