by Ram ben Ze'ev
Assisted suicide, while often framed as a compassionate response to end-of-life suffering, introduces profound ethical, moral, and societal challenges that cannot be ignored. Proponents argue for autonomy and relief from pain, but the broader implications of legalising assisted suicide extend far beyond individual cases, impacting society's values, medical ethics, and the most vulnerable among us.
The Sanctity of Life
At the heart of the opposition to assisted suicide is the sanctity of life. Life, as a fundamental and sacred gift, is not ours to take, even with consent. This perspective is deeply rooted in moral and religious traditions, such as the commandment לא תרצח (Lo Tirtzach – "You shall not murder") from the Torah (Shemot 20:13). By legalising assisted suicide, society risks normalising the idea that some lives are less worthy of protection, undermining the intrinsic value of every human being, regardless of their physical or emotional state.
A Response to the Argument Against Religious Grounds
Critics often contend that arguments based on the Torah, G-D's prohibitions, or other religious principles should not apply to those who do not believe in G-D. However, belief in G-D is not a prerequisite for the existence of His commandments or their relevance. The Torah, G-D's laws, and the mitzvot exist independently of personal belief, just as gravity does not cease to operate because one denies its existence. While individuals are free to ignore these commandments, they must accept responsibility for their choices. When such behaviour negatively impacts society—such as devaluing life through assisted suicide—it becomes a collective issue that warrants rebuke. Society cannot function if the intrinsic value of life is subject to individual interpretation. Instead, a universal respect for life must form the foundation of our laws and ethical standards.
The Slippery Slope to Normalising Death
History and experience show that what begins as a limited policy often expands beyond its original intent. In jurisdictions where assisted suicide is legal, there has been a troubling broadening of eligibility criteria over time. What starts as an option for terminally ill patients can evolve to include those with non-terminal conditions, mental illnesses, or even individuals who simply feel they have no purpose in life. This slippery slope erodes the societal commitment to protecting vulnerable individuals and can lead to the acceptance of euthanasia for increasingly subjective reasons.
The Threat to Vulnerable Populations
Legalising assisted suicide poses significant risks to society’s most vulnerable members—the elderly, disabled, and financially disadvantaged. These individuals may feel pressure, whether explicit or implicit, to choose death over being perceived as a burden to their families or the healthcare system. No safeguard can fully eliminate the potential for coercion, abuse, or subtle manipulation, especially in cases where financial or emotional stress plays a role.
Undermining Medical Ethics
The medical profession has long adhered to the principle of "do no harm," which is central to the Hippocratic Oath. Assisted suicide fundamentally alters the role of the physician, shifting from a healer to a facilitator of death. This change risks eroding trust in the medical community and compromises the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship. Patients may begin to question whether their doctors are committed to prolonging life or weighing the option of ending it.
The Alternative: Palliative Care
Modern palliative care offers effective ways to manage pain and provide comfort to those facing the end of life. The focus should be on improving access to high-quality palliative care, not on legalising assisted suicide. By emphasising compassion and support, society can uphold the dignity of individuals without resorting to taking life.
Psychological and Spiritual Implications
Choosing assisted suicide can have profound and lasting effects on families and communities. Loved ones may struggle with feelings of guilt, wondering whether they supported the decision or failed to do enough to alleviate the person’s suffering. Moreover, from a spiritual perspective, taking one’s own life or facilitating another’s death is viewed by many traditions as a violation of divine authority. Life and death are in G-D’s hands, not ours to control.
A Society Defined by Compassion, Not Convenience
Opposition to assisted suicide is not about denying autonomy or ignoring suffering. It is about affirming the inherent value of every life and committing to a society that stands with those in need rather than taking the expedient path of ending life prematurely. Compassion means walking alongside those who suffer, providing care, and preserving dignity—not condoning the act of taking a life.
Conclusion
Legalising assisted suicide raises more questions than it answers. While it may appear to address individual suffering, it creates significant ethical, social, and practical risks. Society must resist the temptation to adopt policies that compromise the sanctity of life and instead invest in solutions that honour life’s dignity, even in its final moments. True compassion lies not in hastening death, but in ensuring that every individual feels valued, supported, and cared for until the very end.
###
Bill White (Ram ben Ze'ev) is CEO of WireNews Limited, Mayside Partners Limited, MEADHANAN Agency, Kestrel Assets Limited (developer of MAYCOINS), SpudsToGo Limited and Executive Director of Hebrew Synagogue