Slovenian Voters Suspend Assisted Dying Law
A majority of voters in Slovenia decided on Sunday to suspend a law that had legalized assisted dying for terminally ill patients. Preliminary counts from the Slovenian State Election Commission indicate that around 53 percent voted against the bill while 46 percent supported it, with voter turnout sitting at about 41 percent.
Ales Primuk, a conservative activist who campaigned against the assisted dying law, expressed his delight at the results, stating, “Sympathy has triumphed,” and emphasized that “Slovenia has rejected the government’s medical, pension, and social reforms that involve death by poisoning.”
After the vote, Primuk remarked, “We are witnessing a miracle: the culture of life has defeated the cult of death.” His comments reflect the sentiments of those opposing the legislation.
This was not Slovenia’s first attempt to address assisted dying; a prior referendum occurred in June 2024, covering broader issues like cannabis legalization and voting methods. In the wake of that referendum, the National Assembly passed legislation in July permitting assisted dying for eligible terminally ill adults under certain conditions.
However, the Slovenian Council of State vetoed this law on July 23, raising philosophical, ethical, and legal concerns. Congress managed to overrule the veto a day later, reinstating the law.
The Slovenian government initially favored the law, arguing it enabled individuals to “die with dignity.” Conversely, opponents, including Catholic Archbishop Stanislav Zore, claimed that the state should focus on caring for the sick and dying rather than facilitating suicide.
Conservative groups rallied behind Primuk and successfully gathered enough signatures to trigger a binding referendum. Following Sunday’s results, the law will be suspended for at least a year, during which the Slovenian parliament will not allow its reintroduction.
Prime Minister Robert Golob acknowledged the rejection of the current bill but stated, “there are still challenges we are working on.” He framed the issue as not merely political, asserting that it revolves around dignity, human rights, and personal choice.
