The new Sarco “suicide pod” aims to use AI in end-of-life decisions
In Rotterdam, Netherlands, Dr. Philip Nitschke, an Australian inventor and “right-to-die” advocate, is completing the final tests on the latest prototype of his Sarco machine, a suicide pod. Once testing is complete, the device will be sent to Switzerland, where its first user is awaiting its arrival, reports a Kazinform News Agency correspondent, citing MIT Technology Review.
This is the third prototype that Exit International, Nitschke’s nonprofit organization, has 3D-printed and assembled. Previous versions faced issues, but Nitschke believes this one is ready: “This is the one that will be used.”
The Sarco, a pod with a futuristic design resembling something from Star Trek, represents Nitschke’s 25-year effort to “demedicalize death.” The machine’s concept is simple: once inside, a user answers three questions: Who are you? Where are you? And do you know what will happen when you press the button? After pressing it, the pod fills with nitrogen, causing the occupant to lose consciousness in under a minute and die by asphyxiation within five.
The final interview will be recorded and shared with Swiss authorities. Though Nitschke hasn’t sought formal approval, Switzerland’s laws allow for assisted suicide if the person performs the final act themselves. Nitschke’s goal is to reduce the role of medical professionals in the process, stating, “You really don’t need a doctor to die.”
One key aspect of the Sarco is its use of nitrogen—a widely available gas—rather than the barbiturates typical in euthanasia clinics, eliminating the need for medical oversight. However, Swiss regulations still require a psychiatric assessment to confirm the person’s mental capacity, which is typically done by a psychiatrist. Nitschke acknowledges this hurdle, noting, “There’s still a belief that if a person is asking to die, they’ve got some sort of undiagnosed mental illness.”
Nitschke hopes technology can bypass this requirement. Exit International is developing an algorithm that could enable people to assess their mental state online. If they pass, they would receive a code to activate the Sarco. “That’s the goal,” he says, though he admits it’s a challenging project.
This use of AI for life-and-death decisions sparks debate. Nitschke believes it offers autonomy to individuals, but others worry about relying on AI for ethical choices. Already, AI is playing a bigger role in healthcare, from diagnosing conditions to triaging patients. Hospitals worldwide have adopted AI tools to manage resources, especially during crises like COVID-19, when quick decisions became critical. Yet, while AI can aid in medical decisions, many argue it should not replace moral judgment.
The ethical concerns aren’t limited to healthcare. AI can reflect human biases embedded in data, leading to skewed results. This risk became evident when an algorithm in the U.S. favored younger, healthier patients for kidney transplants, sidelining older ones. After receiving criticism, adjustments were made to reduce bias by involving laypeople and nonprofessionals in the decision-making process.
The idea of using an algorithm to assess someone’s mental state remains controversial. Mental health experts often disagree on what constitutes sound reasoning for choosing death. “You can get a dozen different answers from a dozen different psychiatrists,” says Nitschke, emphasizing the challenge of creating an objective algorithm.
Ultimately, the Sarco and its potential AI-driven assessment raise fundamental questions about autonomy, ethics, and technology’s role in such decisions. While AI tools become more embedded in our healthcare systems, society must grapple with the uncomfortable implications of delegating moral choices to machines.
For now, Nitschke’s machine symbolizes his mission to give people the freedom to make their own end-of-life choices, free from medical intervention. Achieving this goal, however, requires societal discussion on ethics, autonomy, and AI limits.
