International Suicide Prevention Organization Opposes Assisted Suicide

Published by the National Review online on December 3, 2025.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

One of my great frustrations has been the general silence of suicide prevention organizations in the face of the legalization of assisted suicide in various jurisdictions. To me, this failure has been an abdication of such groups' core responsibility because it ignores some suicides, does not oppose facilitation of the suicides of the ill and disabled, and does not grapple with the adverse impact that assisted suicide advocacy can have on suicidal people generally.

That silence has now ended. The International Association for Suicide Prevention just issued a (not quite strong enough) position paper that (equivocally) opposes legalization. From, the “IASP Position Statement on Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (2025)” (my emphasis):

At the present time, countries and jurisdictions are increasingly legalising and regulating assisted suicide, euthanasia, or both practices (sometimes called “Medically Assisted Death,” “Physician Assisted Death,” “Medical Aid in Dying” or similar terms). Assisted suicide is when a medical practitioner provides a patient who has asked to die with the means, usually prescription drugs, for the patient to self-administer to end their own life. Euthanasia is when the medical practitioner directly administers the lethal substance.

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. . . .

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.

No, there is an absolute overlap. Assisted suicide is suicide, which is a “what” descriptor, not a “why.” Euthanasia is homicide at the request of a suicidal patient. So, while I am quite pleased the IASP has issued this statement, it would have been far better had it not distinguished between the suicides of chronically ill people and of those who are believed to be close to death.

The rest of the statement is better:

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.

They certainly should, but no law of which I am aware so requires. Indeed, most allow the suicidal person to define what constitutes unbearable suffering, regardless of the objective ability to ameliorate pain or other symptoms.

More:

We must ensure that all persons considering ending their lives or having their lives ended by others, have access to high quality suicide prevention assessments and interventions, regardless of their problems, circumstances and status of their eligibility for EaAS.

Pie in the sky. No law in any jurisdictions of which I am aware so requires, and proponents would object because they pretend that assisted suicide isn’t really suicide. Moreover, people who ask for hastened death rarely, if ever, are offered prevention services — which would be less effective in any event if the suicidal person knew that at the end of the process, he or she could still receive help to die.

All people and organisations who work in suicide prevention must do their utmost to provide the same level of quality help and interventions to all people who express a wish to die, regardless of the means chosen to end their life and the nature of their circumstances. In our work, we should never take the position that there is a category apart of people who may be “better off dead,” and encourage them to seek death as a solution to their problems.

Preach it! But that would require not distinguishing among suicidal people.

The organization wants more research done on the nexus between assisted suicide and suicide:

IASP encourages and supports research on the relationship between suicide and assisted suicide and euthanasia, and research on best practices in suicide prevention assessments and interventions with persons who are suffering from irremediable medical conditions, as well as ethical standards for suicide prevention with these populations.

I, too, favor more research, but most studies that have been already conducted demonstrate that legalizing assisted suicide increases suicide generally.

So, a round of applause for the IASP for taking a good stand. It isn’t as strong as I would have liked — which would be absolutist — but considering the cowardly silence we have seen for the longest time from suicide prevention organizations, this statement is a thunderclap that could (I hope) stiffen the backs of the rest of the sector into active opposition to all suicides, not just some.