International group warns against normalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia

An anti-suicide group has released a new position statement against legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Key Takeaways:

• Assisted suicide and euthanasia are increasingly being legalized around the world.

• The International Association for Suicide Prevention has released a position statement opposing the normalizing of assisted suicide and euthanasia.

• As assisted suicide is legalized, conventional suicides are known to increase.

The Details:

On December 1, the International Association for Suicide Prevention (IASP) published a powerful new position statement warning lawmakers and health systems against the increasing normalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia. These deadly practices are occasionally alluded to as “medical assistance in dying” or in other euphemistic terms, rather than openly calling them what they are: the intentional killing of vulnerable people.

The position statement brings to mind  the ethical, psychological, and public health risks of treating assisted suicide as compassionate care — especially when the practice extends beyond the terminally ill, and applies to those living with mental health or chronic issues.  

Over the years, laws and regulations governing and allowing assisted suicide and euthanasia, typically referred to as “medical assistance in dying” (MAiD), “Physician Assisted Death,” or “Medical Aid in Dying," have emerged in several countries, including Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, and some states in the U.S. 

However, the IASP cautioned that such laws obfuscate boundaries between suicide prevention and state-permitted killing, resulting in a normalization of death as a “solution” to suffering. 

“There is a strong potential for overlap or equivalence between what we consider to be suicide and euthanasia and assisted suicide (EaAS), particularly when EaAS is provided not at the end of life and instead to those with chronic conditions for whom death is not imminent,” the position paper read.

Instead, the organization references proof indicating that conditions once deemed incurable, such as severe depression, chronic pain, or disability, can be addressed with proper support and intervention. 

Put simply, a life regarded as “unbearable” one year may become meaningful and fulfilled the next, if lawmakers and the rest of society are sufficiently invested in tackling these conditions in life-affirming ways. 

Zoom In:

The association also highlighted that suicide prevention specialists must get involved whenever assisted suicide legislation is proposed or amended, stating that legalizing assisted suicide without robust safeguards would harm global suicide prevention efforts. The paper stated:

Jurisdictions considering legalising and/or expanding the availability of assisted suicide and euthanasia should engage meaningfully with suicide prevention experts and/or organisations to carefully weigh concerns about overlap between what is being contemplated and what we usually consider to be suicide. Any such concerns should have a prominent impact on decision-making.

Jurisdictions that legalise and regulate assisted suicide and euthanasia must ensure that other means to alleviate a person’s physical and emotional suffering, including provision of better psychosocial and material supports, mental health services and palliative care, are systematically offered and provided. Death should never be a substitute for adequate care and support.

The position statement’s central thesis is undeniable: assisted dying should never become a replacement for sufficient medical, psychological, and social care.

Societies must ensure “systematic access to psychosocial, mental health, material, and palliative supports” that reinforce the dignity of the person. Additionally, the IASP stance goes hand-in-hand with concerns voiced by disability rights groups and palliative care advocates, who warn that expanding MAiD to non-terminal patients devalues lives lived with disability or chronic conditions.  

The Bottom Line:

An overlooked moral contradiction is evident from this IASP paper: on one hand, societies rightly channel resources to prevent suicide; on the other, some lawmakers champion the notion of assisted death under the pretext of compassion and autonomy.

The consequent double standard confounds people regarding the tragedy and gravity of suicide. Death must not be framed as a convenient option when quality care or accessible services are wanting.