Slovenia Is Right to Stop Death on Demand

In July, the Slovenian parliament approved the law, following a 2024 referendum that found most voters supported legalisation. The law, which was supposed to come into effect this year, would have allowed mentally competent, terminally ill adults to receive medical assistance to commit suicide, provided that their suffering was unbearable and they had exhausted all treatment options—following in the footsteps of countries like Canada, the Netherlands, and Belgium. But this latest vote was called after a civil group, Voice for the Children and the Family, gathered enough signatures, backed by the Catholic Church and the conservative parliamentary opposition.

Slovenia’s U-turn is significant. Last year, 55% of voters were in favour of the law. Many will not have had a sudden change of heart on the principle of assisted suicide itself—rather, it is more likely they voted against this piece of legislation in particular. And the referendum will have energised and mobilised those who feel more strongly against the law. Nonetheless, this is a development worth celebrating. Any obstacle that stands in the way of state-sponsored killing is a step in the right direction.

In the run-up to this most recent referendum, numerous Slovenian medical organisations came out against the law. Earlier this month, the Medical Chamber of Slovenia, the statutory body that licenses and regulates doctors, published a press release stating that “if we want to help, we need a Palliative Care Act, not an Act on Assisted Voluntary End of Life.” Last month, the Slovenian Medical Association, a voluntary professional society representing doctors and dentists, passed a congress resolution “firmly rejecting” the Assisted Voluntary End of Life Act, calling it “ill-conceived” and an improper intrusion into the basic doctor–patient relationship. The National Commission for Medical Ethics has maintained since 2023 that the bill would introduce “executions or suicides as a new health service,” fundamentally changing how medicine understands life and death.

These groups have plenty of reasons to be concerned. Just look at how assisted suicide has played out in countries where the practice has been legalised. In the Netherlands, where both euthanasia (a doctor actively ending a patient’s life) and physician-assisted suicide (a doctor prescribing lethal medication the patient takes themselves) have been allowed since 2002, medically assisted deaths now make up nearly 6% of all deaths in the country. Particularly concerning has been the recent uptick in mental-health-related assisted suicides. Between 2023 and 2024, there was a 60% rise in Dutch patients choosing to end their lives due to psychological suffering. Last year, doctors reported 219 euthanasia cases linked to psychological suffering, a significant jump from 138 the year before and up from just 88 in 2020. Of those most recent cases, 30 people were under 30 when they died, compared with just five in 2020.

One of those young people was Zoraya ter Beek, a 29-year-old who suffered with severe depression, anxiety, autism, and borderline personality disorder. Despite being physically fit, she was cleared to undergo euthanasia last year, after her doctors told her there was nothing more they could do to help her. In a hauntingly similar case, 33-year-old Jolanda Fun ended her life with the help of doctors last year, citing an eating disorder, depression, autism, and mild learning difficulties. More shockingly still, a teen boy aged between 16 and 18 was able to legally end his life because he had autism, depression, and anxiety. The committee that approved his death noted that the doctor on the panel “was convinced that the young man’s suffering was hopeless” and he “did not expect current and any future treatments would improve the quality of life.” The boy had also previously attempted suicide.

This is the inevitable conclusion of assisted suicide. When you accept that everyone has a ‘right to die,’ then, according to its own logic, it becomes unjust and inhumane to deny that right to anyone.

If a person with terminal cancer has the right to end his own life to avoid unbearable suffering, why can someone with a disability for which there is no cure not make that same choice? And if a physically disabled person is allowed to seek out a medically assisted death, what about the mental suffering of someone with a psychiatric illness? There is no natural point at which a line can be drawn between those who should be allowed to die and those who shouldn’t.

This is the problem we see play out in practice in Canada. There, assisted suicide on the grounds of mental illness alone is not set to be legalised until March 2027. But the Canadian programme, Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID), has already expanded far beyond its original purpose, to offer a way out for terminally ill patients [suffering] incurable pain. These days, MAID is treated more as an alternative to life’s hardships than as a last resort. In 2021, the eligibility criteria were expanded to include those for whom death was not “reasonably foreseeable”—that meant patients with chronic conditions or disabilities that made life “intolerable” could now be accepted for an assisted death.

As the MAID application process became easier, some approved cases have had very little to do with physical illness at all. One of the most notorious examples was Amir Farsoud, a 54-year-old disabled man who applied for MAID in 2022 because he was about to lose his home and was accepted due to his chronic back pain. Farsoud did not actually want to die—he admitted this himself—but in the face of receiving no help from the authorities over his housing situation, he decided death was his only option. Thankfully, Farsoud changed his mind and was able to get back on his feet with the help of public donations.

Others weren’t so lucky. Canada has learnt that killing patients is far easier than treating them. In 2022, 61-year-old Donna Duncan was euthanised after a car accident led her to develop a host of complex chronic diseases. Duncan was not treated at her local clinic for her bad concussion because of months-long waiting lists. But she was approved to die in just four days. In Canada, death is a simpler, faster alternative for authorities than solving housing crises, stretched health services, or unemployment. In one particularly disturbing case, a veteran and Paralympian requested her local authorities install a stairlift in her home—only to receive a letter asking her to consider euthanasia instead.

This is the reality of assisted suicide. Far from being kind, compassionate, or civilised, it is a barbaric practice that devalues human life. It is sold to voters as being a more caring option for those living through unbearable suffering. But the truth is, it never ends there. In almost every country or region where assisted suicide is legal, it has expanded far beyond its initial scope, encompassing the disabled, elderly, mentally ill, and, in some cases, the homeless and needy. Some assisted suicide advocates have even started calling for children and babies with severe disabilities to be euthanised.

Slovenians have made the right choice. Hopefully, their parliament will decide to scrap the law altogether. Other countries currently considering assisted suicide—like the UK and France—should follow Slovenia’s lead, pausing their own rush towards state-sanctioned death and channelling their energy into housing, healthcare, and palliative care instead. No civilised society should make it easier to die than to live.