Photograph by Ozgu Ozden via Unsplash

Ending your life with the Sarco-pod takes five to ten minutes. This number does not represent the months of deliberation, conversations, assessments, and consultations required to get into it in the first place. Once inside, the individual must press the button themselves, causing unconsciousness before the oxygen deprivation leads to death.

On September 23, a 64-year-old American woman became the first to use the Sarco-pod to end her life, traveling to Switzerland for the procedure. After submitting her written consent and securing the approval of her two adult sons, she chose euthanasia.

Her decision reignited global debates on medical euthanasia, among which religious voices were some of the loudest. Swiss authorities have since arrested several individuals involved, including a Dutch photographer from De Volkskrant who documented the event, and Florian Willet, director of The Last Resort, the organization responsible for the Sarco-pod’s creation, who was present during her final moments.

The debate over the Sarco-pod highlights a wider concern about devices that enable people to choose euthanasia independently. In nations where euthanasia is authorized, discussions continue regarding how much involvement others should have. In Switzerland, where euthanasia is permitted and can be commercially offered, assistance or administration by anyone else is not allowed. Conversely, in the Netherlands, where the Sarco-pod originated, a licensed medical professional must oversee the euthanasia process.

What is notable — and often absent from the conversation — is that both countries are among Europe’s most secular nations, with 66 percent of the Dutch and 58 percent of Swiss identifying as non-religious. Of the ten countries where euthanasia is fully legal, most score high on secularism or are constitutionally secular.

While debates about abortion, homosexuality, and female leadership fracture Christian denominations, euthanasia is almost universally condemned in faith communities. Though exceptions exist — such as the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Association — these are outliers. Generally, euthanasia is viewed as incompatible with Christian teachings, where the notions of sanctity of life and surrender to God’s will dominate.

This correlation seems to indicate a conflicting perception between secular and religious societies about what a “desirable” death is. In reality, both secular and religious societies are craving, above all, a “natural death.” They just have very different perceptions of what “natural” means.

Yet, regardless of your perception of a natural death, the right to a dignified death should not be secular.

In contemporary society, the moral superiority of a “natural death” seems to be something many in the Western world — secular or not — aspire toward. It can come as no surprise that the Sarco-pod was placed in the woods in Switzerland, amid peace, calm, and tranquility. Even with such a highly modernized method of death, the secular mind craves a natural end.

But what is a “natural” death in our time? With modern medicine, it has become increasingly difficult to avoid life-prolonging treatments. Is it natural to undergo surgery after surgery, or endure multiple rounds of treatments? Is it natural to be kept on life support? Where do we draw the line for what we consider “natural”? Is it natural to be surrounded by community and tradition, or to self-isolate and withdraw?

The desire for agency, control, and autonomy over death seems to align with secular ideals, as suggested by the correlation between euthanasia laws and secularism. What does it mean that secular nations wish to orchestrate death legally? Does this indicate a discomfort with the inevitable lack of control that comes paired with death, or a sign that secular societies are more at ease with death when not burdened by religious morality and the fear of judgment in an afterlife?

Secularism, emerging from Protestant Christian ideals, emphasizes the necessity of individual autonomy and choice. In Protestant theology, personal choice is framed within faith — you can choose salvation, but that choice involves surrender to God. Secularism takes this further: your autonomy, agency and free choice means surrendering only to your own will. There is no external party involved. You are left, primarily, on your own.

When it comes to death, the secular paradigm means choosing when to die rather than surrendering to the supposed will of God. The modern, secular individual feels more in control of death, up to the final moment. Those objecting to the practice from their faith do so because they understand this control was never truly theirs.

There is something universally human about wanting to have control during this most vulnerable part of one’s life. When the process of dying feels like a series of events that spin one more and more out of control and away from what is deemed “natural,” the process of euthanasia offers a way to reclaim it. Religious communities who hold onto God to help gain a similar sense of control and return to the natural in an increasingly chaotic world, could learn to empathize with this universal desire.

A craving for multiple interpretations of a natural death is present even in more religious societies. Secularism offers various options for citizens to interpret what “natural” means to them. It is telling that it was an American, not allowed to individually interpret what a natural death is, who traveled to Switzerland to reclaim this right. 

Both the secular and the religious desire a “natural” death. There are simply different definitions of what dying “naturally” entails in an age of modern medicine. Before we jump to conclusions about the Sarco-pod being unnatural, let us stop to pause what “natural” means in our current society. Within the debate between faith and secular communities on euthanasia, there is perhaps more that connects us than divides us.