Wesley J. Smith

Chair and Senior Fellow, Center on Human Exceptionalism

Wesley J. Smith is Chair and Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism.

Wesley is a contributor to The Corner at National Review and is the author of more than 14 books, in recent years focusing exclusively on human dignity, liberty, and equality. Wesley’s most recent book is his updated and revised Culture of Death: The Age of “Do Harm” Medicinea warning about the dangers to patients of the modern bioethics movement which was named one of the Ten Outstanding Books of the Year and Best Health Book of the Year by Independent Publishers Association. He collaborated with Ralph Nader, co-authoring four books with the consumer advocate, notably No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America.

Wesley has been recognized as one of America’s premier public intellectuals on bioethics by National Journal and was honored by the Human Life Foundation as a “Great Defender of Life” for his work against suicide and euthanasia.

An attorney by training, Wesley left the full time practice of law in 1985 to pursue a career in writing and public advocacy and has since published thousands of articles, columns, and opinion pieces on issues pertaining to the moral importance of human life. Wesley addresses the entire spectrum of bioethical issues, particularly relating to conscience, patient protection, eugenics, suicide, transhumanism, medical ethics, and law and policy. Wesley’s writing has appeared nationally and internationally, including in NewsweekNew York TimesThe Wall Street JournalUSA TodayForbes, the Weekly StandardNational ReviewThe Age(Australia), The Telegraph (United Kingdom), Western Journal of Medicine, and the American Journal of Bioethics.

Wesley has appeared on more than a thousand television and radio talk/interview programs, including such national shows as ABC NightlineGood Morning AmericaLarry King LiveCNN Anderson Cooper 360CNN World ReportCBS Evening NewsEWTNC-SPANFox News Network, as well as nationally syndicated radio programs, including Coast to CoastDennis MillerDennis PragerMichael MedvedAfternoons with Al Kresta, and EWTN. He has appeared internationally on Voice of AmericaCNN International, and programs originating in Great Britain (BBC), Australia (ABC), Canada (CBC), Ireland, Poland, New Zealand, Germany, China, and Mexico.

Wesley’s books include Forced Exit: Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide and the New Duty to Die, a broad-based criticism of the assisted suicide and euthanasia movement, which has become a classic in anti-euthanasia advocacy. Wesley’s Consumer’s Guide to a Brave New World explores the morality, science, and business aspects of human cloning, stem cell research, and genetic engineering. A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights Movement serves as Wesley’s searing critique of the ideology and tactics of the animal liberation movement and a rousing defense of the unique importance of the human person, captured by the phrase “human exceptionalism”. Wesley’s The War on Humans, serves as a companion, exposing the anti-human and misanthropic nature of radical environmentalism and a call to return to a human-friendly understanding of ecology. Additionally, Wesley’s Power Over Pain: How to Get the Pain Control You Need, co-authored with Eric M. Chevlen, MD, provides practical responses for those who are the target of Compassion and Choices and other pro-suicide and pro-euthanasia activists.

Wesley is often called upon by executive branch officials, lawmakers, and policy advocates to advise on issues within his fields of expertise. Wesley has testified as an expert witness in front of federal and state legislative committees, and has counseled government and business leaders internationally about matters pertaining to bioethics and other issues about which he advocates.

An international lecturer and public speaker, Wesley appears frequently at political, university, medical, legal, disability rights, bioethics, religious, industry, and community gatherings across the United States as well as at the United Nations and in Europe, Mexico, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and other nations.

Archives

Wesley J. Smith Discusses Mental Health Outcomes for Abortion on The Ann and Phelim Scoop

Wesley J. Smith appeared on The Ann and Phelim Scoop, hosted by Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer, to discuss his latest article, “Study: Mental Illness More Likely After Abortion Than After Childbirth.” Smith explains why the study is both surprising and significant, discusses the findings, and explores why these findings matter regardless of one’s stance on abortion.

Study: Mental Illness More Likely After Abortion Than After Childbirth

A large scientific study has concluded that women who have had an “induced abortion” were more likely to experience mental conditions than were women who have given birth. The study, published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, followed 28,721 women who induced abortions and 1,228,807 who gave birth in hospitals in Quebec, Canada, between 2006 and 2022. The results were striking: In this population-based study of more than 1.2 million pregnancies, having an induced abortion was associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for a mental disorder more than a decade later. Compared with live births and stillbirths, patients with induced abortions had a greater risk of admission for psychiatric disorders, substance use disorders, and suicide attempts over time.

Wisconsin Bill Pending to Ban “Nature Rights” Ordinances

The nature rights movement’s greatest strength isn’t its crackers ideology — i.e., geological features are living persons with the right to “exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution,” and rivers have the “right to flow.” Rather, it is the lack of seriousness with which the movement is taken by expected opponents precisely because it is so crackers. That eye rolling condescension has allowed activists to further their cause almost unimpeded to the point nature rights is the law of several countries and under serious consideration for implementation at the highest level of international governance. Nature rights advocacy is now being funded by the National Geographic Society and

Wesley J. Smith Joins George Noory on Coast to Coast to Discuss Euthanasia

Wesley J. Smith joined George Noory on Best of Coast to Coast AM to discuss human exceptionalism and euthanasia. He defines human exceptionalism for listeners and explains why it’s such an essential concept for medicine and ethics. He also discusses how euthanasia has taken the world by storm, how it’s a betrayal of Hippocratic principles, and why he’s against euthanasia in any and all circumstances. Listen to a Clip Here Listen to the Full Radio Show Here

Wesley J. Smith Talks to Issues, Etc. About Euthanasia Around the World

Wesley J. Smith joined Todd Wilken on Issues, Etc. to discuss euthanasia around the world. Smith discusses how various countries around the world, like Canada, New Zealand, and multiple nations in Europe, have embraced euthanasia. He also explains why this is dangerous to the societal value of human life. We’ve changed the purpose of society from protecting innocent life, for many people, to eliminating suffering. And if eliminating suffering becomes the prime purpose, that quickly mutates into eliminating the sufferer.Wesley J. Smith Listen to the Full Episode Here

Redefining “Human Health” to Impose International Technocracy

The public-health intelligentsia and bioethics movement are determined to become the primary policy decision makers internationally. For example, back in 2020—at the height of COVID—Anthony Fauci wrote that the UN and WHO should be empowered to “rebuild the infrastructure of human existence.” You don’t get much more expansive than that. In the years since, others among that ilk have pounded the same drum furthered by an international agreement known as “One Health” (without US involvement) establishing an international bureaucracy aiming “to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems.” Toward that end, writing in The Lancet, a gaggle of international technocrats and academics reject the WHO’s

“The Atlantic” Details the Horrors of Canadian Euthanasia

Opponents of euthanasia have been screaming about Canada’s god-awful euthanasia machine for years. And it keeps getting worse. Now, the mainstream media — usually in the tank for assisted suicide — has finally noticed, as demonstrated by a thoroughly researched and objectively presented story by Elaina Plott Calabro. It’s a long piece, but it’s well worth everyone’s time. Calabro discusses examples of doctors who have killed hundreds of patients, people who have had themselves killed because they couldn’t access proper support services, and many other cases. Euthanasia is Canada’s fifth-leading cause of death, with more than 15,000 patients terminated annually. But this section really got to me. From, “Canada is Killing

Only Bioethics Can Save the Planet!

The ambition of the bioethics movement continues to inflate. Now, we are told, humanity and endangered species need rescuing. Writing in The Lancet, 22 (count ’em) bioethicists argue that there is a planet to save and they are just the experts to do it! From “Bioethics for the Planet“: Severe threats to the health of humans and other species derive from degradation of Earth’s life-support systems, particularly the impacts of climate change. Researchers and practitioners in clinical medicine, public health, global health, and One Health are increasingly focusing on these risks to planetary health, which include (but are not limited to) rising temperatures, extreme weather disasters, intensified wildfires and flooding, biodiversity and species loss, expansion

Should Caregivers Be Forced to Starve Dementia Patients to Death?

There is a move afoot among bioethicists to allow written directives by dementia patients, signed before the patients have become incompetent, to force caregivers to withhold spoon-feeding and liquids from those patients. Now, one of the country’s most notable and oft-quoted bioethicists, Arthur Caplan, has taken a position in favor of such a policy, in an article in the online publication Medscape. First, Caplan discusses the potential withholding of feeding tubes (artificial hydration and nutrition, or AHN, in medical parlance), which is unquestionably legal because AHN is a medical treatment that involves surgery and medically prepared nutrients and — like other treatments, ranging from surgery to chemotherapy — can be ordered through advance directives to be withheld or

International Tribunals Grant Rights to Nature/Restrict Fossil Fuel Development

The “nature rights” movement continues to advance swiftly across the globe. Recently, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled in an advisory opinion that to protect humans from climate change and other environmental disasters, nature should be granted “rights.” From the opinion (citations omitted): The Court takes note that the United Nations General Assembly has adopt fifteen resolutions and twelve reports that reflect the increasing recognition of the case law on the Earth and the rights of Nature at the global level. Additionally, the Pact for the Future, adopted by Member States of the United Nations in 2024, declares “the urgent need for a fundamental shift in our approach in order to achieve a world in which humanity lives in harmony

Killing for Organs Pushed in the New York Times

Good motives sometimes lead to terrible places. Such is the case with the understandable desire to increase the organ supply, which for years has tempted some bioethicists to stretch the ethics of transplant medicine beyond the breaking point. Now, in the New York Times, three doctors promote the idea of “redefining death” to allow patients to be killed for their organs. First, the authors lament the difficulty of obtaining healthy organs from people whose hearts stop irreversibly after the removal of life support. They also bemoan the shortage of “brain-dead” donors. Then, after discussing a controversial approach that restarts circulation after cardiac arrest (but not to the brain) — which I have posted about before — they get down to the nitty-gritty of