‘Suicide Pod' Activist Takes Own Life Months After Arrest Over Woman's Death In Euthanasia Device
Dr Florian Willet, director of Swiss suicide organisation Last Resort, died by assisted suicide after being investigated for the death of a woman using the Sarco suicide pod.
Dr Florian Willet, a prominent right-to-die activist and director of the Swiss suicide organisation Last Resort, has died by assisted suicide in Switzerland, months after being investigated for the death of a woman who became the first person to use the Sarco suicide pod.
Willet, 47, was arrested in September 2024 by Swiss authorities after a 64-year-old American woman with an immune disease died inside the nitrogen-filled capsule in a secluded forest near Merishausen, Switzerland, The Sun reported.
Designed by euthanasia campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke, the Sarco pod had long stirred ethical and legal debates. The woman's death marked its first real-world use — and triggered a criminal investigation.
Although suicide is legal in Switzerland under strict conditions, the use of the pod had never been officially sanctioned. Prosecutors raised suspicions of 'intentional homicide" after alleged strangulation marks were found on the woman's neck. This led to Willet being held in pre-trial detention for 70 days — the only person among several initially detained, including two lawyers and a journalist, to remain in custody.
The allegations deeply affected Willet's mental health, according to Nitschke, founder of Exit International and inventor of the Sarco pod. In a statement following Willet's death, Nitschke recalled how his colleague emerged from custody a changed man. 'Gone was his warm smile and self-confidence," he said. 'In its place was a man who seemed deeply traumatised by the experience of incarceration and the wrongful accusation of strangulation."
Willet, a German national, was reportedly admitted to psychiatric care twice after his release in December 2024. Nitschke said he developed 'an acute polymorphic psychotic disorder," which psychiatrists linked to the intense psychological stress of the criminal probe. In early 2025, Willet also suffered severe injuries from a fall from the third floor of his Zurich residence.
On May 5, Willet reportedly ended his life with the assistance of a specialized organisation in Cologne, Germany. Nitschke confirmed the death and praised Willet as a thoughtful, kind, and passionate advocate for the right to choose when and how to die. 'In the final months of his life, Florian shouldered more than any man should," he said.
Before his death, Willet had maintained that the woman's death in the pod was 'peaceful, fast, and dignified." He notified authorities immediately after it occurred. Supporters of the pod claimed that the marks resembling strangulation could have been caused by the woman's medical condition — skull base osteomyelitis — rather than any foul play.
Willet's death draws uncomfortable parallels to the weight of public and legal scrutiny surrounding assisted dying. It also raises serious questions about how society treats individuals advocating for controversial medical technologies. A committed campaigner since his youth, Willet once said he had thought about the concept of suicide from the age of five and accepted his father's death by suicide at 14.
His final act, much like the work he dedicated his life to, reignites the debate over autonomy, ethics, and the legal challenges surrounding assisted dying in Europe and beyond.
First Published:
June 03, 2025, 14:55 IST
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Israel-Backed Gaza Aid Group Suspends Operations for Second Day
An Israel- and US-backed mechanism to distribute food in Gaza suspended operations for a second day following a series of deadly incidents near its sites that drew international criticism. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a Swiss-based nonprofit, launched in Gaza last week following a months-long Israeli blockade of the territory, and says it has handed out enough food staples for millions of meals. But the roll-out has been dogged by overcrowding and at least one incident in which Israeli forces, citing a security threat, fired toward Palestinians headed to a GHF aid center. 'The world is watching, day after day, horrifying scenes of Palestinians being shot, wounded or killed in Gaza while simply trying to eat,' Tom Fletcher, the UN humanitarian affairs chief, said in a statement urging Israel to allow his organization's aid network back into the territory. 'We must be allowed to do our jobs: We have the teams, the plan, the supplies and the experience.' UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres on Monday called for an independent investigation into reports that Israeli forces had killed dozens near the aid stations in Rafah. The Israeli army denied that its soldiers had shot anyone seeking aid and the GHF called the reports 'outright fabrications.' In a statement on June 2, the International Committee of the Red Cross said its hospital had received 21 dead among 179 casualties. The stations were shuttered on Wednesday and on Thursday morning 'due to ongoing maintenance and repair work,' the GHF said in a statement. It was not immediately clear when operations might resume. Gaza's 2 million Palestinians had long depended on UN relief before the Oct 7, 2023 Hamas attack that killed 1,200 people. During the almost 20-month-old war — in which more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed, according to the Hamas-run health ministry — UN agencies have been sidelined by Israel, which accuses them of being too close to the US-designated terrorist group. Some of Israel's closest European allies, including Germany, the UK and France, have are increasingly critical of Israel's prosecution of the war, which has destroyed much of the coastal strip and sparked what international aid agencies say is a hunger crisis. They're considering trade sanctions and curbs on arms sales to push Israel to end the war. The UN has criticized the GHF for not being able to provide anywhere near enough food and medicine for Gaza's population and for politicizing humanitarian work. Israel, which controls Gaza's borders, argues that Hamas benefits from siphoning off UN aid. 'There is a joint effort here, both by Hamas and by the UN, which want to see the failure of these distribution centers,' Danny Danon, Israel's ambassador to the UN, said in an Army Radio interview on Thursday. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Secret leprosy infected the Americas before European arrival
Representative image (AP) What to know: Leprosy is one of the oldest human diseases and originated in Eurasia or Africa A new study has found a different species of leprosy-causing bacteria existed in the Americas before European settlement. Scientists once believed Europeans brought leprosy to the American continents via infection from the bacterial species Mycobacterium leprae. But now a new study published in the journal Science reveals that a different form of leprosy-causing bacteria — called Mycobacterium lepromatosis — was already circulating in the Americas for at least one thousand years. Leprosy was therefore already affecting American indigenous peoples well before European colonization. Mycobacterium lepromatosis in America The study authors analyzed more than 800 samples taken from ancient remains in Canada and Argentina. The genomes of the bacteria taken from the samples were reconstructed, analyzed, and dated. Comparisons between the samples showed the bacterial genomes were of distinctive branches of the lepromatosis species at each end of the continent. However, they remained genetically similar. This suggested that the bacteria species had spread rapidly across the Americas, probably covering the landmass in just a few hundred years. Leprosy is caused by two bacteria species, not one. Leprosy is an ancient disease Leprosy has been infecting humans for thousands of years. The disease presents as multiple numbing skin lesions. If left untreated, it can result in nerve damage, muscle weakness, paralysis and blindness. Today, leprosy can be treated with antibiotics, but ancient sufferers weren't so fortunate. Skeletal records from 2,000BCE have been found in India with traces of the disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae. These are matched by written records of leprosy cases in ancient literature from Indian, Chinese and African civilizations, as well as stories in the Abrahamic religions. Often, these ancient descriptions associated the affliction with stigmas of immorality or ritual uncleanliness. But in 1874 the Norwegian doctor Gerhard Armauer Hansen discovered that leprosy was caused by the microscopic organism Mycobacterium leprae. In 2008, doctors in Mexico found another leprosy-causing bacteria species — Mycobacterium lepromatosis — in a leprosy patient. Before this, it was believed leprae was the only pathogen capable of causing the disease. Now both forms of the bacteria are known to cause it. Europeans spread diseases, leprosy too Nicolas Rascovan, head of the Microbial Paleogenomics Unit at the Pasteur Institut in France led the investigation. He and his colleagues estimate lepromatosis and leprae diverged from a common ancestor about one million years ago. "The diversification happened probably independent of humans," Rascovan told DW. The arrival of the first European fleets to the Americas in 1492 marked the introduction of new diseases to the Americas. Leprosy — in the form of the leprae bacterium — was among them. Archaeological evidence has shown leprae migrated with human groups out of Africa and into Asia and Europe around 40,000 years ago. Its introduction to the Americas, along with other diseases, by Europeans devastated indigenous communities and intensified the impact of pathogens that were already circulating before colonization. The discovery of lepromatosis' longer history on the continent further highlights the diversity of pathogens and their complex relationship with humans throughout history, said Rascovan. "Europeans had a very important impact by bringing this new species [leprae] that was absent in America," he said. Leprosy track and trace Rascovan hopes the presence of lepromatosis in the archeological record will improve understanding of pre-colonial disease, especially in the absence of written records. In addition, the study helps understand modern cases of leprosy, especially how it could make the jump from animals like squirrels to humans. "Our work is giving the kick start to really start analyzing, monitoring and understanding the diversity of natural reservoirs [disease carriers]," said Rascovan. He said monitoring the disease and preventing spillovers from animals to humans should be a priority. The disease is still prevalent today — 200,000 cases are reported each year globally. Brazil, India and Indonesia still report more than 10,000 new cases annually, according to WHO data.
The Hindu
14 hours ago
- The Hindu
When you want to move, does your brain know before you've decided?
It is the end of a long, hard work day and all you feel like doing is flop on the sofa and watch TV. Your eyes move to something on the screen and watch it for a few minutes, then you think to yourself: 'I wonder what's on elsewhere…'. So you reach for the TV remote and switch the channel. At this precise moment, let's freeze frame and ask: how did this simple decision unfold? Which happened first: the conscious recognition of the intention to move your arm or the brain activity required for the movement? For a long time, people grappled with this as a 'chicken or egg' question and arrived at only philosophical answers, not scientific ones. Indeed, for many years the question was actually believed to be outside the purview of science. The international chain In the early 1980s, American neuroscientist Benjamin Libet published his pioneering work exploring what scientists now call the intentional chain. In its entirety, the intentional chain entails an intent (the desire to change the channel in the example above), an action (reaching for the remote), and an effect (e.g. sounds/sights from a different channel). Due to the technical challenges involved, it wasn't possible for scientists to study the intentional chain from beginning to end — until now. In a study published recently in PLoS Biology, Jean-Paul Noel from the University of Minnesota in the US and collaborators from the US, the UK, and Switzerland, reported an experiment in which they selectively targeted each element of the intentional chain, one by one. They found that conscious recognition of the intent to move coincides with activation in the M1 cortical area, the part of the brain controlling voluntary limb movements. One surprise was a difference in the timing of conscious recognition: the perception of movement and the brain activity corresponding to this intent. First study of its kind The study's participant was a tetraplegic person outfitted with a brain implant in his M1 area (a.k.a. the primary motor cortex). Electrical impulses from the implant stimulated the area. This setup, called a brain-machine interface, used with a device called neuromuscular electrical stimulator (NMES), which activated forearm muscles to cause hand movements, made it possible for the researchers to activate or inactivate individual components of the intentional chain in the study. A particular hand movement was of interest in this setup. The participant held a ball in his hand. When he squeezed it, a sound was emitted exactly 300 mslater. This was the environmental effect, the last piece of the intentional chain. During the experiment, the participant was asked to watch a clock on a computer screen. Depending on the specific trial, he had to report the reading on the clock — at the time he felt the urge to move his hand, the time he moved his hand or the time he heard an audio tone. This was the first study to look in the M1 area in the context of subjective intention of voluntary actions. The researchers found that the timeline of activity in this area was somewhat different than that reported for other brain areas in previous research. Specifically, all the other areas had been activated prior to intention and action — whereas M1 showed activity before but also during a voluntary action. This makes sense given that M1 is the final stop in the brain, before the signal moves to the spinal cord and finally to muscles of the hand. Rearing up Normally, when you intend to move your right hand to pick up an object or lift your foot up to kick a ball, the desire for voluntary movement is reflected as electrical activity in specific parts of the brain. Even before Libet conducted his foundational work, German scientist Hans Helmut Kornhuber placed electrodes along the heads of participants in a study who each made a voluntary decision — to press a button any time they felt like it. He conducted this study in the 1960s. Kornhuber found that in the moments leading up to an individual pressing the button, the electrodes recorded a gradual increase in the strength of an electric signal, which he called the readiness potential. Think of it as the brain gearing up to act. This meant that if these same brain parts were stimulated with electric signals, one could manufacture in the individual an urge to move the hand or the foot. Kornhuber's work, later confirmed by others, proved there was electrical activity in the brain before the individual performed a voluntary action. Subsequent research showed that certain brain circuits are activated before an individual is even aware of their intention to perform a voluntary movement. In the new study, Noel & co. explored the question: when do we become aware of a decision we are about to make? Interesting patterns In the first round with their setup, the researchers studied the full intentional chain. They recorded electrical activity in the participant's M1 area caused by the intent to move his hand using functional MRI. They recorded any subsequent movement of that hand with NMES. Finally, they recorded the sound of the participant squeezing the ball in his hand. Thus, they had an objective way to measure each step of the intentional chain — a significant departure from previous studies in which researchers depended on participants' responses themselves. When the researchers compared the objective measurements to the participant's subjective perceptions, some interesting patterns emerged. For example, when the team asked the participant to report the time at which he developed a conscious awareness of his intention, his answer suggested his perception preceded actual electrical activity recorded by the MRI. Similarly, when asked to report the time at which he perceived his hand began to move, the researcher found his perception preceded the signal recorded by NMES. In the next round, the researchers used NMES to move the participant's hand, thus bypassing the subjective intent and therefore electrical activity in the brain. This time, the participant perceived that his hand moved at a time well after the measured electric signal. When the researchers blocked the hand movement signal from NMES, while keeping the intent and effect parts of the chain intact, the participant perceived his intention to occur much earlier — more so than the full intentional chain. In either case the difference was only in the order of milliseconds, but for the brain this is an eternity. The role of M1 The work of Patrick Haggard at University College London may help understand these results better. Haggard & co. asked participants in a study to report the timing of an action (pressing a keyboard button, say) and the timing of an effect of their action (a colour changing on the computer monitor). The team's results showed that participants perceived a shorter time interval between a voluntary action and its effect — called the intentional binding — than what was objectively recorded. In this context, Noel's team have discovered a new form of intentional binding: between intention and action. Since the work of Kornhuber and Libet, as more scientists examined the time between an individual perceiving a voluntary decision and that decision turning into action, it has been becoming clearer that the timing of brain activity in relation to a voluntary decision depends on where in the brain one looks. Through multiple attempts to understand the brain's goings-on in the moments leading up to a voluntary action, scientists have mapped the parts that light up with electrical activity as an individual consciously develops an urge to take some voluntary action as well as areas that light up with the conscious perception of having taken the action. In the new study, Noel et al. have added to this knowledge by revealing the role the M1 area plays with the start of a conscious decision to take some action and during the execution. Where are you looking? In the last few decades, cognitive neuroscientists have found that a single voluntary decision for an individual involves multiple different slices in their brain. There's the slice of 'what' decision to make, 'when' to make it, 'whether or not' to translate that decision to action. Activities in various parts of the brain correspond to different slices and the timing of brain activity in relation to a voluntary decision depends on which slice is examined. So if we look in the premotor or parietal cortical areas, we find them activated before a voluntary movement has occurred. The new study shows that the M1 area integrates signals from premotor-parietal areas, which explains its activity in the moments leading up to the voluntary action. The specific way the tests were set up made it possible for the researchers to separate M1 activity due to intention from its activity due to action. In a situation where a decision is converted to action, that of reaching for the remote in the example earlier, M1 activity relays that decision down to the spinal cord and to muscles of the arm. The fact that the study was conducted with a single tetraplegic participant raises obvious questions about whether its findings can be generalised. In another recent study in Nature Communications, Noel collaborated with Italian scientist Tommaso Bertoni to examine the same question in 30 healthy participants. They aimed to study the participants' brain activity using electrodes placed on their scalps (in contrast to electrodes implanted inside the M1 area of the brain). The results have supported the role of the M1 area of the brain in translating voluntary decisions to actions, adding further credence to the findings by Noel and team in their paper. Dr. Reeteka Sud is a neuroscientist by training and senior scientist at the Center for Brain and Mind, Department of Psychiatry, NIMHANS, Bengaluru.
