Houellebecq on euthanasia in Harper’s:

‘On the other hand, Mark Zuckerberg rose in my esteem (not hard to do) when I learned that he had decided to eat no animals except those he killed himself. It’s a commitment we might suggest (or require?) for everyone who mocks vegetarianism. The same goes for proponents of the death penalty. Wouldn’t it be interesting to enlist a firing squad composed of the jury who voted for capital punishment? (I’m sorry to leap from animals to people, but it’s basically the same question.) I’m not a convinced vegetarian, nor am I resolutely against the death penalty, but I do believe we should accept the consequences of our choices.
Most people eat every day (Zuckerberg certainly does), but there’s a good chance you’ll never cross paths with a murderer or serve on a jury in a criminal trial. There are circumstances, however—rare but hardly exceptional—in which one might find oneself, during the course of a longish life, confronted by a decision of this weight. To prepare for that eventuality, let’s try a thought experiment (Gedankenexperiment).’

(…)

‘Hippocrates lived well before the advent of Christianity—a significant fact. All the opponents of euthanasia I know are fervent Christians; as the sole agnostic among them, I sometimes feel misunderstood. Not because they doubt my convictions, which I’ve expressed all too consistently, but because my motives escape them, or so I feel. (To complicate matters, I support the right to an abortion, at least under certain conditions, but that’s another subject.)
For Immanuel Kant, human dignity clearly prohibited suicide. But it took an enormous intellectual effort for Kant to disentangle human dignity and the moral law from metaphysics (in other words, from Christianity). Who can take the measure of that effort today? Dignity has become a meaningless word, a joke in poor taste. I even have the impression that for my contemporaries the idea of a moral law has become rather obscure.’

(…)

‘This mixture of extreme infantilization, whereby one grants a physician the right to end one’s life, and a petulant desire for “ultimate liberty” is a combination that, quite frankly, disgusts me.’

(…)

‘In nearly every country, historical era, religion, civilization, and culture, agony has been deemed a crucial aspect of our existence. We don’t lack for studies of death: for the Christian West, I recommend the work of Philippe Ariès. Whether you believe in the existence of a creator who will call you to account or not, this is the moment of farewell—a last chance to see certain people, to tell them what you may never have said before, and to hear what they may have to say to you. To cut short these death throes is both impious (for those who believe) and immoral (for anyone). This is the consensus of the civilizations, religions, and cultures that have gone before us, and this is what so-called progressivism is preparing to destroy.
This moment of farewell can happen during an assisted suicide—in which case we would have something like the scene of Socrates and the hemlock. But it cannot occur if the moment arrives in accordance with advance directives. It isn’t the job of doctors to end lives. In fact, this is the precise opposite of their job. And in France, many doctors are strongly opposed to legalizing euthanasia. It is not a responsibility they’re eager to take on.’

(…)

‘Yet my own favorite is “The Test,” a moving short story by Richard Matheson, curiously never adapted into film, as far as I know, though the cinema has been friendly to Matheson and the story would be easy to adapt. In the world of the story, old people are given regular competency tests that they must pass in order to avoid being put out of their misery. Meanwhile, their descendants sit at home, quietly hoping for the result that will free them from the burden of the aging. Once you have read “The Test,” it seems to me, there is nothing more to say against euthanasia; the story says it all.’

Read the article here.

I’m hesitant when it comes to euthanasia. I see the risks of assisted suicide; it can easily become a tool to economize. You want to save money? Let the unproductive ones die first. I know many hard-wing Christians use the same argument.

But I’m not sure either that morphine will always be enough. After all, Houellebecq has on this subject nothing more to offer than some anecdotal evidence.

I’m skeptical enough to believe that we are no Gods, we cannot decide when our time has come, we should not decide that, if possible. But I’m also nut sure that we must wait always till the bitter end. The law is dancing on thin tightrope.

Houellebecq’s arguments are not all very strong, but he is right that the desire for liberty and servitude can go hand in hand.
The idea that servitude is the essence of civilization and the idea that discretion is outdated are connected. And what’s nowadays called disobedience is often just ignorance.

Our Kingdom is in the cellar, not open to the public, and those who enter do that at their own risk.