Australian doctor demonstrates new 'suicide collar' at Dutch euthanasia workshop

In Amersfoort, Netherlands, an Australian physician known for pioneering legal euthanasia demonstrations unveiled a new device aimed at ending life quickly without drugs. Dr. Philip Nitschke, founder of Exit International and described by critics as a polarizing figure in end-of-life debates, demonstrated what he calls the Kairos Kollar during a three-hour Exit workshop. The event drew about 78 attendees, many of them elderly, who traveled to hear about legal issues surrounding euthanasia, the physiology of death, and various methods including gases, medications, and what the group bills as an emerging suite of non-drug options.

At the center of the session was a live demonstration on a plastic mannequin of the Kairos Kollar, a neck-based mechanism designed to apply pressure to the carotid arteries and baroreceptors in the neck. Nitschke described the device as capable of cutting off blood flow to the brain and inducing unconsciousness, followed by death. In a post on X, he touted the device as a major development in the assisted-dying field: fast, reliable, drug-free, and unrestrictable. The demonstration and the broader workshop illustrate how proponents of self-directed death are expanding their toolkit beyond traditional pharmacological methods.

The Kairos Kollar is part of a broader push by Exit International to develop tools that align with what supporters describe as a desire for rapid, autonomous end-of-life options. The device on display at Amersfoort was an inflatable stand-in for the real Sarco pod, a three-dimensional, coffin-like capsule that a 64-year-old woman used in Switzerland in 2024 with assistance from the Last Resort group. The real Sarco pod had drawn police attention in the Netherlands, where authorities raided Nitschke’s office last year and seized the device. During the Amersfoort workshop, attendees only saw an inflatable version, but Nitschke emphasized that the philosophy behind the Sarco—fast, painless death in a compact capsule—remains central to his current work.

The Sarco pod, which can be operated either externally or internally, is designed to induce death by depriving the occupant of oxygen after a button is pressed, a process proponents say can take roughly 10 minutes. Swiss authorities later arrested several people on suspicion of inciting, aiding, and abetting suicide following that first assisted death with the device. Investigators alleged that the capsule had not functioned as intended and that the woman suffered injuries consistent with strangulation, though the Last Resort founder, Dr. Florian Willet, maintained that the case did not reflect a crime. Willet was later released in December 2024 and was never charged. In May 2025, Willet died, a development Nitschke described as a tragedy and said he believed stemmed in part from the stress of the case and subsequent investigations.

Nitschke’s background in end-of-life care is long and contested. He is widely recognized as the first doctor to administer a legal, lethal voluntary injection and the inventor of the original Sarco concept. His exit from mainstream medical practice began when a 2014 decision by Australia’s Medical Board suspended his license after he supported a patient’s decision to end his life. Nitschke publicly disputed the ruling, arguing that the decision to discuss and pursue end-of-life choices should not be curtailed. He later reclaimed limited medical privileges under strict conditions and has continued to advocate for expanded access to euthanasia, often clashing with professional and religious groups opposed to legalized self-harm.

The Swiss and Dutch episodes underscore a broader, cross-border debate over what constitutes lawful assistance in dying—and who should decide what methods are permissible. Proponents argue that the right to die with dignity should encompass a broad range of options and that law should reflect patient autonomy. Critics warn that devices designed to bypass traditional medical oversight could blur lines between voluntary death and coercion, and they point to potential risks of misapplication, malfunction, and misinterpretation of consent.

Against this backdrop, Nitschke has signaled a continuing program of invention. He is pursuing a dual Sarco pod concept intended for couples who wish to die in each other’s arms, and he has discussed a so-called kill-switch implant that could be embedded in a leg to count down time toward an anticipated death, potentially allowing dementia patients to schedule end-of-life timing in advance. He frames such developments as solutions to what he calls the “dementia dilemma”—the difficulty of ensuring informed consent when individuals lose decision-making capacity. His latest projects also include ongoing updates to The Peaceful Pill eHandbook, a guide he co-authors that provides information on end-of-life strategies and is updated multiple times a year.

The conversations surrounding Kairos Kollar and similar devices are far from purely theoretical. Critics warn that non-drug methods could be misused or misinterpreted, while supporters maintain that every tool that expands personal autonomy deserves careful consideration, testing, and transparent regulation. The complexity of these issues is amplified by rapidly evolving technology, varying national laws, and divergent public sentiments about the ethics of assisted dying.

As Nitschke and others push forward with new mechanisms and refinements, the underlying questions remain: How should societies regulate technologies that enable self-directed death? What safeguards ensure genuine informed consent and protect vulnerable individuals from coercion or accidental harm? And how can medical, legal, and ethical norms adapt to an area where personal autonomy, patient safety, and public policy intersect in deeply contested ways?

Public debates will continue to unfold as clinics, advocacy groups, and policymakers weigh the benefits and risks of novel end-of-life tools. For now, Nitschke’s demonstrations at Exit workshops in Europe illustrate a movement that remains resolutely anchored in questions of law, ethics, and personal choice, even as the precise applications and regulatory frameworks continue to be defined.