“99 % of suicides are tragic; we’re fighting for the other 1 %”
Based on ethnographic research among right to die activists, this article identifies and analyzes a puzzling conceptual divide that structures activists’ arguments. On one hand, activists argue that a medically assisted death needs to be completely separate from the act of suicide. To ensure this, they employ the notion of “sound minds” in the context of “unsound bodies,” focusing on the fundamental rationality of a voluntary decision-making process structured around choice. Their advocacy separates the act of medically assisted death from the irrationality of suicides, which ostensibly result from an “unsound mind.” However, extensive ethnographic and interview data reveal multiple ambiguities and tensions in their attempt to distinguish between an officially sanctioned medically assisted death and an act of suicide, showing that activists implicitly recognize a porous border between these two acts. Analyzing these ambiguities explores a core tension between reformist and more radical sectors of right to die activism : while those aiming to change existing legislation argue for clearly defined eligibility criteria premised on terminal or incurable illness and accompanied by safeguards, more radical activists argue against this “medicalization of death” and advocate a more open position in which the right to die encompasses “rational suicide.” This article will show that even after the legalization of medically assisted dying, these core tensions persist.