Socrates’ Choice: A Philosophical Perspective on Euthanasia, Suicide, and Assisted Suicide

anastasios71/AdobeStock

SECOND THOUGHTS

Call no man happy before he is dead, but only lucky.

—Solon, ancient Greek lawmaker, one of the Seven Sages of Greece

Recently, Psychiatric Times columnist H. Steven Moffic, MD, shared his thoughts about deciding how to die to which Mark S. Komrad, MD, who is involved in the psychiatric aspects of physician-assisted suicide, replied, followed by a rejoinder and clarification by Dr Moffic. I would like to address Dr Moffic’s question with a philosophical perspective on dying. We will examine Socrates’ choice to die (and other examples of suicide which go by different names), as well as what is meant by a “good death,” which is the literal meaning of euthanasia, from the Greek, εὐθανασία.

Why philosophy, the reader may ask? German psychiatrist-philosopher Karl Jaspers, MD, who introduced the phenomenological method in psychiatry and became one of the leading philosophers of postwar Germany, put it very clearly¹:

If anyone thinks he can exclude philosophy and leave it aside as useless, he will be eventually defeated by it in some obscure form or another.

Part I: A Philosophical Perspective

Euthanasia, suicide, and physician-assisted suicide are topics that have stirred considerable debate in contemporary society. These practices raise profound questions about the value of life, the morality of death, and the role of individual autonomy in decisions concerning one’s existence. In the realm of philosophy, these issues are not new; they have been pondered by thinkers throughout history. One of the most famous cases that resonate with the philosophical discourse on this matter is the choice made by Socrates to end his life through suicide. This essay explores euthanasia, suicide, and physician-assisted suicide from a philosophical standpoint, with a particular focus on Socrates’ choice and its implications for contemporary ethical views.

Philosophical Foundations of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

Philosophy provides a framework for understanding and evaluating the moral dimensions of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. These practices can be examined through various ethical theories, including utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics.

From a utilitarian viewpoint, the morality of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is determined by the consequences of the actions. Utilitarianism, championed by British philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, asserts that the best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness and minimizes suffering. In this context, euthanasia and assisted suicide can be seen as morally permissible if they alleviate unbearable pain and suffering, thereby enhancing the overall well-being of the individuals involved.

Deontological ethics, particularly those espoused by German philosopher Immanuel Kant, focus on the adherence to moral rules and duties. From a deontological standpoint, the act of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide may conflict with the duty to preserve life. Kantian ethics emphasize the intrinsic value of human life and the moral obligation to respect it. Therefore, these practices may be deemed morally unacceptable if they violate the principle of treating individuals as ends in themselves rather than means to an end.

Virtue ethics, rooted in the ancient Greek philosophy of Aristotle, emphasizes the development of moral character and the pursuit of virtue. In the context of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, virtue ethics would consider the intentions and moral character of the individuals involved. If the decision to end life is made with compassion, courage, and a genuine desire to alleviate suffering, it may be regarded as a virtuous act. Conversely, if the decision stems from selfish motives or a lack of respect for life, it would be deemed morally problematic.

Socrates’ Choice: A Good Death

The trial and death of Socrates constitute one of the great moral events of antiquity, indeed of history …

—Paul Johnson²

Euthanasia, from the Greek, εὐθανασία, literally means “good death.” Socrates, one of the most influential philosophers in Western history, faced a situation that has been interpreted by many as a form of assisted suicide. Was it a good death?

Condemned to death by the Athenian court for impiety and corrupting the youth, Socrates chose to drink a cup of hemlock rather than escape into exile or appeal his sentence. His decision has profound philosophical implications and offers valuable insights into the discourse on euthanasia, the nature of suicide, and the ethics of physician-assisted suicide.

Socrates’ choice must be understood within the broader context of his philosophical beliefs and the societal norms of ancient Athens. Socrates valued the pursuit of truth and virtue above all else. He believed that living a life in accordance with one’s principles was more important than physical survival. His decision to accept the death sentence rather than flee was a demonstration of his commitment to his ideals and his respect for the laws of the state.

Philosophical Implications

Socrates in prison, about to die for the right to express his opinions, is an image of philosophy for all time.

—Paul Johnson²

And indeed this image is captured poignantly by French artist Jacques Louis David in his neoclassical painting, “The Death of Socrates” (1787), on view at The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. I do not think it is too much to make a parallel with the Last Supper of Jesus Christ. In both cases, we have a tragic figure in his final Earthly moments surrounded by his closest disciples, facing a death foretold with equanimity.

Socrates’ death raises several philosophical questions regarding autonomy, morality, and the nature of death. By choosing to end his life, Socrates exercised his autonomy in a manner consistent with his beliefs. This act can be interpreted as a form of dignified death, where Socrates took control of his fate and embraced death as a natural part of life. His choice underscores the importance of individual autonomy in making end-of-life decisions.

Moreover, Socrates’ choice reflects a profound understanding of the nature of death. He viewed death not as an evil to be feared but as a transition to another state of existence. This perspective challenges the conventional view of death as an ultimate harm and suggests that the ethical evaluation of euthanasia and assisted suicide must consider the individual's attitude towards death.

Recall Sophocles’ words after being offered hemlock in a cup, “I can still pray that my departure from this world will be beneficent. So do I pray, and I hope my prayer will be granted.” After drinking the hemlock, his friends began to weep. “What a way for men to behave!” he remonstrated with them, “I sent away my womenfolk to prevent this kind of scene. I plan to die in a reverent silence, and now your tears are forcing me to joke! Pray, be calm, and brave.”¹ With that, his legs already heavy from the poison, he lay down. Taken for dead, a cloth covering his face, Socrates suddenly removed the cover and pronounced his final words to his wealthy friend and confidant: “Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius. Do so and don’t forget.”¹

Antigone’s Suicide: Affective Bonds vs the State

Another relevant example from ancient Greek literature is the suicide of Antigone, a character in Sophocles’ play. Antigone defies the order of King Creon by burying her brother Polynices, who was considered a traitor. As punishment, Creon condemns her to be entombed alive. Faced with an agonizing death, Antigone chooses to hang herself, asserting her autonomy even in her final moments. Antigone’s choice highlights themes of individual autonomy, resistance against unjust authority, and the acceptance of death on one’s own terms.

Her death, much like that of Socrates, serves as a poignant example of the complexities surrounding suicide in philosophical discourse. Slovenian critical theorist, Slavoj Žižek, “the most dangerous philosopher in the West,” has given us a new translation of Antigone’s tragedy with no less than 3 alternative endings—Sophocles’ own and 2 Žižekian twists. This restaging forces us to confront what we are to make of the original message of the play today.³

Antigone is, in my reading as a social philosopher and family therapist, a foundational text about affective bonds and attachment versus society. Under normal circumstances, we comfortably balance the two. Yet, when state power or social conventions undermine the dignity of human and social relations, the tension can become unbearable. Recall that during the height of the COVID-19 syndemic, family members could not visit their loved ones dying in hospital and could not bury them. This triggered a deep-seated revulsion, feeding misunderstanding and mistrust of public policies of confinement and isolation.

Jewish Prisoners in Nazi Concentration Camps

A particularly harrowing example of individuals choosing suicide is found among Jewish prisoners in Nazi concentration and death camps during World War II. Claude Lanzmann’s documentary “Shoah” provides a haunting exploration of life and death in Nazi death camps.⁴ Among the many atrocities, it sheds light on the suicides of prisoners who, faced with the unimaginable horrors of torture, starvation, and the certainty of a brutal death at the hands of their captors, chose to end their lives rather than endure further torment.

This act of defiance against the Nazis’ dehumanizing regime was a way to exercise the last vestiges of their autonomy and to reclaim some measure of control over their fate. These acts are a stark reflection of the human condition under extreme duress, raising questions about agency, dignity, and the limits of human endurance. Lanzmann’s work underscores the despair and loss of hope experienced by victims, presenting suicide as a tragic consequence of oppression. The discussion about suicide comes after a 9-and-a-half-hour film marathon. When asked why he would end “Shoah” on such a negative note, Lanzmann defended suicide as a positive affirmation, a final assertion of control in an otherwise powerless existence.³

Simone Weil’s Passive Suicide by Self-Starvation

Simone Weil, a French philosopher, mystic, and activist, is often cited as an example of passive suicide through self-starvation. Weil, known for her unwavering empathy and solidarity with the oppressed, deliberately restricted her food intake during World War II. Her health deteriorated as she sought to align herself with those suffering from hunger under Nazi occupation. Her death raises profound ethical and philosophical questions about sacrifice, autonomy, and the intersection of personal belief with the realities of suffering.

Bobby Sands and Political Suicide

Bobby Sands, an Irish member of the Provisional IRA, is a notable example of political suicide. While imprisoned in a British jail in 1981, Sands led a hunger strike to protest the British government’s refusal to grant political prisoner status to IRA detainees. He ultimately died after 66 days of starvation, sparking international attention and debate. Sands’ hunger strike exemplifies the use of self-inflicted death as a form of political resistance, raising questions about agency, sacrifice, and the role of individual acts in broader societal movements. His death resonated deeply in Ireland and beyond, highlighting the intersection of personal autonomy and collective struggle.

Mohamed Bouazizi and the Arab Spring

Mohamed Bouazizi, a Tunisian street vendor, ignited the Arab Spring through his tragic act of self-immolation in December 2010. Bouazizi’s suicide was a desperate response to systemic oppression and humiliation after government officials confiscated his goods and allegedly assaulted him. His death became a powerful symbol of resistance against injustice, sparking protests that led to the overthrow of Tunisia's government and inspired uprisings across the Arab world. Bouazizi’s act underscores the profound connection between individual autonomy and collective movements, illustrating how a single tragic event can catalyze societal change.

Modern Ethical Views and Socrates’ Legacy

Socrates’ choice has enduring relevance for contemporary debates on euthanasia and assisted suicide. His legacy invites us to reconsider the ethical foundations of these practices and to approach them with a nuanced understanding of individual autonomy and the nature of death.

One of the key principles in modern bioethics is respect for autonomy. Socrates’ choice exemplifies the exercise of autonomy in a profound way. Today, this principle is central to arguments in favor of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Individuals should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies and lives, including the choice to end their suffering through euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.

Socrates’ choice also highlights the importance of compassion in ethical decision-making. Modern advocates of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide stress the role of compassion in alleviating unbearable suffering. Socrates’ acceptance of death as a means to escape the suffering imposed by his sentence resonates with the compassionate rationale behind these practices.²

Socrates’ perspective on death challenges the conventional view of it as an ultimate harm. His philosophical approach encourages us to rethink the nature of death and to consider it as a transition rather than an end. This understanding can inform contemporary ethical discussions on euthanasia as a “good death” and assisted suicide as a compassionate response to suffering, suggesting that these practices may be morally permissible if they align with the individual’s understanding and acceptance of death.

Views of Psychiatrists in Canada, the US, and Europe

The perspectives of psychiatrists in Canada and the US add another dimension to the debate on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. In both countries, there is a recognition of the importance of mental health and the role of psychological suffering in decisions related to end-of-life care.

Canadian psychiatrists emphasize the need for comprehensive mental health assessments before considering euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. They advocate for thorough evaluations to ensure that patients are not making decisions based solely on treatable mental health conditions such as depression or anxiety. Additionally, Canadian psychiatrists highlight the importance of palliative care and support systems to address the psychological and emotional aspects of terminal illness.

In the US, psychiatrists also stress the significance of mental health evaluations in the context of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. They argue that patients should be provided with adequate mental health support and counseling to explore all possible options for alleviating suffering. American psychiatrists are concerned about the potential risks of coercion and the need to safeguard vulnerable populations, ensuring that decisions are made with full autonomy and informed consent.

In many European countries, there is a nuanced approach to these practices, deeply rooted in both ethical considerations and the comprehensive understanding of mental health. European psychiatrists emphasize the importance of holistic mental health assessments, taking into account not only the psychological state but also the socio-cultural context of the patient. They advocate for a multi-disciplinary approach, involving various health care professionals to ensure that all aspects of the patient’s well-being are considered. European psychiatrists are particularly concerned with safeguarding the autonomy of patients while also addressing the potential for vulnerability and coercion. They stress the necessity of informed consent and the importance of palliative care options to support patients in their end-of-life decisions.

Conclusions

Euthanasia, suicide, and assisted suicide are complex and contentious issues that require careful philosophical consideration. Socrates’ choice to end his life by drinking hemlock offers valuable insights into the ethical dimensions of these practices. His legacy underscores the importance of individual autonomy, compassion, and a nuanced understanding of death in making ethical decisions about end-of-life care.

The views of psychiatrists in Canada, the US, and Europe further illuminate the importance of mental health assessments and support systems in these decisions. By examining these practices through the lens of philosophy, Socrates’ example, and psychiatric perspectives, we can gain a deeper understanding of the moral principles that should guide our approach to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Finally, the lessons that remain from Socrates’ choice not only apply to philosophy as a life of practice but for the practice of psychiatric medicine. As a matter of principle, I am not for suicide, assisted or otherwise, by whatever term or definition of this we adopt, applied to whatever circumstances. Yet, it is hard to dismiss the serious and profound examples raised here, beginning with Socrates’ choice, followed by Antigone’s suicide, Simone Weil’s slow suicide by self-starvation in solidarity with victims of war, Jewish suicides in the Nazi death camps, political suicide by the likes of IRA prisoner Bobby Sands in a British prison, and Mohamed Bouazizi whose suicide triggered the Arab Spring, and of course, Franco-Algerian existentialist Albert Camus on suicide in The Myth of Sisyphus.⁵

Socrates’ Choice as an Event. Socrates’ choice is the most significant single event in the history of Western philosophy. We could go so far as to say it is the defining event of its birth and its legacy—a veritable philosophical event in the full sense of the word. An event, as defined by French philosopher Alain Badiou, marks a before and an after and, through a radical fidelity to its meaning, permanently changes one to the point that one becomes a new subject.⁶ With Socrates’ death, we have the twin birth of philosophy as a practice and the birth of the human being as an aware and ethical subject. 

Recall once more Socrates’ last words: “Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius. Do so and don’t forget.” Much has been written as to the meaning of this gnomic farewell. Recall too that in Socrates’ Athens, Asclepius was a physician-god of healing with the power of life, even raising the dead. Temples to Asclepius were erected all over Greece and Asia Minor, yet the Athenian Asclepion was built privately without state sanction.

This represents the tension between Socrates’ beliefs and those of the state, which gets to the heart of the accusation of impiety against him that led to his trial and conviction. Recall too that these tensions between the convictions of the individual and the power of the state are at stake in Antigone’s suicide and in the more contemporary examples reviewed previously.

Now, what about the sacrifice of a cock to Asclepius? A cock crows the hopeful promise of a new day, symbolizing rebirth and afterlife to the Athenians. In his last request to sacrifice a cock to Asclepius, in calming his weeping friends and reaching for a reverential silence at his death, Socrates bequeathed us an eloquent paean to life and to the good death.

Pharmakos and Skándalon. As if this were not enough, the final key to unlock this puzzle of Socrates’ last words is the polysemic Greek term φαρμακός, pharmakos, meaning both poison and remedy.⁷ Moreover, the oldest meaning of pharmakos is scapegoat, the blameless victim that is sacrificed to expiate the sins of unhealthy others to carry disease and pestilence away from the community.⁸ The Biblical version of this in the Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew word מִכְשׁוֹל, miksol, in the New Testament was σκανδαλον, skándalon, literally a “snare or stumbling block,” meaning to cause someone to sin. Along with the charge of impiety, Socrates was the scapegoat accused of causing the youth of Athens to stumble. On the contrary, Socrates as a skándalon unmasks the corruption and tensions of his society. For us, these words carry starker modern meanings, and Socrates’ death unmasks the scandal of Athens and his death is a scandal in the history of our civilization.

In administering the hemlock to the scapegoat Socrates, it became both a poison to carry out the death sentence of the Athenian court and a remedy for his virtue. The pharmakos was the healing liberation from the false society of Athens and an affirmation and apotheosis of the life of truth to which Socrates in his life and philosophy for eternity have given birth. We may well and truly conclude, with Solon, that Socrates had a good death (the original Greek meaning of εὐθανασία, euthanasia) and that he lived a happy life.

Here is an appreciation of Socrates’ choice and virtues by James Bailey, MD, a contemporary physician⁸:

Socrates’s last words thwart Athenian authorities’ attempts to silence him, issue a call for Asklepian ideals to prevail in the city of Athens, and identify the selfless caring for others exemplified by Asklepios as the highest duty for all humans. Socrates calls us from the past to remember timeless Asklepian physician duties to self, patients, and community.

Part II: A Psychiatric Physician’s Practice

May I never see in the patient anything but a fellow creature in pain.

—Moses Maimonides⁹

As a practicing psychiatric physician, informed by philosophy and social psychiatry, I would like to outline my profession of principles on euthanasia, suicide, and physician-assisted suicide, the latter of which goes by the name of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in Canada.

1. Differentiate euthanasia from physician-assisted suicide (called MAiD in Canada):

• Euthanasia is the intentional act of ending a person’s life to relieve intractable pain or suffering, usually carried out by a physician or health care professional.
• Euthanasia is further divided into 2 types:
  • Active euthanasia: Involves direct action, such as administering a lethal injection, to cause the patient’s death.
  • Passive euthanasia: Occurs when life-sustaining treatment is withheld or withdrawn, allowing the patient to die naturally.
• Physician-assisted suicide (PAS), on the other hand, occurs when a doctor provides a patient with the means—most commonly a prescription for a lethal dose of medication—to end their own life. The critical distinction between active euthanasia and PAS lies in who administers the life-ending action: in PAS, the patient takes the final step.

2. Differentiate 3 types of suicide:

• Due to mental illness and despair
• Due to physical illness and infirmity
• As a response to socio-political conditions

I have compassion and empathy for all 3 predicaments. And yet, prescription does

not always follow description; to understand is not necessarily to accept or approve. As a physician, I will not aid and abet anyone’s death except in the passive sense of not actively intervening to sustain life as in “no resuscitation” orders. I do believe, nonetheless, that we have an active obligation to relieve suffering through accompaniment, mental, relational, and social care, and the medical relief of pain. I would add that we should do all we can to respect the dignity of others and preserve our own.

The debate in Canada has now polarized around the first type of physician-assisted suicide for mental illness. And it hinges on the notion of rights and equal access. I find it incongruent bordering on absurd that I dedicate so much energy dealing with suicidal youth and our attempts as partners with youth, their families, and health and social care services to prevent their repetition while colleagues in my own department are promoting physician-assisted suicide as a right for mental patients.

3. Distinguish between empathy and sympathy:

• As I put it in my analysis of polarization, distinguish between description and prescription (see also Gordon Friesen’s article).
• Description: It is one thing to have therapeutic empathy for a predicament such as the pain and suffering associated with severe and chronic illness, and to describe it accurately and to understand it.
• Prescription: It is quite another to sympathize with it and support it and actively prescribe suicide as a medical solution, whether voluntary (a personal choice), nonvoluntary (the person cannot choose or make their wishes known) or involuntary (a competent person does not consent).

This is not only the infamous “slippery slope” that Karandeep Sonu Gaind, MD, in Canada and Mark S. Komrad, MD, in the US have warned us about but a trenchant reframing of the stakes and the category mistakes made in our thinking about physician-assisted suicide (MAiD in Canada) which legitimizes its medical practice. A category mistake occurs when we present something from one category as if it belongs to another. Description (what is, factually) and prescription (what ought to be, in value terms) are separate and distinct categories.

Speaking for myself, I took the Hippocratic Oath¹⁰ upon graduating from McMaster Medical School, along with the Oath or Prayer of Maimonides.⁹ Both of these ancient prescriptions for ethical medical practice encourage beneficence regarding human suffering and humility in the face of our all-too-human limitations. Hippocrates’ Oath further demands that the physician cause no harm when healing the sick and enjoins against assisted suicide and abortion¹⁰:

With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage. Nor shall any man’s entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so. Moreover, I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child.

Resources

Here are some essential texts on Socrates, Antigone, suicide, and the Shoah:

• Paul Johnson, Socrates: A Man for Our Times. Viking; 2011.² This biography by a British journalist with a compelling account of Socrates’ choice is both scholarly and accessible to non-philosophers. Highly recommended.
• Slavoj Žižek, Antigone. Bloomsbury; 2016.³ Slovenian philosopher Žižek’s retelling of Antigone’s story offers Sophocles’ original ending and two alternative endings that Žižek offers to resolve her predicament differently without resorting to suicide.
• Claude Lanzmann, Shoah: An Oral History of the Holocaust. The Complete Text of the Film. Pantheon Books; 1985.⁴ French filmmaker Lanzmann’s powerful testament to the horrors of the Holocaust told entirely through interviews with those involved on both sides—prisoners and guards. Antek Zuckerman, who fought in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, spits out: “If you could lick my heart, it would poison you.”
• Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays. Alfred A. Knopf; 1955.⁵ The Franco-Algerian Nobelist’s most famous statement of his philosophy of the absurd, famously focusing on suicide as “the only truly serious philosophical problem.”
• Al Alvarez, The Savage God: A Study of Suicide. Random House; 1972.¹¹ British poet and literary critic Alvarez offers something different: a personal digest about suicide through poetry, sociology, psychology, and history from his perspective as a friend of the poet Sylvia Plath who completed suicide and reflections on his own attempt.
• William Styron, Sophie’s Choice: A Novel. Random House; 1979.¹² This poignant American novel poignant inspired this essay. In it, Sophie, a Polish Catholic survivor of Auschwitz, was forced to choose which of her 2 children would live when she arrived at the camp.

Dr Di Nicola is a child psychiatrist, family psychotherapist, and philosopher in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, where he is professor of psychiatry & addiction medicine at the University of Montreal. He is also clinical professor of psychiatry & behavioral health at The George Washington University and president of the World Association of Social Psychiatry (WASP). Dr Di Nicola has received numerous national and international awards, honorary professorships, and fellowships. Of note, Dr Di Nicola was elected a Fellow of the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences (FCAHS), given the Distinguished Service Award of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), and is a Fellow of the American College of Psychiatrists (FACPsych). His work straddles psychiatry and psychotherapy on one side and philosophy and poetry on the other. Dr Di Nicola’s publications include: A Stranger in the Family: Culture, Families and Therapy (WW Norton, 1997), Letters to a Young Therapist (Atropos Press, 2011, winner of a prize from the Quebec Psychiatric Association), and Psychiatry in Crisis: At the Crossroads of Social Sciences, the Humanities, and Neuroscience (with D. Stoyanov; Springer Nature, 2021).

Acknowledgements

H. Steven Moffic, MD, is a fellow Psychiatric Times columnist and both Karandeep Sonu Gaind, MD, and Mark S. Komrad, MD, DFAPA, are prominent voices in the physician-assisted suicide debate. All 3 are respected psychiatric colleagues in and dear friends. My title consciously echoes the title of William Styron’s poignant but controversial novel, Sophie’s Choice (1979)¹² which won the National Book Award. In his essay, Dr Komrad cites the long history and tradition of medical ethics starting with Hippocrates, whose oath I have taken. Nonetheless, as Socrates’ choice instructs, even philosophy which purports to be “the Queen of the sciences,” offering sober second thoughts on society, does not somehow float above society ensconced in an ivory tower but is necessarily and forcibly embedded in that same society, as Karl Jaspers, MD, reminded us.¹

References

1. Jaspers K. General Psychopathology. Hoenig J, Hamilton MW, trans. Manchester University Press; 1963:769-770.

2. Johnson P. Socrates: A Man for Our Times. Viking; 2011.

3. Žižek S. Antigone. Bloomsbury; 2016.

4. Lanzmann C. Shoah: An Oral History of the Holocaust. The Complete Text of the Film. Pantheon Books, 1985.

5. Camus A. The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays. Alfred A. Knopf; 1955.

6. Di Nicola V. Badiou, the event, and psychiatry, part 2: psychiatry of the event. Blog of the American Philosophical Association. November 30, 2017. Accessed April 25, 2025. https://blog.apaonline.org/2017/11/30/badiou-the-event-and-psychiatry-part-2-psychiatry-of-the-event/

7. Derrida J. Plato’s pharmacy. In: Johnson B, trans. Dissemination. University of Chicago Press; 1982.

8. Bailey JE. Socrates’s last words to the physician god Asklepios: an ancient call for a healing ethos in civic life. Cureus. 2018;10(12):e3789.

9. Oath of Maimonides. Wikipedia. Accessed April 25, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Maimonides

10. Practo Blog for Doctors. The Hippocratic Oath: The Original and Revised Version. Accessed April 25, 2025. https://doctors.practo.com/the-hippocratic-oath-the-original-and-revised-version/

11. Alvarez A. The Savage God: A Study of Suicide. Random House; 1972.

12. Styron W. Sophie’s Choice: A Novel. Random House; 1979.