STATEMENT: UK MPs vote to legalise assisted suicide

LONDON – (20 June 2025) UK MPs today voted by a majority of 23 to legalise assisted suicide.

Reacting to this news, Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, said:

“Today’s vote to approve the Leadbeater Bill on assisted suicide—314 to 291—is a grave and chilling development for the United Kingdom. Parliament has signaled its willingness to cross a dangerous moral line: allowing the intentional ending of life as a form of healthcare. When the state begins to endorse death as a solution to suffering, the most vulnerable—those who are elderly, disabled, depressed, or alone—will soon find themselves wondering if their lives are still worth living, or worse, if they’re expected to die.

“The consequences of this decision will echo far beyond the chamber walls. It opens the door to coercion, and to lives cut short out of fear, despair, or pressure. No safeguard can undo the message this bill sends: that some lives are no longer worth protecting. At every stage, support for the bill has dropped and this narrow vote underscores the growing concern with this deeply flawed bill.

“Parliament has fundamentally failed to protect the country from a descent into a culture of death. As the bill moves forward, we urge the House of Lords to listen to the voices of doctors, disability advocates, and families who know that real compassion means care, not killing. A society that values life must have the courage to say no to assisted suicide.”

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only. 

Pictured: Robert Clarke

Why We Need to Champion the Life, Purpose, and Dignity of Every Person, Not Euthanasia or the UK Assisted Suicide Bill

Growing euthanasia practice in Canada spells a deep crisis of meaning

Is there truly such a thing as ‘the right to die’ or ‘dying with dignity’ as euthanasia advocates claim?

Few issues cut to the heart of human dignity and ethics, like (voluntary and involuntary) euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Both continue to ignite intense global debate, raising critical ethical, legal, and societal questions that we must address.

While there’s a technical distinction—assisted suicide involves the patient self-administering a lethal substance rather than a medical practitioner—the outcome is the same. For simplicity, this article uses the terms interchangeably.

At its core, assisted suicide involves the killing of a human being, mostly under the banner of “compassion” and relief from suffering. However, as this article explores, the line between compassion and callousness in euthanasia is perilously thin.

Back in 1826, physician Carl Friedrich Marx asserted that a doctor should never intentionally hasten a patient’s death, whether out of compassion or external pressure. This view mirrored long-standing beliefs, particularly in Christian and Western societies, where assisted suicide was equated with murder and strictly forbidden.

This view shifted in the late 19th century as euthanasia movements gained traction. Fast forward to 2001 and 2002, when the Netherlands and Belgium became the first countries to legalise euthanasia, spurring a growing list of countries to follow suit. The UK, however, remains deeply divided, with a contentious assisted suicide bill currently under parliamentary debate.

The UK Assisted Suicide Bill

UK parliamentarians are set to vote on a new assisted suicide bill at the end of November. If passed, this catastrophic proposal—the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill—would allow terminally ill people with an estimated prognosis of 6 months or less to end their own lives.

This bill inevitably raises a plethora of problems. While Kim Leadbeater MP, who proposed the legislation, has told the public that the bill includes strict safeguards, the reality is far more ambiguous. These safeguards can still contain flaws. Take the criteria that the patient must be within 6 months of the end of their life. How can that be reconciled with the copious research showing that doctors very often get this prognosis wrong?

The bill marks the first time that UK law would allow medical practitioners to actively end their patient’s life, redefining the boundaries of medical ethics and healthcare.

While two medical practitioners must sign off on allowing the patient to end their life—the second, “independent” practitioner is chosen by the first. If they refuse, the first may ask a second choice.

Notably, 90% of palliative care specialists in the UK oppose legalising euthanasia. This reflects the broader commitment among medical professionals to provide unwavering support and reassurance to patients rather than helping them to end their lives.

These specialists have seen that when patients receive compassionate, high-quality care, the desire to end their lives almost always fades. The concerns voiced by palliative care experts remind us that euthanasia, despite intentions, is not the compassionate solution it’s made out to be.

Historical Intellectual Reasoning for Euthanasia

The early euthanasia movement was shaped by several trains of thought.

One driving force was Utilitarianism, a philosophy that prioritises pleasure and the minimisation of pain. In this view, ending lives could be justified if it relieved suffering or contributed to a perceived greater good.

Another was Neo-Lockeanism, which posited that only those capable of rational thought should be considered full people. This perspective devalued the lives of those with mental health disorders or cognitive disabilities.

Then came Social Darwinism, a controversial offshoot of Darwin’s theory of evolution. It argued that humanity could be “improved” by selecting desirable traits and eliminating “undesirable” ones from the gene pool. This meant encouraging the procreation of the “fit” and preventing or ending the lives of those deemed “unfit”.

Charles Goddard, an early advocate of euthanasia, echoed these views. He suggested euthanasia for people he described as “idiots” lacking the capacity for joy or purpose. This was not a fringe idea in the early euthanasia movement—it was a foundational one, closely tied to the eugenics movement. Both saw Social Darwinism as justification for selecting which lives were worth living.

The most infamous application of these ideas was Nazi Germany’s eugenics program, which fully implemented euthanasia as a state policy. The program required the reporting of any disabled child under the age of three, many of whom were euthanised. By 1945, around 250,000 people were killed as part of this program, a troubling reality where ideological justifications for “purity” and “utility” led to these atrocities.

Euthanasia and the Nuremberg Trials

Reflecting on the roots of the Nazi euthanasia program, psychiatrist Leo Alexander noted in the New England Journal of Medicine that it all started with one troubling idea: the notion that certain lives were “not worthy of being lived”.

Initially, this idea was applied to the severely and chronically ill. But gradually, the net widened to include anyone deemed “socially unproductive”, ideologically undesirable, or racially “unwanted”. Alexander highlighted how this “infinitely small lever” of thinking—dismissing the value of certain lives—ultimately set the stage for the horrors that followed. Combined with a lack of respect for human dignity and compounded by economic pressures, this perspective enabled one of the 20th century’s darkest chapters.

Thankfully, the aftermath of World War II cast a long and damning shadow over the euthanasia movement. Public outrage surged, and rightfully so, as the world grappled with the reality of how easily the notion of “mercy” could be weaponised. What began as an ostensibly compassionate act for the incurably ill had devolved into a horrifying eugenics agenda, exposing the fragility of moral boundaries when life-and-death decisions are placed in human hands.

By the end of the war, the so-called pursuit of alleviating suffering had instead led to unspeakable suffering itself. The movement’s association with such widespread and calculated brutality revealed its susceptibility to abuse, eroding public trust. This highlighted the inherent dangers of presuming authority over the value of individual lives, leading to a sharp decline in the movement’s credibility and support.

Today’s Arguments for Assisted Suicide

Economic Factors

Historically, some proponents have openly linked euthanasia to economic concerns. Jacques Attali, a prominent European statesman, once argued that as people age beyond their productive years, they become costly for society, suggesting that euthanasia could be a necessary tool for future economies.

Similarly, Baroness Mary Warnock, a major figure in British politics, framed euthanasia as a rational choice for those who feel they are a burden on their families or the state, even suggesting a moral obligation to consider it.

Today, explicit economic arguments are rare and mostly hidden. However, we must stay aware that economic concerns remain a powerful factor. While most advocates of euthanasia are motivated by supposed compassion, the practice can still be influenced by economic interests. As the taxpayer base shrinks and the elderly population continues to grow, the financial pressures to offer or even encourage euthanasia will likely intensify.

In fact, economic influences on euthanasia are already visible. In Oregon, for instance, financial constraints have been cited as a reason for choosing euthanasia. In some jurisdictions, the practice has even created a pathway for organ harvesting.

As these trends develop, the risk of economic pressures overtaking compassionate motives in the practice of euthanasia is a very real and pressing concern.

Compassion as Motivation

Another angle, and probably the most supported one, is compassion. But compassion doesn’t involve supporting someone’s decision to end their life. If a healthy friend were contemplating suicide, we wouldn’t consider it compassionate to assist them. Instead, we would do everything possible to remind them of their worth, showing them that their life has dignity and purpose. True compassion involves guiding someone back from the edge, not pushing them over it.

Even if someone accepts the flawed premise that euthanasia can be “compassionate”, legalised euthanasia brings broader consequences. Thousands of people may feel pressured to end their lives—not out of personal choice, but because they feel they are a burden or because the state finds it less costly than providing care.

What may appear compassionate to some can, in practice, result in far-reaching and profoundly uncompassionate consequences for many.

And if we use compassion to justify euthanasia, where does that rationale end? Why should it only apply to those who request it? Shouldn’t it also include involuntary euthanasia for children or disabled individuals who are suffering, as permitted under regulations in the Netherlands?

This slippery slope shows that once euthanasia is allowed, limiting or strictly regulating it becomes increasingly difficult. What begins as compassion risks becoming a doorway to decisions that erode the very dignity and respect for life that compassion aims to uphold.

Autonomy as an Argument

We must first ask: why is autonomy important, and is it the ultimate value, outweighing all others? If autonomy were absolute, euthanasia would need to be permitted in all cases—for anyone, at any time, in any condition—simply because they choose it. Yet, most people reasonably feel troubled with such an unrestricted approach.

Even strong advocates of euthanasia usually argue for limits—no euthanasia for children, healthy people, or people with certain mental disorders, for instance. Yet, if autonomy is the sole justification, these boundaries become difficult to defend. Moreover, increasing one person’s autonomy can, in some cases, restrict the autonomy of others.

Evidence from Oregon shows that over half of euthanasia requests cite feelings of being a burden as a primary reason. This highlights how legalised euthanasia can undermine the authority of those who are vulnerable to outside pressure. Assisted suicide risks creating subtle (or explicit) pressure on people, especially those with serious illnesses, to choose death over costly care, effectively diminishing autonomy rather than preserving it. There is a high risk that the “right to die” could evolve into a perceived duty to.

Furthermore, we often limit autonomy in areas where it might lead to exploitation or where vulnerable people might feel forced into choices they wouldn’t otherwise make. We restrict autonomy to prevent self-harm or degradation; we never permit people to randomly amputate their limbs, even if they choose or want to.

A Look Around the World

In countries where assisted suicide is legal, there’s a suggestion that not all lives are equal—some lives are seen as “worthy” while others, particularly those of the vulnerable, are seen as expendable, building on the early intellectual bases for euthanasia. Let’s look at the Netherlands and Belgium, for example.

The Netherlands faces criticism for insufficient palliative care. In contrast, the UK, which has resisted euthanasia for many years, has significantly improved the quality of life for patients who, in other countries, might instead have been steered toward euthanasia.

In these countries, the boundaries of assisted suicide have expanded over time. People suffering from mental health disorders such as depression, schizophrenia and anorexia nervosa are now eligible for euthanasia.

The age criteria for euthanasia have also broadened. In Belgium, children of any age can request euthanasia if they are deemed capable of understanding their decision. Similarly, the Netherlands allows euthanasia for children aged 12 and older and is discussing the possibility of lowering this age threshold further. In the Netherlands, the ‘Groningen Protocol’ allows for the euthanasia of ill newborns. And there is now momentum toward allowing euthanasia for anyone over a certain age who feels their life is “complete”.

This shift in the Netherlands suggests a growing acceptance of euthanasia based not on medical need, but on subjective quality-of-life judgments that devalue the natural aging process and erode respect for the sanctity of life. There have also been cases where transgender people were granted euthanasia due to psychological distress, either before or after “transitioning”. This shows how the criteria of these laws can quickly expand to include anyone.

Conclusion: Euthanasia Should Never Be Legalised

As these trends illustrate, the logic of assisted suicide opens the door to a progression of ever-widening boundaries, which puts many at risk, regardless of age, gender, or ability. While supporters of euthanasia argue for the compassionate choice, the real-world consequences reveal a troubling trajectory that risks prioritising economic and social interests over inherent human dignity, equality, and life.

Will you write to your MP to ask them to say NO to assisted suicide and support the lives of the vulnerable?

Contact your MP quickly and easily using Right to Life’s handy tool.

From Belgium to Canada, Euthanasia Signals a Deep Crisis of Meaning

Growing euthanasia practice in Canada spells a deep crisis of meaning

Nobody should be offered death as the solution to suffering

Growing euthanasia practice in Canada spells a deep crisis of meaning

In 2002, Belgium and the Netherlands became the first countries to legalize euthanasia. Since then, other countries have followed suit, and more countries are considering it.

Whether called “euthanasia”, “assisted suicide”, “medical aid in dying”, or “MAID”, the act involves a medical professional intentionally and prematurely ending a patient’s life. 

At the outset, legislators frequently stress that euthanasia should be seen as a last resort, intended to be a compassionate approach to end a person’s suffering.

However, the experience of countries that have legalized euthanasia shows that more and more people seem to be requesting to die than anyone imagined or expected.

This is often because many people lack the social, economic, psychological, and palliative care support they need to live. 

In 2016, Canada legalized euthanasia nationwide and has since become the fastest-growing euthanasia regime in the world, posing a somber warning to the rest of the world. 

Rising healthcare and social security costs, the widespread reality of cognitive and mental health challenges, and conceits about autonomy and control are just some of the factors that will make euthanasia one of the most dramatic life issues of the 21st century. 

Like our other Generational Wins—our core priorities—preventing euthanasia is not only a legal battle but also a cultural one. Advocates like Amanda Achtman in Canada are focused on raising awareness about euthanasia in the public square from a cultural standpoint through her Dying to Meet You project. 

How euthanasia gains popularity

Across jurisdictions, public opinion about euthanasia has been driven by court decisions, political campaigns, lobby groups, and media.

When a doctor in the Netherlands euthanized her mother in the 1970s, the physician was treated leniently and given a weeklong probation rather than a long prison sentence. This sparked the erosion of norms surrounding a doctor’s responsibility to do no harm, even upon the patient’s request.

In Belgium, the euthanasia law was ushered in following the political victory of a left-wing coalition in the 1999 federal election that defeated the Christian Democrats. 

In Canada, the lobby group Dying with Dignity has campaigned for more than 40 years to promote and expand legal euthanasia. Exerting considerable pressure, this organization has lobbied politicians, mounted legal challenges, and run marketing campaigns to bolster public support for “MAiD”.

Proponents of euthanasia will usually highlight the stories of individuals who are suffering profoundly and who seem to be making the request to die with full consent and even with the support of their family and friends. Similarly, such stories have become the basis for influential movies and even advertisements.

Since all human beings suffer, the prospect of avoiding or eliminating it is a temptation. Without question, a suffering or vulnerable person summons relief and help; killing the person is never the appropriate way to end his or her suffering.

Once euthanasia is legalized, it will not be limited

When the Canadian government legalized euthanasia, they enacted certain so-called “safeguards”. At first, the patient’s death needed to be deemed “reasonably foreseeable.” Only adults capable of consenting could receive euthanasia. They had to make their request in writing before two witnesses and undergo a mandatory 10-day reflection.

Not even five years later, the government began loosening the requirements and expanding euthanasia to broader demographics. This is because if euthanasia is seen to be a reasonable means of ending suffering, then there is no serious basis on which a person should be excluded from having the option. 

On the grounds of equality, euthanasia was expanded to persons suffering but not imminently dying, to persons with disabilities and various neurological conditions, and to others. Unfortunately, this has led to a tremendous devaluing of life within the public healthcare system.

A man with disabilities says he’s been offered euthanasia “multiple times.” A woman with disabilities says a nurse accused her of being selfish for not considering euthanasia. One woman says she was offered MAiD instead of cancer treatment. A mother says her 23-year-old son, who has diabetes and partial vision loss, was scheduled to die by MAiD until she intercepted the process and went to the media. 

Legal euthanasia is destroying the doctor-patient relationship and eroding trust between healthcare professionals and families. Prematurely ending a patient’s life through killing is completely different than helping a person to live well until their natural death.

Tackling euthanasia and assisted suicide as a new threat to life 

Some people do not have strong opinions about euthanasia because they figure that it is a matter of individual freedom and personal decision. That is what Tom Mortier thought until he received the shocking call that his mother had been euthanized. His mother had struggled with depression but was otherwise physically healthy. Her psychiatrist did not think she satisfied the legal requirements for euthanasia under Belgian law. But Tom’s mother was diagnosed with “incurable depression” and then euthanized by an oncologist with no psychiatric expertise. 

Robert Clarke, the Deputy Director of ADF International, represented Tom Mortier before the Court of European Human Rights. In October 2022, the Court ruled that Belgium violated the right to life of Tom Mortier’s mother. 

ADF International intervened in another recent euthanasia case. In Hungary, a man suffering from ALS challenged his country’s ban on assisted suicide. ADF International argued in favour of Hungary’s existing stance and defended the country’s obligation to protect the right to life because there is no “right to die.” In June 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of Hungary’s right to prohibit assisted suicide to protect life. 

While winning legal cases is important, it’s also important to win in the court of public opinion.

Canada and beyond: Dying to Meet You

A glimmer of hope is Canadian Amanda Achtman, and her mission is to prevent euthanasia and encourage hope throughout her home country and beyond. She founded a project called ‘Dying To Meet You’ through which she engages people in conversations on suffering, death, meaning, and hope. A key feature of her advocacy involves giving a platform through short films to those whose voices have been sorely lacking from the euthanasia debates. In one short film, she interviews Christine Nagel, an 88-year-old woman who decided to get a tattoo that says, “Don’t Euthanize Me.”

In another, Achtman interviewed Eulalia Running Rabbit, an Indigenous Canadian woman who says, “I don’t think it’s right for the government to push euthanasia on the Nations. We really believe the Creator is the one who’s going to take us back.” In another, she interviewed Roger Foley, a Canadian man with disabilities who says he’s been offered euthanasia “multiple times” as he fights for the support he needs to live. 

In addition to writing, speaking, and appearing on podcasts and in documentaries about euthanasia, Achtman also organizes events to engage diverse faith and culture communities in end-of-life conversations. For example, she recently organized an event at Adath Israel Congregation in Toronto featuring Rabbi Dr. David Novak, a renowned Jewish thinker who wrote his dissertation on suicide.

During his presentation, Dr. Novak stated, “Nobody really lives unless they’re convinced that somebody else wants them to live. […] And this is an indictment of our much-praised Canadian health service: that it is now recommended to people that they would be better off dead than alive.”

Hope for a wounded world

Achtman is committed to advancing a positive and proactive alternative vision to a euthanasia society because, as she puts it, “As long as euthanasia is legal in Canada, my generation cannot grow up properly. Our growth and development are stunted when we lack opportunities to be called out of ourselves.”

To learn more about her and Dying to Meet You, visit the project online. 

Conclusion: Every single person has dignity

Euthanasia is one symptom of our wounded world. The person who asks for euthanasia is really wondering whether someone will love them enough to push back.

As euthanasia becomes more of a risk across Europe and throughout the West, it is crucial that we redouble our efforts to protect life. Whether at the beginning, end, or in between, every life has a purpose, and every life is worth defending.

A ‘Culture Conversation’ with Nancy Pearcey, American Christian Author and Apologist

How should Christians respond to the transgender movement?

Nancy Pearcey is a prominent author and Christian apologist who dedicates her scholarship to the intersection of faith and culture. Pearcey explores how Christianity must be lived as a worldview that touches on every area of life.

Pearcey offers a steadfast and courageous witness for today’s Christians, advocating for a conception of the human person as an integrated being, body, and soul, who should be valued accordingly. Our Sophia Kuby sat down with Pearcey to explore how this understanding should inform the Christian response to the issues of our day.

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

Watch the full interview above:

Q: Arguably, your book Love Thy Body is more relevant today than even when you wrote it in 2018. You identify the dualistic, fragmented view of the person as the key to understanding where we are headed as a society. Why is that?

A: This dualism, this split, may be the most important key to understanding what happens in our culture today. We tend to treat euthanasia, abortion, transgenderism, the hookup culture etc., as individual issues. But if we can recognize the underlying worldview, it will be so much easier to respond because we’re digging deeper as to what’s really driving the secular culture on these issues.

What’s under the surface translates into a split about the human person such as body and mind or values and facts, science and morals, all of these splits. Once you understand that, there really is no surprise anymore, no matter how radical it gets.

Once you split the body from your mind and your identity you have something entirely disincarnated. And the body has no significance. Like everything makes sense in a way. It’s not right, but Christians need to understand this worldview because that way you are not surprised by secular conclusions.

Q: You explain how [dualism] it’s the same secular worldview that drives euthanasia. How so?

A: For proponents of euthanasia, if you are mentally disabled, if you no longer have a certain level of cortical functioning, then you are no longer a person, even though you’re obviously still human. And at that point, in this view, you’re not a person anymore. You’re only a body.

And so, you can be unplugged—your treatment withheld, your food and water discontinued, and your organs harvested. So, once again, you see how being human is no longer enough for human rights. You have to achieve a certain level of awareness or cognitive ability in order to earn the status of personhood. And anyone who falls short is considered a non-person. So, we are seeing the emergence of a new category now which is the human non-person.

On the other hand, the pro-life view is inclusive. If you are a member of the human race, you’re in, you count. You have the full rights as a member of the moral community.

What’s under the surface translates into a split about the human person such as body and mind or values and facts, science and morals, all of these splits. Once you understand that, there really is no surprise anymore, no matter how radical it gets.

Once you split the body from your mind and your identity you have something entirely disincarnated. And the body has no significance. Like everything makes sense in a way. It’s not right, but Christians need to understand this worldview because that way you are not surprised by secular conclusions.

Q: There is a worldview thread connecting abortion and euthanasia to questions of sexuality. Can you explain?

A: The connecting thread is the division of the body from the person. We see this in the hookup culture. The entire premise is that sex can be purely physical, cut off from the whole person.

The mistake people make is to assume that there are two very distinct elements in a relationship: one emotional and one sexual, and they pretend like there are clean lines between them. There is a fundamental despair stemming from the belief that the body doesn’t mean anything. [It’s] no wonder the hookup culture is leaving behind a trail of wounded people.

People are trying to live out a secular ethic that does not fit who they really are. The Christian ethic is incarnational. And science is on our side. Science has shown the interconnection of body and person, for example, with the discovery of hormones like oxytocin. We are designed to bond. And Scripture teaches that we are embodied spirits. Both body and spirit are part of our identity.

And so, you can be unplugged—your treatment withheld, your food and water discontinued, and your organs harvested. So, once again, you see how being human is no longer enough for human rights. You have to achieve a certain level of awareness or cognitive ability in order to earn the status of personhood. And anyone who falls short is considered a non-person. So, we are seeing the emergence of a new category now which is the human non-person.

On the other hand, the pro-life view is inclusive. If you are a member of the human race, you’re in, you count. You have the full rights as a member of the moral community.

What’s under the surface translates into a split about the human person such as body and mind or values and facts, science and morals, all of these splits. Once you understand that, there really is no surprise anymore, no matter how radical it gets.

Once you split the body from your mind and your identity you have something entirely disincarnated. And the body has no significance. Like everything makes sense in a way. It’s not right, but Christians need to understand this worldview because that way you are not surprised by secular conclusions.

Q: How do you respond to those who hold the view that you can be born into the wrong body?

A: What we need to realize is that it is a profoundly disrespectful view of the body to pit the mind against the body and then say it’s only the mind and feelings that count.

Would God create people to be torn in two conflicting directions like this? Not the Christian God. Things like conflict, self-division, and self-alienation are results of the fall, not creation. And yet today, it’s widely accepted that if somebody feels that sense of inner division, a conflict between the body and the mind, then it is your feelings and desires that count.

The Christian ethic is holistic. The mind and emotions are meant to be in tune with our body. And so, it’s an ethic that overcomes self-division and self-alienation, and ultimately leads to a sense of internal unity, wholeness, and self-integration.

Q: So how does this apply to the worldview driving the transgender movement?

A: This involves the same split view of the person, the same devaluing of the body. Transgender activists argue explicitly that your gender identity has nothing to do with your physical body, with your biological sex.

I watched a BBC documentary that said that at the heart of the debate is the idea that your mind can be at war with your body, and it is the mind that wins. So, in this view, your body has been reduced to a meat skeleton. I recently came across a Kickstarter page for a documentary titled “I Am Not My Body.” That title says it all. My body is not part of my authentic self.

This is a radically separate, divided, fractured, fragmented view of what a person is. That’s the core of what’s being taught to young people all the way down to kindergarten—that your body has no meaning at all.

Q: How should Christians respond to this extreme devaluation of the body?

A: Even secular people are saying that transgenderism involves body hatred. So what this means is that Christians have a wonderful opportunity to show that a Biblical ethic expresses a positive view of the way God made us as physically embodied beings, that the biological correspondence between male and female is not some evolutionary accident. It’s part of the original creation that God pronounced very good.  

There is a turning point for people who identify as transgender when they can say: “I finally came to trust that God had made me my sex for a reason, and I wanted to honor my body by living in accord with the Creator’s design.” This is a beautiful language. This is not guilt, shame, and self-loathing. This is positive: I want to honor my body.

So, number one, we must learn how to use positive language. “Live in tune with your body. Live in harmony with the Creator’s design.” Let’s face it, Christians are known for having a negative message. We have to start with a positive message that our body is God’s creation, and that a Biblical ethic shows us how to honor and respect it.

Next, we have to be proactive. I’ve told Brandon’s story. Brandon was sort of the classic case before he was even walking. His babysitter told his mother, “He’s too good to be a boy,” by which she meant he was gentle and sweet-natured. By elementary school, he was coming to his parents weeping, saying: “I don’t fit in anywhere,” because he didn’t feel like a boy.

By his early teens, he was scouring the internet for information on sex reassignment surgery. So, what did his parents do? They made sure he knew they loved him just the way he was. They did not try to change him.

They said it is perfectly acceptable to be a gentle, sensitive boy. It does not mean you are really a girl. His parents said it may mean that God has gifted you for one of the caring professions like counselor or healthcare worker. His parents’ favorite line, which they said over and over again, was: “It’s not you that’s wrong. It’s the stereotypes that are wrong.”

Brandon did not transition. He did finally accept that it is scientifically impossible to actually change your sex.

Q: As we assess the toll that these ideologies are taking across the world, is there hope? What does the future hold? 

There is good news. First, there are an increasing number of people who are “de-transitioning.” People who have gone through this are turning around and accusing the clinics of fast-tracking them. Some are bringing the clinics to court.

There are a couple of cases working their way through the courts in the US, and some states are banning medical interventions for minors. European countries are changing their policy. They are pulling back in England, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, France, Wales, Scotland, Germany, and the Netherlands.  

We must continue to assert the revolutionary nature of Christianity, which teaches that the material world is made by the supreme deity, who is a good God, and therefore it is intrinsically good. Yes, the world is fallen, but the fall is like a beautiful masterpiece that a child takes a magic marker and scribbles on.  

Yes, it’s defaced, but the original beauty still shines through. And that’s what we need to help people see—that the world still shows the original beauty of God’s creation. The Incarnation is the ultimate affirmation of the dignity of the human body. And what’s more, when Jesus was executed on a Roman cross, he did escape the physical world, as Gnosticism teaches we should aspire to do. But what did he do then? He came back in a physical body—a bodily resurrection.

God is not going to scrap the material world as if He made a mistake the first time around.  

He’s going to restore it. The resurrection of the body, as affirmed in the Apostles Creed, is an astonishingly high view of the physical world. There’s nothing like it in any other religion or philosophy.

Countries cannot be forced to introduce assisted suicide, rules Europe’s top human rights court

Jean-Paul Van De Walle outside of the European court of Human Rights
  • European Court of Human Rights rules in favour of Hungary’s right to uphold legal protections prohibiting assisted suicide; rejects challenge brought by Hungarian national seeking to end his life due to progressive neurodegenerative condition. 

  • Ruling affirms the right of 46 member states of Council of Europe to maintain laws protecting life. 

  • ADF International intervened in case, arguing that states have an obligation to protect the right to life, there is no “right to die”. 
Jean-Paul Van De Walle outside of the European court of Human Rights

Strasbourg (13 June 2024) – The European Court of Human Rights has upheld the right to life by striking down a challenge seeking to permit assisted suicide in Hungary. Hungarian national Dániel Karsai, diagnosed with a progressive neurodegenerative condition, had sought to undermine Hungary’s legal protections for life by challenging its ban on assisted suicide.

“Instead of abandoning our most vulnerable citizens, society should do all it can to provide the best standards of care."

- Jean-Paul Van De Walle, Legal Counsel and leading lawyer on the case for ADF International

In its decision, the Court affirmed that prohibition of assisted suicide is in line with the country’s obligations under international law to protect life. Additionally, as the court pointed out, “the majority of the Council of Europe’s member States continue to prohibit” euthanasia and related practices (§ 165). 

“We applaud today’s decision by the European Court of Human Rights, which upholds Hungary’s essential human rights protections. Although we deeply empathize with Mr. Karsai’s condition and support his right to receive the best care and relief possible, it is clear from other jurisdictions that a right to die quickly becomes a duty to die. Instead of abandoning our most vulnerable citizens, society should do all it can to provide the best standards of care,” said Jean-Paul Van De Walle, Legal Counsel for ADF International.  

ADF International, along with UK-based NGO Care Not Killing, intervened in the case of Karsai v. Hungary, arguing that Hungary’s legal prohibition on assisted suicide must be upheld in line with the obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 2) to protect the right to life. 

Court: States are not required “to provide access” to assisted suicide 

In its submission to the Court, ADF International highlighted the inevitable abuses that ensue when legal protections for the right to life are eradicated. The brief explained: “Removing such provisions from law creates a dangerous scenario where pressure is placed on vulnerable people to end their lives in fear (whether or not justified) of being a burden upon relatives, carers, or a state that is short of resources.”  

The court held, as submitted by ADF International, that there is “no basis for concluding that the member States are thereby advised, let alone required, to provide access” to assisted suicide. (§ 143)  

Seeking to legalize assisted suicide  

Karsai, 46, wished to resort to assisted suicide before his physical condition further deteriorates. Hungary protects the lives of its citizens, including the vulnerable, by criminalizing the act of assisting somebody to end their life, whether the act is committed in Hungary or abroad. Mr. Karsai maintained that if he were to pursue assisted suicide outside of Hungary, the Hungarian Criminal Code would apply to anyone assisting him.   

The ruling in Karsai v. Hungary confirms the 2002 decision made by the ECHR in Pretty v. UK, which involved a woman with ALS. Back then, the Court similarly ruled that the British ban on assisted suicide did not violate the Convention and was designed to prevent abuse of the vulnerable.  

In today’s decision, the Court noted that “it is part of the human condition that medical science will probably never be capable of eliminating all aspects of the suffering of individuals who are terminally ill” (§ 158). However, it emphasized that “this heightened state of vulnerability warrants a fundamentally humane approach by the authorities to the management of these situations, an approach which must necessarily include palliative care that is guided by compassion and high medical standards” (ibid.). 

Legalisation leads to abuses  

“Worldwide, only a tiny minority of countries allow assisted suicide. Wherever the practice is allowed, legal ‘safeguards’ are insufficient to prevent abuses, proving most harmful to vulnerable members of society, including the elderly, the disabled, and those suffering from mental illness or depression. Suicide is something society rightly considers a tragedy to be prevented and the same must apply to assisted suicide. Care, not killing must be the goal we all strive towards,” Van De Walle explained. 

ADF International argued in its brief that there is no so-called “right to die” but, in fact, a clear right to life. This position, in line with both European and international human rights law, underscores the dangers that would ensue from forcing Hungary to allow assisted suicide, highlighting that the intentional taking of human life can never be safe.  

The European Court of Human Rights also recognised these dangers in the October 2022 ruling in Mortier v. Belgium, in which the the Court found that Belgium violated the right to life in the circumstances surrounding the euthanasia of Godelieva De Troyer.  

As argued in ADF International’s intervention: “Despite alleged ‘safeguards’ and a ‘strict’ legal framework, young adults are euthanised because of ‘incurable depression,’ elderly people because of symptoms related to ageing, prisoners because of lack of access to appropriate mental health care or because of psychological suffering, twins because of becoming blind – to mention only some examples, among many others.”  

Euthanasia and assisted suicide widely prohibited and rejected as “unethical” 

Of the 46 Member States of the Council of Europe, only six have legalized assisted suicide. Legislators in the vast majority of countries have rejected the practice.  The World Medical Association consistently and categorically has rejected the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide as unethical. Countries that have legalized euthanasia now allow the intentional killing of children, those who are physically healthy, and those who have not given their consent.     

In Resolution 1859 (2012), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated unequivocally that: “Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited.”  

“Once we as a society open the doors to intentional killing, there is no logical stopping point. How do we distinguish between the person we talk down from the bridge and the person we let die at the hands of their doctor? The state is obligated to protect the fundamental value of human life. We should not set in motion legal changes that undermine this obligation to the detriment of all of society,” noted Van De Walle.   

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only