Zoraya ter Beek is a 28-year-old woman living in the Netherlands who has become the focus of an international ethical debate because she plans to undergo euthanasia due to severe, long-term psychiatric suffering. Although physically healthy, she has lived for years with mental illness she describes as unbearable and without realistic hope of improvement. Her case has drawn attention not because euthanasia is new in the Netherlands, but because it involves psychological rather than terminal physical suffering, raising difficult questions about autonomy, compassion, and the limits of medical intervention.
Under Dutch law, euthanasia has been legal since 2002 when strict criteria are met, including unbearable suffering, no prospect of improvement, a voluntary and well-considered request, and confirmation by multiple independent physicians. While most cases involve terminal physical illnesses, psychiatric euthanasia is legally possible and carefully regulated. Ter Beek’s request was evaluated within this framework and ultimately approved after extensive assessments, placing her case within the bounds of existing law while still challenging public comfort levels.
Ter Beek has openly discussed her diagnoses, which include treatment-resistant depression, autism spectrum disorder, and borderline personality disorder. She describes years of therapy, medication, and psychiatric care that failed to provide lasting relief, with the repeated cycle of hope and disappointment becoming part of her suffering. She insists her decision is not impulsive but the result of long reflection and professional evaluation, concluding that her condition meets the legal definition of unbearable suffering without prospect of improvement.
Supporters of euthanasia rights argue that her case affirms personal autonomy and acknowledges that mental suffering can be as devastating as physical pain. They contend that excluding psychiatric patients from assisted dying risks denying their agency and reinforcing a hierarchy that values visible illness over invisible anguish. From this perspective, the rigorous safeguards in Dutch law demonstrate that such decisions are not taken lightly, even when the suffering is psychological.
Critics, however, warn that allowing euthanasia for psychiatric conditions sends a dangerous message that some lives are beyond saving. They argue that mental illness, particularly depression, can fluctuate over time and that hopelessness is often a symptom of the condition itself, calling into question whether a desire for death can ever be fully autonomous. Concerns about a “slippery slope” have intensified as psychiatric euthanasia cases, though still rare, have increased, prompting fears that death could become an accepted response to distress.
As ter Beek’s planned death approaches, her story continues to provoke global reflection. She frames her decision as self-determination rather than societal failure, planning a quiet, intimate final day and considering the emotional impact on loved ones. Her case does not resolve the euthanasia debate but deepens it, forcing societies to confront unresolved questions about suffering, dignity, protection of the vulnerable, and the responsibility of deciding when—if ever—choosing death should be permitted in the face of enduring mental pain.
