Referendum on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Between False Autonomy, Systemic Withdrawal of Treatment, and Economic Pressure
Introduction
Slovenia, an EU member state, has once again been caught up this year (2025) in one of the more important processes in the field of public health and healthcare policy, which are rapidly taking place across Europe. It has thus swiftly adopted a new law seeking to legalize medical assistance in active euthanasia and assistance in “voluntary” termination of life, or assisted suicide.
The public has once again not received an explanation of what the new Act on Assistance in Voluntary Termination of Life (ZPPKŽ, EPA 1920-IX) actually entails, and what will actually be decided in the Sunday referendum (November 23, 2025). Public opinion polls suggest that the majority of voters who are going to participate in the referendum will vote in favour of the law, under the traditional circumstance that a qualified majority of voters will not participate in this referendum vote either.
In the public debates, which involved representatives of daily politics, public health, civil society organizations, recognizable individuals, the interested public, as well as in statements and comments on social networks, almost everything was expressed, except for the facts and the essence of the subject matter.
The proposed law addressing assistance in ending life and euthanasia has for decades represented a complex moral, philosophical, and legal dilemma, demanding a careful consideration of ethical values (I have written about this before, in completely different circumstances and contexts, e.g., in Teršek, Poligrafi, 2011). Traditional ethics conditionally limited support for active euthanasia to exceptional cases of unbearable and incurable suffering where no other solutions were available. Legal-philosophical analyses then shifted to considering whether “the right to die” could be recognised as an entry into an “expanded field of freedom” (Teršek, Pravnik, 2011). However, the circumstances of today’s accelerated adoption of such legislation across Europe and the world differ dramatically from these classical starting points.
The rapid legislative momentum does not so much reflect moral progress, but rather a reflection of a systemic process of withdrawing treatment and concealing successful therapeutic alternatives, with a non-negligible role played by latent economic factors. The referendum question is therefore no longer just a question of mercy, but reveals whether we, as a society, will legalise the replacement of curative and holistic medicine with assisted death.
Legal-Ethical Distinction: Not the Right to Die, but First the Right to a Dignified Life
Legal-philosophical analysis has long emphasised a crucial difference: the right to die is neither a constitutional nor a fundamental human right. If it were a right, the legal system would have to enable its effective realisation in practice, which is something entirely different from the mere factual possibility of a person ending their life. The fundamental legal and ethical breakthrough in the debate lies in the state’s positive constitutional obligation, stemming from the protection of the right to life and dignity.
The state must do everything that can reasonably be expected of it to develop, finance, and ensure an effective, accessible, and well-managed system of holistic palliative care and hospices (I published several articles on this years ago, including in Dnevnik, on IUS INFO, but again—in completely different circumstances and contexts). This duty has repeatedly been highlighted in the Slovenian context as an overlooked unconstitutionality regarding dying (Teršek, 2020). If the state fails to fulfil this obligation, it must be held responsible for violating the right to life.
In such a context, it is impossible to speak of genuine and free voluntariness. If assisted death is offered as an alternative to non-existent or inaccessible palliative care—or, worse, inaccessible curative treatment—this is not an autonomous choice, but a forced decision between suffering and death. Legislation on assistance in voluntary termination of life in this case merely formalises a systemic failure to act as required.
Euthanasia as a Failure of Social Policy and Economic Pressures
Critics believe that the haste to legalise euthanasia and Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD/PAS) represents a “failed social policy” (Critique of euthanasia as a social policy failure, 2018). Instead of providing the necessary support, care, and treatment, a solution that is quick and definitive is offered.
- Economic Rationalisation: The most alarming argument is the role of economic factors. The legalisation of MAiD inevitably triggers discussions about potential savings in healthcare systems. Studies in Canada calculated that MAiD could save millions of euros/dollars annually, mainly due to the shorter period of expensive hospitalisations and intensive end-of-life treatment (comp. CMAJ, Cost analysis of medical assistance in dying in Canada, 2017).
- Conflict of Interest: Despite emphasising autonomy, critical analyses warn that this formally promotes therapeutic killing into a “medical commodity”, which becomes a legitimate “option” in the management of healthcare resources (comp. Alliance VITA, End of life Law: Can One Ignore Economic Pressures?, 2024; PMC, Legalised euthanasia will violate the rights of vulnerable patients, 2005). A serious conflict of interest is created between the organisation that must balance its accounts and the patient’s need for expensive care.
The Danger of the ‘Slippery Slope’ and the Fragility of the Vulnerable
A central argument against the legalisation of euthanasia is the irresolvable ethical conflict between satisfying the individual’s request for therapeutic death and ensuring that vulnerable, incompetent, or powerless patients do not receive fatal therapy as a “solution in their best interest” (comp. PMC, Legalised euthanasia will violate the rights of vulnerable patients, 2005; note: an acquaintance received exactly this when he sent his medical documentation to a clinic in Switzerland and asked for an assessment of the possibility of treating a severe bowel disease).
The slippery slope argument warns of the erosion of the initial strict criteria (comp. Keown, 2018):
- Expansion of Criteria: Laws that initially apply only to the terminally ill and severely suffering eventually expand to chronic and psychological illnesses, as has happened in some Benelux countries and Canada.
- Pressure on the Vulnerable: For vulnerable groups (the poor, the elderly, those with disabilities), the pressure “not to be a burden” on their family or the state increases dramatically. It has been shown that vulnerable patients with low socio-economic status find it harder to advocate for their rights to holistic care, which increases the risk of choosing MAiD out of despair (comp. PMC, Association of socioeconomic status with medical assistance in dying, 2021).
- If society is fundamentally understood as ableist , where the lives of the disabled, the elderly, or the mentally ill are considered less valuable, legalisation creates a dangerous precedent.
The Question of “Incurability”: Ignoring Therapeutic Alternatives
The most alarming argument, presented by some scientific sources, is that by rushing with euthanasia, the system (perhaps? no, truly!) conceals or ignores the existence of potential curative or ameliorative solutions for diseases it declares to be “incurable”.
Repurposed Cancer Drugs: Mainstream medicine usually does not include protocols based on repurposed drugs in care. Nevertheless, case reports in peer-reviewed publications have shown the anti-tumour potential of some affordable, non-toxic drugs, such as Ivermectin and Fenbendazole, which, when combined with other substances, achieved complete or near-complete remission in patients with advanced cancer (Makis, Baghli, Martinez, Fenbendazole as an Anticancer Agent?, 2025).
Pathology of Chronic Conditions: The same applies to chronic and disabling diseases, such as “Long COVID” (PASC), which is already becoming a reason for euthanasia requests in some countries. Research has identified the pathological basis of symptoms (fatigue, “brain fog”) in fibrin amyloid microclots (Etheridge, Kell, & Pretorius, A central role for amyloid fibrin microclots in long COVID/PASC, 2022). Reports indicate that specifically monitored triple anticoagulant therapy enables the removal of these microclots and thus the resolution of persistent symptoms (Pretorius et al., Combined triple treatment of fibrin amyloid microclots, 2022).
Consequences of mRNA vaccines: These include serious medical conditions that are either a direct or indirect result of the toxicity of mRNA vaccines (spike protein, prions) and proven, effective drugs that enable the body to cleanse itself of these toxins. This includes both existing and emerging drugs (among others, Nattokinase, and other active ingredients; sources and literature on this topic are available).
If euthanasia is offered to individuals without providing them access to testing and treatment according to these—protocols, increasinlgy published in peer-reviewed journals (mainstream criteria)—this is not just unethical, but constitutes a systemic withholding of vital information. In such circumstances, the voluntariness of the choice ceases to exist; it is replaced by the healthcare system’s failure to act as required.
Conclusion: Responsibility Before Death/as. Killing
The referendum question forces us to stop treating euthanasia as an isolated ethical issue. The challenge is not whether to allow a dignified death in extreme cases, but whether we may offer it as an alternative to treatment which—according to critical legal analyses and some new medical sources—may be entirely achievable, yet concealed or systematically prevented.
An Act on Assistance in Voluntary Termination of Life, adopted in the current context of systemic failures, economic rationalisation, and the concealment of curative options, would thus legalise systemic negligence instead of protecting autonomy. True respect for human dignity and entry into the “expanded field of freedom” are only possible when all options have been exhausted and offered: from effective curative care that does not ignore new findings (about effective medicines and successful cures), to fully developed and accessible palliative care. This is essential!
All media outlets have also censored these explanations. This time, even non-mainstream media. It is clearly evident from social media, however, that only a negligible handful of people understood them.
Post scritpum
Although public opinion polls published by mainstream media prior to the referendum suggested that the law would be approved, the opposite happened. More voters than expected participated in the referendum. The result was close: 53.46% against (but mainly for other reasons, not those explained above), 46.56% in favor. An additional constitutional condition for rejecting the law was that at least 1/5 of all eligible voters had to vote against its enactment. This happened, as 369,513 voters voted against it (see <https://volitve.dvk-rs.si/referendum-zppkz/#/rezultati>). Therefore, at this point, this law will not come into force in Slovenia. In accordance with the legal framework (Referendum and Popular Initiative Act (ZRLI), Art. 25), it will remain so for at least one year.
Dr. Andraž Teršek,
Inštitut Ustavnik (Institute Constitutionalist), Kamnik, November 20, 2025
Main references:
- Alliance VITA. (2024). End of life Law : Can One Ignore Economic Pressures ?. Alliance VITA.
- CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal). (2017). Cost analysis of medical assistance in dying in Canada. CMAJ, 189(3), E101-E107.
- Douglas Kell, Jako Laubscher, Etheresia Pretorius: A central role for amyloid fibrin microclots in long COVID/PASC: origins and therapeutic implications. Biochemical Journal, 479(4), 2022.
- Keown, J. (2018). Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy. Conclusion. Cambridge University Press.
- Makis, W., Baghli, I., & Martinez, P. (2025). Fenbendazole as an Anticancer Agent? A Case Series of Self-Administration in Three Patients. Case Reports in Oncology, 18(1), 856–863.
- Marik, P., Justus H. (2025). Preventing Cancer: The ROOT Protocols. Journal of Independent Medicine, Vol. 1, No. 4, 257-272.
- R J D George, I G Finlay, David Jeffrey (2005). Legalised euthanasia will violate the rights of vulnerable patients. Postgraduate Medical Journal (PMC (PMC, NIH), 81(959), 566–570.
- Donald A Redelmeier, Kelvin Ng, Deva Thiruchelvam, Eldar Shafir (2021). Association of socioeconomic status with medical assistance in dying: a case–control analysis. PMC (PMC, NIH). BMJ Open, 11(5), e047102.
- Pretorius, E. et al. (2022). Combined triple treatment of fibrin amyloid microclots and platelet pathology in individuals with Long COVID/ Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) can resolve their persistent symptoms. ResearchGate. (Manuskript/Poročilo o kliničnih rezultatih).
- Referendum and Popular Initiative Act (ZRLI). <https://pisrs.si/pregledNpb?idPredpisa=ZAKO324&idPredpisaChng=ZAKO977>
- State Electoral Commission (2025). <https://volitve.dvk-rs.si/referendum-zppkz/#/rezultati>
- Teršek, A. (2011). Pravica do smrti – vstop v razširjeno polje svobode. Pravnik, 31, 85–104.
- Teršek, A. (2011). Smrt in milost: ustavnopravni (pre)obrat?. Poligrafi: revija za religiologijo, mitologijo in filozofijo, (November 2011).
- Teršek, A. (2020). Let us not neglect or even put it aside. Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 54(4).
- Wikipedia. (n.d.). Ableism. (As Analytical Context).
- Cambridge University Press. (2018). Conclusion – Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy.
On Nattokinase – some references:
Essential Abstract:
The rapid legislative momentum does not so much reflect moral progress, but rather a reflection of a systemic process of withdrawing treatment and concealing successful therapeutic alternatives, with a non-negligible role played by latent economic factors. The referendum question is therefore no longer just a question of mercy, but reveals whether we, as a society, will legalise the replacement of curative and holistic medicine with assisted death.