After passing the British House of Commons last year, it looks as though a U.K. bill to legalize doctor-assisted suicide may itself be on life support. After many assurances from the outset that there would be high levels of protections to ensure the system is not “misused” (more on that later), these safeguards have already begun to break down under what seems to be the slipperiest of slippery slope arguments.
The United States should pay attention. Though America previously stood out as having some of the most restrictive doctor-assisted suicide policies worldwide, 10 states have now legalized it, with many more pursuing similar legislation.
As British policymakers reconsider what some have called an “unworkable” bill, Americans must look on with clear eyes at what has happened in countries that have rolled out such policies. The trend is universally dreadful: initial safeguards set up to ensure only those with limited diagnoses have access to such procedures are steadily eroded, victimized groups are significantly more likely to end up pursuing this path, and the numbers of people who qualify for it skyrockets.
Take the Netherlands, for example. When the government legalized euthanasia in 2002, it came with stringent conditions to qualify: a patient’s suffering must be “unbearable with no prospect of improvement,” among many others. Fast forward to 2025, and Dutch members of Parliament will soon find themselves debating a bill allowing people over the age of 75 to choose to die without any illness at all.
Also consider the case of a 29-year-old Dutch woman who suffered from autism and depression. Her condition, while no doubt challenging, was neither terminal nor untreatable. Nevertheless, her case was approved for physician assisted suicide last year. She died in May 2024.
Canada’s experiment with medical assistance in dying showcases an even faster dismantling of the initial safeguards surrounding such a program. Originally intended only for those with terminal illnesses, eligibility has been expanded at lightning speed. The next group set to be included under MAiD are those suffering from mental illnesses with no underlying physical issues. The procedure now accounts for one in every 20 deaths in Canada.
The erosion of safeguards, as well as dramatically increased adoption of procedures such as these, is not an accident. Devaluation of life is the logical conclusion of the arguments made by those who champion the so-called “death with dignity” campaign. Once the line is drawn to say that certain conditions or prognoses warrant assisted suicide — that is to say, that certain lives are legally recognized as being worth ending — it becomes impossible to exclude more and more scenarios.
Many chronic illnesses, for example, may cause greater suffering over a longer period of time than a terminal illness. If assisted suicide is established as a compassionate alternative to suffering, on what grounds can the state deny those who suffer the most? By this logic, a person suffering great mental anguish should have as much access to medically assisted suicide as a terminal cancer patient.
Legalization of assisted suicide is, as British member of Parliament Danny Kruger describes, crossing the Rubicon toward “a worse world, with a very different idea of human value.” That is precisely the issue: Once you deem certain lives legally justifiable to end, the value of life itself is greatly diminished.
WHAT RIGHT DO WE HAVE TO TAKE OUR OWN LIVES?
This is not merely a philosophical exercise. Data from Canada have shown that one in three favor expanding eligibility to those who are chronically homeless. A similar percentage of patients who underwent MAiD reported having their decision influenced by the perception that they were a burden on their family. No moral nation should allow its citizens to be placed in the position of choosing between suicide and being a financial or emotional burden to their family.
We have more than enough data to see through the “guarantees” made by the champions of this movement. America now stands at its own Rubicon. Crossing it means fundamentally altering how we value human life, leaving untold numbers facing impossible choices. It’s not too late to step back from the brink.
Kyle Moran is a political commentator with Young Voices, specializing in international affairs and national security. He graduated from the University of Rhode Island.
