Are Demographics Driving the Shift in the Euthanasia Debate?

Note: Although there is a technical distinction between euthanasia and assisted suicide, where the patient self-administers the lethal substance rather than a medical practitioner, the end result is the same. For simplicity, this opinion piece uses the terms interchangeably.

The Quiet Push for Euthanasia Amid Aging Population

I recently came across a CNN article that left me unsettled. It explored the trade-offs involved in sustaining pensions and healthcare for older populations, arguing that prioritizing these expenses often comes at the expense of future investments in areas like education, children, and research and development.

Europe is indeed facing a demographic crisis. With an aging population and a shrinking workforce governments are under immense pressure to reduce the financial burden on welfare states. This is a serious issue. But it is not what truly sent shivers down my spine. What actually disturbed me was the underlying push to normalize euthanasia as a potential solution.

Although mainstream media seldom addresses this directly, euthanasia is quietly emerging as a tool to manage the demographic imbalance. The elderly, increasingly depicted as a financial burden, are reduced to a mere cost-benefit analysis. The implicit message seems to suggest a stark but necessary choice: either we prioritize the elderly or the future generations. But certainly not both. This unspoken narrative subtly frames euthanasia as a “solution” to ease the strain on welfare systems.

Compassion or Economic Convenience?

As Europe faces fiscal pressures from an aging population, one must ask: Is euthanasia truly about compassion, or is it becoming a hidden response to demographic and economic crises?

This question will surely spark strong reactions. Euthanasia is sold as compassion for unbearable pain. But does true compassion lie in helping someone end their life, or in offering unwavering support through their struggles? And what happens when society suggests the elderly are unwelcome burdens, pushing them to think, "I should remove myself for the sake of younger generations"?

The Netherlands serves as a case in point, having faced significant criticism for its insufficient palliative care while making strides in legalizing euthanasia. Rather than viewing euthanasia as a “solution” to financial and demographic issues, we should invest in healthcare, palliative care, and support systems that ensure every life is valued, no matter how sick or old. Compassion is about offering care and dignity, especially when life feels most fragile. The alternative risks a dangerous path, where economic concerns start to determine the value of human life.

Euthanasia Laws: The Expanding Boundaries

In countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg, euthanasia laws have expanded far beyond their initial scope. What started as a law for the terminally ill has now been broadened to include individuals suffering from mental health conditions, such as depression, anorexia nervosa, and schizophrenia.

The age criteria for euthanasia have expanded dramatically. In Belgium, children of any age can request euthanasia if they can understand the decision. The Netherlands permits euthanasia for children 12 and older, with discussions about lowering the age limit even further. The ‘Groningen Protocol’ in the Netherlands allows euthanasia for sick newborns. There have also been cases where transgender people were granted euthanasia due to psychological distress, either before or after “transitioning”.

These developments suggest a shift toward subjective quality-of-life judgments rather than medical necessity. Clearly, there’s growing momentum to grant euthanasia to anyone who feels their life is “complete,” regardless of age.

The UK has resisted assisted suicide for years, focusing instead on improving patients' quality of life. Sadly, on November 29, 2024, Members of Parliament voted in favor of a bill to legalize assisted dying in England and Wales. This bill will face months of scrutiny and further votes in the Commons and Lords before it could become law. If passed, it would mark the first time UK law allows doctors to actively end a patient’s life.

Notably, 90% of palliative care specialists in the UK oppose the legalization of euthanasia, arguing that when patients receive compassionate, high-quality care, their desire for assisted suicide often diminishes. This highlights a key truth: euthanasia may seem compassionate but doesn't address the root causes of suffering.

The Danger of a “Worthy” Life

The normalization of euthanasia risks creating a society where some lives are deemed "worthy" and others "expendable." This dangerous mindset has deep roots in early euthanasia movements, which labeled certain lives as less valuable. Charles Goddard, for instance, advocated euthanasia for those he called "idiots," people he believed were incapable of joy or purpose. This was not an isolated view but a core tenet of the early euthanasia movement, closely tied to the eugenics agenda. Both ideologies embraced Social Darwinism, arguing that some lives were unworthy and should be eliminated.

The chilling reality of these ideas was fully realized in Nazi Germany, where euthanasia became state policy. Today, the expansion of euthanasia to non-terminal conditions, children, the elderly, and individuals with mental health struggles signals a disturbing shift in societal values. In Nazi Germany, the euthanasia program began by targeting disabled children under three, many of whom were killed. By 1945, approximately 300,000 people had been murdered under this policy, justified by twisted ideologies of "purity" and "utility." The dangers of normalizing euthanasia are clear: it sets a precedent where some lives are deemed disposable.

A Call to Uphold Human Dignity

We face a real danger today. An aging population could push societies to see euthanasia as a financial fix. But we must reject this view. Instead, we should focus on what truly matters: dignity, compassion, and support for every individual, no matter their age or condition. A society that values human life for its inherent worth, not fiscal considerations, is the one we should strive for. And naturally, in parallel, let's start having (more) babies.

Alexandra Audrey Tompson

Editor-in-Chief | Lawyer (Admitted in New York; England & Wales)