In a quiet Dutch town, 28-year-old Zoraya ter Beek is preparing for her own death. She is not terminally ill with a physical disease, but she suffers from severe, treatment-resistant depression, autism, and borderline personality disorder. Her suffering, she says, is so unbearable and without prospect of improvement that her only solution is euthanasia, a legal option in the Netherlands. Her planned death in May has ignited a profound ethical debate about the boundaries of mercy and the message it sends about mental illness.
Ter Beek describes a lifetime of mental anguish that has extinguished her hope. She told reporters that her psychiatrist concluded, “there’s nothing more we can do for you. It’s never gonna get any better.” This assessment meets the Dutch legal requirement for euthanasia: that a patient’s suffering is unbearable and with no prospect of improvement. The procedure will be carried out at her home, with her boyfriend present. After a sedative, a second drug will stop her heart, a process she calmly refers to as taking a “nice nap.”
However, this case has drawn sharp criticism from ethicists and former regulators. Theo Boer, a professor who served for a decade on a Dutch euthanasia review board, resigned over what he saw as a dangerous shift in practice. “I saw the Dutch euthanasia practice evolve from death being a last resort to death being a default option,” he stated. He and others argue that laws in places like the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada can destigmatize suicide, making it a presented option for people with psychiatric conditions who might otherwise find a path to recovery with time and different treatment.
Zoraya Ter Beek, a 28-year-old woman from the Netherlands, will undergo euthanasia in May due to severe mental health challenges.
Ter Beek has stated that she has struggled with depression, autism, and borderline personality disorder throughout her life.
After doctors informed… pic.twitter.com/E2LnWDh4gH
— Morbid Knowledge (@Morbidful) April 4, 2024
The online reaction to ter Beek’s story has been divided, with many expressing sorrow and urging her to seek further help. Others have directed anger at her psychiatrist. The case forces a difficult societal question: Is the freedom to choose a medically assisted death the ultimate expression of personal autonomy, or does its application to psychiatric suffering represent a failure of the healthcare system to provide adequate, lasting hope and care for those with mental illness?
