To the Editor:
Re “The Lesson From a Nobel Laureate’s Chosen Death,” by Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer (Opinion guest essay, April 20):
I admire and respect Daniel Kahneman’s decision to end his life at 90 and hope I am able to be as clearheaded and resolute in another decade or two, when my time comes.
I understand our culture’s knee-jerk pushback against the notion of assisted suicide when there is no imminent threat of death. However, as someone who has cared for elderly relatives suffering “the miseries and indignities of the last years of life” that Professor Kahneman feared, I think his decision makes perfect sense.
I witnessed the awful reality of a loved one, sick and infirm, with no prospect for returning to an independent life, suffer for three long years. Regardless of age or accomplishment, all that each of us has in life is this precious moment — now. Seeing those moments reduced to nothing more than waiting to die and the misery that prospect elicits reveals the wisdom of Professor Kahneman’s decision.
G. Steve Jordan
New York
To the Editor:
You don’t have to be a Nobel laureate to understand Daniel Kahneman’s concept of a “complete” life and his decision to go to Switzerland. I believe that our freedoms include the right to die with dignity. If an individual who is cogent and psychologically stable believes that she has lived life well, that her life is complete and that her future will not bring improvement or joy, she should have the right to make the decision to terminate her life. Period.
I am 77 years old, and I have talked with my husband and two adult children about my wishes. While I am not ready to make the decision today, I want them to understand my choices when the time is right. I truly hope there are states in this country, including my own, that will follow Switzerland’s lead in time for my decision. Thank you for publishing this important essay.
Joan Temko Anyon
San Francisco
To the Editor:
Daniel Kahneman’s decision to end his life through assisted suicide in Switzerland raises troubling questions about the normalization of such practices. Professor Kahneman was not terminally ill, which is what most American proponents of assisted suicide say it is for.
As we see in every other jurisdiction that legalizes this practice, this “terminal” safeguard erodes over time, including here, where patients in legal states can simply forgo care or food and fluids to qualify for lethal drugs. Professor Kahneman’s action was simply a suicide.
There is no requirement in these public policies that a person be covered for palliative and mental health care. This raises serious concerns that vulnerable individuals — older adults, people with disabilities or those with mental health issues — could feel pressured into opting for death, rather than receiving the compassionate health care and long-term services and support they need — especially now, when programs like Medicaid and the Health and Human Services Department’s Administration for Community Living are under threat.
By framing assisted suicide as a “choice,” we risk blurring the lines between autonomy and a tragic form of societal abandonment. Instead of offering an easy out to the houses of policy and medicine, we should prioritize care that affirms the inestimable value and equal human dignity we all share.
Matt Vallière
New York
The writer is an emergency medical worker and the executive director of the Institute for Patients’ Rights and the Patients’ Rights Action Fund, which oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide laws.
To the Editor:
Daniel Kahneman was a brilliant cognitive psychologist. He won the Nobel Prize in economics even though he reportedly never took a class in the subject. I began following him because of his 1973 book, “Attention and Effort,” which outlined capacity theory. His seminal theoretical work was at the core of my own dissertation and guided my thinking in research throughout my career. I often assigned his best-selling book, “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” to my students.
Having helped care for my father-in-law and my stepfather, both of whom had Alzheimer’s, I have profound respect for Professor Kahneman’s decision. I hope to meet death with bravery and humility when my time comes.
I want my choices to be respected and understood. My one quibble with Professor Kahneman is his denial, as expressed in this essay, “that his work had any objective significance.” He was wrong about that. It had a profound effect on my career and my approach to life. I’ve passed his lessons on to my students. Perhaps he was losing it a bit at the end — or perhaps just showing the humility of a truly great scholar.
Paul King
Fort Worth
The writer is a professor emeritus of communication studies at Texas Christian University.
To the Editor:
As I approach 90 years old in both physical and mental good health, I find the premise of Daniel Kahneman’s decision and action deeply unsettling. To propose that one should terminate one’s own life because it has been “completed” strikes me as an act of selfishness that deprives the world of a valuable human presence.
Our contributions to society, or the lack thereof, should not be the sole factors influencing such a decision. Instead, we must consider the dignity of life, especially in the face of progressive, terminal illness.
It is not the completion of life that should drive us to consider such drastic measures, but the inability to face a painful and undignified decline. In the meantime, I urge those grappling with such thoughts to focus instead on the beauty that life continues to offer.
Enjoy your family, embrace the wonders of nature, and relish the moments that make life rich and meaningful. Every day is an opportunity to make a difference, connect deeply with others and find joy in the simplest pleasures. Let us remember that life, in all its complexities and challenges, is a precious gift.
David S. Cantor
Los Angeles
To the Editor:
It probably doesn’t need to be said that the biggest barrier to the acceptance of assisted suicide in our culture, to its wisdom and compassion, is the widespread belief that only God gets to decide when it’s time for someone to go.
A “god” who would prevent the end of needless suffering — and then damn one to eternal suffering for the act — doesn’t sound like a very compassionate god to me.
David Kohan
Oak Park, Ill.
If you are having thoughts of suicide, call or text 988 to reach the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline or go to SpeakingOfSuicide.com/resources for a list of additional resources.
Questions for America
To the Editor:
Re “Few Repairs Seen for Smashed Economic Order” (news analysis, front page, April 29):
Patricia Cohen’s article shines a needed light on the deeper consequences of our political choices. For 80 years, Americans have lived inside a story where we led the world. It was a story built on trust, alliances and the steady work of institutions we now see unraveling. In 2024, many voted thinking only of the price of eggs, without seeing the cost to the system that carried us for generations.
If Ms. Cohen is correct, and the global order we built is breaking, we will need to ask ourselves some hard questions. The principal ones are these: Are we ready for a new story? What kind of country do we want to be when we must rebuild trust? How do we see ourselves when we are no longer the center of the world’s imagination? What values will define us when dominance is no longer part of the story?
These are not questions for politicians alone. They are questions for all of us, and we cannot afford to look away any longer.
Will Samson
Asheville, N.C.
