Illinois has joined a growing list of states permitting assisted suicide, a move supporters frame as expanding personal choice at the end of life but one that critics argue fundamentally alters the relationship between medicine, government, and human dignity. The law, signed last week by Governor J.B. Pritzker, allows physicians to prescribe lethal medication to terminally ill patients under specific conditions, marking a major shift in state policy on suicide and end-of-life care.
During an interview on Chicago’s Morning Answer, longtime assisted-suicide critic Wesley J. Smith described the legislation as a watershed moment with consequences far beyond its stated intent. Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Human Exceptionalism, argued that the language of “choice” obscures the reality that the state is now affirmatively sanctioning certain suicides while continuing to prevent others.
Smith rejected the notion that opposition to assisted suicide is primarily religious, noting that major secular institutions such as the American Medical Association and numerous disability rights organizations have long opposed the practice. He said those groups recognize that once killing is accepted as a solution to suffering, the boundaries around who qualifies inevitably expand.
According to Smith, experience in other states and countries demonstrates a consistent pattern. Initial safeguards and eligibility limits are quickly reframed as barriers to access, followed by pressure to broaden the law to include additional conditions beyond terminal illness. He pointed to developments in Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany, where euthanasia and assisted suicide have expanded to include non-terminal patients, individuals with mental illness, and, in some cases, children.
Illinois’ law, Smith said, also raises concerns for medical professionals. While the statute includes nominal conscience protections, it requires physicians who object to assisted suicide to determine eligibility and refer patients to doctors who will provide the prescription. Smith argued this effectively forces doctors to participate in a process that contradicts the Hippocratic principle of doing no harm.
The debate also exposes a deeper philosophical question, Smith said: whether society recognizes an inherent right to be killed or assisted in suicide. Once autonomy is elevated as the sole governing principle, he argued, there is no coherent limiting principle to justify denying assisted death to others who claim suffering, whether physical, psychological, or existential.
Smith further warned that assisted suicide reshapes cultural attitudes toward illness, disability, and dependency. Studies show, he noted, that most people who seek assisted suicide do so not because of uncontrollable pain, but because of fear of being a burden, loss of independence, or diminished quality of life. Normalizing suicide as a response to those fears, he said, sends a message that certain lives are less worth living.
He also cited examples abroad where euthanasia has become intertwined with organ donation, turning dying patients into sources of medical resources and reinforcing what he called the “objectification” of vulnerable people. In those systems, Smith said, equality under the law erodes as some lives become killable while others remain protected.
Beyond policy and ethics, Smith emphasized the personal and social dilemmas created by assisted-suicide laws. Families may be placed in impossible situations, forced to choose between participating in a loved one’s death or being perceived as abandoning them. He warned that such laws do not merely expand choice, but create new forms of pressure that affect patients, relatives, and caregivers alike.
As New York and other states consider similar legislation, Smith urged lawmakers and the public to confront the long-term implications rather than focusing narrowly on individual cases. He argued that robust palliative care, hospice services, and suicide prevention offer alternatives that preserve dignity without crossing what he described as a moral and cultural line.
With Illinois now among the states permitting assisted suicide, critics say the broader debate is far from settled. Instead, they contend, it has only entered a more consequential phase, one that will test how society defines compassion, equality, and the value of human life itself.
Photo by adrianna geo on Unsplash