Health
Who Should Be Allowed a Medically Assisted Death?
Ron Curtis, an English professor in Montreal, lived for 40 years with a degenerative spinal disease, in what he called the “black hole” of chronic pain.
On a July day in 2022, Mr. Curtis, 64, ate a last bowl of vegetable soup made by his wife, Lori, and, with the help of a palliative care doctor, died in his bedroom overlooking a lake.
Aron Wade, a successful 54-year-old stage and television actor in Belgium, decided he could no longer tolerate life with the depression that haunted him for three decades.
Last year, after a panel of medical experts found he had “unbearable mental suffering,” a doctor came to his home and gave him medicine to stop his heart, with his partner and two best friends at his side.
Argemiro Ariza was in his early 80s when he began to lose function in his limbs, no longer able to care for his wife, who had dementia, in their home in Bogotá.
Doctors diagnosed A.L.S., and he told his daughter Olga that he wanted to die while he still had dignity. His children threw him a party with a mariachi band and lifted him from his wheelchair to dance. A few days later, he admitted himself to a hospital, and a doctor administered a drug that ended his life.
Until recently, each of these deaths would have been considered a murder. But a monumental change is underway around the world. From liberal European countries to conservative Latin American ones, a new way of thinking about death is starting to take hold.
Over the past five years, the practice of allowing a physician to help severely ill patients end their lives with medication has been legalized in nine countries on three continents. Courts or legislatures, or both, are considering legalization in a half-dozen more, including South Korea and South Africa, as well as eight of the 31 American states where it remains prohibited.
It is a last frontier in the expansion of individual autonomy. More people are seeking to define the terms of their deaths in the same way they have other aspects of their lives, such as marriage and childbearing. This is true even in Latin America, where conservative institutions such as the Roman Catholic church are still powerful.
“We believe in the priority of our control over our bodies, and as a heterogeneous culture, we believe in choices: If your choice does not affect me, go ahead,” said Dr. Julieta Moreno Molina, a bioethicist who has advised Colombia’s Ministry of Health on its assisted dying regulations.
Yet, as assisted death gains more acceptance, there are major unresolved questions about who should be eligible. While most countries begin with assisted death for terminal illness, which has the most public support, this is often followed quickly by a push for wider access. With that push comes often bitter public debate.
Should someone with intractable depression be allowed an assisted death?
European countries and Colombia all permit people with irremediable suffering from conditions such as depression or schizophrenia to seek an assisted death. But in Canada, the issue has become contentious. Assisted death for people who do not have a reasonably foreseeable natural death was legalized in 2021, but the government has repeatedly excluded people with mental illness. Two of them are challenging the exclusion in court on the grounds that it violates their constitutional rights.
In public debate, supporters of the right to assisted death for these patients say that people who have lived with severe depression for years, and have tried a variety of therapies and medications, should be allowed to decide when they are no longer willing to keep pursuing treatments. Opponents, concerned that mental illness can involve a pathological wish to die, say it can be difficult to predict the potential effectiveness of treatments. And, they argue, people who struggle to get help from an overburdened public health service may simply give up and choose to die, though their conditions might have been improved.
Should a child with an incurable condition be able to choose assisted death?
The ability to consent is a core consideration in requesting assisted death. Only a handful of countries are willing to extend that right to minors. Even in the places that do, there are just a few assisted deaths for children each year, almost always children with cancer.
In Colombia and the Netherlands, children over 12 can request assisted death on their own. Parents can provide consent for children 11 and younger.
Denise de Ruijter took comfort in her Barbie dolls when she struggled to connect with people. She was diagnosed with autism and had episodes of depression and psychosis. As a teenager in a Dutch town, she craved the life her schoolmates had — nights out, boyfriends — but couldn’t manage it.
She attempted suicide several times before applying for an assisted death at 18. Evaluators required her to try three years of additional therapies before agreeing her suffering was unbearable. She died in 2021, with her family and Barbies nearby.
The issue is under renewed scrutiny in the Netherlands, where, over the past decade, a growing number of adolescents have applied for assisted death for relief from irremediable psychiatric suffering from conditions such as eating disorders and anxiety.
Most such applications by teens are either withdrawn by the patient, or rejected by assessors, but public concern over a few high-profile cases of teens who received assisted deaths prompted the country’s regulator to consider a moratorium on approvals for children applying on the basis of psychiatric suffering.
Should someone with dementia be allowed assisted death?
Many people dread the idea of losing their cognitive abilities and their autonomy, and hope to have an assisted death when they reach that point. But this is a more complex situation to regulate than for a person who can still make a clear request.
How can a person who is losing their mental capacity consent to dying? Most governments, and doctors, are too uncomfortable to permit it, even though the idea tends to be popular in countries with aging populations.
In Colombia, Spain, Ecuador and the Canadian province of Quebec, people who have been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease or other kinds of cognitive decline can request assessment for an assisted death before they lose mental capacity, sign an advance request — and then have a physician end their life after they have lost the ability to consent themselves.
But that raises a separate, challenging, question: After people lose the capacity to request an assisted death, who should decide it’s time?
Their spouses? Their children? Their doctors? The government? Colombia entrusts families with this role. The Netherlands leaves it up to doctors — but many refuse to do it, unwilling to administer lethal drugs to a patient who can’t clearly articulate a rational wish to die.
Jan Grijpma was always clear with his daughter, Maria: When his mind went, he didn’t want to live any more. Maria worked with his longtime family doctor, in Amsterdam, to identify the point when Mr. Grijpma, 90 and living in a nursing home, was losing his ability to consent himself.
When it seemed close, in 2023, they booked the day, and he updated his day planner: Thursday, visit the vicar; Friday, bicycle with physiotherapy and get a haircut; Sunday, pancakes with Maria; Monday, euthanasia.
All of these questions are becoming part of the discussion as the right to control and plan one’s own death is pushed in front of reluctant legislatures and uneasy medical professionals.
Dr. Madeline Li, a Toronto psychiatrist, was given the task of developing the assisted-dying practice in one of Canada’s largest hospitals when the procedure was first decriminalized in 2015. She began with assessing patients for eligibility and then moved to providing medical assistance in dying, or MAID, as it is called in Canada. For some patients with terminal cancer, it felt like the best form of care she could offer, she said.
But then Canada’s eligibility criteria expanded, and Dr. Li found herself confronting a different kind of patient.
“To provide assisted dying to somebody dying of a condition who is not happy with how they’re going to die, I’m willing to assist them, and hasten that death,” she said. “I struggle more with people who aren’t dying and want MAID — I think then you’re assisting suicide. If you’re not dying — if I didn’t give you MAID, you wouldn’t otherwise die — then you’re a person who’s not unhappy with how you’re going to die. You’re unhappy with how you’re living.”
Who has broken the taboo?
For decades, Switzerland was the only country to permit assisted death; assisted suicide was legalized there in 1942. It took a further half century for a few more countries to loosen their laws. Now decriminalization of some form of assisted death has occurred across Europe.
But there has recently been a wave of legalization in Latin America, where Colombia was long an outlier, having allowed legal assisted dying since 2015.
Paola Roldán Espinosa had a thriving career in business in Ecuador, and a toddler, when she was diagnosed with A.L.S. in 2023. Her health soon deteriorated to the point that she needed a ventilator.
She wanted to die on her terms — and took the case to the country’s highest court. In February 2024, the court responded to her petition by decriminalizing assisted dying. Ms. Roldán, then 42, had the death she sought, with her family around her, a month later.
Ecuador has decriminalized assisted dying through constitutional court cases, and Peru’s Supreme Court has permitted individual exceptions to the law which prohibits the procedure, opening the door to expansion. Cuba’s national assembly legalized assisted dying in 2023, although no regulations on how the procedure will work are yet in place. In October, Uruguay’s parliament passed a long-debated law allowing assisted death for the terminally ill.
The first country in Asia to take steps toward legalization is South Korea, where a bill to decriminalize assisted death has been proposed at the National Assembly several times but has not come to a vote. At the same time, the Constitutional Court, which for years refused to hear cases on the subject, has agreed to adjudicate a petition from a disabled man with severe and chronic pain who seeks an assisted death.
Access in the United States remains limited: 11 jurisdictions (10 states plus the District of Columbia) allow assisted suicide or physician-assisted death, for patients who have a terminal diagnosis, and in some cases, only for patients who are already in hospice care. It will become legal in Delaware on Jan. 1, 2026.
In Slovenia, in 2024, 55 percent of the population who voted in a national referendum were in favor of legalizing assisted death, and parliament duly passed a law in July. But pushback from right-wing politicians then forced a new referendum, and in late November, 54 percent of those who voted rejected the legalization.
And in the United Kingdom, a bill to legalize assisted death for people with terminal illness has made its way slowly through parliament. It has faced fierce opposition from a coalition of more than 60 groups for people with disabilities, who argue they may face subtle coercion to end their lives rather than drain their families or the state of resources for their care.
Why now?
In many countries, decriminalization of assisted dying has followed the expansion of rights for personal choice in other areas, such as the removal of restrictions on same-sex marriage, abortion and sometimes drug use.
“I would expect it to be on the agenda in every liberal democracy,” said Wayne Sumner, a medical ethicist at the University of Toronto who studies the evolution of norms and regulations around assisted dying. “They’ll come to it at their own speed, but it follows with these other policies.”
The change is also being driven by a convergence of political, demographic and cultural trends.
As populations age, and access to health care improves, more people are living longer. Older populations mean more chronic disease, and more people living with compromised health. And they are thinking about death, and what they will — and won’t — be willing to tolerate in the last years of their lives.
At the same time, there is diminishing tolerance for suffering that is perceived as unnecessary.
“Until very recently, we were a society where few people lived past 60 — and now suddenly we live much longer,” said Lina Paola Lara Negrette, a psychologist who until October was the director of the Dying With Dignity Foundation in Colombia. “Now people here need to think about the system, and the services that are available, and what they will want.”
Changes in family structures and communities, particularly in rapidly urbanizing middle-income countries, mean that traditional networks of care are less strong, which shifts how people can imagine living in older age or with chronic illness, she added.
“When you had many siblings and a lot of generations under one roof, the question of care was a family thing,” she said. “That has changed. And it shapes how we think about living, and dying.”
How does assisted dying work?
Beyond the ethical dilemmas, actually carrying out legalized assisted deaths involves countless choices for countries. Spain requires a waiting period of at least 15 days between a patient’s assessments (but the average wait in practice is 75 days). In most other places, the prescribed wait is less than two weeks for patients with terminal conditions, but often longer in practice, said Katrine Del Villar, a professor of constitutional law at the Queensland University of Technology who tracks trends in assisted dying
Most countries allow patients to choose between administering the drugs themselves or having a health care provider do it. When both options are available, the overwhelming majority of people choose to have a health care provider end their life with an injection that stops their heart.
In many countries only a doctor can administer the drugs, but Canada and New Zealand permit nurse practitioners to provide medically assisted deaths too.
One Australian state prohibits medical professionals from raising the topic of assisted death. A patient must ask about it first.
Who determines eligibility is another issue. In the Netherlands, two physicians assess a patient; in Colombia, it’s a panel consisting of a medical specialist, a psychologist and a lawyer. The draft legislation in Britain would require both a panel and two independent physicians.
Switzerland and the states of Oregon and Vermont are the only jurisdictions in the world that explicitly allow people who are not residents access to assisted deaths.
Most countries permit medical professionals to conscientiously object to providing assisted deaths and allow faith-based medical institutions to refuse to participate. In Canada, individual professionals have the right to refuse, but a court challenge is underway seeking to end the ability of hospitals that are controlled by faith-based organizations and that operate with public funds to refuse to allow assisted deaths on their premises.
“Even when assisted dying has been legal and available somewhere for a long time, there can be a gap between what is legal and what is acceptable — what most physicians and patients and families feel comfortable with,” said Dr. Sisco van Veen, an ethicist and psychiatrist at Amsterdam Medical University. “And this isn’t static. It evolves over time.”
Jin Yu Young in Seoul, José Bautista in Madrid, José María León Cabrera in Quito, Veerle Schyns in Amsterdam and Koba Ryckewaert in Brussels contributed reporting.
Health
Denise Austin Is a Fan of Walking To Lose Belly Fat—It Can Trim Your Waist 4”
Use left and right arrow keys to navigate between menu items.
Use escape to exit the menu.
Sign Up
Create a free account to access exclusive content, play games, solve puzzles, test your pop-culture knowledge and receive special offers.
Already have an account? Login
Health
Doctors reveal what ‘reasonable’ drinking looks like — and who should avoid alcohol
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
With 40% of adults resolving to drink less alcohol in 2026, according to a recent survey, some may be struggling to find a healthy balance.
Health experts agree that each person’s relationship with alcohol is unique, based on history, tolerance and lifestyle.
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a Pennsylvania-based oncologist and author of the new book “Eat Your Ice Cream: Six Simple Rules for a Long and Healthy Life,” has noted that indulging in certain activities – like eating ice cream or drinking alcohol – may not be healthy to do every day, but can provide some benefits in moderation.
HEAVY DRINKERS CUT ALCOHOL USE BY NEARLY 30% AFTER ADOPTING ONE NEW HABIT, STUDY FINDS
“There has been a lot of research on alcohol,” he said in a recent interview with “CBS Sunday Morning.” “The safest level is probably zero. There are some studies … where it’s half a cup a day, three cups a week.”
“On the other hand, 60% [to] 65% of the public drinks,” he went on. “You’re not going from 65% to zero, so you have to give people reasonable advice.”
A doctor shared “reasonable” drinking advice for striking a balanced relationship with alcohol. (iStock)
Emanuel advised against binge-drinking or drinking alone, both of which are “really bad for you.”
“[But] if you’re using alcohol as a lubricant for social interaction, which many people do, that’s probably good,” he said. “You’re getting some benefit from the social interaction.”
HIGHER STROKE RISK LINKED TO CONSUMING CERTAIN AMOUNT OF ALCOHOL, STUDY FINDS
When social drinking becomes risky
While drinking’s stress-relieving factors may be helpful for some, indulging in alcoholic drinks can be risky for those with a pre-disposition to addiction, experts caution.
In a recent episode of “The Huberman Lab” podcast, Dr. Andrew Huberman and guest Dr. Keith Humphreys, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford School of Medicine, discussed the fine line between indulging for pleasure and potentially fostering an issue.
Experiences with alcohol can be different for every individual, experts say. (iStock)
According to Huberman, who is also a Stanford University neuroscientist, up to 10% of people experience alcohol as a “dopaminergic,” making them feel “spectacularly good.”
Others may drink and experience a cue to stop, like dizziness, nausea, “blacking out,” severe hangovers or other negative effects.
“The safest level is probably zero.”
“Some people really can drink five or six drinks, and then the next day they’re at work hammering away,” he said. “The conversation becomes very difficult to have, because it sounds like it’s highly individual how people will react.”
DOCTOR REVEALS WHAT 30 DAYS WITHOUT ALCOHOL DOES TO THE BRAIN AND BODY AMID DRY JANUARY
High-risk groups
One of the greatest risk factors for becoming an alcoholic is having your first drink before the age of 14, according to Huberman.
“I find that some people will have their first drink, and it’s like a magic elixir for their physiology,” he said. “And there are very few things that can get somebody like that to stop drinking, except the risk of losing everything.”
While drinking’s stress-relieving factors may be helpful for some, indulging in alcoholic drinks can be risky for those with a pre-disposition to addiction, experts caution. (iStock)
Humphreys said the biggest indicator of personal risk is whether alcoholism runs in someone’s family — particularly if their parents were alcoholics.
“The father-to-son link is the strongest one you see in genetics,” he said. “Men drink more than women do … whether they’ve got an alcohol problem or not.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Drinking alcohol has been shown to be particularly harmful for women, as the risk of developing hormone-related cancers substantially increases.
Risk vs. benefit
For those who are not predisposed to addiction, Huberman noted that some studies suggest that certain types of consumption are OK in moderation, such as drinking red wine or having a maximum of two drinks per week.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE HEALTH STORIES
“I would love to believe [red wine] is healthy,” Humphreys responded. “It’s not … Why would there be a benefit to red wine that wasn’t in other alcoholic beverages?”
“There might be some cardiac benefits, but we don’t get to live our lives as single organs. We have a whole body,” he went on. “If that’s true, it’s smaller than the cancer risk. So, your net is you’re not going to get any mortality reduction from drinking alcohol.”
“I would love to believe [red wine] is healthy,” one expert said. “It’s not … Why would there be a benefit to red wine that wasn’t in other alcoholic beverages?” (iStock)
Drinking two drinks per week — such as a 12-ounce beer, 4-ounce glass of wine or a 1-ounce shot of liquor — poses only a “very small risk” of health complications, but it’s not something Humphreys would recommend, as it’s “just not good for you,” he said.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER
Despite the risks, however, the experts acknowledged the stress-relieving and social benefits of having a drink.
“Getting together with friends is enjoyable, enriching,” Humphreys said. “Good food and good wine taste good, and I value those things. And there are many other decisions we make like that where we endure some risk because we care about something else.”
“It’s dangerous for someone my age to hike up a mountainside probably, but if the view is spectacular, I can say, ‘Oh, I’m going to accept that risk.’”
“Good food and good wine taste good, and I value those things.”
What’s become most dangerous about social drinking, according to Humphreys, is that some people feel they need to explain themselves when they stop.
Huberman echoed, “If you don’t drink at parties, or you refuse an offer of alcohol, people think there’s something wrong with you.”
TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ
Given recent data on the risks of alcohol consumption, Humphreys said it should be simple to say no, much like opting not to smoke a cigarette.
“Health is a reason people still accept, I think, as a legitimate [reason] for changing behavior,” he added.
Health
Early peanut exposure in babies tied to sharp drop in food allergy diagnoses
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Historically, parents were advised to avoid feeding peanuts to babies for the first few years of life, but emerging research has confirmed that introducing them sooner — as early as infancy — could help stave off food allergies.
A 2025 study led by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia analyzed medical records from dozens of pediatric practices across the U.S., finding that early introduction of peanuts resulted in a 27% decrease in peanut allergy diagnoses among children and a 38% decrease in overall food allergies.
The latest research also found that eggs had surpassed peanuts as the most common food allergen in the children studied. Beyond peanuts, other common food allergens include milk, egg and wheat.
POPULAR DAILY SNACK FOUND TO BOOST BRAIN BLOOD FLOW IN OLDER ADULTS, NEW STUDY SHOWS
The new research — published in Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, in October 2025 — focused on a two-year period after new guidance was issued by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which first advised parents to introduce peanuts earlier.
Emerging research has confirmed that introducing peanuts as early as infancy could help stave off food allergies. (iStock)
That updated guidance was based on a landmark 2015 study — the Learning Early About Peanut Allergy (LEAP) trial — which found that for infants who had severe eczema or an egg allergy, exposing them to peanuts when they were between 4 and 11 months old could reduce peanut allergy risk by 81%.
EATING BLUEBERRIES EARLIER IN LIFE COULD EASE ALLERGIES, STRENGTHEN IMMUNITY, NEW STUDY FINDS
The guidelines were updated again in 2021, encouraging the introduction of peanut, egg and other major food allergens as early as 4 to 6 months for all children — including those without a history of prior reaction, according to health experts.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER
“Everyone has been wondering whether these landmark public health interventions have had an impact on reducing rates of IgE-mediated food allergies in the United States,” said first author Stanislaw Gabryszewski, M.D., Ph.D., an attending physician in the Division of Allergy and Immunology at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in a statement.
A 2025 study led by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia found that early introduction of peanuts resulted in a 27% decrease in peanut allergy diagnoses among children and a 38% decrease in overall food allergies. (iStock)
“We now have data that suggest the effect of this landmark public health intervention is occurring.”
The latest findings “are supportive of efforts to increase education and advocacy related to early food introduction practices,” the study authors wrote.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“If confirmed, these findings would represent a meaningful public health advance — affirming that clinical research, when coupled with clear guidelines and committed dissemination, can indeed shift the trajectory of childhood food allergy.”
Study limitations
The study only included data through early 2019 and did not consider the guidance released in 2021, which recommended early introduction of multiple allergens regardless of risk, the researchers acknowledged.
It also relied on allergy diagnoses from electronic health records, which may miss some cases. Also, the researchers did not capture individual feeding patterns.
Parents are encouraged to discuss any concerns with their pediatrician before introducing potential food allergens. (iStock)
Because the study was observational, it cannot prove cause and effect, but only association, the researchers noted. Other factors may influence the outcome.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE HEALTH STORIES
In some children, peanut allergy can trigger severe, life-threatening reactions, including difficulty breathing, swelling of the throat and a dangerous drop in blood pressure, according to Mayo Clinic. These reactions require immediate treatment with epinephrine, a life-saving allergy medication.
Not all parents may be comfortable with these revised guidelines, health experts say.
TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ
“Not everyone has followed those guidelines, but this is further evidence that this early introduction is effective at preventing food allergies,” Dr. Susan Schuval, chief of the Division of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology at Stony Brook Children’s Hospital in New York, previously told Fox News Digital.
Parents are encouraged to discuss any concerns with their pediatrician before introducing potential food allergens.
Amy McGorry contributed reporting.
-
Montana6 days agoService door of Crans-Montana bar where 40 died in fire was locked from inside, owner says
-
Delaware1 week agoMERR responds to dead humpback whale washed up near Bethany Beach
-
Dallas, TX1 week agoAnti-ICE protest outside Dallas City Hall follows deadly shooting in Minneapolis
-
Virginia6 days agoVirginia Tech gains commitment from ACC transfer QB
-
Montana7 days ago‘It was apocalyptic’, woman tells Crans-Montana memorial service, as bar owner detained
-
Minnesota6 days agoICE arrests in Minnesota surge include numerous convicted child rapists, killers
-
Oklahoma5 days agoMissing 12-year-old Oklahoma boy found safe
-
Lifestyle2 days agoJulio Iglesias accused of sexual assault as Spanish prosecutors study the allegations