By Matt Underwood Majority of Slovenians voted against a law on assisted dying, a decision that has sparked significant debate and reflection within the country. The high suicide rate in Slovenia, notably the highest in the EU, adds another layer of complexity to the conversation. This context underscores the urgent need to address the challenges surrounding mental health and end-of-life care within the Slovenian population.
The debate surrounding the proposed law on assisted dying revealed deeply held beliefs and differing perspectives on the role of personal autonomy, religious values, and the state in matters of life and death. One of the central arguments against the law, as expressed by some, focused on the potential for abuse and the fear of a “slippery slope” that could lead to the involuntary euthanasia of vulnerable individuals. Critics voiced concerns that the law might be misused, offering assisted dying to people who do not truly desire it, or being offered due to pressures and outside forces.
Conversely, proponents of the law argued that it was about providing individuals with the right to make their own choices about their end-of-life care, particularly in cases where there was no chance of recovery and only suffering remained. They highlighted the importance of allowing people to maintain dignity and control over their lives, even as they neared the end. Furthermore, those who supported the law felt it should be available for those experiencing constant and unbearable pain without any hope for relief or recovery.
A key point of contention seemed to be the influence of religious beliefs, particularly those of the Roman Catholic Church. The campaign against the law reportedly employed rhetoric that tapped into fears and anxieties, such as claims that the elderly would be pressured into assisted dying or that the law would lead to a “culture of death.” This strategy, similar to that used in previous referendums, successfully mobilized a significant portion of the electorate, particularly among older Catholics.
The opposition campaign was successful in swaying the votes of enough people to defeat the measure. Many supporters of the law felt that the older, more religious population of the country voted down the law and would not allow for it to pass. The vote wasn’t a landslide, but the opposition managed to secure just enough votes to tip the scales. It is worth noting that it wasn’t the whole of the population that rejected the idea of assisted death, rather just enough to tip the referendum.
The rejection of the law does not mean that the Slovenian population lacks empathy. The majority of the population may hold different values and views, especially when witnessing the suffering of others. People also have the right to vote on the laws that govern their lives and have the freedom to make the decisions that shape their own destinies.
The opposition of the law raised questions regarding the quality of life for those facing debilitating and terminal illnesses. Those against the law are thought to believe that palliative care can always mitigate suffering and provide a reasonable level of comfort. However, supporters of the law believed in the right to choose an end when one’s own quality of life is diminishing, such as when one can no longer move, feed or remember family. For some, the option of being able to choose one’s own ending is a source of comfort.
It is worth noting that the law itself was criticized for being poorly written. The Association of doctors was also against it. Regardless of the reasons, this vote is one of many that has happened in recent years, and it is also important to note that Slovenia has a high rate of suicide. As of now, assisted dying is not legal in Slovenia, and it will be up to future generations to deal with these issues.