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

PETA Sues NIH for Violating Its “First Amendment Right” to Talk to Monkeys

Animal rights activists keep attempting to grant “rights” to animals through novel — and I would say, frivolous — lawsuits. PETA sued SeaWorld, claiming that the orcas were “slaves.” The Nonhuman Rights Project has sued three times to have chimpanzees and elephants declared “persons” entitled to writs of habeas corpus. Those suits failed. But animal rights activists never give up. Now, PETA is suing the NIH and the National Institute of Mental Health, claiming that the agency’s refusal to allow them to receive closed-circuit monitoring of research monkeys and communicate directly with them violates the animal rights fanatics’ First and Fifth Amendment rights. The irrationality begins in the complaint’s first and second

Stand Up for (Ideological) Science 2025 Day!

Yesterday was “Stand Up for Science 2025” day, which featured rallies around the country to “defend science as a public good and pillar of social, political, and economic progress.” But that isn’t what it was really all about. From the “Stand Up for Science” website’s listed policy goals: 1. End Censorship and Political Interference in Science Science thrives on open inquiry and evidence-based decision-making. We demand: An end to government censorship: Prohibit all forms of political censorship in scientific research, including restrictions on the topics of scientific research that are eligible for federal funding… A commitment to freedom of scientific expression: Protect scientists’ rights to communicate their findings freely,

The Medical Establishment’s Persistent Zeal to Impose DEI in Education

No matter election outcomes, presidential executive orders, and the ebbing support for the “woke” agenda among the general public, the medical establishment — epitomized by the New England Journal of Medicine — continues to push DEI ideology in medical school admissions policies. A recent advocacy article in the NEJM pledges fervid fealty to DEI, primarily focusing on gender ideology. From, “Facing Political Attacks on Medical Education — The Future of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Medicine” (citations omitted): In recent years, the United States has seen an onslaught of legislation aimed at dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in higher education, including medical education. Although these legislative actions

RFK Jr. Endorses Measles Vaccine

With Texas experiencing a measles outbreak, some might expect RFK to play down vaccines or damn them with faint praise. Nope. He wrote an op-ed piece for Fox News praising the MMR vaccines — in a manner consistent with his belief that the decision to inoculate should be a matter of choice. From “Measles Outbreak Is Call to Action for All of Us:” Parents play a pivotal role in safeguarding their children’s health. All parents should consult with their healthcare providers to understand their options to get the MMR vaccine. The decision to vaccinate is a personal one. Vaccines not only protect individual children from measles, but also contribute to community immunity, protecting those who are unable to be vaccinated due to medical reasons True to form, he also promoted

Science Blogger: It Should Be a Crime to Violate the “Scientific Consensus”

The push to impose rule by “scientific consensus” continues apace — even as the American people clearly rejected that view in the last election (thanks in no small part to how the public health consensus blew the Covid response). But the science powers that be refuse to learn. In fact, they appear to be doubling down. Now, Ethan Siegel, an astrophysicist and award-winning science writer, advocates for criminally and civilly punishing violators of the “scientific consensus.” First, Siegel defines what he means by “scientific consensus.” From, “4 Key Steps to Transform the USA Back into a Scientific Nation:” Only in the presence of decisive evidence can consensus be achieved. Consensus is not “the end goal” of science,

David V. Hicks on the Myths We Live By

We live in an increasingly secular age in which religious believers — particularly Christians — are accused of believing in myths, meaning false stories. But are religious myths really false? Moreover, do modernists have their own myths by which they live? And why do humans create myths and what societal purposes do they serve, anyway? The classical educator and Orthodox Christian David V. Hicks has thought deeply about these questions, which he explores in a fascinating new book: The Stones Cry Out: Reflections on the Myths We Live By. In the known universe, only man quests for both “meaning” and “truth.” Hicks notes that myths are our primary means of pursuing these dual human exceptionalist pursuits. The myths about which he writes are not just religious

Only Doctors Can Prevent Global Warming

Science, medical, and bioethics journals are setting themselves up as the new political resistance to Trump policies, most particularly around global warming controversies. For example, The Lancet published a piece blaming the Los Angeles fires on climate change, which is hardly a medical issue properly understood. A bit later — as I wrote about here — a major bioethics journal published an advocacy article asserting that it is up to bioethicists to prevent global warming. Not to be undone, JAMA has just published a column decrying Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and claiming that preventing climate change is now up to doctors. From, “Defying Environmental Deregulation:” These policy changes may appear catastrophic for effective climate

Swiss Canton Liberates Suicide Tourism from Police Investigation

Switzerland is the world’s suicide tourism capital. Indeed, for the price of transportation and about $11,000, you can be helped to make yourself dead at one of the country’s notorious suicide clinics. Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland if not done for a “selfish” purpose and if the soon-to-be-dead person has decisional capacity. (Why charging more than $10,000 to help make one dead isn’t considered “selfish” is beyond me, because it sure ain’t altruistic!) It used to be that each such assisted suicide had to be at least cursorily investigated by the authorities. But now, that minimal protection has been gutted in one canton and the costs of what’s left of oversight passed on to the suicidal deceased. From

JAMA Article Promotes “Neurodiversity” in Medical School

This is a delicate matter, but I think it must be confronted. The Journal of the American Medical Association has published an article that urges “neurodiversity” be given “holistic” consideration when accepting students into medical school in keeping with diversity goals. From “Embracing Neurodiversity in Medicine — Building a More Inclusive Physician Workforce:” The benefits of diversity have long been recognized with respect to persons with minoritized racial and ethnic backgrounds, women, persons who are LGBTQ+, and others, and there has been a wide range of efforts to increase the representation of these individuals among physicians. Currently, however, these same programs and institutions do not similarly prioritize neurodiversity, the range of

Vice President Vance Defends Human Exceptionalism at Munich

Vice President JD Vance made news in Munich by accusing the European political elite of not really believing in democracy. But another line stood out for me that I think is also worth noting. Vance defended the unique dignity of human life. From the speech: Contrary to what you might hear a couple mountains over in Davos, the citizens of all of our nations don’t generally think of themselves as educated animals or as interchangeable cogs of a global economy. It’s just one sentence in a 20-minute speech. But I think it is important and urge the vice president to expand upon that thought because human exceptionalism is under increasing attack by some of society’s most powerful political and cultural forces. For example: Mainstream bioethics predominately

Washington Bill to Allow Non-MD-Prescribed Assisted Suicide and to Shorten Waiting Period

I previously wrote about pending Oregon and Vermont legislation to do away with the requirement that only doctors be allowed to legally assist suicides. Now, it’s Washington’s turn, with a proposal to allow “qualified medical providers” to prescribe poison, defined as a licensed physician, physician’s assistant, or advanced practice registered nurse. I previously opined about why I think this is a very bad idea, so I won’t belabor the points further. The Washington bill also speeds up the waiting period between the first and second request for poison pills for some suicidal patients: Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, if, at the time of the qualified patient’s initial oral request in subsection (1) of this section, the

Vermont Bill Would Allow Nondoctors to Prescribe Assisted Suicide

Vermont has repeatedly expanded its assisted suicide law since it first passed. Nonresidents are allowed to receive lethal prescriptions, and assisted suicide can be prescribed via Zoom or Skype. Now, a bill has been filed that would allow nondoctor “clinicians” to prescribe death. From H.B. 75: This bill proposes to authorize naturopathic physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants to participate in the processes established in Vermont’s patient choice at end-of-life laws. It would also allow naturopathic physicians to sign and issue do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders and clinician orders for life-sustaining treatment. In other words, a suicidal patient would be able to access poison pills without ever seeing a doctor or having an in-person

Oregon Bill Would Also Allow Nondoctors to Prescribe Assisted Suicide

Yesterday, I posted about a Vermont bill that would allow nondoctors to prescribe death. I found out today that Oregon has similar legislation pending that would allow “providers” to lethally prescribe. SB 1003 specifies that “provider” can mean a licensed physician, a licensed physician assistant, or a licensed nurse practitioner. I wouldn’t trust a PA or NP to diagnose me with six months to live. Would you? That is not a putdown. These valuable medical professionals’ primary roles are to provide generalized care, monitor and manage chronic conditions, and provide wellness services. But they are not physicians. They receive less education and specialized training as compared with physician-certified specialists like cardiologists,