Whereas ancient peoples left sickly children to die and saw suicide as noble, ancient Jews considered both practices sinful, an approach that, thanks to Christianity and Islam, has informed much of the world’s attitude toward the question of whether life can cease to be worth living. This should be kept in mind when considering the Medical Aid in Dying Act, recently passed by the New York State assembly and now under consideration by the state Senate. Although an advocate of ceasing medical intervention in certain cases, L.S. Dugdale sharply opposes the bill, believing that its goal is

relieving society—government, medical systems, even families—of the responsibility to care for those who need the most help: the mentally ill, the poor, the physically disabled.

When it comes to conventional suicide, it’s no secret that people who suffer from depression are at greater risk. There is no reason to think that depression is any less of a factor when it comes to physician-assisted suicide. Yet the New York bill, which is modeled on the Death with Dignity law enacted in Oregon in 1997, does not even require a mental-health professional to screen patients for depression unless one of the doctors involved determines that the patient’s judgment may be impaired by a psychiatric or psychological disorder.

There is also a concern about the vulnerability of those with physical disabilities, who are accustomed to having to prove that their lives have value; . . . to claim that people with disabilities are protected by the New York bill is disingenuous. The bill may prevent them from qualifying for assisted suicide solely because of their disabilities, but disability can become a terminal condition by choice—or despair.

This is not a compassionate policy—not in Canada, not in Oregon and not, should the bill become law, in New York. Instead of investing in the infrastructure of support for the lonely, the depressed, the disabled, and the poor, we offer them a prescription for death. We call it autonomy, but it’s abandonment.

Yesterday, the Iranian foreign minister flew to Geneva to meet with European diplomats. President Trump, meanwhile, indicated that cease-fire negotiations might soon begin with Iran, which would presumably involve Tehran agreeing to make concessions regarding its nuclear program, while Washington pressures Israel to halt its military activities. According to Israeli media, Iran already began putting out feelers to the U.S. earlier this week. Aviram Bellaishe considers the purpose of these overtures:

The regime’s request to return to negotiations stems from the principle of deception and delay that has guided it for decades. Iran wants to extricate itself from a situation of total destruction of its nuclear facilities. It understands that to save the nuclear program, it must stop at a point that would allow it to return to it in the shortest possible time. So long as the negotiation process leads to halting strikes on its military capabilities and preventing the destruction of the nuclear program, and enables the transfer of enriched uranium to a safe location, it can simultaneously create the two tracks in which it specializes—a false facade of negotiations alongside a hidden nuclear race.