Debunking the Ethical Argument for Assisted Dying for Minors
The following article was republished with permission from Kelsi Sheren.
Consider subscribing to Kelsi Sheren’s substack.
 |
| Kelsi Sheren |
By Kelsi Sheren
The conversation around Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) for minors brings forth deep ethical, moral, developmental, and societal concerns that are essential to explore thoroughly. The idea that minors, even when labeled as “mature,” should possess the autonomy to decide upon ending their own lives raises profound and multifaceted issues requiring careful examination, and by examination I believe it just shouldn’t be happening AT ALL.
Neuroscientific research makes it abundantly clear: the human brain—especially the prefrontal cortex, which handles decision-making, impulse control, emotional management, and planning—isn’t fully matured until roughly age 25. This isn’t just theory; it’s a hard fact with serious implications for adolescent decision-making. Teenagers naturally react more intensely to immediate emotions, impulsively chasing short-term rewards, succumbing easily to peer pressure, and prioritizing instant gratification over thoughtful, balanced long-term outcomes.
We know that teenagers are wired to seek thrills and immediate satisfaction. This biological reality severely undermines their ability to fully grasp the long-term consequences of their actions—particularly when facing life-altering, irreversible choices like Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID).
When a decision carries permanent and profound implications—like ending one’s own life—it’s irresponsible to assume minors have the maturity or cognitive ability to handle such a choice. This isn’t just an isolated issue; we see similar concerns with minors making profound medical decisions about puberty blockers in the LGBTQ+. Both involve potentially irreversible decisions made by individuals who simply don’t have the neurological maturity to fully understand their lasting impacts. We have seen the damage that allowing young, unwell minds make permanent decisions with their body. We have systems like the UK NHS rolling back such choices, so why are we so damn quick to allow for adolescence the choice to kill themselves?
The bottom line is simple yet critical: whether it’s MAID for minors or puberty blockers for adolescents, the core question remains the same. Can we genuinely trust minors, given their neurological immaturity, to make fully informed, life-changing medical decisions? The neuroscience says no and I agree.
Society consistently recognizes the vulnerability of minors through the establishment of age-based restrictions specifically designed to shield them from irreversible harm and exploitation, unless it’s found to save or make a government money. While minors may occasionally be deemed capable of making certain medical decisions, there remains a fundamental difference between refusing aggressive, life-extending treatments (which allows for a natural death) and actively choosing assisted death through medical intervention. Consenting to withdraw life-sustaining treatment respects bodily autonomy within the bounds of natural progression, whereas consenting to MAID involves an active decision to intentionally hasten death—introducing ethical complexities that minors are typically ill-equipped to comprehend or navigate fully.
Furthermore, ethical standards for medical practice highlight an obligation to “do no harm,” suggesting the paramount importance of protecting vulnerable populations, particularly minors who may lack the developmental maturity to grasp the gravity and permanence of decisions related to assisted dying.
Proponents of MAID for minors frequently argue it is discriminatory to impose age-based restrictions. Yet society routinely applies such restrictions in contexts like voting, alcohol consumption, tobacco use, and military service, recognizing that developmental maturity is required to make informed decisions with significant, long-term implications. Suggesting that bodily autonomy alone should override these established protections fails to acknowledge the well-documented, substantial differences in adolescents’ cognitive, emotional, and experiential capacities compared to adults.
Moreover, equating medical decision-making with other forms of adult responsibilities—such as voting or drinking—is misleading, as medical decisions related to life and death involve significantly greater complexity, irreversible consequences, and profound ethical considerations.
Even with rigorous psychological and medical assessments, minors remain particularly vulnerable to subtle or overt coercion, manipulation, or external pressure, potentially stemming from their families’ emotional, financial, or psychological burdens. Adolescents often possess limited life experience, restricting their perspective on the possibility of future improvements or alternative coping mechanisms that may become evident only through maturation and increased life experiences.
Additionally, decisions regarding assisted death must never be influenced by transient emotional states or mental health conditions such as depression, anxiety, or existential crises—common among adolescents and typically treatable or temporary. Allowing minors to make such irreversible decisions without the full benefit of developed coping mechanisms or comprehensive life experience poses a profound ethical risk.
Instead of endorsing irreversible decisions made by adolescents, society has a crucial ethical responsibility to ensure robust support systems—including comprehensive psychological services, medical treatments, emotional care, social supports, and palliative care options. The tragic circumstances prompting minors to consider MAID should highlight a societal imperative to strengthen mental health resources, emotional support, pain management strategies, and holistic care rather than expanding assisted dying to younger, inherently vulnerable populations.
Providing better, compassionate care alternatives—addressing emotional distress, physical suffering, and psychological trauma—is an ethical priority that far outweighs facilitating the premature ending of young lives.
Expanding MAID to minors could potentially normalize premature death as an acceptable solution to complex emotional, medical, or existential problems, fundamentally altering society’s valuation of life and the obligations we hold toward youth. It risks weakening societal commitment to exploring every possible alternative treatment and support system to preserve life, especially for individuals who are inherently more vulnerable and less experienced in navigating life’s complexities.
Ethically, morally, neurologically, and socially, minors clearly lack the comprehensive maturity required to make fully informed decisions regarding actively ending their own lives. Society bears an overriding responsibility to safeguard adolescents, ensuring they receive every opportunity for holistic support and compassionate care, rather than empowering them to make irreversible choices that underestimate the complexities inherent in adolescent development and life itself.
The discussion surrounding MAID must always prioritize protecting the most vulnerable members of society, and minors undeniably fit this description. Therefore, the ethical stance must remain unequivocally clear: minors, irrespective of perceived maturity levels, should never be placed in a position to choose an irrevocable and irreversible path toward assisted death.
Links to more articles by Kelsi Sheren:
