There may be No Proper to Die
New York is expected to soon join twelve other states, in addition to Washington, DC, where assisted dying is sanctioned by law. A February 2, 2026, article in The Economist entitled “The Right to Die Spreads in America” reports that “By the end of the year more than 30% of Americans will live in states where doctors can prescribe a fatal medication to terminally ill patients.” This trend follows the path of the Netherlands and Canada.
The New York law includes safeguards intended to preclude abuse, as does a similar law in Oregon. The patient must have no more than six months to live; must be deemed mentally capable; the decision must be ratified by two doctors; and the patient must be capable of taking the suicide drug themselves. Roughly half of Americans think that assisted suicide is morally permissible—that is, they think there is a right to die.
Two main objections should be raised against these laws, but both rest on the same principle. The first objection is that strict safeguards are easily weakened over time, allowing more people to use this option. The Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) program in Canada began with such safeguards but now allows assisted suicide for those without terminal conditions, and medical officials sometimes suggest MAID in non-terminal cases.
Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com
The availability of MAID and the rapid increase of deaths from it led The Atlantic to publish an article titled “Canadians Are Killing Themselves.” The subtitle reads: “The country gave its citizens the right to die. Doctors are struggling to keep up with demand,” describing MAID in its September 2025 issue. The article reports that “MAID now accounts for about one in 20 deaths in Canada—more than Alzheimer’s and diabetes combined—surpassing countries where assisted dying has been legal for far longer.” It goes on to note that “as of 2023, the last year for which data are available, some 60,300 Canadians had been legally helped to their death by clinicians.” This is the classic slippery slope argument—and not the slippery slope fallacy. Once you violate a fundamental moral principle, you slide into a moral abyss. That principle is that human life has intrinsic, incomparable, and unique value that should not be violated.
This view of human dignity is based on the uniquely Judeo-Christian ideal that we are made in the image of a personal and moral God. It is one of the greatest gifts that Western civilization has given the world, as historian Tom Holland argues in Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World. But many reject this as an objective value.
In The Atlantic article, Jonathan Reggler, a physician who administers MAID, said, “Once you accept that people ought to have autonomy—once you accept that life is not sacred and something that can only be taken by God, a being I don’t believe in—then, if you’re in that work, some of us have to go forward and say, ‘We’ll do it.’”
Many who would allow doctor-assisted suicide in extreme cases of pain and terminal illness would be appalled to see a young person die by choice who does not have a terminal illness. However, once you breach the core principle of the intrinsic value and dignity of human life, that implication logically follows. Thus, the slippery slope argument should forbid doctor-assisted suicide, since it leads to clear cases of abuse.
However, the fact that anyone at all is legally allowed to choose to die with the assistance of a doctor is, in itself, morally wrong. Because of our human dignity, we have the right to life. This implies the right not to be murdered. But suicide, whether assisted by a doctor or not, is self-murder. Just as it is wrong to murder another, it is wrong to murder yourself. Our lives are gifts, not property to be disposed of at will. There are limits to bodily autonomy, and self-murder is one of them. There is no right to die.
Euthanasia (where a doctor administers the drug) or doctor-assisted suicide (where a doctor assists the patient in administering the drug) is often described as “death with dignity,” but there is no real dignity in death, since it snuffs out a unique life in the world. Nevertheless, death can be stewarded well by those who are dying and by those providing care. Suffering is not the greatest evil; murder is. Suffering may be nobly borne and can inspire others to appreciate life as a gift up until death. Advances in palliative care make intolerable physical suffering uncommon. Yes, there are indignities in dying, but these never erase the dignity of those who are dying, who ought not commit suicide or be assisted in suicide (which is murder).
Whatever laws and public opinion may be, we should soberly consider the value of human life. Mistakes in these matters are no small things, since murder may be in the making. Rather than affirming death with dignity, let us affirm life with dignity.
Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D. is a Distinguished University Research Professor of Apologetics and Christian Worldview at Cornerstone University in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
